OPPENHEIMER’S MESSAGE
The Early Postwar Situation
The popularity of the movie Oppenheimer is partially due to its message which we can contemplate today. The world has entered a new Cold War between the US and China, with an arms race that diverts resources from public welfare and raises the threat of nuclear war over Taiwan and other issues. It is a flashback to the era in which J. Robert Oppenheimer was a central figure, a time when his message was not heeded and he was disgraced.
Oppenheimer’s message was that on the eve of the nuclear age humanity would have to undergo a momentous shift in its consciousness and institutions. In many ways, as Oppenheimer clearly recognized, it was a very opportune moment for starting to move toward a lasting peace, since the terrible destruction from conventional weapons as well as the horrors of the two atomic bombings were vividly engraved in people’s minds. The United Nations was formed, scientists organized conferences, and intellectuals spread the message of peace.
In light of his great talent for organizing people and solving complex problems, Oppenheimer was chosen by scientists to be the main scientific representative of the United States at a UN commission that would recommend ways to destroy all existing nuclear weapons and to ensure that atomic energy was only used for peaceful purposes. The commission proposed the establishment of a new international atomic development authority to supervise the development of atomic weapons. Once the international controls were in force, the United States would give up its sole ownership of the atomic bomb.
But the US government rejected the proposal, coming up with its own plan for strict controls and inspections before it would allow an international body to take over the management of nuclear energy. It was predictable that the Soviet Union would not allow an international body to have such access to its nuclear weapons program, since the members of this body would be mostly from the capitalist world. The Soviet Union vetoed the plan, signaling the end of any serious attempts to achieve disarmament to the dismay of Oppenheimer and many scientists.
The stringent controls proposed by the American government reflected extreme mistrust of the Soviet Union and a very pessimistic view of the potential for cooperation with the Russians. Since the US was far ahead of the Soviet Union and the government believed it would remain in that advantageous position, there was little reason to agree to any restrictions on the development of nuclear weapons. Triumphing over the enemy was the main concern of both the United States and the Soviet Union, while the long-term dangers of a nuclear arms race and nuclear proliferation were ignored.
As this drama played out, Oppenheimer was ganged up on by those in favor of mobilizing against the Soviet Union. He was denied his security clearance and lost his once great influence for being insufficiently enthusiastic over the production of the hydrogen bomb. The policy elites dismissed his view that a “nuclear peace” was inherently fragile, requiring consistent and cautious action on the part of governments possessing nuclear weapons. His concerns over the dangers to humanity’s continued survival were not addressed in the rush to build up the US nuclear arsenal as a key source of leverage over the communist enemy.
The Situation Today
The new Cold War between the US and China seems like a rerun in many ways of the earlier version. The patterns of US-China relations are similar and it appears that little of value has been learned from the long experience of having faced the possibility of nuclear war. It is not surprising that the elites in both countries strongly support nuclear buildups. In the US the two political parties, although they disagree about almost everything, have no difficulty arriving at the bipartisan position that China must be contained. Since politicians are finely tuned to what they can sell the people, they clearly think this is a winning issue, at least with the citizens who vote.
For the past 25 years or so in China, nationalism, directed mainly against Japan and the US, has been one key means for China’s leaders to gain public support, the other being economic growth. In China most older people see nuclear weapons as providing security and as self-defense, while younger people tend to like nuclear weapons for their prestige value and as necessary for protecting China’s rights.
What is different about the situation today is that China is more formidable than the Soviet Union ever was, and it is not clear whether it has yet reached the peak of its power in relation to the US. The cultural and historical differences between the two superpowers today are also greater than they were between the earlier adversaries. But the most important difference is that there is an ecological crisis that requires cooperation among all the nations of the world, and especially between China and the US, the nations whose policies and habits must be transformed for there to be any chance of an adequate response.
So it is not just the threat to world peace that we continue to face today. There is an environmental crisis that was not evident in Oppenheimer’s time. But are there any conditions today that indicate the outcome could be more favorable? Can we hope for anything different than what prevailed during the Cold War period? That was when we had the “balance of terror” and the world had some narrow escapes such as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
Until now, the same overall patterns as before have been continuing. There is still little recognition that enemies are engaged in a relational dance in which the only way out is by changing one’s own perceptions, admitting one’s own contributions to the problem, and taking risks. Without such huge steps, enemies cannot become friends. The major exception is when power dynamics change. When the Soviet Union became stronger militarily than Europe, then it no longer made sense for France and Germany to remain enemies; when it became clear that China’s power might eventually approach that of the United States, then, given their incompatible ideologies, there didn’t seem much reason for either side to cooperate. And this is the condition for the foreseeable future.
Oppenheimer’s Recommendations
Oppenheimer, in his farewell speech to the Association of Los Alamos Scientists on November 2, 1945, expressed a profound understanding of what was at stake for humanity in a world in which atomic bombs could be produced quite easily in the future. He provided a sober picture of the perils but also mentioned the new source of hope that he saw. There was a way out, although he recognized just how daunting the challenge would be.
The most important source of hope in Oppenheimer’s view was that the creation of the atomic bomb made it possible to take first steps toward realizing the changes that were needed for peace to be achieved. There had never been a shortage of persuasive arguments for renouncing war as a means of conflict resolution. But the advent of atomic weapons, coupled with the ease of building them and the destruction they cause, had brought on a grave crisis that could only be addressed through unprecedented changes, far-reaching in scope and implications. “They are changes in the relations between nations, not only in spirit, not only in law, but also in conception and feeling. I don’t know which of these is prior; they must all work together, and only the gradual interaction of one on the other can make a reality.”
There is one other central point that Oppenheimer emphasized Not only are atomic weapons terrible and constitute a great danger, they are also humanity’s common problem. So all must commit themselves to the cause of their eventual abolition and the community must take responsibility. And people will not participate in dealing with this problem unless they become aware that they have the capacity to be part of the solution.
Oppenheimer’s recommendations are just as valuable today as they were in his own time. He understood the seriousness of the challenge and what it would take to come to terms with it. In those regards, the situation has not changed except that now we are facing multiple, interrelated crises so the stakes and urgency are greater than in 1945.
But there is also the absence of a motivating factor these days like the first dropping of atomic bombs on civilian populations and living in the immediate aftermath of a war of unparalleled destruction. Early ravages from climate change have appeared but there is little sense of urgency among most of the world’s leaders and people for reasons ranging from complacency among the wealthy to more pressing survival concerns among the poor.
