The Diameter of the Bomb

The tone in the first five lines is clinical and detached, and the language is straightforward and without embellishment. This emphasizes that the kind of measurement being discussed in the poem’s first five lines is only the mathematical type, discussing the quantitative and scientific characteristics of the bomb. The first line highlights the bomb’s small size by describing it in centimeters; even its effective range is only a few meters, which makes the bomb sound somewhat mundane and even harmless. There is only one small dramatic gesture that alludes to the poem’s later shift in perspective, which is the pause created by the hyphen that comes before “seven meters” (Line 3). This pause can be seen as a hesitation on the part of the poet, or as a moment of emphasis, calling attention to the moment and contributing to a mounting sense of tension. The pause here foreshadows that the poet will disprove his assertion by showing that the bomb’s “effective range” (Line 2) is far greater than the several meters of its directly targeted area.

In addition, the poet’s use of shorter lines contributes to the sense of simplicity and clarity, as well as employing enjambment, or lines that do not end with a punctuation mark such as a period or question mark. These enjambed lines show a continuation of the poet’s line of thought. The lines that end with periods, or the end-stopped lines, amplify the emotional effect of the poem by creating a structure, creating several distinct units within the poem, even though the poem is only one stanza. After each period the poem shifts in terms of its perspective and explores a more complex dimension of suffering. Following each end-stopped line, or line that ends with a period, the poet adopts a grander perspective on the pain that the bomb causes, and the effects emanating from the circle of its suffering grow more profound.

The fourth line is the first line that discusses the impact of the bomb on humans, but the speaker still maintains their scientific tone. This event sets up the rest of the poem by emphasizing that these people are contained within a circle that connects them in both suffering and harm. This suggests the visual of a circle that encompasses human death and also shows that they are all connected and their pain is interconnected, rather than simply isolated damage. The harm created by the bomb is counted numerically, with the poet employing a cold description of the casualties of war as only numbers rather than humans. This line is end-stopped as well, conveying a sense of finality, which adds to the impression that the pain and suffering caused by the bomb ends with the dead and the wounded. However, in the rest of the poem, the poet enacts a striking shift in tone following this and follows the great suffering that is caused by the death of only one of these individuals.

In the next line, the poet begins to expand his focus beyond what can be counted or quantified as part of the bomb’s damage, now taking into account more abstract concepts, such as the “pain” and “time” (Line 6). In the rest of the poem, the tragedy of this bombing creates echoes that have effects far into the future and far beyond its immediate casualties.

Amichai enlarges the bomb’s “circle” to include the impact on the humans who are mourning the dead, showing that the detached, numerical analysis of the bomb is a distorted reduction. The mathematical language of “diameter” (Line 2) is replaced with “circle,” (Line 5) which has far richer symbolic and emotional depth; a diameter is a mathematical form of measurement that is finite, whereas a circle is a symbol of eternity. This begins to introduce the idea that the pain and suffering caused by the bomb is beyond that which humans can quantify and that all humans end up suffering as a result of war, whether they are immediately affected or not.

This shift in diction leads to richer and more metaphorical language, with imagery and metaphor dominating the second half of the poem. Still, the poet uses concrete language at key moments to refer back to the more detached mindset at the poem’s beginning. For example, the poet uses a simple and numerical description of “two hospitals” and “one cemetery” in Line 7. The reference to hospitals and cemeteries creates a concrete image of places where people suffer and mourn the loss of their family members. The poet is bringing in the people who were not directly in the bomb’s range but whose lives were still altered dramatically by the bomb, either through witnessing injured loved ones or burying loved ones who were within the bomb’s range. Amichai slowly introduces the sense that the tragedy is widening; he uses the buildings and what they represent (the hospital and the cemetery) rather than immediately mentioning the family members of the dead. The poet waits to bring in specific individuals, which creates a far greater emotional power at the poem’s conclusion.

These two locations are “scattered” (Line 6), which suggests an image of destruction as well as the sense of random chance involved in the bomb’s targeted location. This suggests that, however directed an act of war might be, one can never truly control the effects of a bomb, or of any of the machinery of war. The clinical language that Amichai used in the first four lines expressed the idea of bombs as technological achievements and war as dependent on technology, which is a result of the advancement of science. Amichai sets up the contrast that he explores in the rest of the poem, where the poem explores the human side of war and the horrible consequences of such shortsighted calculations that do not take into account the unseen and unquantifiable results of war. This emphasizes the idea that war dehumanizes people by treating them as expendable pawns in a larger strategy.

The poem takes a closer took at one of the four people who was killed by the bomb – a “young woman” who was from another town. Since she is buried there, this creates an even larger circle of destruction around the tragedy. This draws a far larger circle beyond the immediate town where the bombing occurred. The poet is showing through imagery that effects of a bombing can neither be controlled nor predicted.

However, the poet is still using numbers and measurements, saying that the exact distance of her town from the site of the bombing was “over a hundred kilometers” (Line 10) which connects the middle section of the poem to the first few lines by returning to the themes of distance, quantity, and logic. The poet is still using juxtaposition to emphasize the contradictions that war entangles humans in by setting side by the side the incalculable effects of war (suffering) alongside numerical quantities (such as the number dead). Amichai is involving the reader emotionally by highlighting this contradiction and pointing out the cruel calculus of war in which lives are sacrificed.

Amichai also injects the first-person for the first time in the poem in Line 13, saying “I won’t speak about,” implying though this negation that the sadness of these orphaned children is so deep that it is beyond anyone to express or capture it. Their sorrow reaches the inexpressible depths of human pain, showing that it is beyond that which can be measured or even truly understood in language. Now, the circle of suffering both reaches to the depths of what humans can suffer, and in this deep and insurmountable despair, “God” (Line 16) is mentioned. Amichai’s imagery shows that the bomb’s circle is not only encompassing the Earth but also burrowing deeply into people’s hearts and spirits, creating trauma and devastation that these children will never recover from.

In the last two lines, the poet brings up questions of deep moral and philosophical significance: how can a just and loving God create a world in which such suffering is not only allowed but perpetuated constantly through war? In the phrase “a circle without end and without God” (line 18), the poet is asking the reader to question how humans can allow such events to happen, while also believing that the world is a fundamentally fair and just place. Amichai explores his contradiction by initially bringing in God in Line 16 and then negating God’s presence on the poem’s final line. This is the paradox at the heart of the poem: wars are oftentimes fought in the name of God and other noble ideals, and yet the events of war and its consequences beg the question, what kind of God would allow, and what kind of greater good would justify, such atrocities on Earth.