Frick'em all'

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

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.

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

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?

Oppenheimer was dramatic, a dramatard you might say.

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

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.

it was extremely ethical because he did it for the US. if he was working for any other country it would be unethical and he should be put to death.

Where's my fricking crayons?

Very unethical, the fact that this happened to Japan gives precedent for it to happen to the homeland, the allies, the good guys. And I believe it will happen too, if the needle is pushed too far.

Just for how it is with war, I don’t think anyone is allowed to make a move and then not suffer from their enemies learning that move and using it against them. It seems to always happen that way, I see it as a matter of time.

It would have been a better thing to demonstrate the capability on barren land, and then set up something like the IAEA to regulate nuclear power and the possibility of nuclear weapons.

I guess it is ethical in that it is understandable. But then it will also be understandable when it blows up in everyone’s face, backfires etc and the inventors realize regret for what they made. Probably a new generation of weapon will be needed then to settle the score

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.

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

~80 years after their development nuclear bombs have saved millions, possibly billions more lives than they ever took. Unless we actually get a nuclear war scenario there’s nothing but positives towards its development

Extremely ethical to the point of being the most ethical action possible at the time.

Like Roosevelt’s philosophy; in order to have peace and prosperity you must have a very large fighting force ready to dissuade anyone with ill intent, “Speak softly and carry a big stick” and all that.

The presence of THIS big stick has saved humanity an unknown countless amount of times from itself since its inception, and everyone arguing that the potential destruction it can cause makes its existence unethical are r-slurred.

People here are arguing that there wasn’t a threat to humanity until the bomb was created and that neither Japan nor Germany were a big enough threat to develop something so dangerous to deal with but that’s just wrong. The japanese were fiercly loyal to a literal god-emperor who was telling them the entire planet should be subservient to them and were doing things like rounding up the women on islands, chaining their children to them, pushing them into caves and giving the mothers a grenade with the pen pulled on it to try not to drop.

They were willing to commit literally any atrocity and affront to ethics in order to gain control over enemy countries. If they won the war, the half of the world they divy up or win from Germany to control afterwards would be something so unimaginably cruel and violence filled that EVEN IF the world was consumed in atomic hellfire and we were turned into a tomb planet, that would STILL be a more ethical route with less suffering than giving 1940s Japan control of things.

Nothing is more unethical or genocidally threatening to humanity than a slant with ideas of world domination- nukes are basically savior angels delivering us from evil ownership and oppression.

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

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!

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.

Obviously unethical. There was no threat to the continuity of the human race from Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, etc. As a result of the bomb's development, there was. While Oppenheimer could not have perfectly predicted the MAD equilibrium, the development of nukes was obviously an extension of total war principles geared towards destroying civilian populations. He knew what it was being developed for, and he knew the consequences mass production would have. Just as likely as the MAD equilibrium, or even more so, was that nukes would have become an ordinary part of wars, and that more and more of the planet would become irradiated.

Anyone saying "b-b-b-but what if our enemies invented it first???" is being disingenuous. The Soviets developed the atomic bomb later on, as a response to the US's actions. The US creating, or even using, the weapon first did not mean that the US permanently "won" geopolitics. It, at most, gave them a few years' head start, followed by a multi-decade existential crisis that legitimately threatened the survival of the human species. The idea that this was "worth it" is moronic. I am not arguing that it is unethical to develop an atomic bomb in response to your enemies' atomic bomb; I'm arguing that it's unethical to develop an atomic bomb first. A moral, rational person capable of long-term thought would not develop such a weapon first.

Frankly, any tech argument that boils down to worrying about what someone else might do is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I always thought Roko's Basilisk was an extremely r-slurred scenario, but after listening to dramatards talk about how every single possible technology is inevitable, and therefore should not be resisted, I've become convinced that there exist millions of people who would r-slurredly construct the Basilisk out of fear that someone else might do it without them, effectively creating an evil God and ushering in infinite torment for the rest of humanity. Fortunately, the Basilisk scenario is incoherent for other reasons, but I think it perfectly illustrates just how stupid and self-defeating humanity is. Do not cross the human picket line and do not construct the Basilisk.