Atomic Bomb Pioneer J. Robert Oppenheimer Cleared of 'Black Mark' After 68 Years (santafenewmexican.com) 133
The Biden administration on Friday reversed a 1954 decision by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to revoke the security clearance of Robert Oppenheimer, known as the "father of the atomic bomb" for his work on the Manhattan Project.
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in a written order that the since-dissolved AEC acted out of political motives when it revoked Oppenheimer's security clearance nearly 70 years ago. Oppenheimer died in 1967.
*
From the Santa Fe New Mexican:
Fifty-five years after the death of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Biden administration has annulled a decades-old decision that stripped weapons security clearance from the wartime head of the Los Alamos Laboratory and celebrated "father of the atomic bomb."
Oppenheimer was credited for his role in the Manhattan Project, a World War II research and development initiative that created the first nuclear weapons at what is now called Los Alamos National Laboratory. He later served as director of Los Alamos National Laboratory and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. But in 1954, after Oppenheimer had opposed development of the hydrogen bomb, the AEC revoked his security clearance through what government officials now call a "flawed process that violated the commission's own regulations."
The hearing took place against the backdrop of the "Red Scare" of the 1950s, and the review concluded that Oppenheimer's privileges were revoked not because of security concerns but due to "fundamental defects" in his character based on past ties with communism and associations with communists — which had had been previously cleared in 1947.
Following an investigation, the Energy Department determined the decision that ended Oppenheimer's national security career was aimed at discrediting him in public debates over U.S. weapons policy. The review detailed numerous procedural flaws, concluding, "the system failed ... [and] that a substantial injustice was done to a loyal American."
Oppenheimer was credited for his role in the Manhattan Project, a World War II research and development initiative that created the first nuclear weapons at what is now called Los Alamos National Laboratory. He later served as director of Los Alamos National Laboratory and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. But in 1954, after Oppenheimer had opposed development of the hydrogen bomb, the AEC revoked his security clearance through what government officials now call a "flawed process that violated the commission's own regulations."
The hearing took place against the backdrop of the "Red Scare" of the 1950s, and the review concluded that Oppenheimer's privileges were revoked not because of security concerns but due to "fundamental defects" in his character based on past ties with communism and associations with communists — which had had been previously cleared in 1947.
Following an investigation, the Energy Department determined the decision that ended Oppenheimer's national security career was aimed at discrediting him in public debates over U.S. weapons policy. The review detailed numerous procedural flaws, concluding, "the system failed ... [and] that a substantial injustice was done to a loyal American."
Fat lot of good (Score:2)
This is to distance/clear ourselves, not Oppie, of the black mark; Oppenheimer is dead and doesn't give a shit. I mean, even if he is in some afterlife getting news bulletins from Earth, he's still not going to give a shit.
Re: Fat lot of good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly I don't see how this process would change for anyone now working with a security clearance. The government issues the clearances, and the government can take them away based on any suspicion of risk. Momentum favors the government in this scenario. Time is on the government's side.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case the rules in place were ignored because it was inconvenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly I don't see how this process would change for anyone now working with a security clearance. The government issues the clearances, and the government can take them away based on any suspicion of risk. Momentum favors the government in this scenario. Time is on the government's side.
Edwin Teller had a bit of a feud with Oppenheimer, and his backstabbing was probably the biggest event in getting Oppenheimer to lose his credentials.
It ended up also causing others to shun Teller, after all, it was obvious that he was not trustable either. His testimony against Oppenheimer showed what might happen in a paranoid setting. https://gizmodo.com/the-heartb... [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
1. you obviously fell for the tactic which was to distract your attention.
2. however irrelevant (not you, the news, because distracting you was the whole point, not acknowledging anything) you're actually right. for the same reason no justice ever would want to hear about "animal rights". the sheer amount of debt is just unassumable.
