The most interesting part of “Oppenheimer” is this idea that there’s this techno-nerd scientist who is hired to invent the bomb. But the problem is, he has no influence over the policy. Thus, how much responsibility does he bear? Well, let’s back up a few thousand years …
Prometheus and the Gift of Fire
According to Greek mythology, Prometheus, whose name translates to “forethought,” dared to steal fire from the gods of Olympus and gave it to mankind. This rebellious act, driven by compassion for humanity, played a pivotal role in our evolution, empowering humans with warmth, light, protection, and the ability to forge tools.
However, the theft of fire was a transgression against Zeus, king of the gods, who retaliated by punishing Prometheus with eternal torment. For the audacity of his transgression, he was chained to a cliffside for thousands of years. Each day, an eagle would swoop down, tear open his flesh, and feast upon his liver, which would regenerate each night only to be devoured again the following day.
The god’s gift to mankind was a technological innovation of epic proportions, but it came with a great cost. Prometheus had unleashed a force that humans could use both for creation and destruction, illustrating the dual-edge nature of technology.
Unintended Consequences and Shared Responsibility
In the movie, there is a great scene, where President Truman presents a disconcerting perspective, suggesting that the responsibility for the bomb’s use lies solely with those who ‘dropped it,’ absolving the creators.
Truman says to Oppenheimer, something to the effect of: “Nobody cares who built the bomb. They only care who dropped it. So your hands are clean. I have taken that responsibility from you.”
And then, seeing as Oppenheimer is upset, Truman says, “Get that cry baby out of here.”
This exchange exemplifies the intricate relationship between those who create powerful technologies and those who use them. Yet, can we entirely absolve innovators from the consequences of their creations, especially when they hold the potential for both enormous benefit and cataclysmic harm?
Who was at fault?
Like we see in the movie, Oppenheimer’s mathematical calculations showed that it was impossible to split the atom. But he was wrong.
The person who is most credited with achieving the first controlled, self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction in Chicago is Enrico Fermi, an Italian physicist. Fermi and his team conducted this groundbreaking experiment as part of the Manhattan Project, (during World War II).
The experiment took place on December 2, 1942, in a makeshift laboratory under the squash courts at the University of Chicago, in an area that was later renamed the “Chicago Pile-1” (CP-1). This was the world’s first artificial nuclear reactor, and the experiment marked the birth of nuclear power.
It’s important to note that Fermi and his team didn’t “split the atom” in the sense of being the first to discover nuclear fission—that discovery was made by German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in 1938. What Fermi’s experiment demonstrated was that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated, controlled, and sustained.
In other words, Oppenheimer couldn’t build the bomb without Fermi laying down the brickwork. This was perhaps the most crucial step on the path to developing nuclear power and, ultimately, nuclear weapons. So Oppenheimer gets the “credit”, but the creation of the atomic bomb was an enormous endeavor that involved thousands of people working across multiple disciplines over several years.
With this said, as the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory during the Manhattan Project, J. Robert Oppenheimer oversaw the project that turned the theoretical possibility of an atomic bomb into a reality. So yes, we can say he’s the “father” or as Truman said, “You’re the guy on the cover of Time Magazine”, but if it wasn’t him, let’s get real – it would have been someone else.
The Movie
The first half of the movie is on building the bomb and testing it in the desert. I found this riveting.
The 2nd half of the movie seems to focus on sort of a “Crucible” witch hunt cross-examining Oppenheimer as a possible communist. As interesting as this is, I would have cut this down to 10 minutes. Of course, we all want to be the director and to show our own perspective, ha ha.
If it was me I would have focused more on the impact of the bomb and the affect this had on Japan and the world. Or bringing up some of these more interesting questions. But that’s okay because we can do that now:
Why drop it so quickly after testing?
The two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in August 1945 during the final stage of World War II. The first bomb, “Little Boy,” was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. The second bomb, “Fat Man,” was dropped on Nagasaki three days later, on August 9th, 1945. So, there was a span of three days between the dropping of the two bombs.
The dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, came shortly after the bomb was fully tested and deemed operational. The reasons behind the quick use of the bomb can be attributed to the following:
- End the War: The primary reason was to bring a swift end to World War II. The Allies had been engaged in a long and costly war against Japan, and there was hope that the devastating power of the atomic bomb would push Japan to surrender without the need for a prolonged invasion.
- Military Advantage: The atomic bomb represented a significant military advantage, and there was a desire to use this new weapon to its full effect.
- Political Considerations: There were also political considerations at play. The United States had invested considerable resources into the development of the atomic bomb, and demonstrating its power served to justify this expense. Moreover, it sent a strong message to other powers, particularly the Soviet Union, about the U.S.’s military capabilities.
- Uncertain Japanese Response: It was uncertain how Japan would respond to an initial warning or smaller-scale demonstration of the bomb’s power. The U.S. leadership believed that a full-scale use of the weapon would provide the shock necessary to compel Japan to surrender.
However, it’s important to recognize that the decision to drop the atomic bombs and the speed at which they were deployed is still a topic of significant debate among historians and ethicists. Some argue that Japan was already on the brink of surrender and that other options (like a demonstration of the bomb, or waiting for the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan, which they did on August 8) weren’t fully explored. The bombings caused massive civilian casualties, and the decision to use nuclear weapons remains one of the most controversial decisions in military history.
And so let’s reiterate: Only three days later they dropped the second bomb.
Why did they even have to do a second bomb? Seems kind of insane, doesn’t it?
The Second Bomb
The second atomic bomb was dropped quickly for a number of reasons:
- To Hasten the End of the War: The primary goal was to end the war as quickly as possible. The U.S. and its Allies had been fighting for nearly six years, and there was a desire to avoid a drawn-out invasion of Japan, which would have resulted in much higher casualties on both sides.
- To Increase Pressure: The quick succession of the bombings was also meant to increase the psychological pressure on the Japanese government and signal the seriousness of the U.S.’s resolve.
- Uncertainty about Japan’s Response: After the first bomb was dropped, there was a period of uncertainty about how the Japanese government would respond. The U.S. leaders may have hoped that a second bomb would underline their message and push Japan to surrender before more lives were lost. (Note: There were a ton of reasons for this. There was chaos, disbelief that a bomb could do this, and this led to communication difficulties not to mention it wasn’t having the effect that the US wanted it to have. Remember: they only had 2 bombs.)
- To Show the Power of the New Weapon: The bombings also served to demonstrate the new and extremely destructive weapon the U.S. had developed. The two bombs used different design principles, and demonstrating both types might have been a consideration.
- To Deter Future Aggression: The bombings might have been aimed at deterring future aggression by showing the scale of destruction the U.S. was capable of inflicting.
In hindsight, these bombings have been subjects of considerable controversy and debate, particularly over the ethical and legal aspects, and the large number of civilian casualties. However, at the time, they were viewed by many in the U.S. and Allied leadership as necessary to bring about a quicker end to the war.
Why not warn Japan we had this bomb before dropping it?
I feel that this is unacceptable to drop bombs, especially bombs like this, on civilian cities. Why not just tell them that we have this bomb and if you don’t listen to us and “surrender” then we would use it?
Apparently some people say we kind of did. Meaning, the US did not explicitly inform Japan about the atomic bomb before using it. However, there was a public statement known as the Potsdam Declaration issued by the United States, the United Kingdom, and China on July 26, 1945, which called for Japan’s unconditional surrender and warned of “prompt and utter destruction” if Japan did not surrender. The exact nature of this destruction was not detailed, and the existence of the atomic bomb was not mentioned. Japan, at the time, did not fully understand the implications of this statement and rejected the Potsdam Declaration.
