Recently, I spent two weeks outside the Beltway, in that portion of America that, strange as it may seem, is not captivated by the appropriations process and cannot instantly cite the precise size of the Republican majority in the House. Most of the time, these are opportunities to get away from work and thinking about nuclear weapons. Not so this time. Many of those I encountered, especially if they knew what my job is, wanted to talk about Oppenheimer.
After years of others’ eyes glazing over when I raised nuclear non-proliferation, this was certainly welcome, even if it meant my time off wasn’t really work-free. It seems I am not the only expert discussing the film, as the spike in interest in nuclear weapons has not gone unnoticed. For the most part, people seem to have enjoyed the movie — if “enjoyed” is a term that can be used when discussing nuclear weapons. Oppenheimer certainly has provoked renewed discussion of nuclear issues, if only in the context of a popular movie. In discussing the film, there seemed to be three questions on everyone’s mind:
1. Was Oppenheimer historically accurate?
Reasonably so. Of course, there were many details changed for dramatic or visual effect. Oppenheimer’s office, for example, at the Institute for Advanced Study did not actually have a view of the pond. The Los Alamos staff really did, however, watch the Trinity test through welders’ goggles. More importantly, the film did an excellent job of conveying the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons, even relatively small examples and the horrifying potential of these devices.
Interestingly, the film’s omissions of Indigenous people and others who would become “downwinders” due to their proximity to the Trinity test site was not a topic of discussion outside the Beltway, although inside, as well as in areas affected by nuclear testing, it has become a conversation that cannot be ignored.
One of the criticisms made of Oppenheimer has been that it accepted the view that U.S. decision makers believed that using atomic bombs would hasten the end of the war. There is no consensus among historians if this was the case or not, but the filmmakers made a defensible choice in showing that the military leadership believed in the moment that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks would end the war sooner.
2. Was Cillian Murphy good, or is it hype?
No, not just hype. To be sure, I am looking at the performance as a policy expert, not an actor. An actor, of course, would say he could have done it better. Cillian Murphy was as good as advertised, particularly in the way he developed the character of the man who would shape the Manhattan Project so that the audience could understand what drove him to success. I disagree with the decision to use external effects to depict the turmoil that led Oppenheimer to understand the actual destructive potential of his science. To my mind, it would have worked better to have a skilled actor convey this transition by himself and give Murphy a chance to earn his Oscar nomination.
3. That ending was pretty bleak. Does that mean we’re all doomed?
No. [Spoiler Alert] Oppenheimer ends with the titular character’s vision of a future in which the weapons he helped create cause a worldwide catastrophe, ending civilization as we know it. Although this was presented with an air of inevitability, quite obviously it has not yet occurred. The world made it through an arms race and Cold War and is currently facing a variety of crises without further use of nuclear weapons.
It can be argued that Christopher Nolan and his team ended their movie in such a way as to create the strongest dramatic effect and spur renewed discussion of the future of nuclear weapons, in which they succeeded. This only tells part of the story, albeit the key part from Oppenheimer’s perspective. The decision to end the film on the alarmist note reduces foreign policy and security decision making to the scientific model in which Oppenheimer thought, creating a sort of inexorability to the coming end of the world.
Limiting the narrative to that of the scientist limits hope. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation exists because there is hope for a peaceful future. Decades of efforts by diplomats, military leaders and arms control professionals have not only avoided nuclear war but led to the gradual dismantlement of more than 80% of all the nuclear weapons to have existed.
Of course, there is still much to do. While we should not credit the cinematic vision that we are all doomed, we should also avoid the illusory sense of security provided by nuclear weapons. More such weapons means more danger should they be used, therefore everyone is safer when the number of nuclear weapons is lower. As we continue to think about Oppenheimer and what it means today, we should not accept the baleful view of the future or reject Nolan’s vision because it has not yet come true. Rather, we should understand the vital roles arms control and non-proliferation can play in providing future leaders with effective tools for managing the dangers that emerged from Oppenheimer and his colleagues’ work.
