The first biography on my bookshelf. If every biography is as good as this one, I will start reading a lot more of them.
In telling the story of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Bird and Sherwin tell the
story of the atomic bomb, which I think is one of the most important
stories of humanity. 80 years ago, we did not have the ability to
instantly end humanity. We do now. In movies nowadays, it seems like the
default way to raise the stakes is to have the villain get their hands
on a nuclear weapon. This happens so often that I think many of us have
become desensitised to the perilous world we live in, where “statesmen
must decide against rash actions not just once, but every time.”
Mutually Assured Destruction is a perfectly good theory, but as
Oppenheimer Cillian Murphy said, “theory will only take you so
far” 😉. Speaking of which, Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer was
based on this book. I think the book and the movie compliment each other
very well, with the former placing events into historical context and
the latter telling the story with some creative embellishments and
Nolan’s signature non-linear chronology.
The premise of American Prometheus as stated by the authors is that “a person’s public behaviour… [is] guided by the private experiences of a lifetime.” This premise became the crux of Oppenheimer’s case in his security clearance hearing of 1954. This hearing is also the opening scene of Nolan’s Oppenheimer, with the first few lines of the movie being Oppenheimer’s opening statement in that hearing where he makes that same argument: “the items of so-called derogatory information in your indictment of me cannot be fairly understood except in the context of my life and work.”
I definitely agree that our own lived experiences play a big influence on our beliefs and therefore our actions. The question then becomes whether we can or should judge a man by his actions through the lens of our own experience. In the context of my personal life, I believe the answer is no because it is beneficial to keep an open mind about the opinions of others, even if (*especially if) they do not agree with your own. However, in the context of national security, the answer becomes less clear. When does criticism of a government’s policies become disloyalty to the country? Should we use the standards of the present day to judge a person’s actions in the past? Taken to one extreme, we should tear down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves. Taken to the other extreme, we can justify the actions of Adolf Hitler. The answer of course lies somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Unfortunately, Oppenheimer found himself on the wrong side of it, for his security clearance was denied, but not before serving his country dutifully and bestowing upon humanity weapons of mass destruction (hence the name American Prometheus).
My main takeaway is this: Do what you feel is right at the present moment. If you make an honest mistake, so be it. But if you deviate from what you believe in the present, you are making a preventable mistake. And preventable mistakes cause regret. And no one wants to live with regrets. In that light, do not let ends justify your means, for if the ends are not as anticipated, then you will regret the means. So stay true to yourself… but don’t overdo it and end up in a state of self-delusion. Maybe it’s a fine line to walk. But is anything in life ever easy?
Favourite line: "To try to be happy is to try to build a machine with no other specification than that it shall run noiselessly."
IRL Update (02/17/2024): This is by far the longest book on my bookshelf (so far). Even so, I was surprised that it took me a month to finish. I attribute this to two reasons: First, the book is very densely packed with information, which means a slower reading speed. Second, as I get settled into this work term, the weeks feel like they are passing by faster and faster.