It’s worth noting that there was considerable debate among the scientists who developed the atomic bomb, as well as among political leaders, about whether a warning or demonstration should be given before using the bomb in warfare. The decision was ultimately made to use the bomb without a specific prior warning or demonstration of its power. The reasons for this decision included fears that a demonstration might not work, concerns about revealing U.S. capabilities to other countries, and the belief that a shock-and-awe approach would be most likely to convince Japan to surrender and thus end the war as quickly as possible.
Remember, they “only” had 2 bombs. If they warned them and then dropped one of the bombs and it didn’t work, then this might be seen as more of a threat for retaliation. So using this rationale, they had to at least drop one to end the war. And the big fear, of course, is that they would get the bomb first.
Where to Bomb to End the War
The Japanese were not going to “surrender”. They may have been defeated, temporarily, but “surrender” was way off the list.
But still, being in the counseling world, I don’t think this was the way to go. Why not choose smaller targets? Did they have to bomb these hugely populated cities?
The choice of targets for the atomic bombs dropped by the United States on Japan was determined by a variety of factors. While there is significant controversy and debate over these choices, some of the factors that were considered include:
- Military Significance: The target cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had significant military and industrial value. Hiroshima was a major military hub with troops, military equipment, and war industry, while Nagasaki was an important sea port and industrial center producing war materials. The aim was to deal significant blows to Japan’s ability to continue the war.
- Size and Layout: The cities were large and densely populated, which allowed the bombs’ destructive power to be fully demonstrated. The bombs used were new and untested in a combat situation, and the military wanted to assess their actual impact.
- Geography: The specific geography of these cities also factored into the decision. Hiroshima was relatively flat and open, which would maximize the destructive force of the bomb. Similarly, Nagasaki was surrounded by hills which would help contain and focus the blast.
- Psychological Impact: The aim was to cause such a level of shock and destruction that it would force Japan to surrender quickly. Bombing major cities was intended to have a stronger psychological impact than hitting smaller towns.
However, these decisions have been subject to much controversy and debate over the years. The bombings resulted in a massive loss of life, with a large percentage of the victims being civilians, and have raised important ethical and humanitarian questions. They mark the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare to date, and the destruction they caused played a significant role in shaping international norms and treaties aimed at preventing the use of nuclear weapons in the future. At least, hypothetically … but now look at what’s happening in Ukraine and nuclear threats are part of the discussion.
Silicon Valley: Navigating the Pandora’s Box of Innovation
Today, we find ourselves on the brink of new technological revolutions. The rise of artificial intelligence and quantum computing presents us with powers that, like fire and nuclear energy, can be used for both profound good and profound harm.
Silicon Valley, as the epicenter of these innovations, is grappling with a similar predicament to that of Prometheus and Oppenheimer. These modern innovators, like their predecessors, bear a responsibility that extends beyond the creation of their technologies. Their creations may be wielded by others in ways they never intended or imagined.
Therefore, it is essential that today’s innovators embrace a broader sense of responsibility. This includes not only pushing the boundaries of what is possible but also considering the ethical implications of their work, engaging in policy discussions, and advocating for regulations that mitigate potential harms while maximizing benefits. While they cannot control how their innovations are used, they can influence the context and systems in which they are deployed.
Innovation does not exist in a vacuum.
Just as Prometheus and Oppenheimer reshaped the world with fire and nuclear energy, today’s innovators will undoubtedly reshape the future with artificial intelligence and quantum computing. It is their responsibility, therefore, to ensure that these technologies benefit humanity, rather than leading us down a destructive path.
Kerry Heffelfinger co-founded Sunflower Counseling MT with his wife, Marie, and their three spirited children. In the scarce moments of respite from running the business, Kerry indulges in his passion for the electric guitar, which he keeps, rather unconventionally, in the bathroom. Aside from his musical pursuits, Kerry finds solace in the seemingly mundane: wandering the aisles of Target and browsing the colorful array of La Croix cans. These simple pleasures, however ordinary, offer him moments of tranquility amidst the chaos of family and work life.