Re: Fat lot of good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of living people in jail in the US for political reasons
I'm not sure about this. There certainly are a lot of people in American jails, many for less than "fair" reasons. No doubt about that. However, I doubt there are many in mail for political reasons. In the US, there are unofficial punishments handed out for political reasons (like the one we're talking about for Oppenheimer), but almost no one goes to jail. That's because the American system forces those in power to use other means of punishment in an attempt to maintain a facade of righteousness. In
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I think we need to make a clear distinction here between people who are in jail/prison for political reasons and people who are in jail/prison for specific crimes they committed for their own political reasons. Someone in jail for being a member of political party A is in jail for political reasons. Someone in jail for taking a loaded AR-15 into a public place and opening fire because they believed the leader of political party A wanted them to, on the other hand, is not in jail for political reasons. They
Re: (Score:3)
Assange comes to mind
It took years for them to find some kind of charge that wouldn't ensnare the papers also, and they've spent years bugging/hounding him and plotting his demise to make an example of him, legal or not.
And they've mostly succeeded, years in solitary and years being screwed with by government actors really does take it's toll.
The government has achieved it's goal, conveying the point to not mess with them, or you'll wish you were dead.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't to alter perception that the US government was definitely pursuing his ass, but it's equally ridiculous to try to claim the US government ruined that dude's life. He accomplished that himself well before the US could find a formal reason to extradite him.
Re: (Score:2)
He was never in solitary, he was in poltical asylum in an embassy. Was there anything to the rape charges? Sweden dropped the charges. He was facing extradition to the US for computer intrusion crimes related to the wikileaks drop in October that likely cost Hillary the election. His prosecution was retaliation for the wikileaks drop. Which probably came from the murdered Seth Rich.
Re: (Score:2)
He was never in solitary, he was in poltical asylum in an embassy.
I used their term. It's not the one I would have chosen, personally, but whatever.
Was there anything to the rape charges?
Uh, yes?
Sweden dropped the charges.
That happens when the statute of limitations is passed.
He was facing extradition to the US for computer intrusion crimes related to the wikileaks drop in October that likely cost Hillary the election.
Assange did not face extradition until after he fled to the UK, and then sought asylum with Argentina after the UK received an extradition request from Sweden for the rape charge.
His prosecution was retaliation for the wikileaks drop.
Not relevant to the rape charge.
Which probably came from the murdered Seth Rich.
Huh?
The wikileaks drop came from Chelsea Manning.
A dude can be a government transparency activist and a rapist.
Accusing one of the least corrupt countri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That happens when the statute of limitations is passed.
There were no charges, there was an 'preliminary investigation'. Which when sweden was dropping it later on was discovered that the US was heavily pressuring it to continue. The US rep saying to "not get cold feet now" about it. That the US influence emails ever saw the light of day was quite a surprise.
Along with a bunch of communications the crown prosecution service 'accidentally deleted' regarding it all when it all came up in court years later.
To call a "Preliminary investigation" charges seems the kin
Re: (Score:2)
There were no charges, there was an 'preliminary investigation'.
This is a meaningless distinction in the Swedish legal system.
A person cannot be fully charged until they are indicted in Swedish law.
What was levied against Assange is referred to as preliminary charges- i.e., he was arrested in absentia.
In Sweden, he cannot be formally charged and indicted until he is actually questioned.
Which when sweden was dropping it later on was discovered that the US was heavily pressuring it to continue. The US rep saying to "not get cold feet now" about it. That the US influence emails ever saw the light of day was quite a surprise.
That was the UK, actually, not the US.
Specifically, the Crown Prosecuting Service.
Those same emails also detail the reason for them wanting to drop it.
They felt that the level of ef
Re: (Score:2)
Assange spent years in solitary because he was evading a Swedish rape charge.
Assange said he'd turn himself in if Sweden could guarantee not to deport him to America for the utterly unrelated charges. And remember, Sweden has previously, knowingly deported people to American black sites before to be tortured.
We don't know what would have happened if Sweden had called his bluff (though you can of course have your suspicions), but don't paint the situation as black and white when it clearly isn't. Even if you
Re: (Score:2)
Assange said he'd turn himself in if Sweden could guarantee not to deport him to America for the utterly unrelated charges.
