The Responsibility of the Scientist in Atomic Bomb Literature

Author(s): John T. Dorsey

Source: Comparative Literature Studies , 1987, Vol. 24, No. 3, East-West Issue (1987), pp.
277-290
Published by: Penn State University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40246386

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Comparative Literature Studies

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Responsibility of the Scientist in
Atomic Bomb Literature

JOHN T. DORSEY

One of the main themes of literature related to the atomic bomb is the
responsibility of the scientist in the nuclear age. The scientist is held
responsible not only for the creation of the atomic bomb and the destruc-
tion of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but also for the evolution of the "fail-safe"
world in which we live and the "day-after" world we face. Thus the role of
the scientist in atomic bomb literature is not limited to nuclear physicists
such as Oppenheimer and Teller, the putative "fathers" of the atomic and
hydrogen bombs, but also includes medical doctors, mathematicians, com-
puter scientists, and even scientists from earlier times such as Newton and
Galileo, who are held responsible for bringing us to the brink of self'
extinction.

First of all, a number of works depict the efforts of the scientists to build
the bomb, exploring the motivations which led the scientists to work so
enthusiastically on such an appalling weapon. One important aspect of
such novels as C.P. Snow's The New Men1 and Pearl Buck's Command the
Morning is their depiction of the joys of science: the fascination of
theorems and the ecstasy of sudden inspiration which exercise a powerful
attraction over the scientists. Naturally, since these novels were written
after the war, the consequences of such irresponsible indulgence are
clearly foreshadowed. And yet even in such an austerely critical work as
Heinar Kipphardt's In der Sache ]. Robert Oppenheimer, we find the nuclear
physicist admitting that the fascination of the scientific ideas involved

COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES, VOL. 24, No. 3, 1987

Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park and London

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
278 COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES

with the development of the hydrogen bomb overwhel

about working on a weapon thousands of times more po
Hiroshima bomb.3
More striking examples of the objective nature of this jo
in works on the Japanese scientists in Hiroshima and N
the scientists were fascinated by the atomic bomb as a scie
and even by its effects on the human body. In Hirosh
example, when Dr. Hachiya hears that the "new weapo
Hiroshima was an atomic bomb and that one of its effects is a disease
characterized by a low white corpuscle count, he can hardly contain his
excitement and curiosity. He sits up in his sick bed and shouts, "An
atomic bomb!" Then he plies his informant with technical questions and
determines to get his hands on a microscope, naturally with the intention
of treating the victims, but here and at other points in the novel, the
doctors betray an irresponsible joy in their experiments and discoveries.4
In Nagai Takashi's The Bells of Nagasaki, some doctors working together
with Nagai in a hospital filled with victims of the bomb animatedly
discuss the scientific principles which led to its development:

"If the slow-moving neutron creeps into the atomic nucleus and
stays there for a while, the nucleus suddenly breaks in two and
separates. Then the great atomic energy latent in the nucleus is
released and bursts out."
"Wow! That's brilliant! It can be done with the neutron alone."
"A very interesting fact is that the mass of the part that was
broken in two is less than the original mass. This proves Einstein's
theory of the equivalence of energy and mass."5

After a few pages, one of the doctors concludes, "Well, we can't deny that
it is a tremendous scientific achievement, this atomic bomb!" (60).
Nagai, a medical doctor and professor of radiology at Nagasaki University,
who has lost his wife in the bombing and who has been severely injured
and exposed to a high level of radiation, exclaims, "In this devastated
atomic desert, fresh and vigorous scientific life began to flourish!" (60).
In addition to the attraction of scientific ideas, regardless of their
consequences, another motivation for the scientists explored in a number
of works is the fear that the scientists in Germany were working on the
atomic bomb. In The New Men and Command the Morning, this fear is

