I am become Death

I got to revisit the question of the infliction of two atom bombs on Japan today, after watching the well-dramatized account of the Manhattan project  called : "Fat Man and Little Boy". The movie looks  mainly at the roles of two contrasting men, the scientist Robert  J. Oppenheimer, and the military administrator General Groves, in creating the bomb.  Wikipedia carries a comprehensive summary of the arguments for and against the use of this terrible weapon of mass destruction, and I am sure the debate will never end.

To me this appears to be the biggest instance of a terrorist act in history (used against civilians, intended to be a show of strength, used when the war was effectively over except for the denial of some stubborn Japanese officials) and also unquestionably the most horrific use of a weapon of mass destruction.  Today the same US  is engaging in two overseas wars, on the issues of terror and WMDs (the latter being a blatant lie), and very few people seem to bring up the irony of it all.  Somehow one point that wiki seems not cynical enough to suggest , but seems realistic enough to me, is that the US desperately wanted the opportunity to show off the strength of this newly acquired super weapon, and cement its place as the most powerful nation on earth in the aftermath of the war, and this was too good to let go. Too good an opportunity for the army generals, the secretaries and the politicians looking for feathers in their cap, to pass by.  Too bad the Soviets too got it soon after.

The other question involved is the moral imperatives of doing science. Scientists are mostly too impatient to consider moral questions. We are neither priests nor politicians, and how things will be used ultimately in society, are usually not for us to decide. Scientists would like to see themselves as apolitical and amoral when it comes to their work. But the Manhattan project forced scientists to reconsider their positions. That's why Linus Pauling and Andrei Sakharov happened.  Uncovering the mysteries of Nature while also being key and responsible members of society is the fine tightrope that they would need to walk now.
But should they have carried on the project? I believe yes. If not this particular group, someone else would have found it, sooner or later. Just because a technology may have some negative implications does not mean humanity should cease to build it or generally suspend its pursuit of knowledge for fear of playing god. The problem as most people don't seem to realize is not with scientists alone or the pursuit of scientific knowledge, which in fact is one of the nobler things that primates can manage, is deeper within human nature : the instinct for warfare, powerlust, greed and hatred.  The only fault of Science as I see it, is that it hasn't found a cure for all that yet.