So?
Of course they wouldn't guarantee such a thing. Assange isn't a moron, and knows that Sweden, like the UK, has an extradition treaty with the US.
How fucking dim witted does one have to be to think that was a serious offer? He knew they could not legally make such an offer.
And remember, Sweden has previously, knowingly deported people to American black sites before to be tortured.
Assange is not in any way considered an enemy combatant.
His problem is entirely civil in nature.
Disappearing Assange would have every lawyer in the US on the government's ass in 0.07 seconds.
We don't know what would have happened if Sweden had called his bluff (though you can of course have your suspicions), but don't paint the situation as black and white when it clearly isn't.
It is.
It's very simple. No matter what y
Re: (Score:3)
Assange was fleeing a rape charge. Hero for fighting government opacity, or not. He's also a creep and a rapist. It happens, man.
We must remember that in matters of politics, those who hate the USA find it irrelevant that Assange is probably guilty of rape.
He is a hero to them, and as such, transcends the vagaries and mores of us mere mortals.
It is not dissimilar to the same people who would claim law and order and patriotism are supportive of their criminal master stealing TS SCI materials from a SCIF, and doing gawd knows what with them.
Politics and hate seems to trump morality some times.
Re: (Score:2)
an enemy combatant.
Uncritically using rhetoric from the US government to justify torture does not change the fact it was torture.
Sweden did this, remember:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The UK might also have a extradition agreement, but it also appears not to willingly send people off for torture without the judiciary being involved. I'd take my chances here, too. Either way, at a minimum Assange would likely face essentially permanent solitary confinement in the US, something that civilised people know
Re: (Score:2)
Uncritically using rhetoric from the US government to justify torture does not change the fact it was torture.
And trying to assume a value judgement due to my impartial use of terminology will lead you to make all kinds of wrong conclusions.
I absolutely agree that "enhanced interrogation" was torture. I wasn't aware that was something that was in contention, here.
That doesn't change the point that in no fucking way was Assange at risk of being blackbagged and tortured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They sure did.
Against enemy combatants. See how we've come full circle.
The UK might also have a extradition agreement, but it also appears not to willingly send people off for torture without the judiciary being involved. I'd take my chances here, too. Either way, at a minimum Assange would likely face essentially permanent solitary confinement in the US, something that civilised people know is torture, and something that the uncivilised love because they can pretend to themselves it's justice, when they really know what it is.
Now you've just invoked eye-rolling.
Perhaps I'm being overcritical becau
Re: (Score:2)
And trying to assume a value judgement due to my impartial use of terminology
You're not making impartial use of terminology. You're using a term which was made up specifically to excuse torture.
Against enemy combatants.
They named people as eligible for torture then tortured them. Stop using the invented term "enemy combatant" to obscure what happened. There was also no evidence they were involved in combat or were enemies of the US.
This is you parroting pro-torture American propaganda. Perhaps you should st
Re: (Score:2)
You're not making impartial use of terminology. You're using a term which was made up specifically to excuse torture.
Flatly untrue.
The "Torture Memos" (the executive authorization of said torture) applied specifically, and only, to Al Qaeda enemy combatants, who were defined as non-state paramilitaries employing military force against the US.
You may not like the term because of actions associated with it (and I can't hardly blame you) but the term is not rhetoric. It has a meaning.
They named people as eligible for torture then tortured them. Stop using the invented term "enemy combatant" to obscure what happened. There was also no evidence they were involved in combat or were enemies of the US.
There's no obscuring. Stop trying to use something that happened against a very specific set of (pretty fucking bad people) to act like the C
Re: (Score:2)
Assange comes to mind
It took years for them to find some kind of charge that wouldn't ensnare the papers also, and they've spent years bugging/hounding him and plotting his demise to make an example of him, legal or not.
And they've mostly succeeded, years in solitary and years being screwed with by government actors really does take it's toll.