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE SCIENTIST IN ATOMIC BOMB LITERATURE 279

treated as plausible, especially since so many of the scientists workin

the bomb were German or had been trained in Germany. Consequ
in some works it seems that the responsibility of the scientist is to co
himself enthusiastically to the project of building the bomb in or
forestall the enemy. In fact, it was this sense of responsibility which
Einstein to write a letter urging President Roosevelt to inaugurate a
gram to develop the atomic bomb. Toward the end of the war, howev
when it was discovered that the German atomic bomb project was me
a phantom, one of the strongest motivations for working on the ato
bomb disappeared, before the bomb was tested and of course before J
became the target. Consequently, when two atomic bombs were
against an enemy on the verge of surrender, both Einstein and the s
tists who had persuaded him to write the letter to President Roo
later felt a much heavier responsibility for its unfortunate success.
In the works dealing with the period before Hiroshima, in fact, ma
the scientists naturally have serious scruples about working on a wea
of such incredible destructiveness, and some idealistic scientists a
the responsibility of opposing its construction and especially its use i
war. In Command the Morning, for example, the main character, Ste
Coast, is fascinated by the idea of nuclear fission and even wor
preliminary research until he realizes that the country fully inte
build the atomic bomb and use it if necessary. He then resigns from
project, but he is later caught up in the momentum of the war
persuaded that it is his responsibility to build the bomb so that it wi
be used by the enemy. But when it becomes clear to the scientists in
works that the bomb will in fact be used - that is, when they are to
select "suitable" Japanese cities and calculate the "ideal" height at
to detonate the bomb in order to "maximize" its effects (blasting, bu
and blinding) - some distinguished scientists protest strongly. This in
dent is based on the well-known "Franck Report," which urged the g
ment not to use the bomb against Japan on humanitarian grounds as
as on the practical grounds that the nation which first used such a w
would lose whatever credibility it had when it called for renunciation
nuclear weapons. The report explicitly predicts that the use of the w
by the United States would lead to an uncontrollable arms race after
war.6 Even though the "Franck Report" was virtually ignored at the
it was written, this revolt of the scientists is depicted as a positive m
ment in The New Men, Command the Morning, and In der Sache J. R

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
280 COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES

Opperiheimer. It is seen, in part, as a counterbalance to

and also as a sign that the highest placed scientists can ass
ity for the use to which their genius is put.

Considering the theme of the responsibility of the scient

related to the atomic bomb as a whole, we note that the sc
cast in a Faustian role. Perhaps this is so because many of
written in German: Brecht's Leben des Galilei, Zuckmayer
Diirrenmatt's Die Physiker, and Kipphardt's In der Sache J
heimer. Accordingly, the scientist makes a pact with the m
ties who promise to provide him with unlimited fund
facilities on the condition that he serve them and deliver
research exclusively to them. In Dos kalte Licht, for exam
Wolters is asked to swear an oath of absolute allegianc
Crown in which he undertakes the responsibility of work
war project not merely in order to fight Nazism but to de
homeland:

Der Eid ist die Formel fur eine unlôsbare Fusion. Unser Gott ist
die Wissenschaft, die Erkenntniskraft des menschlichen Geistes,
auch ich habe keinen anderen. Sie werden bei mir die
weitestgehende Meinungs-und Forschungsfreiheit genieBen-dafur
verlange ich unbedingte Gefolgschaft - zu mir, und zu England.
Wenn Sie mir die Hand geben, bedeutet das mehr als ein Schwur
vorm Lord Oberrichter. Wollen Sie das tun?7

The scientist then finds that laboratories, computers, and other scientific
equipment, as well as supporting teams of researchers and engineers, are
placed at his disposal, and he enthusiastically pursues a Faustian question:
the nature of matter and energy, the ultimate foundations of the universe.
From the outset, however, there is something inhuman, rather than
superhuman, about the scientist's work. He finds himself in an ideal
research laboratory, but he is imprisoned there, isolated from society and
from the international community of scientists. His individual rights are
denied, in particular his right as a scientist to publish his findings and to
read the publications of others because the enemy (the Germans) wil
take advantage of his research. Ultimately, the scientist's love affair with
the atom culminates in scenes of hell on earth: the destruction of two

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE SCIENTIST IN ATOMIC BOMB LITERATURE 281

enemy cities (not German but Japanese), but he is told in a M

phelian way that although he is indirectly responsible for the dea
few hundred thousand people, he has saved more than a million
ending the war.
After the war, the scientist is urged to work on an even more d
ing weapon, the hydrogen bomb, the power of which is virtually
ited. Though the war is over, he must continue to work fever
secretly because the enemy (now the Russians) is catching up
even surpassing him. Kipphardt's Oppenheimer, whose own loyalty
United States government is under investigation, wonders wh
and other physicists have not been irresponsibly loyal to their
ments, often acting against their better judgment, and he conclud
haben die Arbeit des Teufels getan" (366). Although Oppenhe
jected to the opinions expressed by the character in the play,8 th
sion of responsibility does not seem so very different from Oppe
own often-quoted statement, "the physicists have known sin, and
knowledge which they cannot lose."9
The question remains what the disillusioned, chastened Faust wil
the second part of this world drama: after Hiroshima. In the play
tioned above, the scientists are held responsible not only for thei
but also for their thoughts and beliefs, and they face judgment,
tion, and confinement. Brecht's Galileo, who is confined to
where he is under surveillance by the Inquisition, completes his b
Discorsi in secret, but he deplores his irresponsible behavior as a s

