On Wednesday, the Columbia Climate School hosted an event at the Forum analyzing the legacy of Dr. Oppenheimer’s work and nuclear warfare and energy in the broader world.

This Wednesday, October 25, the Columbia Climate School organized a workshop focused on the ethical dilemmas surrounding atomic bombs and their modern implications. This event was hosted by Columbia’s School of the Arts, School of Professional Studies, and the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences and featured four experts from the university. 

The event was part of the Climate School’s Earth Networks Program, which aims to “bridge scientific and artistic approaches toward addressing the climate crisis.” Wednesday’s panel discussion was moderated by Professor Lynnette Widder of the School of Professional Studies and featured presentations covering the historical, current, and future of nuclear warfare as well as the role of nuclear power in combating climate change.

The program opened with a look into the extent of the atomic bomb’s potential as a weapon of mass destruction led by Professor Ivana Nicolic Hughes, Senior Lecturer in chemistry. They opened with a particularly poignant scene from Oppenheimer: Dr. Oppenheimer’s friend and Columbia professor Isidor Isaac Rabi expressing his disapproval of the Manhattan Project. “I don’t want 300 years of physics to culminate in the making of a bomb,” he said, before calling the bombs weapons of genocide. 

Although Rabi was vehemently opposed to nuclear warfare, there was still much he didn’t know about its consequences. Japanese residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered long term effects of radiation, and risks of cancer were greater for women and people exposed earlier in their lives. Outside of Japan, Pacific islands and other nations bore the effects of extensive testing. In parts of the Marshall Islands, residents were exposed to nearly 450 mg of exposure per year, far surpassing the acceptable threshold of 15 mg per year as determined by the United States government.

In addition to these effects, the third possible outcome is the most extreme: a nuclear winter in the event of a nuclear war. Since nuclear war would likely occur in big cities, it would produce widespread fires and release soot high into the stratosphere. The soot would “block incoming sunlight for years,” dropping temperatures and drastically altering food availability. In order to avoid this, the UN negotiated the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2017 to ban all nuclear weapons and offer humanitarian provisions such as environmental remediation and victim assistance in the event of a nuclear disaster.

But in order to truly understand the ethical dilemma behind the atomic bomb, it is important to consider the multi-faceted history of World War II. Following Hughes’ presentation, George Sansom Professor Emerita of History Carol Gluck presented the events in Hiroshima and Nagaski as “two half stories.” The Japanese half-story framed the bomb as beginning the “post-war mission for peace,” omitting the events beforehand. Americans spread the equally incomplete narrative that they “ended the war and saved lives,” omitting the numerous consequences that followed.

In considering this complicated legacy, Professor Gluck acknowledged that part of the ethical mismatch came from a “Promethean Gap” between the government, the military and scientists. This concept refers to a rift between knowledge and the comprehension of that knowledge, meaning that each party had incomplete information. While scientists had little influence on the specifics of how the bomb was dropped, politicians strove to navigate Soviet negotiations, and military members sought an aerial victory. These objectives did not always overlap, and no singular group had enough knowledge to fully understand the gravity of what they were about to do.

Traveling back into the twenty-first century, the third panelist, Heather E. Radke, viewed Oppenheimer’s bomb from the perspective of a modern storyteller. A contributing editor and reporter at Radiolab, Radke’s daily work involves reshaping what a persuasive narrative looks like. After their first viewing of Oppenheimer, they felt a disappointment shared by other viewers—they wanted the film to address the perspectives of those affected by the bomb. But including these perspectives wouldn’t have fit with the kinds of narratives that Hollywood considers appealing to viewers, said Radke.

Christopher Nolan envisioned his film as a biography, a striking retelling of the atomic bomb and the dilemmas unfolding in Oppenheimer’s psyche. Although this is a compelling way to tell a story, Radke claimed that this format “flattened reality” and left out the destructive aftereffects. In the real world, bad things happen and there is often “no resolution and no hero.” To have the most impact, Radke reiterated her belief that informative and entertaining films which depict nuclear weapons should also be staunchly against their use.

In considering the morality of nuclear power as a whole, it is also necessary to distinguish between nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. While the former has endless potential for destruction, the latter could be a revolutionary form of carbon-free energy. Professor Michael Gerrard, Faculty Director at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, gave the final presentation detailing nuclear power plants and energy policy. 

Currently in the United States, there are 54 operating plants, but most of these are reaching the end of their operating life due to natural degradation. Because the older plants are coming to the end of their term, it is important to look to cutting-edge technology such as microreactors in the following decades. As nuclear plants begin to retire, New York City’s consumption of fracked natural gas is increasing. 

This is a major problem; the earth is startlingly close to reaching the 1.5˚C warming point caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Warming past this point may lead to “tipping points” where extreme damage becomes irreversible. Nuclear energy is particularly necessary because other renewables like wind and solar are intermittent, meaning they are not continuously available (for example, solar energy is unavailable during the night time).

Following Gerrard’s presentation, the workshop broadened into an interactive panel discussion. An undergraduate student’s question illustrated the powerlessness felt by many audience members: what can we do? How do we spread awareness of nuclear destruction and climate change to people who are not receptive? Professor Gluck offered simple advice: “talk about it all the time.” Continuing to incorporate discussion into education, artwork, and other communication allows the ideas to take root and impact policy.

Image via author