American News Covers Atomics

J387 Commuication History

March 9th, 2006

American News covers Atomics
Professor Prometheus Steals the Fire

In the last century, humanity learned how to split the atom. Professors were talking about uranium fission as early as 1939, discussing the possibilities of chain reactions with the potential to release incredible amounts of energy. The fact that this technology could be potentially used for military purposes was lost on nobody. This paper seeks to examine the manner in which the American news media covered atomic weapons between the years of their development (starting around 1939) and the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1957.

On August 2nd of that year a letter from Dr. Albert Einstein was read to President Roosevelt: it detailed the manner in which the element Uranium was being researched, and apparently had far-reaching potential. “This new phenomenon (uranium fission),” writes Einstein, “would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable … that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port, together with some of the surrounding territory” (Laurence, Dawn Over Zero 84). The letter also noted that Germany had stopped the sale of uranium from Czech mines, and that some German scientists had been involved in international research on Uranium. The development of nuclear technology began as a military operation in the United States, starting with this letter.

Around 1944, as allied troops entered Germany, men working for the Positive Intelligence group confirmed from confiscated Nazi research documentation that “the progress made by German scientists toward…an atomic bomb was negligibly small” (Dawn Over Zero, 114). When President Truman made public the fact that American scientists had perfected the bomb, many captured German scientists scoffed and called it propaganda.

The first test weapon was detonated on July 16th, 1945, in New Mexico. According to William Laurence, a journalist who witnessed the test, the following conversation took place 10 minutes following the detonation, between Generals Farrel and Groves: “General Farrel: ‘The war is over!’ General Groves: ‘Yes, it is as soon as we drop one or two on Japan,’” (Dawn Over Zero, 187).

In 1945, the United States became the first country to use one of these weapons on a city: Hiroshima, Japan. Two days later, they dropped another on Nagasaki. The result was a shortcut to the end of World War II, but the moral and legal merit of the means is still a debate. In the years following, atomic weapons were the subject of much international conversation. Some thought atomic energy would be the end of the world; others thought it would save the world.

The International Organization of Democratic Lawyers held a conference in 1953 to discuss the legal place of Atomic Weapons: one among its conclusions was that “atomic and hydrogen weapons are primarily weapons of wholesale destruction intended to slaughter the civilian population” (Les Juristes Prennent Position…, 52). A Japanese lawyer at the conference described a young girl who had been “deprived of the beauty and happiness of youth” by the Hiroshima bomb and her words: “If needed for the fearfulness of the atomic bomb to be understood, I am ready to appear and show this ugly figure of mine before the eyes of the people of the world.”

The questions posed by atomic bombs are still a regular part of world consciousness: such weapons of mass destruction have grown more and more powerful since their conception, and new nations of the world achieve nuclear technology even now. Several articles ran this week in The New York Times, for example, about a program to enrich uranium in Iran which is causing all sorts of international worry (enriched uranium being the fuel for nuclear power plants and atomic weapons). Our approach to such potentially destructive technology is important. Analysis of the way these weapons were seen historically can teach us about the way societies’ perceptions change during war; also how we react to the introduction of new technologies into our lives.
She Goes Boom: Dr. Strangelove in the News

On May 5th, 1940, The New York Times published an article with the headline “Vast Power Source in Atomic Energy Opened by Science” in the top left corner of its front page. The article discusses the potential of Uranium-235, the fuel used for nuclear energy and also atomic weapons. It claims that ocean liners could be run from atomic energy indefinitely on only a small amount of uranium. “One pound of ...U-235 contains as much energy as 15,000 tons (30,000,000 pounds) of TNT”. This was one of the first mentions of the potential for atomic energy to be used as a weapon in American news.

The article describes a program in Germany which is frantically researching this new technology, and that hints at danger. However, it notes, U-235 had only been produced in very small fraction-of-a-gram quantities at the time. “There are several new methods being considered for increasing the yield [of U-235] to large-scale amounts,” reads the last paragraph, “but as to this, scientists greet the questioner with a profound silence” (Laurence, “Vast Power Source in Atomic Energy Opened by Science” 1, 52). This is because at that time, the government was already funding its’ secret “Manhattan Project.” Large-scale U-235 production techniques were classified. America was building the bomb. We were ready to end the war by any means necessary.

