Review: By the Bomb’s Early Light, by Paul Boyer

In August of 1945, America pushed the world into a new era with the use of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Previous weapons paled in comparison to both the sudden and lingering effects of the bombs on our enemy, and our nation struggled to come to terms with the nature of our new power. In the thoroughly researched and but easily readable By the Bomb’s Early Light, Paul Boyer examines the reactions of the citizens and the culture in the years after the bombs were dropped.

The text is divided into eight parts, with each section focusing on a group of people or a part of the American culture.  Scientists, the arts, morality, media, and social visions are all studied. Perceptions on the bombs’ use shifted throughout the years. Scientists were at first seen as great heroes and strong leaders, and the public listened to them eagerly. But there was also a pervasive fear of the terrible force which America had unleashed, and a strong movement toward a single world government was seen as the only way civilization could survive. With the arrival of the 1950s, though, communism was a larger threat, and the public began looking more towards the positives of atomic energy. Forecasts were made that the world would soon have vast amounts of inexpensive power, and would enter a new period of leisure. Everything from cities to cars to homes would be run on atomic energy. When Russia tested its first atomic weapon in 1954, fear returned to America and writers of fiction turn their attention to the atomic age in a way they had been unable to earlier. The fear of fallout from our own tests and the possibility of sudden and complete annihilation by the enemy stayed until the atmospheric testing treaty was signed in 1963. Throughout the years, public opinion changed often. Feelings of guilt and horror towards the bombing in Japan came and went, and atomic power was either vilified or deified, but rarely anything in between.

Boyer supports his findings with copious quotes and figures from the years he examines. In fact, there is hardly a paragraph of text which does not have numerous quotations from the media, public figures, or surveys. This gives his positions a great deal of credibility, but it can make for some difficult reading as writing styles switch frequently and there are many names and organizations mentioned. The large section of notes and sources cited makes it clear that much research was done and many opinions were considered in the writing of this book.

It is difficult to generalize the way an entire country feels about an issue at any given moment, so as a whole Boyer does not attempt to do so. He frequently notes that there were always dissenters, but that there were also common themes and beliefs at various times. It is also evident that the views of sections of American society frequently contradict. For instance, the government emphasizes the peace and freedom that atomic power will unleash, while working in secret to create new nuclear weapons instead of plutonium-driven cars. The public supports the creation of one world government strongly while scientists and activists are promoting it as the only way to avoid total destruction, but support wanes as communism rises and the fear of one Red government become apparent.

Overall, Boyer tells a story of a frightened America struggling to come to terms with its own awesome new power. If man can harness the atom, many think, is there any end to what can be accomplished? Whether they saw a future of blue skies, free energy, and peace or one of blistered earth and the end of civilization, one thing is clear. Americans living after the atomic bomb’s use were certain that the world was vastly changed, and they worked hard to assimilate into this new world. Despite apparent contradictions and changes over the years, Boyer uses his sources well to show than once we had the potential power to destroy the world, people began to see the world as something we could both control and lose more easily than ever before.