Hey there, I'm new to Reddit so forgive me if I make mistakes to using it and everything but I need some help.
I'm doing A-Level history which means I have to write a 4,000 word essay on a topic of my choosing to which you are then allocated a question. My essay is titled "Assess the reasons for the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945". I have to expand on three points;
The first two I'm okay with but I'm struggling to find websites and resources to reference for my third point. If any of you are aware of any places I could look for resources or are simply full of knowledge surround the topic it'd be greatly appreciated if you could let me know.
Cheers
The best way to explore this particular issue is to look at the views of the scientists who were at high-levels on the project. What were their views about the long-term effects of a world with atomic bombs in it? They correctly intuited that the bombs being developed during World War II were not the only bombs that would ever be developed, and that, in a world in which their development was unchecked, the United States would not be the only power who had access to them.
So here's a nice quote from Edward Teller that puts it well:
Our only hope is in getting the facts of our results before the people. This might help to convince everybody that the next war would be fatal. For this purpose actual combat-use might even be the best thing. (Full letter linked here.)
In other words, the use of the bombs would alert the world to them, and force them to act. What do they mean by "act"? Various schemes of what they called international control of atomic energy — e.g., international treaties, UN plans, etc., that would avoid unchecked arms development and an arms race.
If you search into the early history of international control efforts (Niels Bohr, Robert Oppenheimer, Vannevar Bush, James Conant, and the Interim Committee more generally all play roles in this), you'll find more like the above. Bush and Conant in particular wrote several memos to the Secretary of War on this, and largely convinced him that this was something that needed to be thought about: that the atomic bomb meant there would be big changes coming in the world, and the world might be very dangerous indeed if the country and the UN didn't get their acts together. (Of course, they didn't get their acts together, but that's a separate issue.)
Hi - we as mods have approved this thread, because while this is a homework question, it is asking for clarification or resources, rather than the answer itself, which is fine according to our rules. This policy is further explained in this Rules Roundtable thread and this META Thread.
As a result, we'd also like to remind potential answerers to follow our rules on homework - please make sure that your answers focus appropriately on clarifications and detailing the resources that OP could be using.
Additionally, while users may be able to help you out with specifics relating to your question, we also have plenty of information on /r/AskHistorians on how to find and understand good sources in general. For instance, please check out our six-part series, "Finding and Understanding Sources", which has a wealth of information that may be useful for finding and understanding information for your essay.
You might have a look at this primary document collection: Atomic Bomb and End of World War II. I haven't read all of it but it is a university archive and the documents I browsed are interesting enough and deal mainly with the US perspective (obviously) -- which is what you seem to be looking for in the third point.