Christopher Nolan never fails to drop the most challenging and morally convoluted stories every once in a while. With Oppenheimer set to premiere in less than a week, Nolan has addressed the burning question that arises every time there’s a conversation about nuclear weapons: Does he really think Oppenheimer’s ambiguous invention changed the world for the better, or would the world have been better off without humanity’s most lethal weapon?
78 years after the successful invention of the nuclear bomb, some view J. Robert Oppenheimer as a villain who laid a path for the extinction of humanity, while for some, he became an example of unwavering greatness and inspiration. But Nolan’s thoughts about the father of the atomic bomb aren’t as simple. Even though he believes Oppenheimer’s story is an important one to tell, he is still of the opinion that “the world would certainly be better off without the threat of nuclear weapons.”
In a recent interview with Hugo Travers on the HugoDécrypte YouTube channel, Christopher Nolan explained his thoughts on the question everyone wants to ask him: “If Oppenheimer had not created the nuclear bomb would the world be better off today?”
Nolan did not outright agree that the invention should not have happened, because he believes it was rather “inevitable.” However, he agrees that the “threat” of humanity’s most dangerous weapon is not an ideal state of affairs in the modern world.
Back in the time, as the film chronicles, the scientists considered the possibility of the bomb destroying all of humanity to be “near zero.” Defending Oppenheimer’s motives, Nolan establishes that “it’s very hard to tap into the way which those scientists saw the risk… their assessment of the risk is uniquely, peculiarly, statistically subjective.” Defending his own decision to portray Oppenheimer in a rather positive light, he continues:
“I had no interest in making a film about scientists who were too stupid to realize that if they built this thing [the nuclear bomb], terrible things would come of it. These were very very brilliant people who were well aware of the potential of what they were doing.”
Elaborating on why Oppenheimer and the scientists still chose to go forward with the experiment, Nolan discussed the way they viewed the discovery in their time. To them, “atomic energy was a simple fact of life,” which means they did not necessarily look too further into how it could become a threat in the coming future. Back then, “It was a discovery. And so there was no way to suppress it.” Nolan continued:
In that sense, the power of the atom whether for peaceful purposes in the creation of energy and so forth or positive uses of quantum theory and atomic physics or as a weapon of mass destruction. To them these things were inevitable.
Nolan made a rational case for why it is oversimplified and reductive to state that before scientists make progress, we must plan for how society will handle it. However, the truth is that until those things develop, it might be difficult to determine what has to be regulated. Taking the argument into the context of nuclear weapons, Nolan commented:
“I think a lot of scientific progress is like that. Until we see the potential, until it’s starting to be realized, it’s very difficult for the rest of society to legislate, to judge.”
So the threat of the nuclear bomb isn’t really Oppenheimer’s fault, even though it’s technically his invention. Once the potential of atomic energy was discovered, Nolan states “there was no way to keep it secret. They viewed it as information, as part of nature.”
Catch Oppenheimer in theaters soon on July 21.