“The Atomic City Girls” by Janet Beard tells the story of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and those who worked there. Their task was to help develop the atomic bomb and win World War II. Oak Ridge enriched the uranium that Los Alamos put to work in the bomb. It’s a novel, a fictional account, but true enough to life that you get a picture of the time and the trials. The book is enriched by actual Oak Ridge pictures from the Department of Energy.

There are two moral issues that underlie much of the book. One is the racism in the very structure of Oak Ridge life. We forget the blatant racial separation of those years, what with some of the more subtle forms of racism today. The other moral issue is the nature of the work itself. One of the characters in the novel is a scientist who understands what they are doing, in the midst of the ignorance of the others. The atomic girls simply turn dials all day, not knowing why. Secrecy is enforced. To question or to speak about the work is to aid the enemy and risk your job. Except for the scientist, all the others know is they are working to win the war.

Since the scientist is knowledgeable, he is in something of a moral quandary about his work and unable to celebrate when they eventually learn of Hiroshima, and then Nagasaki. Atomic weapons don’t discriminate. In fact, they are civilian specific. The scientist recognizes his complicity.

My friend, who was one of the first to enter Hiroshima after the bomb was dropped, also recognized his complicity. He had some difficulty describing his experience. He was clear about waiting on board ship for hours until the radioactivity was reduced but less descriptive of what he saw on the ground. Where do you start in describing indescribable death and desolation.

Entering the nuclear age, the public schools never recognized their complicity when they were holding drills in case of nuclear attack. As if children hiding under their desks would protect them from a nuclear weapon. What it did do was convince my nephew he would die in a nuclear war, something he mentioned in passing when he was in college.

The government never recognized their complicity when my friend had his leg removed. He was one of those sent into the atomic test site in Nevada with assurances from his commanders it was safe. His life was a series of medical issues because of that experience.

On Jan. 22, 2021, nuclear weapons became illegal. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) went into effect on that date when the 50th country signed it. The treaty is a legally binding international agreement calling for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. One wonders if and when a nuclear nation will sign it? Would the only country to use a nuclear weapon be the first? What are the chances?

The chances of winning the Powerball jackpot are estimated at 1 in 292,201,338. Lots of folks line up and put their money down for a chance at that prize. For a child born today with a 75 year life expectancy, the odds are they have a 60% chance of seeing a nuclear war in their lifetime. The probability from an accident is 50%. Will people line up for a child’s full lifetime?

As a side effect of the Atoms for Peace Program, chances are, more than one Fukushima type disaster could occur in the next decade. Late in 2020, 1.23 million tons of contaminated water used to cool the three damaged reactor cores at Fukushima was stored in 1,044 tanks, with the waste water increasing by 170 tons a day. Japan wants to release the water into the ocean. Japanese fishermen believe it will kill their industry.

Others believe it could impact human DNA. As a consequence, who is lining up for sustainable energy sources?

Fortunately, the Biden Administration has extended the START Treaty with Russia for another five years. The question remains, what will become of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons if only those without such weapons sign the treaty. What are the chances a nuclear armed nation will step forward?

Saint Augustine was primarily responsible for the Just War Theory. Believing that violence is sometimes justified, a series of criteria were necessary to establish a “just” war. One of the criteria is war should distinguish military from civilian targets. Another is proportionality, can the means used justify the ends desired. A third is having right intention. And if war must be declared by an appropriate authority, who is that if nuclear war risks nuclear winter?

In a nuclear age, Martin Luther King is right: “Men for years now have been talking about war and peace. Now no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and non-violence in this world. It is non-violence or non-existence. That is where we are today.” What are the chances?