Und ich uberlieferte mein Wissen den Machthabern, es zu

gebrauchen, es nicht zu gebrauchen, es zu miBbrauchen, ganz, wie
es ihren Zwecken diente. ... Ich habe meinen Beruf verraten. 10

Zuckmayer's scientist, who is modeled on Klaus Fuchs, betrays atomic

secrets to the Russians on ideological grounds, but after Hiroshima he
repents his treachery and is sent to prison. Durrenmatt's scientist voluntar-
ily commits himself to an insane asylum in order to escape from his
responsibility as a physicist for the arms race. Kipphardt's Oppenheimer
faces a humiliating investigation into his private life and opinions and,
figuratively speaking, renounces the devil and his works, affirming that he
will no longer work on war projects (366). Such denouements are repre-
sentative of the scientists' plight after the destruction of Hiroshima and

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
282 COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES

Nagasaki, but there are other alternatives as well, includ

the victims of the bombings and collaborating with the
ons of annihilation.

Let us now look at some of these denouements in de

some works explore the possibility of the scientist escap
bility by refusing to work on weapons and war projects
pure research. Perhaps the clearest statement of this
seen at the end of Kipphardt's In der Sache J. Robert Op
the scientist recognizes his responsibility and tells th
that regardless of their decision concerning his suitabili
scientist, he intends to devote himself henceforth to sci

Wir haben die Arbeit des Teufels getan, und wir

unseren wirklichen Aufgaben zuriick. Vor ein paar
[Dr. Isaac Isadore] Rabi erzàhlt, daB er sich wieder
der Forschung widmen wolle. Wir kônnen nichts
die Welt an diesen wenigen Stellen offenzuhalten
halten sind. (367)

In The New Men, Martin Eliot not only declines the

becoming head of the Barford research center, where he
tists had been working on the atomic bomb, but also dec
center in order to teach science at Cambridge. He does so
reasons (expressed with great reserve), which at first
directly related to the bombing of Hiroshima, but that
turning point in his life, and he realizes that his workin
scientist has brought out the worst aspects of his charac
to abandon war projects and return to the university is
ment for a number of novels and plays: the scientist lea
order to work on the bomb and then returns there afte
with the elemental powers of the universe, only to find
ble for the creation of a monstrosity. The question r
how long the modern Faust will be satisfied with a univ
and laboratory. Moreover, inasmuch as the Faustian
works represents mankind, the more significant questio
we can simply renounce these weapons and return to a n
Two more imaginative variants on this denouemen

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE SCIENTIST IN ATOMIC BOMB LITERATURE 283

Diirrenmatt's Die Physiker and Iida Momo's The American Hero: es

from responsibility and direct confrontation with it. Môbius, the
in Diirrenmatt's play, decides to escape from a world gone mad
part because of his work and that of his colleagues:

Unsere Wissenschaft ist schreklich geworden, unsere For

gefâhrlich, unsere Erkenntnis tôdlich. Es gibt fur uns Physi
noch die Kapitulation vor der Wirklichkeit. . . . Wir miissen
Wissen zurùcknehmen, und ich habe es zuriickgenommen. n

