In February 1949, J. Robert Oppenheimer, the celebrated scientist behind the Manhattan Project, penned an article for this publication, reflecting on the aftermath of the first atomic bomb detonation. The explosion had captivated the world with its purple light and towering pillar of smoke and debris. However, for Oppenheimer, the initial excitement had given way to a profound sense of disillusionment.
In Christopher Nolan’s upcoming biopic on Oppenheimer, there is a particularly powerful scene in which the scientist, played by Cillian Murphy, experiences the disillusionment that would haunt him for the rest of his life. As he watches two trucks carry bombs away from his desert laboratory towards Japan, Oppenheimer realizes that he no longer has control over the destructive power he helped create. The bombing of Hiroshima just three weeks after the Trinity test further deepens his sense of horror and guilt. Unable to bear the sight of the victims, he looks away, much like Nolan’s camera.
Oppenheimer later described the bomb as a manifestation of sin, believing that by unleashing such destructive power, physicists had doomed humanity to a world plagued by the constant threat of self-extinction. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Oppenheimer held onto the hope that the destructive potential of atomic energy could be contained through his efforts and the establishment of international regulations.
Oppenheimer’s influence and renown were significant. He was admired by the public as a hero who had harnessed the power of atoms to save lives and end wars. In Nolan’s film, we witness Oppenheimer being courted for esteemed positions, such as the director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, the academic home of Albert Einstein. He also chaired a committee providing counsel to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. During this period, his scientific pronouncements carried immense weight. His authoritative voice on matters of science was acknowledged in an editor’s note preceding his essay.
But how did Oppenheimer utilize this influential voice? He actively opposed the development of a more powerful second-generation atom weapon, known as the hydrogen bomb, fearing it would escalate the arms race with the Soviet Union. He lent his reputation to efforts aimed at preventing an arms race altogether, contributing to the drafting of the Baruch Plan. This proposal sought to establish a global collective in which all nations would renounce their atomic weapons programs, with atomic energy falling under the oversight of a centralized regulatory body at the United Nations.
However, these proposals ultimately failed at the United Nations in 1948. In response, Oppenheimer turned to The Atlantic to express his grief and frustration. His essay, titled “The Open Mind,” provided a historical account of the negotiations around arms control. While the Soviet Union expressed support for dismantling atomic weapons programs and international oversight of atomic energy, they objected to America’s insistence on maintaining their weapons program until the new system was operational. The Soviets demanded that President Harry Truman disarm first, which was unacceptable to him.
During the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer’s ability to foresee the geopolitical consequences of atomic power had been flawed. Even though he accurately understood the inner workings of the atom, he misjudged the post-war world. Perhaps out of naivety or ambitious blindness, he believed the bomb’s terrifying display would lead to a rejection of larger weapons and wars. But in 1949, he realized that such a rejection was unlikely. He acknowledged that the United States had adopted measures he had hoped would be universally abandoned. Mass production of the atomic bomb was underway, and American scientists were directed to create even more destructive weapons using the new physics.
Oppenheimer recognized the emergence of a bleak arms race, and his foresight proved correct. Within months, the Soviet Union successfully tested its first atomic bomb, followed by the United States’ detonation of a hydrogen bomb almost 500 times more powerful than the one used in Nagasaki. The Soviets soon developed their own hydrogen bomb. By the time of Oppenheimer’s death in 1967, the two countries had amassed nearly 40,000 nuclear weapons between them.
Oppenheimer understood his contribution to this dangerous world. He sought to prepare readers for the horrors that lay ahead. His advice was to maintain hope and remember the limitations of our ability to envision the future. Oppenheimer drew strength from the uncertainty that characterizes the quantum world, which had captivated him in his youth. He believed that the macro world of human affairs was equally contingent, with nothing predetermined.
Oppenheimer quoted Abraham Lincoln’s speech during the Civil War to illustrate the unpredictability of reality. Lincoln had acknowledged that early on, few expected the abolition of slavery to be a significant outcome of the conflict. Oppenheimer invoked Lincoln’s words to emphasize that surprises can swing both ways. A fallen world can experience moral progress.
We have witnessed such shifts before, particularly in the nuclear realm. In the 1980s, extensive nuclear arsenals seemed to be an indelible reality. The Soviet Union reached a peak of approximately 40,000 warheads in 1986, while the United States possessed over 20,000. Few anticipated the imminent end of the Cold War. Yet, in 1991, George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, marking the beginning of a remarkable series of agreements that significantly reduced the nuclear stockpiles of both countries.
Bush and Gorbachev’s actions demonstrated an understanding of seizing opportunities, as the peace and strategic balance of power at that time proved to be fleeting. The specter of nuclear annihilation has once again infiltrated the collective consciousness. It has been invoked by Vladimir Putin amidst his invasion of Ukraine, while China has amassed an arsenal capable of devastating major American cities.
Oppenheimer recognized that there is no technological barrier preventing the existence of world-threatening nuclear stockpiles for hundreds of thousands of years. Maintaining a large number of weapons in an environment where even a minor incident could escalate into a catastrophe is a dangerous game. The passage of seven decades without nuclear warfare should not breed complacency; the sample size is too small.
Beyond offering hope, Oppenheimer did not provide concrete guidance on how to dismantle the nuclear specter he helped unleash upon humanity. Known for his eloquence and flair, he valued style. In his Atlantic essay, he aspired to find harmony in the domain of foreign policy through style. He believed that style could bridge the gap between… [HTML tags retained]
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
