Well, if Monk wanted to write a scientific biography of Oppenheimer, then that would have been incrementally of little importance. Well, a biography of the nonscientific life of Oppenheimer would have become a two subject “sweet” blend about the personal and about fission and fusion bombs. Incrementally, blended, or otherwise, Carter doesn’t present the biography as being agreeable enough nor gratifying enough.
As for the science, most of the physics done by Oppenheimer would be in a subcategory about the bombs except for three papers of the 30s: "The Stability of Stellar Neutron Cores: with Serber, "On Massive Neutron Cores" with Volkoff and having assistance given by Richard Tolman, and the important "On Continued Gravitational Attraction" with Snyder. Wheeler discovered the last paper in 1952 and, during a later lecture about the subject matter of that paper, someone uttered "black hole". Wheeler in the 60s tried to interest Oppenheimer in the subject. Oppenheimer had no interest. Oppenheimer's initial approach to physics had been late, haphazard, and based insufficiently on the mathematics of it. During his 1954 security hearing, Oppenheimer said, when confronted by a physics problem, one could "if it was technically sweet you go ahead and do it" - this was in reference to the Bomb.
In particular he was referring to the solution he and others had found that was put into force at the White Sands Proving Ground, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. The explosion at the Trinity site in the White Sands killed no one. The event at Trinity provoked relief for Oppenheimer. The blast at Hiroshima was initially a triumph then seen as a horrifying occurrence even before Nagasaki. Teller's obsession would produce the H-bomb and it was an object of terror for Oppenheimer since the H-bomb was tremendously more powerful in destructive capability than the reality of the dead, sick, and maimed of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As for the blend, Oppenheimer’s personal life after WWII was ruled by factors related to nuclear weapons. Among these factors was the destructiveness of what he had helped create that went beyond a two or three times more powerful blast like the WWII ammunition ship in Halifax that exploded and killed 4,000. He thought what was needed before the work got underway at Los Alamos was six scientists and dozens of technicians. He later regretted that the Germans did not receive a taste of the sweetness of nuclear destruction. Would it have been Frankfurt, Stuttgart, or Munich? Probably Berlin would have been spared, as was Tokyo. The Japanese were still in it and the war must finish. Perhaps it could end all wars, given the US monopoly of the Bomb. Then, too, it could be used to stop Stalin from seizing Western Europe. Maybe he could be forced out of Eastern Europe.
Oppenheimer thought that at Potsdam Truman would fully inform Stalin what the US possessed as per the atomic bomb. But Truman only said it was unusually destructive and in 1945, when Oppenheimer met Truman at the White House, Oppenheimer said that he (Oppenheimer) had blood on his hands. Truman wanted nuclear weapons for US interests and Oppenheimer wanted international control. Truman's reaction was to not want such a "cry-baby" in his office ever again. Truman felt the Soviets as nuclear scientists were inept and others felt the Soviets would not make a nuclear weapon until 1960 or 1965. In any event, both did not know that Fuchs and Hall at Los Alamos had told the Soviets plenty. There was worry among the spies for the Soviets that if only the US had the Bomb, political blackmail would ensue. Revealing the secrets of the Bomb would save the world.
The H-bomb, if used against the Soviets soon enough, and with our able defense would have ended a nascent Cold War. Millions would have died. But what defense was possible? A screwdriver, said Oppenheimer, the better to open crates and find the weapon. In 1949 some Americans knew the H-bomb had no civilian use and that as a military weapon it was mass murder, extermination without justification, unless hatred be your guide.
So what if the Soviets had the H-bomb, didn't we have enough "atomics"? Of course we had to have the H-bomb if it was technically "sweet" for the Soviets to have it. Even so, might the H-bomb ignite the atmosphere? Apparently not, since in 1948 we had 50 nuclear devices, 300 of them by 1950, by the end of the 50s we had 18,000, and at the end of five decades, we had 70,000. By 1953, Oppenheimer had revealed the secret of the Cold War - no one could "win" a nuclear war. Kahn, to come along years later, and others argued that a nuclear war was "winnable". Not all need die - that was a ridiculous exaggeration, only millions and millions. On the whole there were a great many of us so hundreds of millions dead was a happening they could live with so long as we "won".
Presumably our current nuclear stockpile is in the thousands. Does it exist to prevent the Chinese from being forceful in Walla Walla, Elko, Santa Fe, Minot, Fort Dodge, Murfreesboro, Valdosta, and Bangor? Oppenheimer's blend of personal and nuclear weapons was acceptable with the symbols of WWII and the dawn of a new unimaginable power at our disposal. But the Republicans wanted massive retaliation and Eisenhower no longer would support the "whole man" evaluation of acceptability for security risks. One action could ruin you. Under the terms of the Cold War hysteria, Oppenheimer had more than one objectionable action that he had undertaken in the 30s and later.
Kennan knew that we had a power over Nature out of all proportion to our moral strength. After his 1954 security hearing, Oppenheimer lived on but he disappeared. Even so, in 1960 in Tokyo he said he did not regret the technical success of the atomic bomb. He could still taste how sweet it had been. He and they had found a vast tree of knowledge that was not in Eden. They devoured all the equally vast number of sweet apples of that tree. Pynchon and Beckett have written passages about the consumption of a sweetness that is more than is needed or desirable. Has Monk, according to Carter, written a book that is needed or desirable?
Note: About the personal Oppenheimer, read Bird and Sherwin. About other subject matter pertaining to Oppenheimer read Bernstein, McMillan, and Cassidy. See the pictures in Goodchild.
No comments:
Post a Comment