Unfortunately, he is pursued by scientists from two opposing

regimes who, by similarly pretending to be insane (maintaining t
are Newton and Einstein), attempt to spy on him in the asy
eventually to persuade him to serve one of their respective gover
All three scientists, however, become the prisoners of the tru
head doctor of the asylum who intends to use their scientific res
order to achieve the ultimate form of tyranny: "Mein Trust w
schen, die Lander, die Kontinente erobern, das Sonnensystem ausb
nach dem Andromedanebel fahren" (85). The moral of this p
expressed succinctly by Môbius himself: "Was einmal gedach
kann nicht mehr zuriickgenommen werden" (85). The scientist
ther "take back" his discoveries nor flee from the responsibility
consequences.
In The American Hero, Iida has his scientist visit Nagasaki in order to
confront him directly with the consequences of his actions.12 Actually,
the scientist plays a secondary role in the novel, but his influence on the
moral regeneration of the main character, one of the pilots, is decisive.
This nameless scientist, who is modeled on several physicists including
Oppenheimer, plays a more direct role in the deployment of the atomic
bomb than any of the scientists discussed so far. He works on Tinian
Island with the attack crew and actually flies with the bombers in order to
perform the final adjustments on the bombs. After the war, he visits
Nagasaki and recognizes the enormity of the disaster and of his own
responsibility for it, so he offers his assistance to the doctors working in
the destroyed city, gathers information, takes pictures, and writes essays
based on his own observations in order to warn people about the indis-
criminate and inhumane destruction caused by the atomic bomb. His
essays are censored, however, and he considers himself a prisoner of the

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
284 COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES

government, which forces him to leave Nagasaki and return

where he continues to work on nuclear weapons until he die
result of accidental exposure to radiation. In a sense, the sci
not only atones for his wartime deeds but also inspires the
the pilot, to look deeper into his own responsibilities and in
ings of the government he has so loyally served.
A more positive image of the responsibility of the sc
postwar period may be found in works which deal with scie
most part medical doctors, who work with the victims of t
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Among these works are Hiro
Hachiya Michihiko and The Bells of Nagasaki by Nagai T
depict the struggle of doctors to deal with an unprecedente
doctors do not learn about the nature of the weapon which
their cities until a number of days after the bombings, so th
ally are they able to diagnose the mysterious symptoms of
be known simply as gembakubyô (atomic bomb sickness
which they observe on their own bodies: purple spots, loss
healing wounds which leave keloid scars, etc. Even thou
seen, these men of science exhibit a certain scientific deligh
these phenomena, there is no doubt that their primary resp
treat sickness and save lives. And they continue to assume t
ity in spite of virtually hopeless circumstances. Not only
doctors and nurses to treat tens of thousands of victim
medicine, supplies, and equipment, and of course a dras
food, clothing, and shelter, but there is the more funda
that no generally recognized treatment exists for the v
gembakubyô which proliferate after the more conventional
as cuts, fractures, and burns, have been treated in a rudime
Consequently, the insight, dedication, and, above all, th
doctors depicted in these works provide us with a more h
ment for the nuclear age.
In sharp contrast to this hopeful sign is the depiction of
the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission ( ABCC) as irrespons
aries in such works as Agawa Hiroyuki's The Devil's Heritage
the main character, Noguchi Sankichi, goes to Hiroshim
article about the city eight years after the atomic bombing,
onto the controversy concerning the ABCC, a research insti
by the American government and for the most part staffe

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE SCIENTIST IN ATOMIC BOMB LITERATURE 285

doctors and nurses. Dr. Kusahara, who works at the institute, te

that since the atomic bomb exposed its victims to high levels of
the Americans "were interested in the new problems, hitherto
the history of medicine, such as the effects it might have on t
body and how such effects might be transmitted to succeedi
tions."13 The source of the controversy about the ABCC is the p
that although the institute is staffed with doctors and nurse
access to the latest medical equipment, it merely conducts exper
the victims, using them as guinea pigs, and offers no trea
Kusahara maintains that his American colleagues "have no tim
manitarian feelings about the atomic bomb victims themselves,
another way, to be concerned with the victims" (205). The victim
atomic bomb are driven to the luxurious (by postwar Hiroshima
foreign'looking building in an American car, various tests ar
on them, and then they are driven back, often to the shacks
which were ignored in the construction of the "City of Peac
institute keeps track of them, and when they die, the American
sent out once again to carry the corpses back to the institute for
is suggested that there is more than a casual relationship between
of treatment and the search for corpses. In general, the scientis
ABCC do not seem to be guided by ethical or humanitarian
rather, they seem to experiment for experiment's sake, working
tion with the scientists who developed the atomic bomb by provi
with useful information about their grand experiments: the det
two different types of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasak
end of the novel, Dr. Kusahara, who has been reprimanded by h
for trying to help the victims instead of confining himself to
tasks, resigns from the institute.
A more curious development is the case of the atomic scientis
accused of espionage, disloyalty, or treason. In some works b
case of Klaus Fuchs, the scientist-spy is treated with indu
understanding but is nonetheless held responsible for his action
works based on the case of Oppenheimer, the scientist is held r
for his thoughts and opinions which run counter to governmen
both cases, the central issue is the responsibility of the sc
particular government rather than to himself, to society, or to
at large. And the issue is usually expressed in terms of absolute
betrayal, the latter often represented by an adulterous affair.

