Christopher Nolan's magisterial film "Oppenheimer" renews debate on the use of nuclear weapons to end World War II, as a deterrent to future use, and the nature of moral conflicts
Back in college a prof overheard some of us debating the morality of atomic bombs and he interjected - The real debate should be over the morality of killing civilians, and not over what particular weapon is employed.
The atomic bomb is one of those moral issues that really does feel like a "both sides" issue, because nuclear weapons are truly horrifying. But if the Japanese fascists had just surrendered, none of this would have happened. Those samurai lunatics were bloodthirsty animals who brutally butchered millions.
If I seriously wanted to find out what the government knows, I would not bother asking them. I would assume they would lie and if asked too many times, the file would go in the shredder.
I would tap the phones of a suspected military base, overfly it with drones equiped with infrared cameras, bug the confessionals of churches in the area, flood off-base bars in the area with attractive young women trained in getting information from lonely young servicemen, and kidnap base personel and interogate then under truth drugs before dumping their bodies in ways that would look like they died in an accident.
THAT is how to find out classified information. Mere asking via Freedom Of Information Act is useless.
The end result of the development of the A-bomb to end that minor and not very important war was the existence of an arsenal of such weapons aimed at the whole planet now by the American / Russian / Chinese / Israeli / Indian / Pakistani / Korean / British / French / Etc. / etc. ruling clique .
The predictable certainty of that result should have detered the whole project. The fools who went ahead with it will be remembered, if there is anyone left to do the remembering, as the most evil criminals who ever lived, far worse than their Japanese and German enemies in that relatively minor and unimportant war between rivcal empires.
Any nation posessing a nuclear arsenal is an enemy of the planet earth. By comparison, the petty disagreements between nation-states are of no importance.
The argument that a solar flare releases more energy than an a-bomb is a red herring. How much of the energy released by a solar flare reaches earth? Only a tiny fraction, and most of that would be stopped by the earth's magnetic field and atmosphere.
You misquote me. I did not say ''humans'' are the enemy of planet earth; I said ''Any nation posessing a nuclear arsenal is an enemy of the planet earth''. If the human species is or is not, what I said was aimed at the national governments that have nuclear arsenals, not at the human species in general.
That makes twice you used an argument that my high school debate teacher would have marked yoiu down for. First a ''red herring'' that has nothing to do with the subject, then a ''straw man'' misquoting what I said.
If the humans could be eliminated without messing things up for all the other species that live on this planet, that would be a good thing and I would be happy to push the button myself and get rid of them. Nearly all other species except their domesticates would be much better off if the humans were gone. But the sad fact is that a nuclear war would not only get rid of the humans, but also of most other mammals, at least, though cockroaches and crabgrass would probably survive since nothing seems to get rid of them.
There is nothing especially sacred about human life; it is expendable for cause. In every war in history some humans have been deemed expendable and have been expended. The same goes for every revolt against tyrany. Sailors who went on voyages of exploration into unknown seas knew that some of them would not come back. Pioneers pushing into uninhabited wilderness full of blodthirsty savages knew the risks. Humans are just one species among many, not anything special. I would be perfectly happy to sacrifice some humans for a worthy cause.
But the issue here is not how many Japanese civilians were killed or if that was needed vto end that particular war. The issue is the development of a weapon that has too much power for any government to be allowed to posess it. Developing such a weapon and placi9ng it in the hands of the American regime was unpardonable, even if it had njot been used.
Your points have merit - I recall back in undergrad days when I took a class wherein we discussed everything you said. So, please understand that I was neither arguing nor debating you. I was simply making the complimentary point that we humans exaggerate our destructive power and it is almost humorous how puny and impotent we are. We are not a threat to the Earth and we are not even that big of threat to life (in the context of a universe full of solar flares, supernovae, hypernovae, asteroids, GRBs, earthquakes, super-volcanoes, runaway greenhouse effect, mutating pathogens, etc).
My comment was not supposed to be a 'red herring' as much as a 'change of topic' because I'm 'all talked out' on your topic(s).
