THE ATOMIC BOMB IN WAR

Chronicle (Levin), 11 December 1948, Page 5

THE ATOMIC BOMB IN WAR

Scientists Argue Over Its Value

Reeeived Friday, 8.50 p.m. LONDON, Deeember 10, Statements made in his mueh-diseussed book "Military and " Political Consequences of Atomie Energy," by Professor P. M. S. Blackett, of Manchester University, are strongly ehallenged in the Daily Telegraph by Lord Cherwell, who as Professor Frederick Lindemann was Mr. Churchill 's seientific adviser during the war. Professor Blackett 's hook, which' suggested that the importanee of the atom bomb as a weapon was being exaggerated, has been extensively diseussed in Britain and was recently approvingly qnoted in the UNO Assembly by Mr. Vyshinsky and by the Moseow radio. Professor Blackett asserted, firstly, that strategic bombiim as practised by the Allies during the war was ineft'eetivc ; secondly, that the Cerm'ans would have refrained from bombing British eities had they not been i'orced to retaliate against Allied attacks; thirdly, that atom bombs do not add appreciably to the offensive power of any nation; fourthly, that the dropping oL' the atom bomb on Hiroshima was unnecessary as Japan was prepared to surrendel1 before this took place; fifthly, that the Ameriean nse of the atom bomb at this stage in the war was dne to a desire to deprive the Russians of any credit J'or assisting in the defeat of Japan ; and, j sixthlv, that the industrial nse of atomic power is much more important- ' for an underdeveloped eountry such as Russia than it is for industrially developed countries like Britain and the United States. This sixth assertion Professor Blackett used as an argument supporting the Russian rel'usal to permit restrictions to be placed upon the nse of atomic energy. Examining these assertions Lord Cherwell says the graphs and diagrams used by Professor Blackett . to prove his argument that Allied strategic bombing of Cermany failed to achieve results eommensurate with the losses involved are incom'plete and do not include the tinal year of the war when two-thirds of the total Allied bomb-load was droppcd. Professor Blackett 's claim that despite the bombing the German's continued to increase their aircraft production does not mention the J'act that bombing forced the enemy to turn over from bomber to tighter production. As it took five times as many manhours to make a bomber as to make a tighter the quotation of mere numbers of aircraft as given by Professor Blackett is calculated to mislead. Dealing with the assertion that the (termans would not have bombed Britain if the British had not started the bombing ; . war Lord Charwell recalls the Cerman attacks upon "Warsaw and Rotterdam, and refers to the admissions made by Goebbels in his diaries about Ihe effect of Allied bombing. He points out that there is no proof whatever of Professor Blackett 's claim that Japan was ready to surrendel' before the atom bomb was dropped, and asserts that even if this were true there is little doubt .that the Japanese were great-ly affected by the Ameriean strategic bombing of their own islands. Examining Professor Blackett 5s .claims about the ftffects of y atom boinlis, Lord Cherwell says these are based entirely upon the observed effect of oue bomb exploding a quarter of a mile above ground. The effects of impi'ovod atomic bombs exploding at ground level and hurling great blocks of concrete and masses of . radioactive dust in every direction were never considered, whi1 * the appalling difficulties .of -repairrng or rebuilding if the approac-h to the point of impact >is barred for months by radioactivity are searcely mentioned. Additionally Professor Blackett brushed aside the immense differeuce be.tween the elfect of ordinary bombing spread over a period of years and the destruction which could be inllieted simultaneously all over the eountry by the dropping of a number of atomic bombs. Lord Cherwell describes Professor Blackett 's conclusions on these points as supeyficial, and reniarks that it is evident the Russians do not share his delusions. He describes Professor Blackett 's claim that the Western Allies wished to exelude Russia from any share in the defeat of Japan as naive in view of the fact that they pressed Stalin at both Yalta and Potsdam to start hostilities against Japan at the eaiiiest possihle moment. The claim that Russians have most need of industrial atomic power also is not justiticd, Lord Cherwell asserts. No nation has yet suceeeded in utilising atomic energy economieally and since it is extremelv doubt ful whethcr it wiM ever compete with the existing methods of power production a discussion of the Russian need for atomic energy is purely acadcmic. In any case_ even if atomic power could be produced economieally the capital investment and industrial effort necessarv to add even a fraction to Russia 's existiug supjilies within measurable timo would be altogether beyond Soviet resources. Lord Uherwell concludes by expressing regret that a western scientist should publish a hook which .inculcates the yiew that Russia has little to fcar from the ^esterrf air f'hfces, and worse still which eneourages her suspicions'-'ab'ouf 'the intentions of Britain and the United States.