Technology and Society

A Critical Analysis and Reflection of

The Building and Dropping of the Atomic Bombs

     Technology is unstoppable. Humans will always be curious to study and know the world and its capabilities. The most important thought that comes with each new discovery should be: Yes we can, but should we?

What Started Nuclear Research?

     In the 1930s, physicists from several countries were busy trying to split the atom. They believed that doing so would create energy, and if so, they could harness that energy and use it. Whoever succeeded first would have a huge advantage in the progression of their homeland and would rank higher in world power.  But when German scientists reached that milestone first in 1938,  it caused alarm for the U.S. (Manhattan, n.d.). If the splitting of the atom could create energy on a scale large enough to use practically, other nations might use it in war. Did the Germans develop this technology to use against us?  Atomic fission research became mandatory when, in 1939, Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard wrote a letter to President Roosevelt describing how this new technology could be catastrophic on a global level (2024).

     The research and building of the atomic bombs during WWII was necessary, but also unethical in its use by the American military. Studying social science has shown that the act changed world warfare, culture, and politics. Researching nuclear fission for destructive purposes first, and subsequent nuclear incidents, have left a legacy of fear of nuclear power that still hinders its use.

History is Changed by Nuclear Fission

     Two German scientists were successful in their efforts to split the atom in 1938. In 1939, WWII began when Germany invaded Poland, with plans to conquer Europe. The U.S. did not think this research on nuclear fission was coincidence. In 1940, Japan entered the ring by invading Indochina, with plans to conquer much of the east. Beginning with the letter from Einstein and Szilard, the U.S. poured funding into nuclear research, developing departments and hierarchies, assembling teams of scientists and theorists. The U.S. called this assembly of scientists the Manhattan Project. This technology was important to have because it could help a nation to become a superpower. Using the technology for destruction changed the trajectory of the path of first-world nations permanently. So when the two scientists penned that letter to the president warning of the possibility that Germany could be years ahead of us in making catastrophic weapons, it was really just a guess. As it turned out, the Germans were not even close to making a bomb (Manhattan, n.d.). Germany surrendered to the Soviets in May of 1945, and U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. These two events successfully ended WWII and established the United States as a world superpower along with the USSR and to some degree, Europe. Put simply, splitting the atom had ended the war.

How Nuclear Fission Affected Humanity

     It was possible that this technology could obliterate the human race. It had practical uses (Lerner), but its destructive capabilities against other nations was troubling to the U.S. government. The U.S., so afraid of facing the possibility of a bomb destroying our nation and how devastating that would be on Americans, used it on another nation only a month after the first test. The Japanese suffered horribly. Roughly 180,000 people died in the bombings, and hundreds of thousands mamed and poisoned by radiation. Even so, these attacks saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans by eliminating the need for ground forces to enter Japan’s territories. But were the people of one nation more valuable than another? If we didn’t defend ourselves, we might lose our nation and its culture

The Science Behind the Technology

     Scientists wanted to know more about the atom. By studying and interacting with the atom, they theorized that opening it up would create energy. In 1938 (2020), German scientists accidentally split the atom. This breakthrough set in motion an effort to, eventually, harness the energy released. The United States began their own accelerated program to develop this process for use in weaponry. There were limitations, however. They needed raw materials that were difficult to get. It was possible to create the raw materials, but it was a long and complicated process. The amount and type of uranium needed to cause an explosion took two years to produce (2020). American scientists, assembled for this project, worked tirelessly for several years to bring this new weapon to fruition. The scientists were not sure if it would work, or if it did work, could we contain it? They tested the first bomb in the New Mexico desert in July of 1945. The results were frightening, especially for the scientists. They struggled with the ethics of what they had created, and some were against making another one (McGrath). One month later, they used the two atomic bombs to strike Japan.  

Social Implications of Nuclear Fission

   At the time of the discovery of the atomic bomb, nations did not collaborate on projects. Countries protected their assets, including knowledge. They guarded research and sought new intelligence. Espionage was rampant. We dangerously sent people into other countries to find out what was going on behind the scenes. What were they working on? What were their plans? How much strength did they have? How many resources? No one was transparent, because transparency would have endangered populations and made them vulnerable to global tyrants. The war made us come together as a nation, willing to pitch in and help with the “war effort.” U.S. Military sent men overseas to fight. Housewives and single women went to work in factories in place of the men that had gone. The shortage of men required the military to allow African Americans into the front lines of battle instead of holding passive positions in mess halls and janitorial positions.  These two events alone contributed to two great movements; equal rights and civil rights began to change the family structure and recognize systemic racism. Women felt empowered by their earning potential and got a taste of independence. Many were unwilling to “return to the kitchen” (History, n.d.). African American soldiers earned the respect of white soldiers, with whom they fought, and the respect of their government. This eventuality sparked a change in attitude toward African Americans, though for them and women, there would be many more years of having to push forward (Fighting, n.d.). 