Excellent article. Just what I wanted after watching the movie. I’m sorry I missed you at FreedomFest, I got pictures with lots of the people I wanted to but didn’t get the opportunity to get one with you.
I think they should have been harder on communists, actually. Right now someone like him who was right-wing would have been pushed out of academia and not given the opportunity to lead the project at all.
The implicit premise in the logic of dropping the atomic bomb was that Japan had to be forced to unconditionally surrender and the home islands occupied one way or another. I don't think we should accept that premise without argument. The Japanese had already at that point been stripped of all their colonies and their offensive military power reduced to the point where they were no longer a realistic threat to the Allied powers. Yes, there would have been risks to a negotiated peace that left the militarists in power in the home islands. But did those risks really justify the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?
The Japanese military wasn't a threat to _Western powers_ but they still occupied much of China and were killing thousands of Chinese - including civilians.
If the concern is with killing civilians then the problem wasn't atomic bombs. It was the entire air war over Japan (and Germany for that matter). Vastly more civilians died due to non-atomic bombs. Also, the battle plans for defending the main Islands and the battle of Okinawa showed that the line between civilian and combatant was blurred in Japanese society.
Finally, there's a saying "It's not a war crime the first time." meaning that nations usually do not declare certain actions immoral/illegal until it has been done. (OTOH: attacking civilian populations goes back to biblical days but nobody questioned the morality of it until recently). Although it is fun to apply ethics to historical decisions, it is extremely difficult/unfair to judge past decisions using the context and knowledge we have today.
I've not much to add. Michael pretty much covers whatever I would have said, had I thought this deeply. As a LANL scientist who has spent many years in the weapons side of the house, I appreciate the nuance Michael brings to the discussion.
Really good piece. However, I can't help but object to using the term "ethnic cleansing". I cringe every time I hear or see that term. It's a horrible euphemism for ethic annihilation. Why use a term that makes something appalling sound like a spring cleaning?
Back in college a prof overheard some of us debating the morality of atomic bombs and he interjected - The real debate should be over the morality of killing civilians, and not over what particular weapon is employed.
The atomic bomb is one of those moral issues that really does feel like a "both sides" issue, because nuclear weapons are truly horrifying. But if the Japanese fascists had just surrendered, none of this would have happened. Those samurai lunatics were bloodthirsty animals who brutally butchered millions.
If I seriously wanted to find out what the government knows, I would not bother asking them. I would assume they would lie and if asked too many times, the file would go in the shredder.
I would tap the phones of a suspected military base, overfly it with drones equiped with infrared cameras, bug the confessionals of churches in the area, flood off-base bars in the area with attractive young women trained in getting information from lonely young servicemen, and kidnap base personel and interogate then under truth drugs before dumping their bodies in ways that would look like they died in an accident.
THAT is how to find out classified information. Mere asking via Freedom Of Information Act is useless.
OOPS! this was intended for another article. Sorry about that.
The end result of the development of the A-bomb to end that minor and not very important war was the existence of an arsenal of such weapons aimed at the whole planet now by the American / Russian / Chinese / Israeli / Indian / Pakistani / Korean / British / French / Etc. / etc. ruling clique .
The predictable certainty of that result should have detered the whole project. The fools who went ahead with it will be remembered, if there is anyone left to do the remembering, as the most evil criminals who ever lived, far worse than their Japanese and German enemies in that relatively minor and unimportant war between rivcal empires.
Any nation posessing a nuclear arsenal is an enemy of the planet earth. By comparison, the petty disagreements between nation-states are of no importance.
The argument that a solar flare releases more energy than an a-bomb is a red herring. How much of the energy released by a solar flare reaches earth? Only a tiny fraction, and most of that would be stopped by the earth's magnetic field and atmosphere.
You misquote me. I did not say ''humans'' are the enemy of planet earth; I said ''Any nation posessing a nuclear arsenal is an enemy of the planet earth''. If the human species is or is not, what I said was aimed at the national governments that have nuclear arsenals, not at the human species in general.
