 |
| Source: Amazon.com |
“Now I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds.” This phrase, as given in Peter Goodchild’s biography of the physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, is a quote from a Hindu holy book . The phrase is attributed to Oppenheimer’s reaction of the detonation of the Trinity device, the world’s first atomic bomb. This event, which was the culmination of Dr. Oppenheimer’s work at the newly created Los Alamos nuclear facility, changed our world forever.
The book by Peter Goodchild describes this event, as well as the life of Oppenheimer before and afterward. We see a thorough description of the physicist as a boy, and his wealthy upbringing and aloofness. Oppenheimer was bright but cold, and the author notes that he developed the ability to cut people verbally when he perceived something they had said was false or lacking in intelligence.
Oppenheimer also became involved in the cause of the Communist Party of the United States in his younger life, which would lead him to great trouble in later years. Some of this exposure came from his association with friends who were sympathetic to the Communist cause. Oppenheimer admitted that he contributed to funds that supported Communist backed causes around the world, such as various Labor Parties and other organizations with Communist ties. He had an affair with a woman who was a confessed Communist as well. There was much reason to suspect Oppenheimer as having been a Communist spy working on behalf of the Russians, as several of his acquaintances and some of the men who worked with him at Los Alamos were part of the espionage arm of the Soviet intelligence service.
The book describes the building process of the Atomic Bomb in fair detail, which was a section I particularly enjoyed reading. The complexity of the process of bringing the first atomic device into being was astounding. The information the author provides about the competitive race in Germany is also invaluable. It seems the Germans did have a significant program underway, and so did the British and even the Soviets - though they were to gain greatly from secrets they obtained from the Rosenburgs (a pair of spies who sold the Soviets the secrets they needed to finally accomplish their own atomic bomb in 1949). However, Hitler put emphasis on projects that were for the war, and the bomb was seen for some reason as a post-war initiative, if I understood correctly. It seems he didn't really comprehend what he had, even though some of the project continued.
It is also amazing to me to think that people had to think up the highly complex process of extracting the materials needed to make a fission bomb. The process of refining Uranium and Plutonium, which were both competing goals in the race by the Atomic Weapons scientists, was complex and had to be attempted from a variety of directions. The ways in which the weapon would function was also a process of heavy research. The way in which the gun method and the implosion method were both decided upon was fascinating, if a bit technical for a layman. For myself, who has had previous exposure to the concepts of nuclear arms design,. it was not difficult to follow. The material is not too heavy in technical jargon, however, and could be followed by someone who approached the subject with patience.
The meat of the book comes in the post-war period, in which Oppenheimer begins as an advocate of nuclear technology but with a desire to develop adequate control methods to keep a proliferation and arms race of which the US and the Soviets would shortly enter into from happening. He seems to have a case of the “two minds on the subject” paradigm. Oppenheimer was both significantly awed and excited about the power of atomic weapons, but also uneasy with the potential ramifications that their further development could cause. This leads to the bulk of the last half of the book, in which the author covers the trial that Oppenheimer underwent in the early 1950s due to his alleged ties with the Soviet Union due to his former links with the Communist Party.
It is clear that Goodchild takes the argument that Oppenheimer was not guilty of disloyalty to the extent that the United States government accused him of, but the way in which he presents it is quite balanced, in my opinion. The author presents enough data in his account to leave the reader skeptical as to whether Oppenheimer might have actually been guilty. I can only assume that this is because there is enough evidence to suggest the possibility that he was both innocent and guilty. The author does make the point that the trial that Oppenheimer underwent was tainted, in that the thrust of some of the damning evidence is pointed toward Oppenheimer's opinion that the Hydrogen Bomb - the Fusion development of the atomic bomb that is quite a bit more powerful than the first atomic bombs - should not be pursued by the U.S. The court damns Oppenheimer based on this opinion, and the author points out (rightly, to my way of thinking) that a man should not be charged with disloyalty simply because he does not feel a program should be pursued and other scientific minds are receptive to his opinion and agree with him.
At the same time, Oppenheimer’s decision not to back the H-Bomb can be seen, especially in light of the times, as a way of putting the U.S. behind the curve. In fact, I was not aware that the Soviet Union had in fact tested their first H-Bomb before we did. And another startling fact that came from reading this book was that the H-Bomb project in the U.S. might have not proceeded when it did, except that a spy who was part of the Los Alamos team, a man named Fuchs, was caught red-handed by the British as he was selling secrets of nuclear weapons technology to the Russians. When this was discovered, the U.S. was forced to proceed with the H-Bomb, in order that they should not fall behind the Soviet Union. It was this event that led to Oppenheimer's problems with his stated opinion as to not developing the H-bomb, since Fuchs had been a colleague (though not a close one) of his at Los Alamos.
Eventually Oppenheimer was cleared of any serious charges, but he was a victim of the Red Scare and McCarthyism that was rampant (especially among the intelligentsia) in the early 50s. J. Edgar Hoover was even personally monitoring Oppenheimer and calling some of the shots on how his surveillance should be conducted. The renowned physicist was unable to reclaim his security clearance to work with the government for most of his later life, and by the time he was “redeemed” by the Kennedy administration, his position was compromised too thoroughly for it to do any good. There were even attempts by those who didn’t like him (Oppenheimer’s brilliance and his disdainful attitude made him a few enemies in his life) two attempted to get him barred from further academic employment as well as government work. And some of his associates who stood up for him got it even worse than he did. One was forced to work in menial labor for the rest of his life, after being black-balled.
There are also interesting insights in the book about Oppenheimer’s wife, who was said to be a very cold and mean-spirited woman (the word used I’ll not repeat here, but there was a telling quote by one of the sources about her that put it succinctly), and a little bit of the story of Dr. Edward Teller, the Physicist who was responsible in large degree for the H-Bomb’s development, and his rocky personal and professional relationship with Dr. Oppenheimer.
All in all, this was a thorough and very interesting biographical sketch of one of the most interesting scientific minds in U.S. history. I can’t recall much about the book that I didn’t like. I’d recommend it for those who are interested in learning more on the subject. A good read on the early Cold War period.
Learn more about J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds at Amazon.com
A parting comment:
 |
| Source: LOL snaps.com |
Looks like 1990s Batman hit on hard times and had to sell the Batmobile. After "Batman and Robin," I'm not surprised. Of course, George Clooney didn't really convince me as either Bruce Wayne or the Dark Knight. Speaking of the "Dark Knight," anybody else of the opinion that Anne Hathaway is not a convincing Catwoman? The best Catwoman was, in order of coolness: Julie Newmar, Michelle Phieffer, Halle Berry (not as in 2004's "Catwoman," which unquestionably sucked, but as Halle Berry, who is pretty cool otherwise - heck, she showed up in person to receive her worst actress performance award for that movie that was given out by the Golden Razzies... how much cooler can you get than that?), and then... Lee Meriweather and then Erma Kitt I suppose. Meriweather was too severe, and I don't even remember Kitt.
Interesting. I liked this review.
ReplyDelete