Interdisciplinary Lens

     Although the topic involves at least four perspectives, from a social science perspective, the creation and use of the atomic bomb is a moral issue that remains controversial. Because this event took place in the distant past, it would naturally fall under the historical lens, but there were so many cultural changes after we used the bombs, I felt that history would not fully emphasize the conflict experienced by those involved in its creation. One could easily say that nuclear weapons put the human race at risk, which seems to dictate a focus on the humanities’ lens, but that would remove the examination of personal turmoil felt by those involved in the bomb’s creation and its use. Viewing this momentous event solely from a scientific perspective provides insight into the importance of this technology and its future possibilities, but fails to address the most important question its development raises: Yes, we can, but should we?

Fear Drives Nuclear Research

   Building the atomic bombs and dropping them on Japan was an event that changed the trajectory of humanity, with far-reaching impact on world governments and cultures around the globe.

     From the announcement that Germany had split the atom, there was the fear that others would develop the technology first and then use it. The U.S. military and government rationalized the use of this technology to avoid sending ground troops into Japanese territories, which would have cost thousands of lives, but would also demonstrate our war power to Russia.

     Most countries did not have access to this technology, which created a “digital divide” between those that had it, and those that didn’t (2021b). Undeveloped countries did not have an educational infrastructure, and were not scientifically advanced; they were busy trying to survive in poor conditions with limited resources. At this time in world history, industrialism was still under way in certain countries. The chasm between those that had the resources for development (knowledge, wealth, division of labor) and the nations still struggling for basic needs was just beginning to widen.

Nuclear Fission Technology

      In the YouTube video, Physics – 7A: The History of Nuclear Fission (2020a), Sean Kepple gives a clear explanation of nuclear fission. First, the splitting of the atom was accidental. While trying to find a way to make the nucleus larger to create heavier elements using uranium, two German scientists, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann, were trying to create plutonium, which does not exist naturally on earth (2020a). They shot neutrons at the nuclei of the uranium and it turned into what they thought was plutonium, but the particles were too small. They had created barium. Not knowing what was happening, they sent the results to a colleague, Lise Meitner, who recognized that they had split the atom; they had accomplished fission. Meitner recognized that when you split an atom it releases energy. But Germany did not give Meitner credit for this discovery because she had fled Germany.  Instead, the two German scientists received the Nobel prize. This event is how the discovery made news throughout the western world. Scientists who learned about the discovery of creating energy by splitting the atom were also aware that the amount of energy required to split the atom was considerably more than what the atom produced. So there were practicality issues that scientists needed to address. Later, in 1939, Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard from Columbia University figured out that if a single neutron could split an atom, the neutrons from the first-stricken atom would then split two more, doubling the number, and so on, until all atoms split. This process is a fission chain reaction (2020a). This discovery made the rapid release possible and exponentially increased the power of the blast. In August of 1939, Einstein and Szilard wrote to President Roosevelt, warning him that the Germans could create weapons of war with this technology, and probably were (Manhatten, n.d.). The U.S. government then created the Manhatten Project (Manhatten, n.d.). They gathered a handful of top physicists and other scientists to research and discover the potential of nuclear power. In a small compound in Alamogordo, NM and six thousand dollars, they began. Over the next several years, the project increased to around 130,000 workers and $ 2 billion. Sadly, we ignored a more practical use of nuclear energy for many more years.

Social Climate in the Atomic Era

     At the time, most Americans were living in fear of the great strides that the Nazi regime was making, and American propaganda made them deeply fear communism. Anything they could do to relieve those fears would fair well. However, patriotic citizens had no say as it was a clandestine project. Only the top echelon of the military, scientists, and government was privy to the research. Even Truman had no idea until he took the oath of office on the day Roosevelt died.

     Until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we had only been assisting Europe against the Germans. At first, we built the bomb to use against the biggest aggressor, Germany. But when Germany surrendered to the Soviets, in May of 1945, research continued. This continuation is important, because later, many questioned the necessity of dropping the bombs. There was much evidence that Japan was ready to surrender. Enemies destroyed their ships, rendered their harbors unusable, and their people were starving because resources were unattainable.  Certainly, even if bombing Hiroshima had been necessary, the second attack on Nagasaki was not. However, in the article “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb,” Robert Maddox wrote that the second bomb was necessary because U.S. leaders believed the Japanese emperor would dismiss the first bomb as just another multi-hit attack, or even a natural disaster, which is exactly what happened (Maddox,1995).

