what means were used to discourage the questioning of american leaders about a-bomb effects?
For instance, how were american leaders, lead scientists, and military officials able to dissuade the public about the decisions to both drop the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as about the aftermath of the its effects.
So far, I've been able to gather that leaders from the AEC as well as those from persons such as Stafford Warren inserted their "top experts" on atomic energy in order to assert to try and make the opinions of other scientists seem faulty. For instance, when there was a Hanford worker who died to heavy exposure to radiation, they sent in an AEC scientist to say that he did NOT die from radiation, but rather, heart failure, even though he had burns from the radiation as well. Also, the governemtn did all that it could to prevent ANY worker or family to have a radaition exspoure claim approved. It would not do it. The governemnt did not want to acknowledge that it had endanger hundreds of thousands of individuals not only in Japan, but as well as in this country due to its pursuit of atomic power.
Does this sound suffiencient or am I missing some key info? I am not a histroy buff, but I am trying to fully grasp this concept and reasoning behind the actions of the Administration at the time.
- michinoku2001Lv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
The A-bomb was supposed to have horrible effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki-that was the whole point. I think you need to look at what was decided at Yalta to understand why they did what they did. The issue of worker safety at Hanford is a different question. Certainly the compartmentalization of information played a factor in Manhatten project related accidents. We are talking about an era when workers handled asbestos with no special precautions. If anything, Hanford was probably less likely to kill off its own workers than the average shipyard at the time.