Disproportional Response

While learning about the creation of the Hydrogen bomb and the prosecution of Robert Oppenheimer it is easy to come to the conclusion that both situations were centered on Disproportional Responses. I found the debate over development of the Hydrogen bomb to be fascinating. It was interesting to see how scientists who had previously worked to create the atom bomb found the hydrogen bomb immoral. To some extent I agree with the army general who argued that all weapons in war were essentially immoral and that it was useless to debate the morality of every new weapon. In arguments against creating the Hydrogen bomb scientists advocated using tactical atom bombs instead of the enormously powerful Hydrogen bomb. If America had the means to destroy an enemy with many bombs as opposed to one hydrogen bomb would this really be any more moral? In the article it is even argued that a transition from conventional warfare to tactical atom bombs would be far more conceivable than anyone actually using the Hydrogen bomb. It is easy to see why the Hydrogen bomb is worrisome but it seems that the arguments against it were a way for a group of scientists to try to undo the damage they had done at Hiroshima. By the time the Hydrogen bomb was being discussed the world had already entered a nuclear age and there was little that could be done about it.

In a far worse example of a disproportional response were the actions of the United States government in prosecuting Robert Oppenheimer. Few things make me as upset when studying American history than Joseph McCarthy and the men who participated in the House Un-American activities. It still shocks me that this type of behavior was sanctioned by the United States government not so long ago. Oppenheimer may have had a political outlook far to the left of what many Americans in the cold war tolerated, but he had served the United States in a variety of roles and had even played a crucial part in building the atom bomb. Simply because Oppenheimer finally took a stand against the development of nuclear weaponry with the Hydrogen bomb doesn't mean he was a traitor. The author of this chapter explains Oppenheimer's idiot responses in a portion of his testimony to be a way for Oppenheimer to show authorities that he was showing he was willing to cooperate. While this is probably true I took his response as Oppenheimer's way of showing his complete disillusionment with the process. What rational defense can be made when the prosecution's case is so ridiculous and so unethical? Through the fear created by the Cold War many of America's leaders betrayed the principles they said they were fighting for in WW 2. Scientists overreached in their arguments against the Hydrogen bomb and the American government greatly overreached in responses to these scientists opinions. Both were Disproportional Responses.