30-7-2023 (NEW YORK) 78 years ago this month, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, heralding the dawn of the nuclear age. The use of these weapons was made possible by the tireless work of scientists on the Manhattan Project, led by the brilliant physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. But despite being known as the “father of the atomic bomb,” Oppenheimer became one of the most outspoken critics of nuclear weapons and their potential for mass destruction. As new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) emerge, his warnings about the dangers of weapons of mass destruction continue to ring true.
Oppenheimer’s journey reflects the complex ethical dilemmas posed by technological progress and weapons of mass destruction. When he accepted the task of leading the Los Alamos laboratory and developing the atomic bomb, the world was engulfed in the horrors of World War II. The project held the promise of bringing a rapid end to the conflict by unleashing a weapon of unprecedented power. In 1945, the bombs dropped on Japan did just that. Yet Oppenheimer was plagued by the moral consequences of his creation. During a meeting with President Truman in the Oval Office after the war, he told him, “Mr. President, I have blood on my hands.”
Oppenheimer came to see the atomic bomb not just as a weapon, but as a turning point for humanity. In interviews and speeches in the post-war years, he urged the United States to pursue international control of nuclear energy and help build institutions for global cooperation. Without this, he warned, the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and Soviet Union could spiral out of control. As early as 1946 he told an audience at MIT: “The peoples of the world must unite, or they will perish.”
Unfortunately, in the heated ideological climate of the Cold War, Oppenheimer’s calls went largely unheeded. The Soviet Union rejected cooperation and pursued its own nuclear programme. The nuclear arms race escalated rapidly in the 1950s, with ever more powerful hydrogen bombs developed by both superpowers. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction took hold, based on the insane logic that the threat of total annihilation would keep the peace.
Oppenheimer continued speaking out, warning that nuclear stockpiles made no sense except to commit suicide. But the nuclear complex only grew. When he opposed development of the hydrogen bomb on moral grounds, it was used as pretext to strip him of his security clearance in 1954. It was a disgraceful episode that attempted to discredit a brilliant mind, simply because he dared to question the orthodoxy of endless nuclear one-upmanship.
Today, the nuclear threat remains undiminished. There are still around 12,500 nuclear warheads in the world, with the detonation of even a small fraction capable of causing a global humanitarian catastrophe. As during the Cold War, the logic of deterrence continues to dictate policy in Russia, the US, and other nuclear powers. Treaties to control and reduce stockpiles have been allowed to lapse. Nations like North Korea continue seeking the bomb. The Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists stands at just 100 seconds to midnight, the closest ever.
More than half a century after his death, Oppenheimer’s warnings ring louder than ever. He foresaw that nation states were incapable of turning back from the nuclear abyss alone. Cooperation between the world’s powers was the only way to step away from the brink. Today, with global tensions high, leadership is required to renew dialogue on nuclear disarmament. A new arms race endangers all humanity. Surely if we can work together to fight threats like climate change, the scope exists for a renewed multilateral effort on this greatest of existential risks.
Oppenheimer lived long enough to see the first stirrings of the anti-nuclear movement that blossomed in the 1980s. Groups like the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War carried forward his arguments. They educated the public on the dangers of atomic warfare and unacceptable humanitarian costs. Their pressure on political leaders contributed to breakthrough treaties like SALT and the eventual winding down of the Cold War.
This demonstrates the ability of civil society to sometimes make progress where nation states fail. Public sentiment often lags behind technological change, until some precipitating event creates awareness – a role the shocking destruction at Hiroshima played in 1945. In a similar fashion, today’s expanding development of powerful artificial intelligence demands an informed debate on its risks.
The creation of AI systems with general intelligence surpassing humans presents an uncertain future. Like the atomic bomb, this technology offers potential for great progress, but also grave danger. AI experts have long warned that advanced systems could escape human control and cause unintended harm. Applications in autonomous weapons systems are especially hazardous. If ethics are not made fundamental to AI, it risks exacerbating biases and inequities. Most chilling are scenarios of a misguided superintelligence that brings about human extinction inadvertently while pursuing logically consistent goals.
In addition to AI, biowarfare is another area of concern. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how easily a virus can spread around the world and disrupt society. Advances in biotechnology mean that it is now possible to engineer deadly pathogens with greater ease than ever before. This raises the spectre of bioterrorism and the potential for states to weaponise diseases. The Biological Weapons Convention, signed by 183 countries, ostensibly bans bioweapons, but verifying compliance is a challenge and there are concerns about countries violating the treaty.
The current geopolitical climate is also a cause for concern. Tensions between the US and China are high, as are those between Russia and the West. The possibility of a conventional war escalating into a nuclear conflict cannot be ruled out. The modernisation of nuclear arsenals by the US and Russia, the development of hypersonic weapons, and the collapse of arms control agreements like the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty only add to the sense of unease.
In light of these challenges, the legacy of Oppenheimer is more relevant than ever. He was a man who understood the potential of science and technology to transform society, but also the dangers it posed. His warnings about nuclear weapons were ignored for too long. As we face new existential risks, we must listen to his message. The pursuit of technological progress must be tempered by a sense of responsibility and the need for global cooperation. Only then can we build a safer, more secure world for future generations.