That makes twice you used an argument that my high school debate teacher would have marked yoiu down for. First a ''red herring'' that has nothing to do with the subject, then a ''straw man'' misquoting what I said.
If the humans could be eliminated without messing things up for all the other species that live on this planet, that would be a good thing and I would be happy to push the button myself and get rid of them. Nearly all other species except their domesticates would be much better off if the humans were gone. But the sad fact is that a nuclear war would not only get rid of the humans, but also of most other mammals, at least, though cockroaches and crabgrass would probably survive since nothing seems to get rid of them.
There is nothing especially sacred about human life; it is expendable for cause. In every war in history some humans have been deemed expendable and have been expended. The same goes for every revolt against tyrany. Sailors who went on voyages of exploration into unknown seas knew that some of them would not come back. Pioneers pushing into uninhabited wilderness full of blodthirsty savages knew the risks. Humans are just one species among many, not anything special. I would be perfectly happy to sacrifice some humans for a worthy cause.
But the issue here is not how many Japanese civilians were killed or if that was needed vto end that particular war. The issue is the development of a weapon that has too much power for any government to be allowed to posess it. Developing such a weapon and placi9ng it in the hands of the American regime was unpardonable, even if it had njot been used.
Your points have merit - I recall back in undergrad days when I took a class wherein we discussed everything you said. So, please understand that I was neither arguing nor debating you. I was simply making the complimentary point that we humans exaggerate our destructive power and it is almost humorous how puny and impotent we are. We are not a threat to the Earth and we are not even that big of threat to life (in the context of a universe full of solar flares, supernovae, hypernovae, asteroids, GRBs, earthquakes, super-volcanoes, runaway greenhouse effect, mutating pathogens, etc).
My comment was not supposed to be a 'red herring' as much as a 'change of topic' because I'm 'all talked out' on your topic(s).
Excellent article. Just what I wanted after watching the movie. I’m sorry I missed you at FreedomFest, I got pictures with lots of the people I wanted to but didn’t get the opportunity to get one with you.
I think they should have been harder on communists, actually. Right now someone like him who was right-wing would have been pushed out of academia and not given the opportunity to lead the project at all.
The implicit premise in the logic of dropping the atomic bomb was that Japan had to be forced to unconditionally surrender and the home islands occupied one way or another. I don't think we should accept that premise without argument. The Japanese had already at that point been stripped of all their colonies and their offensive military power reduced to the point where they were no longer a realistic threat to the Allied powers. Yes, there would have been risks to a negotiated peace that left the militarists in power in the home islands. But did those risks really justify the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?
The Japanese military wasn't a threat to _Western powers_ but they still occupied much of China and were killing thousands of Chinese - including civilians.
If the concern is with killing civilians then the problem wasn't atomic bombs. It was the entire air war over Japan (and Germany for that matter). Vastly more civilians died due to non-atomic bombs. Also, the battle plans for defending the main Islands and the battle of Okinawa showed that the line between civilian and combatant was blurred in Japanese society.
Finally, there's a saying "It's not a war crime the first time." meaning that nations usually do not declare certain actions immoral/illegal until it has been done. (OTOH: attacking civilian populations goes back to biblical days but nobody questioned the morality of it until recently). Although it is fun to apply ethics to historical decisions, it is extremely difficult/unfair to judge past decisions using the context and knowledge we have today.
I've not much to add. Michael pretty much covers whatever I would have said, had I thought this deeply. As a LANL scientist who has spent many years in the weapons side of the house, I appreciate the nuance Michael brings to the discussion.
Wonderful article Michael.
The only part I take exception to is the statement that “[Christopher] Nolan has emerged as the most brilliant and creative filmmaker of our time.”
He has made some good films but I can think of dozens of directors who are better.
Really good piece. However, I can't help but object to using the term "ethnic cleansing". I cringe every time I hear or see that term. It's a horrible euphemism for ethic annihilation. Why use a term that makes something appalling sound like a spring cleaning?