The government has achieved it's goal, conveying the point to not mess with them, or you'll wish you were dead.
Which of course is merely showing what Assange is.
A coward.
If he was the hero his sycophants claim, he would have stood up for his principles, gone on trial, and exposed the horrific crimes, and helped to take down his archenemy. But Naaa, I'll just hide out from Sweden and the USA - that's what brave people do, amirite?
It was 100 percent his choice to claim asylum. And as the coward his was and is, he talks the talk, but won't walk the walk.
Re: Fat lot of good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it was faster than the Catholic Church apologizing to Galileo.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the side of the story I heard was that Galileo taught that the sun was behind the tides and taught that to his students without a shred of evidence.
He was warned several times and then incarcerated over it.
Turns out he was partially correct, but only partially AFAIK.
So. Wbhich side of the story is true? You can label me a conspiracy nut if you want but I have lost all faith in any type of reporting, be it news outlet or history book.
In my point of view, the idea that Luther in his only partially warra
Re: (Score:3)
Galileo also had evidence that the heliocentric model was wrong. It turns out that he was wrong about being wrong too, because the speed of light wasn't known yet - that was a couple hundred years in the future. But based on the evidence that he had obtained, with his own eyes looking through his own telescope at the moons of Jupiter, he knew that what he was teaching about the heavens was wrong.
The saga of Galileo and his adventures with the church is pretty much incomprehensible to us. Even if you were
Re: (Score:2)
It showed, that at the very least, Venus was a satellite of the Sun, not the Earth. The speed of light doesn't factor in.
He observed that Jupiter had bodies that orbited it. The speed of light doesn't factor in.
What kind of revisionist horseshit are you trying to peddle, here?
Re: (Score:2)
Copernicus's model - the one that Galileo was supporting - goes beyond "things orbit the sun". In hindsight, we understand that the heliocentric part was the most important part, but that was not obvious at the time. At the time, the problem was epicycles. The old models were reasonably accurate (in the sense of being able to predict things), but everyone knew that the epicycles were silly.
The apparent orbits of Jupiter's moons change depending on the distance from the Earth to Jupiter, which varies acco
Re: (Score:2)
Copernicus's model - the one that Galileo was supporting - goes beyond "things orbit the sun". In hindsight, we understand that the heliocentric part was the most important part, but that was not obvious at the time. At the time, the problem was epicycles. The old models were reasonably accurate (in the sense of being able to predict things), but everyone knew that the epicycles were silly.
How is that relevant? He was not summoned before the Inquisition because Copernican astrodynamics was wrong, as we know them today.
He was summoned before the Inquisition because teach heliocentrism was specifically declared heretical by papal bull.
The apparent orbits of Jupiter's moons change depending on the distance from the Earth to Jupiter, which varies according to the relationship between Earth's position in orbit and Jupiter's position in orbit. Until the speed of light was understood, the quasi-annual early-ness and late-ness of Jupiter's moons was a vexing problem. Galileo himself saw those moons, and understood the implications. It was epicycles all over again.
But the fact that they orbit Jupiter does not.
Again, he was not summoned before the Inquisition for not understanding Jupiter's satellite orbital dynamics. He was summoned before the Inquisition for using them to demonstrate that geocentrism was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be up to your neck in the simplified (and false) version that I mentioned earlier.
For example, you seem to believe that "heliocentrism was specifically declared heretical by papal bull", but that bull does not exist. You are perhaps thinking of a decree made by the Congregation of the Index - a deliberative body that is both explicitly and implicitly not infallible - after Galileo's first trial.
And the decree wasn't that heliocentrism was heretical, but that teaching heliocentrism as truth was.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be up to your neck in the simplified (and false) version that I mentioned earlier.
Indeed. Only we disagree on your description of that "version".
I am of the opinion that you are spewing some revisionist horseshit and calling it fact, while alleging a conspiracy to change those facts to slander the Church or some shit.