     By that time, military action had destroyed 64 Japanese cities throughout the war. The first atomic bomb leveled one city, but that kind of damage was possible using a  few B-29s. In his book, “Did the Atomic Bomb Cause the Surrender of Japan,” (2013) Hallet disects the timeline leading up to and through the two bombings and has composed some convincing evidence to reflect this. Most notably, the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito, did not at first believe the U.S. had used an atomic weapon (2013). He relied on second hand witnesses to describe the complete devastation.

     Even so, it was no more bad news than the devastation already inflicted using conventional weapons. During the three days between the first bomb and the second bomb, the Emperor was already implementing negotiation points of surrender. Even more telling, Japan had hopes of using Russia to negotiate a surrender to the U.S. Hallet states in his book that Russia responded by declaring war on Japan on August 8, the day before America bombed Nagasaki. Hallett claimed that it was this, not the first bomb, that was the catalyst for Japan’s  surrender (2013). Enemies completely surrounded Japan.  

Bigger Reasons to Bomb

     Why would the U.S. have proceeded to bomb a country that was on the verge of surrendering? There were reasons.

• First, the U.S. government had already spent $2 billion to build two nuclear weapons. In fact, the scientists weren’t sure they would work. A month before the military bombed Hiroshima, scientists conducted a test to see the result of the research. How could they have justified spending $2 billion for something they didn’t use? Once the test is successful, they must then proceed to demonstrate their product in its full capacity.
• Second, the researchers named the two bombs “Little Boy” and “Fat Man”. The team constructed them in different ways using different theories. When they destroyed Hiroshima, they then knew exactly what Little Boy could do. But they also needed to know what Fat Man could do, and did not want to waste it in a test.
• Third, this attack might serve to intimidate the Soviets.

     Everyone involved in the development of the atomic bomb had compartmentalized tasks to accomplish their work, reducing the ethical responsibility of each group. This process was deliberate. In his analysis in his book, Hallet exposes the difficulty of tracing those responsible through a logical process of examining each group (2013). This structure reduces the chances of identifying those responsible. In the video “Trust in Research, the Ethics of Knowledge Production,” funding bias is subtle; we may not be aware of it. But there was no funding bias present in this research; no “little ethical lapses” in their work (2021a).  They researched and created this project, and had unlimited funds to do it. This situation is a scientist’s dream. But they knew that the product would kill people and the result was an inner conflict.  How did they feel? They felt conflicted (Hallet, 2013). The military told them they were working on something that would end the war, but knew it came at a cost. After the researchers completed the construction of the two bombs, and saw their destructive potential, several scientists composed the “Franck Report,” in which they advised Truman not to use the atomic bombs on Japan (Franck Report, n.d.). An armament race, for sure, would ensue. And they were right. The authors of the report suggested, instead, that they host a demonstration to the United Nations to let them see just how much power we had.  This idea would have been laughable to the military, because J. Robert Oppenheimer, who managed the Manhattan Project, spoke the truth when he said, “They had decided to drop the bomb when they began to build it.” (Hallet, 2013). The U.S. military had a new toy and wanted to play with it.

     One of the most disturbing aspects of thought at that time, was the bias that our society was inherently right (2021c). Isn’t that what all wars are about? There is a clear bias: “yes, we are killing people that are our enemies” but also the implicit bias: “it’s ok if people die, as long as they are not Americans.”  I can almost imagine Truman receiving his first briefing on the project at hand and its capabilities, and the consensus of thought in the room: “Good God, it’s a good thing America has this technology and not someone else! Imagine what they would do with it!”

Nuclear Fission Gets a Bad Wrap

     While society studies most technologies for the benefit of humanity, atomic research is entirely for the purpose of destruction. Atomic weapons completely changed warfare and relations across the globe. As other developed country governments mastered the technology, nuclear testing continued. In 1954, the U.S. military tested the first fusion bomb, Castle Bravo, and then in 1961, Soviets tested Tsar Bomba, a bomb so powerful it sent shockwaves around the earth three times (2021). This frightening beast of a weapon was 3,800 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. Its vertical reach was 37 miles high, could be seen 620 miles away, and could cause third degree burns 62 miles away. Although never considered for actual use, the scientist that built Tsar Bomba soon became a proponent of disarmament, and in 1963,  the U.S., the U.K., and the U.S.S.R. signed an agreement to ban nuclear weapons. Now that the playing field was level, it terrified everyone. It was at this point that world leaders understood the only possible outcome of a nuclear war was the obliteration of humanity. There was no need for something so powerful. It was overkill.  