Five years and a few odd months later, on August 6th 1945, the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Leaflets rained from the sky across major Japanese cities: “TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE,” they read, “America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet. We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man… You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES” (“Leaflets Dropped on Cities in Japan,” www.pbs.org).

The next morning it was all over the papers: President Truman made a national address. The New York Times printed articles about the development and testing of the weapons, as well as the drop on Hiroshima. “What happened at Hiroshima is not yet shown,” an article by Sidney Shalett said, “The War Department said it ‘as yet was unable to make an accurate report’ because ‘an impenetrable cloud of dust and smoke’ masked the target.” It quoted Truman describing how the bomb had “2,000 times more power than the most powerful bomb,” and warning that “if they [the Japanese] do not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the like of which has never been seen on this earth” (“First Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan,” 1-2).

The Japanese did not surrender. Two days later another bomb was dropped, on the city of Nagasaki. By this time, news of devastation in Hiroshima had begun to arrive. An article on the front page of The New York Times quoted a Nagasaki crew member who reported “good results” with the second bomb; it then described Hiroshima, where “the terrifying secret weapon [had] wiped out more than 60 per cent of the city… and, according to the Japanese radio, killed nearly every resident.” The article claimed that Nagasaki, while smaller than Hiroshima, was more important as an industrial production site for the Japanese military. It mentioned that a Tokyo radio broadcast, made in French and directed at Europe, had put forth the claim that “the use of the atomic bomb was a violation of international law” (Lawriece, 1, 6). This radio broadcast said that the United States’ actions represented a “disregard for humanity” and that “any attack by such means against open towns and defenseless citizens are unforgivable actions.” The article made no comment of its own on this claim.

In the same paper, there was an article entitled “German Chiefs See Japan’s Extinction,” describing how the former leaders of Nazi Germany had seen the whole event of the United States’ loosing of the bomb. “We tried to solve the question of the atom but we did not succeed,” Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz was quoted. “We were afraid you would do it sooner and use it against us.” Despite the horrors described in the other article, the German foreign minister was quoted with a positive perspective: “No one would be so stupid as to start a war now,” he said. “It is the opportunity for mankind to end war forever” (Middleton, 5). Another leader, air force leader Hermann Goering, was so shocked that he “blubbered, ‘I don’t believe it,’” and eventually telling a reporter “It will destroy mankind.”

On the 13th of August, Time magazine’s headline read: “Birth of an Era.” It was the atomic era: an era in which the stakes were a little bit higher. According to Time, the atomic bomb “represented a brutal challenge to the world to keep the peace.” Mankind now lived in a time in which “scientists had created, and had successfully applied, a weapon which might wipe out with a few strokes any nations power to resist an enemy” (“Birth of an Era,” 3). The piece called the implications of atomic weapons “appalling,” and described how President Truman had “voiced the danger: the processes of production and all the military applications thus far devised would not be divulged, ‘pending further examination of possible methods of protecting us and the rest of the world from the danger of sudden destruction.’”

The invention of such an incredible weapon was a proverbial Pandora’s Box. Who would develop one next? “The President pledged himself to two prompt steps,” Time reports. “He would ask Congress to set up government control over the production and use of atomic power within the U.S. [and] would study and recommend to Congress means to make atomic force ‘a powerful…influence towards the maintenance of world peace” (“Birth of an Era,” 3).

William Laurence, a “special consultant to the Manhattan Engineer District, the War Department’s special service that developed the atomic bomb,” was invited to go along for the flight that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, August 8th 1945. His firsthand account of the event did not appear on the cover of The New York Times, however, until September 9th. In it, Mr. Laurence describes the bomb as “a thing of beauty to behold, this ‘gadget.’ He then remarks: “In its design went millions of man-hours of what is without a doubt the most concentrated intellectual effort in history. Never before had so much brain power been focused on a single problem” (“Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki Told by Flight Member,” 1).

During his narration, Laurence describes the flight to drop the bomb. He mentions a sergeant Curry, who was working on the radio. “’Think this atomic bomb will end the war?’” the young sergeant asked. “’There is a very good chance that this one will do the trick,’” assures Laurence, “but if not, then the next one or two surely will.” This was the attitude of the whole Manhattan project. It was seen as a shortcut to the war’s end. “[The bomb’s] power is such that no nation can stand up against it for very long,” reads the text. (“Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki told by Flight Member,” 35).