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 ff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
286 COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES

In Dos kalte Licht, the scientist Wolters is a former co

persuaded to pass on information about the atomic bomb
during the war. After developing a personal relationship
sor, Ketterick, and especially with Ketterick's wife, he b
of the depths of his betrayal, specifically on the day on
bomb is dropped on Hiroshima. After the war, Wolt
passing on information to the Russians, but unfortunate
as the investigators are closing in on him. Then follow t
views, reminiscent of Crime and Punishment and qui
with the spy-scientist, Eric Sawbridge, in The New M
Wolters is persuaded to admit his responsibility and face
by an understanding, sympathetic investigator who
relentless sense of justice.
In Kipphardt's play, the misdeed under investigation is
one of Gedankenverrat (ideological treason). Accordin
unsympathetic, in fact antagonistic pair of interrogators
heimer's mind and soul by questioning him about his
with his family and friends, many of whom are com
travelers, and in particular, they seek to establish an "in
ship between Oppenheimer's "flirtation" with communis
scene with his former fiancée. Moreover, they try to
heimer's scruples about the atomic bomb and the hy
inconsistent and perhaps hypocritical. The result is that
of Oppenheimer's sense of responsibility is in direct
clumsy prodding by the interrogators, so that just as the
has been irresponsibly "unfaithful" to the best interests
he realizes that he has been irresponsible precisely b
too loyal and too obedient to this one government.
Finally, a number of works treat the responsibility of
constructing the road that leads to the end of the world
scientists who decide to continue working on nuclear
projects after Hiroshima for plausible reasons, but there
who are mere functionaries or worse, madmen. In T
example, the scientist Walter Luke vehemently conde
use of the bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

If anyone had tried to defend the first bomb, th

have listened to him. But if anyone dares try to def
then 1*11 see him in hell before I listen to a single w

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE SCIENTIST IN ATOMIC BOMB LITERATURE 287

Nevertheless, he concludes that the only recourse for the re

British scientist is to continue working on nuclear weapons for

We've got to make a few of these damned things ourselves, w

got to finish the job. Then if there's going to be any more ta
we might have our share. ... I know it seems as thoug
chance of a little decency in the world has been wiped o
good. All I can say is that, if we're going to get any decency
then first this country must have a bit of power. (156-57)

This type of reasoning is, of course, quite similar to that of the s

during the war who conclude that they have the responsibility to
bomb because scientists in other hostile countries are working
because possessing the bomb is the only way to prevent its u
important difference is that while these scientists may have been
sioned by the use of the bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the
scientists will not survive the next use of the bomb.
In literary works which envision the end of the world in a
holocaust, the responsibility for the cataclysm is evenly divide
politicians, military men, scientists, and the rest of us who do no
prevent its occurrence. Among the scientists, however, there are
aries, madmen, and the occasional conscientious scientist who
world. We may trace the roots of these figures to science fi
expressionism, and in general to the depiction of the conflict
man and machine in literature since the industrial revolutio
convenient and appropriate point of departure is Brecht's influent
scription of the modern scientist in Leben des Galilei. The aged
concludes that since he, one of the leading scientists of his t
humiliatingly subjugated himself to the state, lesser men in the fut
not even consider the matter of responsibility: "Wie es nun steht,
Hôchste, was man erhoffen kann, ein Geschlecht erfindisher Zwer
ftir ailes gemietet werden kônnen" (126). In the new age the sc
not a hero but a functionary: a person with no sense of responsib
cog in the social machine. In such works as Fail Safe, Trinity's Chi
War Games, there are subterranean chambers staffed by robot
who prepare each day for full-scale nuclear war against count
similarly staffed subterranean chambers.14 Often the crisis begin
simple malfunction in metal or mind; either a mechanical brea
some human failing. Although it is a human hand that activ