For example, you seem to believe that "heliocentrism was specifically declared heretical by papal bull", but that bull does not exist. You are perhaps thinking of a decree made by the Congregation of the Index - a deliberative body that is both explicitly and implicitly not infallible - after Galileo's first trial.
OK- that's fair. The Papal Bull came in 1667.
Prior to that, it was merely the opinion of the Paul V, and the Qualifiers that, the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the center of the universe is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it expl
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, you missed it. "Teaching" wasn't the important word there, it was "truth". Read that quote from Bellarmine again, and try to understand what he was saying. Galileo was free to teach that heliocentrism was correct, but not that it was true.
And if you don't understand the difference between correct and true, in this context, I'll just repeat that you are not tall enough for this ride.
Re: (Score:2)
You're attempting to find syntactic meaning in English translations to change the meaning of what actually happened.
There was no distinction between correct and true. You are using a technical distinction between words that weren't even in use to change the meaning of what happened.
It's not clever.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Re: (Score:3)
But the pope is infallible! Except either Pope Formosus or Pope Stephen VI. The latter had the former dug up and put on trial and convicted him, then had him buried again, then dug up again and thrown in the river. So, logically, one or the other of them must have been fallible. Surely none of the others could have been though?
Re: (Score:2)
well, they don't give a shit about oppenheimer either, so this is most likely just to distance public opinion from something else. it's thematically perfectly suited for the "for decency / the greater good" angle but that's surely just coincidence, that's standard topping for every government bullshit, which is what any government "emits" 100% of the time. anything they do for real, good or bad, usually bad, they do discretely.
Just ... don't (Score:2)
Don't try to rehabilitate deceased people after condemning them during their life. Whether Galileo, Turing or now Oppenheimer. That doesn't do jack shit for them, it only serves as a feel-good token for yourself. Essentially, you're adding insult to injury because you expect to be forgiven for being a totally fucked up asshole in the past.
Own your blunders and crimes. At least have the guts to accept that you fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
So essentially what you're saying is, never apologize.
I'll have to remember this when I plow over some kid in the street. "Oh well, I screwed up. Do better next time."
Re: (Score:2)
So essentially what you're saying is, never apologize.
No, they're saying never apologize to a dead person. And I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Exactly. Never apologize. Never admit you made a mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Exactly. Never apologize. Never admit you made a mistake.
Apologizing has two purposes: 1) acknowledging your mistake and taking steps to learn from said mistake and improve your own decision making and 2) making yourself feel better which works directly against purpose 1. When you apologize to a dead person you are doing the second but not the first. That's their point. Only the first purpose has any value. So only when that purpose is in play should apologizing be done.
People have apologized to me about situations that are now over where nothing can be don
Re: (Score:2)
There is a 3rd reason which is to help the other person realize you acknowledge wronging them which might, if you're able to come across as genuine, be helpful to them. I mean, in some cases it may aggravate the wound .. but in cases where it doesn't it may be helpful to the other person to know that you are sorry, especially if the apology includes some sort of remuneration or penance.
Re: (Score:3)
Apologizing to a dead person -- especially a long-dead one -- does nothing. Publicly admitting the error is slightly better. Publicly admitting the error and explaining what you changed to prevent similar errors from happening again is much better.
It is a guide to our future generations (Score:1)
Future generations very well may not listen. But us being honest late does matter - not to those who did the wrong, or were wronged (all dead), but to set the record straight for those who come later and might still believe Galileo, Oppenheimer, or whomever was in the wrong.
It doesn't matter much, but it matters some!
Re: (Score:2)
So you mean that (s)he should apologize in case (s)he plowed over some kid in the street without killing him/her (or at least not yet), but that it's all OK if the kid is already dead?
If the kid is already dead, then yes, there's no point in apologizing to the kid. You might want to apologize to the parents though...
Re: (Score:2)
So essentially what you're saying is, never apologize.
...for what somebody did to someone else before you were born.
Give up on the inherited guilt. It is conceited.
Re: (Score:2)
So essentially what you're saying is, never apologize.
...for what somebody did to someone else before you were born.
