Nuclear Threats in ‘Oppenheimer’ Are Still Here

The creation of nuclear weapons we see in the Oscar-nominated film isn't just an issue of the past. We're still working to avert a nuclear catastrophe.

by

As a physicist concerned about nuclear policy, I have been amazed by the success of a three-hour movie about scientists struggling with the creation and consequences of nuclear weapons. “Oppenheimer” is nominated for 13 Academy Awards and is expected to crown its success with a Best Picture win at the Oscars. The film’s story, however, is far from over: Nuclear weapons still threaten us all, and they are a major reason the Doomsday Clock was recently kept at 90 seconds to midnight.

The good news is we can join the efforts of scientists, activists and members of Congress working to avert eventual nuclear catastrophe.

Decades after the Cold War, the United States today still has more than 1,500 nuclear weapons ready to attack, and each weapon is many times more destructive than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, which killed more than 110,000 people. Even a fraction of our arsenal could cause the death of billions of people through nuclear winter and the resulting famine.

To nations around Russia and North Korea, which are threatened by nuclear saber-rattling and missile tests, these weapons are a real and present danger. The nuclear weapons build-up by these nations is profoundly misguided and is making their people less safe, not to mention chewing up money and resources. We should in no way look to them as examples to follow.

Yet, the U.S. is currently engaging in development, construction, and planned deployment of new nuclear weapons (such as a new nuclear bomb and new nuclear missiles). Although the White House has acknowledged the folly of pursuing greater numbers of or more dangerous weapons, a new nuclear arms race with China, Russia and other nations is underway.

Along with possibly unhinged leadership, nuclear disasters can be caused by human error, acts of terrorism, cyberattacks, software or hardware failures or some other misunderstanding or accident. Many close calls have occurred and research by the National Academies of Science has concluded that the risks of nuclear war “remain real and are becoming more complex as new technologies and new adversaries arise.”

Hoarding and developing nuclear weapons is a choice that puts us all at risk. We should, instead, live up to our legal obligation and ostensible commitment to work toward a world ultimately free from them.

Jan. 22 marked the third anniversary of the coming-into-force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, so far signed by 93 nations. Nuclear weapons and climate change share a significant element of environmental injustice: People who have nothing to do with nuclear weapons would be among the many victims in any nuclear war, and many have already died or suffered from nuclear weapons development and testing. Nonetheless, neither the United States nor any other nuclear armed nation has signed the treaty. (In fact, the U.S. government has discouraged other nations from signing on).

But that could change: Grassroots advocacy groups, concerned scientists and physicians, the 2023 U.S. Conference of Mayors and more than 150 local and national organizations have embraced the goals of the treaty, as described in House Resolution 77, currently co-sponsored by 42 U.S. Representatives. This resolution does not commit the United States to signing or ratifying the treaty; rather, it announces support for its goals and provisions and calls for reform of certain key aspects of U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

To all who watched and reflected on the disturbing story portrayed in “Oppenheimer,” consider asking your representative to co-sponsor House Resolution 77. Together, we can choose to join with the majority of nations and build a safer world, without nuclear weapons.

This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.