The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused a variety of reactions across the United States as well as the rest of the world. Paul Boyer surveys this range of thoughts regarding the atomic bomb utilizing a wide array of sources in By the Bombs Early Light. The moral issues that arose due to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy can be compared to themes of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. Just how was this bomb “Frankensteinian?”
My first thoughts were that the idea of creating a monster (or creating a Frankenstein) implies that one has stepped outside the scientific realm of what is acceptable or reasonable. In other words, one has created something that is ultimately not ethical or moral and will only have negative impacts on society or individuals. When the media or activists labeled the bomb as “Frankensteinian,” they were essentially accusing the creators or the bomb itself as “playing God.” At least, I closely associate these two phrases together. I found it especially interesting that there was not greater religious condemnation toward the bomb and nuclear energy, following the destruction of Hiroshima. As Boyer points out: “both the Protestants and Catholic branches of American Christendom has formally addressed the moral issues posed for them on August 6, 1945. Both had roundly condemned the concept of total war, the deliberate terror bombing of civilians, and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagaski. But each had drawn back from a categorical condemnation of the atomic bomb as an instrument of war under certain conditions (229).” In fact, some religious groups/people viewed the bomb as a gift from God in the development of science.
The issues that arose from this bombing forced religious groups to ask questions about their morals and faith. Was this acceptable if it was used for an ultimate good and how do the bible and doctrine define what is ultimately good and right? Also, was the bomb a gift from God or a violation of God’s created (and natural) world?
April 6, 2010 at 10:22 pm |
Maybe they were comparing the Bomb to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and didn’t want to be Lot’s wife looking back and turning into a pillar of salt.
I’m thinking that they might not have had time to consider the possibilities and by the time they processed the information we were already in the age of blacklisting and witch hunts.
April 7, 2010 at 1:56 am |
I also wondered about the religious response and thought that maybe because the bombings came at the end of such a horrendous war with all sorts of sufferings, that religion didn’t really have the “power” to stand up against politics and governments. The role of wartime propaganda certainly played a part, as who would want to speak out against a weapon that would (in the end) decrease suffering and death? I think Boyer hit upon something when he tells of the justification of advocating a total war strategy. Once you see the inhumanity of others, you can be influenced to justify an escalation of threat if only to not let that horror repeat itself – the bomb as serving a greater good. Interesting psychological tactics to be sure.
April 7, 2010 at 2:32 am |
One of the key components to the notion of the bomb being “Frankensteinian” is that not only have the scientists taken it upon themselves to “play God”, but they’ve created something they can’t control. That lack of control, being able to create but not being able to foresee the consequences of your creation, maybe the scariest part of the whole equation. And it would definitely seem like the most powerful argument for limiting the areas that scientists are allowed to research.
April 7, 2010 at 8:18 pm |
With respect to religion, it’s also worth noticing that there were not truly major distinctions between the reactions of different Christian sects–which were notorious for disagreeing vociferously on so much else.