Give up on the inherited guilt. It is conceited.
What guilt? I have no guilt. The only conceit I see around here are people such as yourself saying never to apologize for any mistake made. Go on with your life as if nothing happend. Never admit you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The only conceit I see around here are people such as yourself saying never to apologize for any mistake made. Go on with your life as if nothing happend. Never admit you're wrong.
You are the only one making this claim.
You are putting words in others mouths and attacking them. This is the classic "Straw Man".
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot apologize to a dead person. An apology means jack shit if the person is no longer able to accept your request for forgiveness.
Because they also can't tell you to stick it.
Essentially, all you do is forgive yourself. And, as already stated, that means jack.
Re: (Score:2)
br
Re:Just ... don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Own your blunders and crimes. At least have the guts to accept that you fucked up.
Is that not what this is? "The government shouldn't have done that, and we're reversing the decision because it was wrong."
Re: (Score:2)
An apology without penance is empty.
Re: (Score:2)
And *THAT*'s why the angry responses to this PR move. It's a pure PR move, with no consequence.
OTOH, it's difficult to see what effective apology they could make. The witch-hunt has largely moved on to hunt a different category of witches. And (many of them) don't really realize what they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily -- an apology given before the same people where the offense was made is still a form of concession, because you give them something they can use on you later: they can say why should we trust you on Y when you admitted you fucked up on X.
Agree that the witchhunt has moved on -- depressingly, from nuclear physics to whether you can say that humans born with penises are not women.
Re: (Score:2)
Some kind of stipend for his next of kin would have been appropriate, but this still strikes me as better than nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even.
Owing up to it would be a comprehensive plan to ensure these types of arbitrary decision don't happen anymore, or are at least reviewed sooner than nearly a century after the fact.
But we already know these things do go on and will continue to go on, so any admittance of wrongdoing rings hollow.
Re: (Score:2)
Owing up to it would be a comprehensive plan to ensure these types of arbitrary decision don't happen anymore
The thing is, you're asking for a comprehensive plan to address a specific problem that occurred 70 years ago. Or to put it another way, you want policy addressed for something that happened 13 presidents ago done by an agency that hasn't existed for 40 years.
There's effectively nothing at all left to link what happened to the current time. Addressing something so detached from today is what would seem hollow. And while you may think this action right now is hollow as well because you're not at all party to
Re: (Score:2)
Riiight!
So when Brennan lost his security clearance for opposing Trump, that is not an in kind problem.
When Warner and Collins introduce the Integrity in Security Clearance Determinations Act to curb these types of abuses; that wouldn't have been a more meaningful (and Biden certainly could have voiced strong support for) action.
Nope, not an ongoing problem at all.
Dumbass.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
you expect to be forgiven for being a totally fucked up asshole in the past.
The Oppenheimer decision was in 1954. Biden was born in 1942. That 8 year asshole should NEVER be forgiven for fucking up Oppenheimer. What a dickhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I didn't realize! I completely misunderstood the story. Certainly whoever gave power to an 8 year old to decide ought to be severely reprimanded!
Re: Just ... don't (Score:3)
That would be for the descendents to decide, not you. Getting the family name cleared is powerful for some people.
Re:Just ... don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't try to rehabilitate deceased people after condemning them during their life.
Oppenheimer wasn't wrong. He isn't being rehabilitated. He's being exonerated.
Essentially, you're adding insult to injury because you expect to be forgiven for being a totally fucked up asshole in the past.
Doing so isn't about feeling good, it's about correcting the historical record and calling out the propaganda and the unacknowledged personal and political agendas at play.
Own your blunders and crimes. At least have the guts to accept that you fucked up.
Biden didn't have anything to do with the slandering and humiliation of Robert Oppenheimer.
Biden was 12 years old when the AEC revoked Oppenheimer's security clearance.
If you're looking for someone to blame, try AEC commissioner Lewis Strauss, William Liscum Borden, and Edward Teller.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It restores credence to his expertise and the part of life he spent opposing nuclear weapons because of their risks to the existence of all humans. See the books published after his death but containing his earlier writings like Uncommon Sense, and the essays from the 1950s collected in Atom and Void.
