Frick'em all'

I'm sure if he didn't do it some other fricked up technology would've left everyone on edge after world war 2

EXTREMELY ethical: If Oppenheimer didn't do this, it would be evil

I dont understand the question. What would be evil? Nuclear bombs?

I love my nukes Don't take them away. I can't wait till I can exterminate the white nazi race by nuking the western world off the face of they/them parent earth.

Glory to russia!

They're not that hard to make, even r-slur Koreans figured it out. Having the first ones come out of the US was better than most alternatives.

The only unethical thing that the Yankees did was let the reds steal the knowledge.

McCarthy was right and on the side of world peace

MOST Ethical because it ushered in an era of absolute NATO dominance through precision weaponry

Very unethical. He should have actively sabotaged the effort or helped Germany make nukes.

Oppenheimer was dramatic, a dramatard you might say.

Unethical (extremely) but absolutely necessary. If he had been unwilling, he should have been forced to do so.

haven't nuclear weapons ushered in like the most peaceful part of modern human history? like i know it COULD go wrong someday and millions of people could die but that doesn't mean that it will, and millions already did die in WW1 & 2 (allegedly) without nuclear weapons. I think it's pretty dumb to argue if its ethical or not because obviously there is no answer but sure happy he was American and not someone else who made it.

chaotic-ethical: If Oppenheimer didn't lead the project, the atomic bomb probably would have been developed on a similar or slightly delayed timeline anyway, but if he didn't then somebody else who might not have used this clout to warn people about it's apocalyptic potential on TV may have headed the project. The correct moral stance was to do it for clout, and use the clout ethically later when people wanted you on their TV shows.

I wrote a paper in my ethics course in college about nuclear weapon developments. It was interesting to read that during the building of bomb, a lot of scientists were ok with it, but became increasingly uneasy as the war neared the end. Some felt that a Japanese diplomatic mission should be given a demonstration of the bombs before any possibility of dropping them on the Japanese mainland. Once the bomb was dropped many found themselves immensely guilty. I don’t fault them.

I don’t think their development was unethical. The goal was to beat Germany to the punch in developing them and then it came to be about limiting Allied casualties after Germany had been defeated (and had the US finished them before May 1945, I’m sure they would have been used on Germany to limit Allied casualties there). Ignoring the radiation element (which they didn’t understand), is it really unethical to build a weapon to try and limit deaths on your side?

The quote needs context. gita is all about this ethical problem of waging war, duty, personal sense of right and wrong. It says (in my limited understanding)you must do your duty in the social order you find yourself in (even if it is fighting your own kin), fulfill your obligations to your community and leave he rest to god. But with one man suddenly being able to weild such power that probably didnt seem like such a good idea anymore

yes of course it was ethically, if every country had nukes like north korea then US imperialism could finally be stopped, every country in the world should get nuclear weapons to achieve global peace

It's because "ethics" are just applied morals. No you narcissistic BIPOC, your moral beliefs aren't universal truths. Ontology enjoyers :marseyplato: think that there can only be a single, perfect, universal system on which everyone is judged, just like how there's a single perfect turtle that every other turtle is instantiated from by the great TurtleFactory() in the sky, because they're so self-centered they can't imagine how different circumstances or personalities or even genetics could lead to different moral beliefs.

Ban all rationalists.

My dad killed himself over this, except he just made normal bombs for the government, couldn't stop schizing out about how he was responsible for over 40,000 dead, even if it's not the weapon makers fault, it's the weapons wielders fault for its use or misuse.

sometimes I wish I'd of been old enough to try and convince him that oppenheimer was kind of a cuck, but I wasn't good with words back then and pretty much just said they'd of found someone else to make the bombs anyways

Where's my fricking crayons?

Ethical - Nukes on Japan create sexy femboy sharks with their radiation

You don't know what will happen in the future - whether the device you created will be used to end life on earth or to usher in a new golden age.

Very ethical. Developing technology is on average a benefit towards humanity, it also will happen regardless of your actions. Your personal involvement only effects when a technology is invented, not if it is invented, so any arguments concerning existential threats and infinite evil don't really apply.

I hate him just for the grammar in "i am become death". You're American, speak like an American.

Same tier of queers who use "x and y do not a z make" yoda-speak

Where’s the option for the asiancels who think 2 nukes wasn’t enough for genociding them

Extremely ethical. At no point an I obligated to elevate the lives of your citizens over mine own when you surprise attack my country. The estimates of a mainland invasion on Japan was 1,000,000 Americans casualties. It would be even NOT to drop the bomb. There you go buddy. My contribution.

Nuclear weapons are the guaranteer of peace, Iran, north korea and whatever other states must build theirs asap to protect their sovereignty and prevent (((preemptive strikes))) use Iraq as your warning.

Nukes would be developed either way. By refusing to participate he could at best have delayed it a little bit, and increased the chance that someone else got there first.

Technological progress is inevitable. With all the horrific consequences of that. The only alternative would be the total destruction of civilization as a whole (shout out to my boy Ted), which would cause even more suffering. Almost nobody alive hates civilization enough to think that's a good tradeoff.

Oppenheimer, can you build a nuclear bomb capable of killing millions of people?

Sure

NOOO why did you use the nuclear bomb I made? I'm going to pretend to feel bad now

That being said, he still did nothing wrong except being a moralstrag about it. Japanese aren't people

It's not unethical anymore than an ancient woodworker carving a spear with the threat of a neighbouring tribe in mind would have been

Nuclear bombs created peace between super powers that the world has never seen before.

Still a good chance someone eventually goes mad king and kills all of us but we would probably do it anyway without them.

Q.E.D. the temporary benefit is worth it as the ending consequences are inevitable.

its unethical that he didnt use it on israel

If it wasn't him it'd be someone else.

Adm. Rickover, the father of the nuclear Navy, expressed some regret later in life.

Rickover deserves his own effectpost, he would personally interview every officer for nuke school and would go out on every new nuclear submarine. He would make candidates stand in a closet for hours if they answered a question wrong during the interview and if they gave him pitted grapes on a sub he'd spit them out on the floor.

He's worth a Google if you've got time to kill and his first name is Hyman.

The ability of fission exists whether we harness it or not. It is only expected that you attempt to be equal in arms to your potential enemies

IDIOT. It is ethical. Oppenheimer had no idea how the weapon was going to be used - he created it, and left it to the hands of the military to decide how to use it. He didn't kill anyone.

Why do you give us the reasoning for each answer along with each answer? Do you not understand the concept of people coming to the same conclusion in different ways?

I'm neutral , but it is funny how he went all emo after dunking on the japs. Like what did he think was going to happen

I'ma go with ethical on this one.

I'll leave out the ethics of using the bomb entirely because that's a whole different quagmire. Oppenheimer absolutely 100% knew what they were going to use the bomb for. I agree with the meme image that he shouldn't have signed up for the task if he had an ethical problem with it, and he shouldn't pretend he was surprised by the outcome.

However, if he hadn't participated someone else would have. The atom bomb was inevitable. Thus, his participation was ethically neutral, aside from being an annoying cute twink about it afterwards.

If Oppenheimer hadn't done this, the U.S. might have lost World War 2. So whether it was good or bad depends entirely on whether you think the Axis Powers or Allied Powers should have won. Personally, I'm glad the Allied Powers won so I think what Oppenheimer did was good. He was a bit of a neurodivergent r-slur though for somehow failing to foresee that the giant bomb he built might be used to bomb people. Who could ever have seen that coming?!?

"How could this happen?!?"

-J Robert Oppenheimer