Social and Scientific Changes

  The world became divided into those that had nuclear weaponry and those that didn’t. This changed the way we built alliances: countries that didn’t have the bomb wanted to be protected by countries that did have the bomb. Dropping the bomb had “ended the war,” and the economic boom after the war set into motion many things that are still happening today.  For example, the emergence of the nuclear family unit from the extended family structure, as well as mid-century gender roles, and materialism. It also inspired unquestioning patriotism, pride in the ability of the country to defend itself. There were other impacts as well. Distrust of other governments, fears other nations may use the technology against us, increased dependence on intelligence and espionage, and the beginning of the Cold War.

     Scientists heavily studied the effects of radiation for the first time. Medical science developed radiation therapy to fight cancer. We used radiation in food production to reduce contamination.  Finally, we developed nuclear energy. Today, 10% of the world’s energy is nuclear. It produces no pollution and is ten million times more efficient than burning fossil fuel. (2022).  

Technological Impact on Institutions

     Although Americans pursued nuclear research to build bombs, the research itself was the foundation for creating nuclear energy. The 1950’s, also known as the Atomic Age, brought affluence. Americans had gone through the Great Depression, rose to the occasion of WWII, both of which were periods of rationing, saving, sacrifice, and hard work. When the war ended, Americans were ready to spend (Pruitt, 2020), and the factories used for war purposes became factories that produced cars, appliances, gadgets, homes, airliners (n.d.-a), and ushered in the beginning of the computer era. The GI Bill of Rights provided money to those returning home to attend college, buy homes or farms (which were extremely important to America’s Bread Basket and maximized our GNP).  According to the article, The Post World War II Boom, post war economists were worried about the certainty of a huge unemployment rate, which had increased to 25% during the Depression. But this expectation did not happen (Pruitt, 2020). The nuclear family replaced the extended family. This reduced expense and created a better standard of living while increasing personal wealth, allowing Americans to increase the number of children they had (hence the generation “Baby Boomers”).  White collar careers exploded in areas such as marketing, business administration, sales, engineering, the medical field, transportation, and flight. A better lifestyle and standard of living compelled men to give their full attention to their own successes. This opportunity drove a need for reliable wives who were competent and devoted to managing their homes and children in such a way that enabled the men to immerse themselves in career advancement. This success shared by the entire family was a source of pride, and reflected the family’s standing in the community, in their financial standing, their traditional values, and their expected behaviors.   

     Mass production of goods kept up with demand. New construction created housing tracts, neighborhoods, and communities, all of which paid similar prices for their homes. This practice grouped people together based on their income and lifestyle, forming suburbs. Suburbs produced new schools in these neighborhoods, which perpetuated new generations with the same values and goals. There was pride and prestige in sending your children to college so that they could enjoy similar success.

Social Practices Shaped by Technology

    Nuclear threat only increased after the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs on Japan. It may have ended WWII, but began the nuclear arms race and the Cold War. The government advised Americans to build shelters to protect themselves in the event of another nuclear attack, to stock the shelters with supplies to keep a family safe from the radiation until radiation levels dissipated (Magazine, 2022). Developed countries lived with the fear that other countries would use this new technology to destroy each other. This idea possibly contributed to the wave of materialism that swept across America in the atomic era. While the America government handled international relations with care, the undercurrent of espionage, intelligence, fear, and mistrust caused Americans to clam up and close ranks. An era of suspicion emerged, and the government encouraged Americans to report actions, verbiage, and behaviors that may indicate a communism mindset. The U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., and finally, France, emerged as superpowers in the new age of weaponry. Nuclear technological research finally transformed into a cheap, clean, and safe source of energy (Magazine, 2022). However, some of those post-war children grew into the anti-nuclear movement of the late 1960’s, citing nuclear energy as dangerous and harmful (1986). Trust in the older generation’s wisdom eroded, along with a notion that humanity may end, and emphasized living for the present (Institute, 1986).    