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
288 COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES

machine which set off the bombs, that hand is guided by

instructions from the same machine. Men behave like mac
machines take over the human functions of thinking, jud
ating. Thus destroying the world is a matter of calculation
reflection, and the question of responsibility is not even r
The scientist who believes that it is his duty to crea
destructive weapons and that he is not responsible for how
are used appears in a number of literary works in vario
explains himself most clearly under the name Edward
hardt's In der Sache J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testifi
heimer in the security clearance investigation because
Oppenheimer intentionally obstructed the development of
bomb. Thus the two scientists are placed in opposition a
recognizes his responsibility for creating weapons of anni
who doesn't. Teller maintains that his work on the hy
scientific research and that as such it cannot be judged by
standards:

Ich meine, daB Entdeckungen weder gut noch bôse

moralisch noch unmoralisch, sondern nur tatsâchli
sie gebrauchen oder miBbrauchen. Den Verbrennun
die Atomenergie. In schmerzhaften Entwicklungen
Menschen schlieBlich immer gelernt, sie zu gebrauc

Accordingly, Teller believes that scientists like Oppenh

scruples about weapons of annihilation are naive, irresp
dangerous - they ignore the fact that the United States ha
lous enemy. In contrast to such idealists, Teller maintains
peace, we must prepare for the end of the world:

Ich bin uberzeugt, daB sie [die Menschen] erst da

Vemunft annehmen, wenn sie wirklich tief ersch
wenn die Bomben so groB sind, daB sie ailes vernic
werden sie das tun. (338)

This line of thought, familiar to anyone living in the

assured annihilation," leads to the mad scientist in liter
the atomic bomb who gleefully designs doomsday machine
scenarios for Armageddon.

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE SCIENTIST IN ATOMIC BOMB LITERATURE 289

Literature related to the atomic bomb traces the main turning

the scientists in the nuclear age, from the creation and use
weapons in World War II, through the alternatives of the postw
to the ultimate use of the weapons in destroying the world. Ina
the nuclear age has not yet drawn to a close, however, the quest
responsibility of the scientist remains open-ended. In some
theme of responsibility is focused on the question of the scient
or, as Oppenheimer put it, sin. But this guilt is variously interp
find sins of commission and omission: some Faustian, others
other works, responsibility means something more like duty, and
a number of responsible scientists who work with the victims of
resist the pressure to create more devastating weapons, or dedic
selves to seeing that nuclear weapons are not used again. Th
works in which scientists do not act responsibly in that they co
devise weapons of mass annihilation at the bequest of their mas
brings us to the final matter, responsibility for the destruc
world. While those works which depict the latter event may see
fill, they are dealing with an issue now which cannot be dealt w
because there will be neither scientists to rue their actions, nor
record this rue. Imagining this denouement and weighing it now
ful in a literal sense, but it may be one small way of prev
occurrence.

Nihon University

NOTES

1. C.P. Snow, The New Men (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1959).

2. Pearl Buck, Command the Morning (New York: Pocket Books, 1960).
3. Heinar Kipphardt, In der Sache J. Robert Oppenheimer: Theaterstiiche (Reinbek bei
Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1982), 323.
4. Hachiya Michihiko, Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician August 6-
September 30, 1945, trans, and ed. Warner Wells (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P,
1955) 57.
5. Nagai Takashi, The BeUs of Nagasaki, trans. William Johnston (Tokyo: Kodansha
International, 1984) 58.
6. The "Franck Report" is included in Robert Jungk, Brighter Than a Thousand Suns. A
Personal History of the Atomic Scientists, trans. James Cleugh (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1960)311-20.

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
290 COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES

7. Carl Zuckmayer, Das kalte Licht in Gesammelte Werke IV, Dram

Main: S. Fischer, 1960) 387.
8. See Hanz Geiger, Widerstand und Mitschuld: zum deutschen Dra
Weiss (Diisseldorf: Bertelsmann Universitatsverlag, 1973) 177.
9. I. Robert Oppenheimer, The Open Mind (New York: Simon and S
10. Bertolt Brecht, Leben des Galilei (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 1955) 126.
11. Friedrich Diirrenmatt, Die Physiker (Zurich: Dioeenes. 1980) 74.
12. Iida Momo, Amerika no Eiyu (The American Hero)} in Nihon no
(Japanese Atomic Bomb Literature) (Tokyo: Horupu, 1983) vol. 7.
13. Agawa Hiroyuki, Devil's Heritage, trans. John M. Maki (Tokyo
205.
14. Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, Fail Safe (New York: Dell, 1978); William
Prochnau, Trinity's Child (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1983); David Bischoff, War
Games (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983).

This content downloaded from

85.96.130.68 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms