Manhattan and the Decision to Drop The Bomb

One of the best seasons of tv, the second season of 'Manhattan', has gone woefully neglected this year. Granted it faced some stiff competition, with 2015 probably being one of the strongest years to date in terms of the sheer number of 'must watch' shows. Still, it's a shame that 'Manhattan' hasn't gotten the attention it deserves (to be fair, Vox has recognised). Spoilers will be present here and there, as I'm discussing thematic elements and must reference specific characters and events. However, nothing here is really a spoiler if you know that we eventually drop the bomb...

For a show who's initial hook consisted of 'it's Mad Men, but in the '40s, and instead of an ad agency they're building The Bomb' it's really grown thematically.

Pantyhose. Sexism. Haha.

Season One was mostly a story of bureaucratic and scientific rivalry with competing teams working on different designs to detonate the fissile materials that would lead to a nuclear reaction. Inevitably we know that both are used, with the implosion design being 'Fat Man' and the gun design being 'Little Boy'. What season one shows us however is that the Los Alamos scientists really had NO IDEA of what they were working towards. They were truly working on the cutting edge of a new scientific field. For most of them their primary concern was the science, not the construction of a weapon. This, more than anything else, is what kept me interested throughout the first season. Depicting the scientists as obsessing over the science and the intellectual questions, rather than having them discuss the morality of their work, was fascinating. It created a strong element of dramatic irony for the viewer. Even though some of the characters are fictional and the internal events of the Los Alamos community are made up, the show does broadly stick with events as they actually did happen. They reference battles and events which we know occurred as they are stated to have occurred within the show. Therefore we can surmise that the central questions the characters face will also bring about a resolution or failure that we are familiar with. This allowed us to project our insecurities and fears of the bomb into a time before they existed.

There's a lot of math.

This stands in contrast to the show's second season. Whereas season one stuck to the sensibilities of its time, season two applies a contemporary moral framework to the ethical questions surrounding The Bomb. In some ways this was inevitable. It would be hard to have a show about this without retroactively applying our moral understandings of the outcomes. We lived with their actions. We know about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc. But it needs to be noted that debate around the use of The Bomb THEN doesn't match up with our moral understandings NOW.

Today we concern ourselves with questions of 'what if'? What if we had bombed an uninhabited island as a show of strength? What if we only dropped one? What if we didn't use the bomb in recognition of what we had made? What if we had won the war without The Bomb and instead conducted a conventional invasion? What if... What if... What if...

These questions are largely moot. Not to say they are wrong, it is okay to apply present morality to past events. In fact, it is good. It demonstrates a better moral understanding and helps us understand our present circumstances. However, it is also important to try and understand the decisions of those who made them in the past as they would have seen them then. What information did they have? What understanding of their world informed their thinking? In that sense should those who worked at Los Alamos be condemned?

1940s nerd fashion yo.

Nowadays we rationalise the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in various ways. As a means to prevent further Soviet encroachment, to save more American lives, to bring the war to an end sooner. These may be true to some extent, but a look into the past reveals that while these rationalisations may have factored into their strategic calculus they were probably secondary considerations. This is simply because at the time, NO ONE knew exactly what was going to happen. There were serious concerns that the bombs wouldn't even work or have the intended impact. In fact, after the bombs were dropped Oppenheimer's first question was to ask if it was dropped at night. He was worried that the impact during the day wouldn't be sufficient as it wouldn't turn night to day. He was informed that a night time bombing run wasn't feasible, but the locals still noticed.

There's more evidence to support that no one really understood what they were unleashing. Discussions over targets fretted about where it might be best understood or have the biggest impact. Should targets be civilian centres or military? The former for impact, the later for obvious strategic considerations (keep in mind strategic bombing of civilian centres was considered normal in those days as strategic doctrine). Our modern conception of nuclear weapons is the product of a long development of grappling with their meaning and the existential fear they induced in us as a people. It was the work of numerous intellectuals, policy makers, and individuals that help foment a view that nuclear weapons were unique in their need for castigation.

In 'Manhattan' the characters are more self-aware. In particular, Frank works hard to prevent The Gadget from working as he fears what will come. Frank is our stand in. Our present day voice screaming out at the past to think about what they are doing. Frank understands what will come because he is imbued with the foresight of our modern world. It makes for compelling tv, but poor historical understanding. Of course Frank fails. The Gadget works. The Bomb goes off at the test site and the nuclear age is ushered in.

Shit. shitshitshit.

So should we condemn the decision to drop The Bomb? Perhaps 'should' is too strong a word. I think we can, and I think it is right to. However, I would draw a distinction between being blameworthy, and being blameable. This might sound like splitting hairs but it is important. Being blameworthy entails a certain moral culpability or understanding of the results of one's actions (this is a rather consequentialist understanding of morality I'm aware). Being blameable is subtly different. To be blameable means that one can have an immoral or morally questionable action attributed in part to them, but they themselves are not necessarily responsible for the negative outcome. This could be due to ignorance, accident, or other extenuating circumstances. In the case of those who helped unleash the atomic age, they were truly ignorant of the profound impact they were about to unleash. Ignorant to the extent that their concerns then seem truly laughable or heinous to us now. I think this renders them blameable but not necessarily blameworthy.

The sad truth is, the use of The Bomb was almost inevitable. Not because if the US didn't use it someone else would have, but because of the sheer amount of resources and bureaucratic inertia behind its development and use. The truth is often much more banal than evil.