A Story of Ego and Conscience

i. Loving one's Job more than ones Friends

I've just finished reading "Oppenheimer The Story of a Friendship" by Haakon Chevalier -written in 1965/1966.

The book is an account (using official transcripts) of what happened between two friends as a result of the conflict between Oppenheimer's earlier Communist sympathies and his need for security clearance after he became scientific leader of the US team that developed the Atomic
Bomb in WWII.

This account has many implications (some of which are almost independent of the accuracy of the account). The Rosenbergs (who were hung for transmitting atomic secrets to the Russians) are not mentioned -but it is indeed possible that they were victims of the security scare caused by Oppenheimer's attempts to get himself out of the tricky mess described in the book.

By chance, I've also recently read E.L. Doctorow's novel "Daniel" which is a fictional story woven around the two children of parents (the Issacsons in the book) electrocuted for giving atomic secrets to the Russians.

ii. Boss over Boss

For me, the most fascinating part of Chevalier's book comes at the end -and concerns the situation around the decision by the US government to actually use the atomic bomb against Japan

Oppenheimer got all the credit as scientific project leader -but the real power seems to have been with General Groves -who was responsible for securing the success of the project by looking after the admin and security issues, selecting the target and generally keeping the whole project on the rails and under the control of the US government.

iii. The Division between "Infrastructure" and "Content"

Grove's task is not so trivial as it may sound in a world conditioned to accept the separation of "content" from the infrastructure that creates it. Apart from all the practicalities of security, etc., two important events threatened to prevent the use of the atomic bomb against Japan.

1. The test explosion proved so powerful that many scientists working on the project became very concerned about the moral issues regarding the use of nuclear energy.

2. For most scientists working on the project, the main motivating factor was the fear that Germany (which was more advanced than America) would develop the weapon before the allies. When the collapse of Germany and the resultant search for German atomic scientists and material proved to be negative (somewhat like the results of the Iraq invasion) -many (foreign) scientists working on the bomb decided that the reason for the project had ended and that ways and means should be found to make sure that atomic energy was used exclusively for global humanitarian ends henceforth.

According to Chevalier's book, General Groves prevented the circulation of a petition supporting exclusively humanitarian use. Oppenheimer (possibly under pressure from the government -if he wished to remain scientific leader) opposed the humanitarian proposals and the "Manhattan project" continued until the (very) bitter end.

However, afterwards, even Oppenheimer -despite his loyal support of the US government against all (humanitarian) opposition -lost his security clearance to work on sensitive projects. Chevalier claims that, contrary to many of his colleagues -despite his early brilliance -Oppenheimer never made any great personal contribution to the advancement of (nuclear) science. No great theory, process or hypothesis bears his name.

iv. A Lost Chance that Never Was?

The implications of the scientists loosing control over the project, which could not even have been started without their collaboration, are quite serious for the (modern) world in general.

The "non-proliferation" issue is still a hot topic The Weapons of mass Destruction Commission published a declaration as recent as 30 April 2009.

"Hans Blix Growth of Nuclear Proliferation Tied to Bush Administration Policies. Former IAEA Director-General Hans Blix says that President Bush's nuclear policies are responsible for worldwide nuclear proliferation. In an interview in the German daily Die Welt, Blix said that "The U.S. has sent a signal of arrogance, a signal that the rest of the world should do what the U.S. demands but the U.S. is above it all and can do what they like." Blix stressed that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was not falling apart. "The death of NPT is highly exaggerated. Both the problems of Libya and Iraq have been solved. North Korea and Iran are countries open to negotiations," Blix said. "The real threat to the NPT comes from the failure of the large nuclear states to live up to their obligation under the treaty to disarm. There is an unease by the non-nuclear states that they are being cheated by the nuclear states."" -From VitalPrespective

Although this report does not seem to be widely known under the public -it is apparently supported by both the Swedish government and the UN.

Apart from a desire to test the bomb on a real (living) city (Kyoto was rejected by ex-Governor General of the Philippines and then Secretary for War, Stimson) as being too politically and culturally sensitive to use) -it seems that the US also wanted to end the war in Japan (even though it apparently ignored peace feelers from the Japanese) before the Russians were scheduled to join the war against Japan (in August). According to the book, the US did not want the Soviets to share in the glory (and spoils) of a Pacific victory -as they had in Europe.

So not only did the Japanese apparently pay the tremendous price of the result of the scientists loosing control over their own creation -the rest of the world also became involved in a Soviet-US cold-war arms race that dominated global politics until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent development (perhaps until the current financial crash) of a US lead, monopolar, consumerist paradise -based on consumer electronics and the Internet.

Currently (10 May 2009), the "War on Terror" is linked to fears of the Taliban seizing control in current US ally Pakistan -which (illegally?) has nuclear weapons. It is clearly fine for us and our friends to have them -but terrifying if our enemies do to us what we do to them.

v. The nuclear Internet?

The Internet may well prove to be the "atomic bomb" of the 21st century. Atomic energy can be used for peaceful means or for warfare -in this sense it could perhaps be considered "neutral" (although even peaceful means can be exploited to the irrevocable advantage of one group over another). Atomic energy (nuclear Power) can be shared with all (either peacefully or as weapon) -or it can be monopolised and controlled by a power-hungry (or paranoid) system to its own ends. In this sense, technology is not neutral -it offers power to those who can posses and control it and subjugation to those who do not.

Perhaps the Rosenbergs, even if guilty as charged, still deserve a Nobel Prize for peace for the way they liberated the world from a nuclear monopoly.

After WWII, Nazis who had claimed that they were just following orders were hung by the allied victors -because it was claimed that they each had an individual responsibility for their own actions. The post-war global consumerist democratic, classless, paradise (a modern form of the dictatorship of the Proletariat) that we are now supposed to be living in, claims it is based on "personal choice".

Perhaps those who are currently working on various projects to develop and promote the Internet -should think deeply and seriously about the implications of the story of Oppenheimer How success apparently destroyed him -and the way the consequences of the price that he (and many millions of others) paid have shaped the modern world in which we now live.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread and the road to Hell is indeed paved with good intentions. Good luck (and good conscience) to us all!

Trevor Batten
http://www.tebatt.net/