Political Model

The Decision Making Process Behind the Use of the Atomic Bomb

Political Model in Context

Political Model Overview

• Goal conflict decision to use the atomic bomb

1. Organizational Politics

1.1 Environmental Uncertainty

• Many actors involved in complex relationships

• Nuclear armament race

• Hard to determine the true or full motivations of actors involved

1.2 Resource Dependency

• The Franck Report (June 11, 1945)

• “Creative capacities” of physicists

1.3. Task Interdependency

• Many groups with different goals

• Communication flow, reporting structure

• Reliance on Truman to approve decisions

1.4 Goal Conflict

• Moral dilemma (scientists)

• Absolute solution (Interim Committee)

• Leo Szilard’s petitions

• Monetary expenditures

• Groves’ desire for triumph

• Achieving balanced view

• US military superiority

2. Process

2.1 Coalitions

2.1 Coalitions

• Shifting coalitions: – Form alliances with like-minded– Negotiation with rivals

2.1 Coalitions cont’d

• Quasi conflict resolution:? Treat multiple goals as constraints

√ Seek local rationality (Target Committee, scientists held town-meetings)

X Use acceptable-level decision rules

√ Attend to goals sequentially

2.2 Procedural Rationality

2.2 Procedural Rationality

• Many groups involved in arriving at consensus

• Holding conferences to plan operations and discuss solutions (i.e. Operation Downfall)

• Advisors reporting to Truman

3. Role of Power

3.1 Building Power Base

• Strategic control

• Scientists: – Created dependency by exploiting “esoteric

scientific discovery and own talents to produce a powerful destructive weapon…recognize existence of resource of national value” (Moore, 1958, p. 84)

3.2 Exercising Decision Making Power

• Building coalitions: – Uranium Committee– Manhattan Project (in collaboration with UK &

Canada)– Interim Committee + Scientific Panel– Target Committee

3.2 Exercising Decision Making Power cont’d

• Controlling decision premises:– Information gatekeeping– Surrender terms:– "This may include a constitutional monarchy under

the present dynasty if it be shown to the complete satisfaction of the world that such a government will never again aspire to aggression." (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the U.S., The Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 1, pg. 892-894.)

– Value premises

3.2 Exercising Decision Making Power cont’d

• Enhancing expertise• Make preferences explicit:

– Speakers presented viewpoints at committee meetings

– Justifying use of atomic bomb to “save American lives”, hard to challenge moral position

4. Quality of Decision Making• Dominant factors:

– Claim America’s supremacy in nuclear arms race

– Greater good: will save American lives and end the war early

– Support stability in post-war world & strengthen American diplomacy

4. Quality of Decision Making cont’d

• Focusing on military approach vs. diplomatic strategies:– “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was

not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan.... It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.” (Walker, 1990, p. 110)

– Soviet participation• John McCloy: “The use of nuclear weapons on Japan

"was not given the thoroughness of consideration and the depth of thought that the president of the United States was entitled to have before a decision of this importance was taken“ (Reston, 1991, p. 500)

4.3 Strengths & Weaknesses• Strengths:

– Low goal ambiguity– Various opinions consulted

• Weaknesses:– Multiple conflicts & interests – Groups can be misleading– Singular authority– Forming coalitions based on personal reasons

4.4 Suggested Improvements

• External entity

• Reduce conflict

• Break conventions– Transparency

4.5 Insight

• Analyzing the decision to use the atomic bomb revealed a multitude of perspectives

• Uncovering secret agendas

• Moral implications of nuclear warfare