A Focus on the Limitations of the Technology 

     Acquiring the technology and learning to use it was a huge effort. I think it is safe to say from most sources that using the atomic bomb was premature; we didn’t understand it. This ignorance continues. It takes some intelligence to understand the science, but knowing when to use it requires ethics, and the ability to imagine the consequences. We are not fully developed in that area. The biggest limitation on nuclear power is lack of understanding of the science behind it by researchers and the general population. This circumstance has muddied the many benefits of nuclear energy. There is still that fear of atomic energy in the hearts of humanity. If the public had a basic understanding of how we generate nuclear power, and nuclear power was well-received, it would possibly end our dependence on fossil fuels, which, in turn, might reduce our dependence on oil-rich countries, restructuring the global economy.

     Scientists and engineers design and build nuclear power plants. Those that operate them are neither scientists nor engineers. Most of the incidents and disasters in nuclear energy have been human error, due to overworked operators, poor instructions, and undertraining. Scientifically, we still do not know how to handle the technology when something goes wrong (Hill, 2022).

    According to his website, Kyle Hill is an award-winning science educator. He received his bachelors of science in civil and environmental engineering from Marquette University in 2011, and his masters of arts in science communication from the same university in 2013 (n.d.).

     In his richly researched YouTube videos, Kyle Hill reviews the incident at Three Mile Island, and posits that it was nothing more than an error at the switch board followed by a mess of poor communication between the state and the public, and no protocol established in the event something happened. During the incident, on-site operators brought in scientists to huddle, evaluate, and calculate what might happen. Fortunately, while scientists were busy trying to predict the behavior of the elements, the reactor fixed itself. Clearly, if we cannot anticipate what to do and when to do it, we should be leaving the technology alone (Hill, 2022).

     In Hill’s series of videos, Expedition Chernobyl, Hill travels into the exclusion zone with a group of researchers. He takes us on a haunting journey of a place recaptured by nature and trying to heal itself. This restricted environment is a hotbed of scientific research still happening because we simply don’t know what, exactly, radiation does to organic beings long-term. Perched on top of one of the downtown buildings in the city of Pripyat, where 50,000 people lived while working at Chernobyl, is a sign with the words “Let the atoms be a worker, not a soldier.” That is certainly a step in the right direction, however, Hill goes on to say:

“The disaster didn’t have to happen.  The test that was done on the reactor was an obviously dangerous one, and the reactor itself was obviously flawed. Operators were tired, overwhelmed, and some unqualified. The programs were pushed, rushed, and forced by a government that sought nuclear domination at all costs.” (Hill, 2021).

Clearly, there needs to be changes in how we manage nuclear power plants (Aliprandini, 2024).

     Another limitation of nuclear technology is the research itself. To understand the effects of radiation on organic beings, you must study it. This requirement presents the obvious problem: testing is inhumane, unethical, and unnatural. Hence, the only way to study it is to wait for nuclear radiation to afflict someone or something, and then watch it. This opportunity is now taking place in Chernobyl. The nuclear accident that occurred in 1986 has rendered the area uninhabitable for 24,000 years. 38 years have passed, 23,962 years remain (2021b).  Researchers are on site observing everything. Other rogue events have occurred since nuclear fission was successful, and we have taken every opportunity to learn from these accidents.

Strategies to Address the Limitations

     Incomplete understanding of the technology: With the exception of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, we can attribute all nuclear accidents to human error and faulty construction (Hill, 2024). Specifically, when nuclear reactors fail, there are only seconds to understand what happened and seconds to make a decision to thwart the failure. In the documentary, World’s Only Glass Nuclear Reactor, by Kyle Hill, a researcher states “training until decisions are automatic” is critical (2024). We can complete this process using a nuclear simulator. Sadly, those are shutting down because nuclear energy is still so controversial that NPPs are dying off. The U.S. military first developed the technology for destruction, and that is the stigma it will face forever. What would have happened had the research grew organically, with slow carefulness? Nuclear fusion has now been in the labs since 1951, and we still haven’t applied it. Responsible decisions, careful study, accountability, and forethought about new technologies is the best way to apply all technology.

            Limited study opportunities: Another limitation with nuclear fission, at the time during WWII, was the absence of controlled studies that would show results without actually producing a dangerous reaction. This issue led scientists into guessing and theorizing what might take place. This method was still going on during the Three Mile Island incident, and it is scary to think about. We constructed plants and used them in the middle of populations before we addressed any of the possible dangers.  Since then, we have learned so much more by studying the fallout around the globe, which is really the only way to know in the case of nuclear fission.