He understood how to make a bomb and how to organize a large number of scientists to help make the bomb. His understanding of the impact of nuclear weapons on the world on the other hand, I would argue isn't very impressive. Without nuclear weapons, WWIII would have happened in 1962. We might be on WWV at this point without them.
The impact of nuclear weapons on geopolitics is just incredible. And the Ukrainian war is one of the best examples of that you could ever find. Ask yourself, if nuclear weapo
Re: (Score:2)
After WW2, Europe was determined not to have another war. It worked, and now Europe is mostly united in the EU.
So I'm not so sure that without atomic weapons there would have been another world war. There were other measures that could have been taken, and the conventional bombing campaigns were a pretty big deterrent. The development of long range missiles with conventional warheads would have lead to a standoff anyway.
You are right about atomic weapons becoming inevitable though. Their use on civilians wa
A particularly bad case (Score:2)
A particularly bad case of office politics, nothing more.
Why? (Score:3)
Oppenheimer had misgivings about nuclear weapons. Fine. Forget about the communism and other stuff. If I'm putting together a project and selecting staff, I don't want people who question it's morality or other justifications for being done. Never mind the possibility of sabotage (consciously or otherwise). I don't want to have to deal with people that might have emotional problems with what they are doing and perhaps a nervous breakdown on the job. I'm doing you a favor by not hiring you.
If you really have problems with our work, you are more than welcome to write editorials about your opinion. Or even paint a sign and march on the sidewalk in front of our headquarters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Forget about the communism and other stuff. If I'm putting together a project and selecting staff, I don't want people who question it's morality or other justifications for being done.
The Holocaust happened because there were people who think like that, and there were enough people who obeyed without question.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It was called the "banality of evil". They caught the guy who designed the gas chambers, and he turned out to be an engineer who viewed it as just another job.
Re: (Score:3)
And he was right.
Doesn't matter. In fact, by remaining on a project you object to, you undermine your own credibility. Want to object? Fine. There's the door.
Re: (Score:2)
However, what they did was not show him the door.
It was a lot worse than that.
The President was told, "more probably than not J. Robert Oppenheimer is an agent of the Soviet Union". And the President ordered the government to proceed as if he were, as far as it could do without pressing charges, which would have required evidence.
Edward Teller said this of him,
In a great number of cases, I have seen Dr. Oppenheimer act - I understand that Dr. Oppenheimer acted - in a way which was for me was exceedingly hard to understand. I thoroughly disagreed with him in numerous issues and his actions frankly appeared to me confused and complicated. To this extent I feel that I would like to see the vital interests of this country in hands which I understand better, and therefore trust more. In this very limited sense I would like to express a feeling that I would feel personally more secure if public matters would rest in other hands.
And I can understand that sentiment, and due to that sentiment, I completely understand wanting to see the mat
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it's better to stay and try to influence the project, especially if you leaving will have little effect.
Because it was a secret project he couldn't publicly complain about it.
Thanks so much (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't care. His descendants however may be happy to know he was exonerated.
Your tax $ @work (Score:1)
Now do living people (Score:3)
Damn PotUS Biden is senile (Score:2)
Why does his administration think anyone is going to give a shit about Oppenheimer, while actively blocking release of documents related to the JFK assassination??? (BTW, a criminal act, since its subverting a law requiring declassification and release of such documents!)
"If I was around back then, I would have..." (Score:2)
Re:was Oppenheimer gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Was Oppenheimer gay? Or transgender? Or black? Why would Biden care about Oppenheimer? And why would a dead person want a security clearance?
Your comment is a sad example of what Slashdot commentary has become.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
When you see one don't reply unless they're getting modded up. They do have sock puppet accounts so they will occasionally get modded up by themselves. If that happens then yes go ahead and cut them down a peg but give the mods a little bit of time to mod them down.
