HOW OPPENHEIMER BRINGS UP AN IMPORTANT QUESTION ON THE POLITICS OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
A good movie does not only make you feel, it makes you think. The success of Christopher Nolan’s telling of Robert J Oppenheimer’s life has stirred a series of conversations surrounding nuclear weapons, the politics of sympathy for people involved in atrocity, and the nature of holding the apocalypse in your hands. Specifically, what does the ‘end’ mean?
The Atom Bomb
The nuclear bomb was created in an arms race that goes unnoticed: the arms race between the Allied forces and the Nazis. The Nazis had proposed the theoretical foundations that would confirm the science that created the atom bomb. Intelligence on the subject caused the American government to start its own nuclear program in the form of the Manhattan Project. The whole notion of this race can be summarised with the following question: would you rather have the Nazis get the atom bomb first? At the time, the world knew that it would be catastrophic if the Nazis were the first to wield the destructive force of the nuclear bomb. However, an important question emerges: what made the Allies feel like it would be in the world’s best interest for their team to wield such destructive power?
This sentiment is not limited to the discussion at hand, as it is an area that Oppenheimer contemplated himself. Oppenheimer gave a speech titled “Atomic weapons” at the Symposium on Atomic Energy and its Implications, following the use of bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He said, “The pattern of the use of atomic weapons was set at Hiroshima. They are weapons of aggression, of surprise, and of terror[…]. But it is a weapon for aggressors, and the elements of surprise and of terror are as intrinsic to it as are the fissionable nuclei.” The use of the weapons under this premise fundamentally undermines the initial justification for their use. And Oppenheimer was nervous, not just about what they would be used for, but how they would use these weapons to begin with.
Sympathy for the architects of destruction? Considering the Nolan film, Oppenheimer is treated as a sympathetic character as opposed to an architect of destruction. The possible merits of viewing Oppenheimer under either lens is immaterial because the fact remains that his legacy undoubtedly left mankind with some difficult issues. In the article “Ethics and nuclear future” in The World Today, political scientist Joseph S Nye sums up this legacy eloquently: “The destructive potential of nuclear weapons poses an unprecedented challenge to our physical and moral lives. A single missile could carry all the explosive power detonated in the Second World War.” The role of the context of Oppenheimer’s life at the time, as well as the threat of Nazi nuclear destruction raises an interesting question about another figure whose legacy is controversial. A figure one could even regard as the architect of the scourge of global terror (at least in the eyes of the public). Osama bin Laden is essentially the by-product of the Cold War, a war whose existence is contingent on Oppenheimer’s contributions to the atom bomb. Ronald Reagan’s funding of the resistance groups opposed to the Soviets during the invasion of Afghanistan created the grounds for the armed groups in the Middle East to emerge. This is further complicated by the legacy of European imperialism in the region. Al Qaeda’s founding ideologies are couched in this context.
Journalist and foreign policy analyst Jason Burke explains this in a Foreign Policy article titled “Al Qaeda”. Burke states, “Islamic militants’ main objective is not conquest, but to beat back what they perceive as an aggressive West that is supposedly trying to complete the project begun during the Crusades and colonial periods of denigrating, dividing, and humiliating Islam.” This ideology resonated with young men across the Middle East in the 1970s and 1980s, at the height of western-backed authoritarians. Burke explains further, “Islamists seek to weaken the United States and the West because they are both impediments to this end. During the 1990s, militants in countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria began turning their attention abroad as they grew frustrated by their failure to change the status quo at home. The militants felt that striking at the Arab regimes’ Western sponsors (the ‘far enemy’ as opposed to the ‘near enemy’) would be the means to improve local conditions.” This is the mindset that Bin Laden had when he orchestrated the attacks on the World Trade Centre, which led to a decade-long manhunt that ended in an assassination as a means of justice (the ethics of which is highly questionable, given that there was no fair trial before a tribunal like the International Criminal Court).
The negative legacy of this attack cannot be overstated, as political analyst Ganesan Annamalai indicates in an article called “The impact of Osama bin Laden’s death on global Jihad”, published in the journal Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses. Annamalai explains, “Media groups that have shown sympathy towards extremists such as Al-Fajr Media, Shumukh Islamic Network and Ansar Mujahideen Network also extended their condolences. Alongside proclamations of sorrow, extremists’ groups have also released statements of anger.” Furthermore, Annamalai states, “There were at least five grievous assaults conclusively associated [with] retaliatory attacks. These were the attacks on the 13th, 22nd, 25th, and 26th [of] May and 10[th of] June. A total of 166 people were killed in these attacks while 259 people were wounded. All of the targets were government, police or military sites.” Putting Bin Laden and Oppenheimer side by side makes one wonder whether showing sympathy for Oppenheimer was necessarily the best thing to do on Nolan’s part because it opens the door to show sympathy for individuals like Bin Laden.
The end of the world
One man contributed to a force that could destroy the planet, the other created a transnational ideology that seeks to put an end to this version of the planet. There is no way to come to a concrete answer to the question of whether either of them should be offered sympathy. However, the purpose of this discussion is not to point out double standards or justify the actions of either man. Rather, it is to offer an emerging analysis of the lens through which we look at atrocity and those who contribute to it.
Oh my this is awkward. Having to tell you who I am is a whole ordeal because I am still trying to figure that out myself lol. The most I know at this point is that, I am an unhinged hillbilly from a small town in Northern Kwa-Zulu Natal; My first love had “Petronella” as a middle name (gross right?); I will on occasion get dressed in a onesie, using my red blankie as a cape to live out my fantasy of being the caped crusader of justice: Captain Tanuki; Finally, I have an obsession with owls that should get its own section in the DSM-V. On that owl thing, I feel like in one of my many past lives as a shrew somewhere in the world, I met my end to one of those majestic birds and that specific bird reincarnated as my first love who, at the time of writing, has not killed me…yet! Talk about a circle of life, neh. My goals? Well right now, I have but one very simple goal: to be the best human I can possibly be. Achieving that would make a hillbilly like me, a better person and growth is always good. My time at the paper has made sure I stay on this path. Should a lost soul wanting to know about the paper, stumbles across this bio, I want you to know that I will totally be a radically different person in the best way possible. Who knows, I might have reincarnated as an owl, by then.