According to his report, the plane circled for some time, and “the winds of destiny seemed to favor certain Japanese cities that must remain nameless. We circled about them … and found no opening in the thick umbrella of fog. Destiny chose Nagasaki as the ultimate target.” The descriptions in the article of the explosion itself convey the truly awesome horror of the event. The bomb was dropped at 12:01 pm, and “despite the fact that it was broad daylight… all of us became aware of a giant flash that broke through the dark barrier of our arc-welders’ lenses and flooded the cabin with an intense light…A tremendous blast wave struck our ship and made it tremble from nose to tail… a giant ball of fire [rose] as though from the bowels of the earth, belching forth enormous smoke rights.” He claims that the final height of the smoke cloud was around 60,000 feet, and describes it as “a white fury of creamy foam… a thousand Old Faithful geysers rolled into one” (35). Nowhere in the article was the massive loss of life mentioned as a part of the atomic witness’s experience, though the next headline in the column reads “Hiroshima Toll 126,000.”

The United States would not be the only country to develop the atomic bomb. Soon the Soviet Union’s atomic program reached fruition: they tested their first bomb on august 29th, 1949. Political rivalries simmered between the new communist superpower and the west. In 1952, the United States tested its first thermo-nuclear bomb, or Hydrogen bomb – many times more powerful than the weapons detonated in Japan. Not long after, the Soviet Union did the same. Both sides feared nuclear war, and before long tense international diplomacy was underway.

In December of 1953, President Eisenhower gave a speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations, recommending the formation of an International Atomic Energy Agency. The idea was that the nuclear superpowers, the U.S. and Soviet Union, would each contribute from their stockpile of atomic weapons and that the enriched uranium would be used for an international stockpile of nuclear fuel. “It is not enough just to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers,” the President said. “It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace” (Hamilton, 1-2). With neither side willing to stand down completely, perhaps a limited deal involving the conversion of bombs into fuel could at least represent the beginning of a cooperative effort to remove the threat of nuclear war.

His speech closed with the suggestion of “any such plan that would: first, encourage world-wide investigation into the most effective peacetime uses of fissionable material; second, begin to diminish the potential destructive power of the world’s atomic stockpiles; third, allow all peoples to see that, in this enlightened age, the great powers of the earth, both of the east and of the west, are interested in human aspirations first rather than building up the armaments of war; fourth, open a new channel for peaceful discussion and initiate at least a new approach to the many difficult problems that must be solved…” (“Text of Eisenhower’s Address to The United Nations,” 9 Dec., 1953).

In 1957, Eisenhower’s suggested International Atomic Energy Agency became a reality. In his remarks at the signing of the IAEA’s statue, the American President reminded all present to remember “that the word ‘atom’ in ancient Greek meant ‘undivided’” (“President’s Talk on Atom,” 8). The terms that atomic weapons were discussed in had changed: instead of awesome “gizmos,” they were a dangerous threat. In fact, a Newsweek magazine blurb published the same day was titled “The Nuclear Nightmare,” and listed nations (other than Britain, the U.S., and the U.S.S.R., all of who already had nuclear capacity), who had the potential to develop the bomb.

Another article in the same issue, called “Where the Twain Shall Meet,” discussed the problem of nuclear proliferation, and the diplomatic trouble of various paths to disarmament. “[A ban on nuclear tests] now dominates the United Nations disarmament talk in London,” it reads. “Without [nuclear tests,] no nation is capable of developing any new atomic weapon” (Newsweek, 34). While all three atomic powers agreed upon a ban on nuclear tests, the U.S. and Britain want it to accompany a ban on nuclear arms production, the article describes. Nerves are high: the article finishes with the observation that “this may be our last chance to get an agreement, while there are still only three nuclear powers. In a year or two, who knows what smaller nation, possibly of an irresponsible character, might not pour all its resources into making an H-bomb, then parade, maybe even explode it?” That was the real nuclear nightmare, and people are still losing sleep over the very problem.