Two Significant Factors that Hindered Understanding

     Americans did not know anything about the technology used in making the bomb. First, because it was cutting edge technology and information was not widespread, and second, policies of  transparency were not popular in that post-war era; it was a matter of national security.  We trusted our government back then. We put ourselves to work and let the military fight our battles. As far as we knew, we split the atom to destroy America’s enemies. Belief that our government was right in what it did to protect us from invasion was complete, and invasion was a real concern at that time. Our assumption was that this drastic event was necessary for American freedom, and we held these values widely at that time (Debate, n.d.).

Benefits and Challenges

     Critically analyzing any technology thoroughly will help identify areas of concern. It makes a lot of sense to establish a governing body of thinkers to map out possible outcomes and develop protocols.  Although it is not possible to predict all scenarios, anticipating the most common can reduce problems and enhance success. For example, Some experts say that Generative AI’s introduction to the internet is filling it with garbage. Estimates of AI content online range from 10% to much higher (Admin, 2023). It’s more and more difficult to find reliable, authentic information. Tech experts have also  divided internet history in to two eras; before and after the introduction of AI, such as historians that compare world history before WWII and after WWII. Humans are becoming so frustrated there are rumblings of the need for new laws and more control over AI content. But as with any technology, we should expect this kind of thing.

     The most difficult aspects of addressing technology is the unknown. We need to be creative thinkers about the potential of a technology, how it will change the landscape, whether it will impact, or possibly disrupt processes, and who it is most likely to  affect (Technology, 2023). Calculating as many unknowns as possible will ensure the technology is right for users.

Reflection

     Analyzing the building and use of the atomic bomb has left me with one main thought. Developing a technology is a separate event than using the technology. The decision to bomb another country with such a powerful weapon was a mistake, however, it would be a very different world now if we had not used it. Although this event happened so long ago, tech companies are still making bad decisions with new technologies such as CRISPR, AI, and robotics. If man discovers a technology that can increase his chance of survival but is potentially harmful, then the technology is too advanced for his level of understanding the consequences of it and there is only rationalization left to concoct. Unfortunately, scientists brought nuclear fission and the government used it to make the atomic bomb. Using it was reckless and haphazard. But this situation happens in the private sector as well. The OceanGate submersible tragedy is a perfect example of unregulated technology, not for the good of mankind, but to make money. There were many experts and scientists who attempted to halt the event but were unable to do so (2024). The CEO, Stockton Rush, used carbon fiber to encapsulate the vessel, a material that was not capable of withstanding the pressure of a deep dive.  Also, there were no standards set in place for experimental submersives; there were only optional testing and certifications available, but these tests added significant cost. The CEO and inventor designed the submersible to take paying customers to the bottom of the ocean to see the sunken Titanic. As his project neared completion, he declined advice from experts in the field who cautioned him of the dangers of not testing enough before carrying human life. His arrogance claimed the lives of five people, including himself.

       Researching this event has left me with a profound sense of how important it is to use creativity, facts, and science to think something through to its conclusion. I have seen that being in a hurry to do something usually only produces mistakes. If something is worthwhile, then we must wait for that understanding of it and the consequences. Having said that, I don’t believe, as a species, we have learned to be appropriately cautious. Like nuclear fission, we are plunging right in to the same situation with technologies like AI and CRISPR, and only a very small percentage of people seem to be saying, “Hey, wait, let’s hold off on that.” In the article, ETHICS-2023 Session A1 – Panel: Ethics of weapons technology development (Conference Chair’s Special Session) the authors express a need for a global governing body to oversee new technologies. To make sure that  “…those who create, operate, and oversee these technologies will develop them in a manner that serves public interests” (Santiago, et al., 2023). This governing body could evaluate a new technology and approve its use much like the FDA governs pharmaceuticals.

     There are organizations that are already creating literature for ethical best practices for AI. The most basic problem with AI is the most obvious.  Artificial intelligence can perform quantum thinking, a process that helps humans. For now, we still tell it what to do.  But for those still harboring fears, those fears surround the idea of putting AI in charge of humans and decision-making; putting trust into a machine to tell mankind what to do. There is a very good chance that AI could pull it off, but if we cross this line, it could remove the human aspect of our existence. In the healthcare field, AI is capable of calculating cancer probabilities in patients and predicting what kind of cancer is most likely to occur. No one seems to have reservations about this due to its 94% success rate (Marr, 2020). The medical field bases its findings on science and data, and AI  bases its functions on science and data. Hence, they are compatible. We make weapons of war based on science, but when to wage war is a human decision. We cannot leave this decision to a machine. It is imperative to understand the difference between technologies that  help mankind, and those that we should scrutinize on an ethical level when harm may happen (Santiago, et al., 2023).   