Your +5 comment means that their ideas are still visible. For all intents and purpos
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the slash community these are likely paid professional trolls.
Professional trolls aren't in it for the long haul. This is a user account that has been here for 2 decades. Some people are just every bit as worthless as they look. No need to find excuses for it.
Re: (Score:1)
People with different values are "as worthless as they look". Noted.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to further their point.
Re: (Score:1)
well, biden just started a war (with a little help of some friends). does that count?
Re: (Score:2)
well, biden just started a war (with a little help of some friends). does that count?
Which war? The U.S. is not at war with anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Which war? The U.S. is not at war with anyone.
Pick one. The US has had a war of ideology with both Russia and China for the last 80 years. In that time the US has conducted more military operations than in the entire history of its founding up to that point. Cold Wars, Proxy wars, War on Terrorism, War on Drugs; you name it, the Us has probably declared war on it.
Simpleton Biden has not exactly gotten us in war yet, but sure seems to be trying too. His actions have prolonged the conflict in Ukraine. He also seems to be damn determined to get us
Re: was Oppenheimer gay? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The US has had a war of ideology with both Russia and China for the last 80 years.
What the fuck is a war of ideology?
War on Terrorism, War on Drugs; you name it,
Boeing v. Airbus, Coke v. Pepsi, GMC v. Toyota. The US is totally at war. It's total war.
Us has probably declared war on it.
Last time the US declared war was June 4th 1942.
Simpleton Biden has not exactly gotten us in war yet,
You betcha, got us OUT of Afghanistan and without that country being destroyed by WAR in the process.
His actions have prolonged the conflict in Ukraine.
His actions helped ensure Ukraine wins and Ruzzia loses thus significantly decreasing the chance of wider war and risk of nuclear exchange.
He also seems to be damn determined to get us in to a shooting war with China.
Obviously, everything is a war to you.
Re: (Score:1)
Ummmm...the US is in a proxy war with Russia right now. Have you not seen the news? Why else would the media not be lambasting him 24/7 for refusing to try and work out a peaceful resolution between Russia and Ukraine?
Oh...now I remember why...
Re: was Oppenheimer gay? (Score:2)
There was a peaceful resolution, the trick would be getting people to stick to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Ummmm...the US is in a proxy war with Russia right now. Have you not seen the news? Why else would the media not be lambasting him 24/7 for refusing to try and work out a peaceful resolution between Russia and Ukraine?
Oh...now I remember why...
A proxy war is not a war. You can stop the semantics.
Further, why would the U.S try to work out a peaceful resolution between Ukraine and Russia when everything is Russia's fault? Russia is the one invading Ukraine and Russia is the one who has violated the Budapest Memorandum which said all parties would respect Ukrainian sovereignty and not do anything to violate it in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.
All Russia has to do is remove all their troops from all of Ukrainian soil, pay reparat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so you are the creep that every few days adds me as a foe, to watch my activity for a few days i presume, then apparently gets bored by my everyday nonsense and removes me as a foe again. nice to finally meet you!
for one i'm very happy to be a source of entertainment for anyone. enjoy! otoh, i'm really sorry that your life is so sad as to having to cater for such entertainment. it is really creepy. anyway, wishing you all the best and hope you get better.
about this post in particular ... well ... (cough) .
Re: (Score:1)
The more of you Russian-paid trolls I read, the more I lean toward an aggressive response to Russia. Poland should take Konigsberg back as the inheritor of East Prussia. Finland should take all of Karelia back as well. Fund the caucus armies to drive out Russia, fund the caucus groups to drive out Russia, fund the Siberian locals movement to drive out Russia. Dismantle the imperial vestige of Russia and its successors until it has nothing with which to fight. At all costs.
That is very bad idea. I think that it is what Russia is trying to provoke us to do. To drag others into their misery.
Re: (Score:1)
You sound exactly like my ultra right father in the mid-eighties. You'd have made a staunch republican back then with this rhetoric.
Re: (Score:3)
Turing was, look what they did to him.