Pandora’s Proliferation in Print

At first, the American media’s reaction to the prospect of atomic weaponry was that of a proud nation almost in awe of its own strength. The wording of the articles published about the Hiroshima attack and President Truman’s address reveal a certain rush of victory, the idea that science had provided us a weapon so powerful that it could completely destroy the enemy’s ability to make war. After so many years of fighting, it was simply too tempting to use the new and exciting atomic weaponry – the power that heats the sun no less! – to bring the conflict to as quick an end as possible. Why not? Japan had been offered conditions of surrender, and refused. The prospect of an invasion was costly, and few who had been fighting in Europe since the beginning had resources to contribute.

The attitude with which the American news was presented, especially in the time between the first bomb exploding in Hiroshima and Japan’s surrender, was important also as a means of intimidation. The message was clear: “you will submit.” And that’s what happened. The coverage was decidedly pro-science. The first proposals of atom-meddling and fission as a way to generate energy in the news were articles describing how ocean liners could run “indefinitely” on a small supply of uranium. If we only learn how, we could use this technology for amazing good, was the message.

After the Soviet Union tested its nuclear weapons in 1949, the U.S. and Britain weren’t the only two atomic fish in the sea: and this new atomic power wasn’t such a close ally. Tensions mounted. Two diametrically opposed superpowers had the capacity to blow each other to smithereens and essentially destroy the world, and that’s the kind of thing that gets all the neighbors nervous. The attitude of the news representation of atomic weapons during the beginning of the cold war reflected the attitudes of the public. Instead of a marvel of science, this bomb was an apocalyptic menace.

Even though the nuclear powers struggled to mend differences, finally meeting and agreeing upon the first steps toward disarmament, the formation of the International Atomic Energy Agency, such a Pandora’s Box could not merely be slammed shut. Today there are 7 countries with the acknowledged nuclear weapons capability, with one “unacknowledged” (Israel), and two seeking (Pakistan, Iran). The bombs continue to be produced despite the sincerest hope of most of the people of the world that they never again be used. It is important that the manner in which such things are treated by the media be examined, and dialogue fostered, so that nobody should ever mistake a conflict of interests or ideologies for an occasion to start a war that could bathe us all in fire.

Bibliography

“Birth of an Era.” Time 13 August: 1945.

Hamilton, Thomas J. “Energy Pool Goal.” The New York Times 9 Dec. 1953.

Laurence, William. “Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki Told by Flight Member.” The New York Times 9 Sept. 1945, 1, 35.

Laurence, William Dawn Over Zero: The Story of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Knopf, 1946.

Laurence, William “Vast Power Source in Atomic Energy Opened by Science.” The New York Times 5 May 1940: 1, 51.

Lawriece, W. H. “Bomb loosed on Nagasaki.” The New York Times 9 Aug. 1945, 1,6.

“Leaflets Dropped on Cities in Japan.” 6-8 Aug 1946www.pbs.org. Feb 2006, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_leaflets.html

Lieberman, Joseph. The Scorpion and the Tarantula: The Struggle to Control Atomic Weapons 1945-1949. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1970.

Lindley, Ernest K. “That ‘Clean’ Bomb.” Newsweek: 5 Aug. 1957

Les Juristes Prennent Position Contre L’Experimentation Et L’Utilisation Des Armes Atomiques. Bruxelles, France : Conference of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, 7 June 1954.

Leviero, Anthony. “Eisenhower to Fly Here to Warn U.N. of Atomic Dangers.” The New York Times. 9 Dec: 1953.

Middleton, Drew. “German Chiefs See Japan’s Extinction.” The New York Times 9 Aug. 1945, 5.
“President’s Talk on Atom.” The New York Times 29 July 1957.

Shalett, Sidney. “First Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan.” The New York Times 7 Aug. 1945, 1-2.

Sloan, David, ed. The Media In America: A History 6th edition. Northport Alabama: Vision Press, 2005.

“Text of Eisenhower’s Address.” The New York Times. 9 Dec 1953.

“Where the Twain Shall Meet.” Newsweek: 29 July, 1957, 34-35.

“White House Press Release Announcing the Bombing of Hiroshima.” www.pbs.org. 6 Aug. 1945, Feb 2006 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_pressrelease.html.