     I chose this topic to gain a better understanding of World War II, and I also wanted to understand the context of events and their successive order, and gain an understanding of nuclear technology itself. I wanted to examine and explore the sociological changes this technology brought to the global population, but specifically to the American family. I have longed to understand this era completely because of my fondness for mid-century American life, and whether we can ever attain it again, and  I now understand that it was, like everything else, temporary in the chain of man’s evolution.

     Nuclear fission was a brand new concept in that era. Scientists did not know what would happen. The US government gave them unlimited resources and told them to figure it out. They did just that. This creative license to pursue research started a chain of rapid technological advancements that still continue today. It is imperative that we use our intellect to notice, predict, consider, anticipate, document, theorize, make adjustments, and develop policies to accommodate these changes because soon, there will be no generations that remember life before modern technology arrived.

     As time pushes forward, we must talk about what we see. We must step back and keep our viewpoint broad to understand the connections between events that may seem isolated, yet are not. Everything interconnects in some way; we aren’t just flailing around in a random mix of happenings. If we are able to see that clearly, it is important to express that information and back it up with evidence. We are responsible for sharing those ideas to quell misunderstandings and confusion about the subject matter at hand, especially now. With the advent of AI, it is very important to be able to discern the truth. 

Personal goals

     Communication is the basis for society, and it is important. Without it, we cannot join for a common purpose. But technology has added many dimensions to communicating, such as a quicker response and faster exchanges, a greater reach, more selective audiences, learning more, creating more, and virtual communities of common interests. These modifications to how we share and build communities has all happened in a relatively short period of time. Gen Z and Gen Alpha will never know what a life filled with organic relationships is like. The truth is, we do not know yet exactly what effect social media and other virtual platforms will have on humanity as a species. As I have traced the evolution of nuclear technology and its effect on society since WWII, I see things that are still happening as a result of that era. It will take many more decades of observation to see the outcome of recent advances, and during that time, the technology will continue to upgrade. It is so important to think about how you use technology because it will have consequences. As a professional communicator, it will be my responsibility to make sure my messages are clear, my information is accurate, and I will focus my intentions on imparting understanding. Giving in to time pressure, like the scientists did researching nuclear fission, is a dangerous act. My committment is to be careful with my words.

References

Admin, Z. (2023, July 20). 10 percent of all internet content is already produced by Artificial Intelligence. ZREALITY. https://www.zreality.com/the-growing-role-of-artificial-intelligence-in-internet-content-generation/?lang=en  

Aliprandini, M., & Goodwin, C. (2024). Nuclear Proliferation: Overview. Points of View.

https://eds-p-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=7&sid=9182024f-737c-4005-8ea2-e8cf4bc1cd3b%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=23254039&db=ers

10. C. Santiago, G. Adamson, C. Tracy and A. Verma, “ETHICS-2023 Session A1 – Panel: Ethics of weapons technology development (Conference Chair’s Special Session),” 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology (ETHICS), West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2023, pp. 01-01, doi: 10.1109/ETHICS57328.2023.10154958.

Debate over the bomb. Nuclear Museum. (n.d.). https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/debate-over-bomb/#:~:text=After%20the%20War&text=A%20Gallup%20poll%20taken%20in,5%20percent%20had%20no%20opinion. 

Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2024, June 14). Manhattan project. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Manhattan-Project  

Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2024a, May 28). Tsar bomba. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tsar-Bomba 

Fighting for a double victory. (n.d.-d). https://www.nationalww2museum.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/african-americans.pdf 

Hallett, B. (2013). Did the Atomic Bomb Cause the Surrender of Japan? : An Alternative  Explanation of the End of World War II. Edwin Mellen Press.

Hill, K. (2021, May 8). SL-1: America’s first nuclear disaster. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ8cYheR5xo 

Hill, K. (2021b, December 17). Chernobyl like you’ve never seen it before… YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qEC-qDG0Bo&list=PLNg1m3Od-GgPabWaTS6tv1HomlUWvTPlr 

Hill, K. (2022, June 26). Three mile island – what really happened. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9PsCLJpAA 

Hill, K. (2024, June 18). World’s only glass nuclear reactor! YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIIcEDzYsA4&t=692s 

History at a Glance: Women in world war ii: The National WWII Museum: New Orleans. The National WWII Museum | New Orleans. (n.d.). https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/women-wwii 

