I was reading “A Mater of metaphor” and I stumbled upon this on Page 37

“Winner quotes Oppenheimer’s reply when the latter was asked to comment on whether his qualms about the hydrogen bomb had increased as it became more feasible to build the bomb.”

“Oppenheimer’s feeling was that development was a good and sweet thing to do. He draws a clean line between development and use. Using the bomb was somebody else’s business, not his. The development of technology is one enterprise, and its use is a separate enterprise that takes place in another world altogether.”

I understand what Oppenheimer means. But I just don’t think that it’s feasible for him to just blow it off the way he does. Why else would you build a bomb? I understand building something for technologies sake but once again, why a bomb? Its not like the development of the bomb was going to help educate children all over the world. Our cars are not going to need gasoline because of the bomb. The bomb was not going to eradicate poverty. The bomb was not going to cure cancer.

A bomb is going to blow something up.

In this case, I really feel in a way that Oppenheimer is responsible for the damage caused by the bomb in some extent. It’s a bomb. Obviously someone is going to use it to blow somebody else up. What did he think was going to happen? Certain outcomes should outweigh other outcomes in terms of the decision making process. We all have to make hard decisions. It’s about being an adult. Should I go to class today? If I didn’t I might miss something important and fail the next test. I better go to class. Should I build a bomb? If I build it, it might fall into the wrong hands. It might be used to hurt someone. To me, its easy, a no brainer some might say.

-n