Oppenheimer: a boilerplate morality play

After watching Oppenheimer, the only conclusion you can draw is that the US government is EVIL.

I would even venture that during World War II the US government was even worse than the Nazis.

The Nazis were evil of course, but their evilness was tempered by stupidity. Nuclear fission and its explosive possibilities were discovered by German physicists in the late 1930s. But since they were Jews, Hitler dismissed their findings as “Jewish science”.

Now, as Oppenheimer shows at length, the US government was deeply suspicious of its scientists as well — on ideological grounds. But the powers that be knew better than to send those brainy pinkos into exile or concentrations camps. Instead, officials decided to use them and hound them out once they had delivered the goods.

Going back and forth between wartime Los Alamos and the anti-communist witch hunts of the late 40s and 50s, the film is a study in government deviousness and ideological persecution. The US had no real need to drop the bomb: Germany had surrendered and the Japanese were on their knees.

The Manhattan Project had only helped a superpower assert its dominance and start a catastrophic arms race with the Soviets.

Once the scientists were squeezed dry, the US government didn’t leave them alone with their scarred consciences. It went after them. And it singled out Oppenheimer, the guilt-ridden head of the project, for sinister treatment.

Years after the end of the war — years during which Oppenheimer did nothing worse than publically oppose US nuclear policy — the government revoked his security clearance.

Now, I can hear some saying: that’s not exactly like locking him up or shooting him, as Hitler and Stalin had done with their “disloyal” scientists. Such a facile objection doesn’t take into account the deceit involved in the harassment of Oppenheimer.

The fact that it was a “denial, not a prosecution” — as asserted repeatedly through the movie — meant that the burden of proof was lowered, allowing free rein to his tormentors.

You get the idea: Oppenheimer is a watchable, if rather noisy, Hollywood homily about good guy v wicked Washington. Even the protagonist’s “complexities” (the infidelities, the self-doubt, etc.) are routine devices suggesting character depth.

To those interested in a mature take on the political and ethical dilemmas faced by pioneering nuclear scientists, instead of a run-of-the mill morality tale, I recommend Michael Frayn’s play Copenhagen and the film based on it.