Institute of Medicine (US) Steering Committee for the Symposium on the Medical Implications of Nuclear War. (1986, January 1). Children’s and adolescents’ perceptions of the threat of nuclear war: Implications of recent studies. The Medical Implications of Nuclear War. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219180/ 

Johnston, B. (2023a, June 8). AI can change the world for good, if we develop it ethically. The Shutterstock Blog. https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/ethical-ai-change-the-world?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjbOF2trnhwMVX4toCR3d3xeoEAAYAiAAEgL6G_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&gbraid=0AAAAAqI7MThUZjJfRVH_haAP2AXPxHx-U&kw=&gad_source=1 

Kyle Hill Biography. Kyle Hill. (n.d.). https://kylehill.net/bio#:~:text=Kyle%20Hill%20is%20an%20award,the%20same%20university%20in%202013. 

Lerner, L. (n.d.-a). The first nuclear reactor, explained. University of Chicago News. https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/first-nuclear-reactor-explained#:~:text=That%20kicked%20off%20the%20United,nuclear%20chain%20reaction%20at%20all.  

Maddox, R. J. (1995, May 1). The biggest decision: why we had to drop the atomic bomb. American Heritage, 46(3), 70.

Magazine, S. (2022, April 25). Digging up the history of the Nuclear Fallout Shelter. Smithsonian.com. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/digging-up-the-history-of-the-nuclear-fallout-shelter-180979956/  

Manhattan Project: Atomic Rivals and the Alsos Mission, 1938-1945. (n.d.). https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1942-1945/rivals.htm#:~:text=For%20most%20of%20the%20Second,to%20developing%20a%20useable%20weapon.  

Marr, B. (2020, June 22). 10 wonderful examples of using artificial intelligence (AI) for good. CRCS. https://crcs.seas.harvard.edu/news/10-wonderful-examples-using-artificial-intelligence-ai-good 

McGrath, J. (n.d.). J. Robert Oppenheimer stifled a petition by 70 scientists beseeching president Truman not to use the atomic bomb. read it here. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/oppenheimer-los-alamos-manhattan-project-scientists-atomic-bomb-petition-2023-7#:~:text=In%20August%201945%2C%20the%20US,secret%20for%20over%20a%20decade. 

NPR. (2005, August 9). After Nagasaki: Examining the cultural fallout. NPR. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/4792324 

Overview: The post war united states, 1945-1968: U.S. History Primary Source Timeline: Classroom materials at the Library of Congress: Library of Congress. The Library of Congress. (n.d.-a). https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/post-war-united-states-1945-1968/overview/ 

Paige, C. (2023, April 23). 7 ways technology can help you in your career: It briefcase. IT Briefcase  IT New, Resources, & Events. https://www.itbriefcase.net/7-ways-technology-can-help-you-in-your-career 

Pruitt, S. (2020, May 14). The post World War II Boom: How America Got Into Gear. History.com. https://www.history.com/news/post-world-war-ii-boom-economy 

Technology assessment importance and benefits. IIPRD. (2023, May 15). https://www.iiprd.com/technology-assessment/#:~:text=For%20Owners%20of%20the%20technology%3A&text=This%20includes%20evaluating%20the%20technology’s,well%20as%20identify%20potential%20licensees. 

The “Franck Report” A REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR, JUNE 1945. The franck report: A report to the secretary of war, June 1945. (n.d.). https://sgp.fas.org/eprint/franck.html 

Watson, D. de C. (2022a, August 28). Abstract art brings atomic healing to nuclear power debate. Medium. https://medium.com/generation-atomic/abstract-art-brings-atomic-healing-to-nuclear-power-debate-cb6adce5a52 

YouTube. (2020a, May 19). Physics – 7A: The history of nuclear fission. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbOvEZFGYRc&list=WL&index=2&t=321s    

YouTube. (2021, January 22). Castle Bravo Disaster – a “second Hiroshima.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew064gt2thY&t=350s 

YouTube. (2024, June 20). Fatal flaws: The oceangate story | full documentary (2024). 7News Australia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irlsrE3lG_M 

YouTube. (2021c, November 4). Implicit bias vs explicit bias what’s the difference (SCS-100, ids-400, 401,402, 403, 404)(CC). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbPaPjWO8as 

YouTube. (2022a, January 19). This is how a nuclear bomb works. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRtTB27Wdek  

YouTube. (2021b, September 1). Trust in research the ethics of knowledge production (SCI-100, IDS-400, 401, 402, 403 ) (CC). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=BhCFCkhXGaU 

YouTube. (2021b, June 22). What is the digital divide? mozilla explains. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2hEiMOgc1g