Robert Oppenheimer: The Ethos

of the Scientist in a Nuclear

America
By: Jessica Gloe

Introduction and Literature Review

Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb and director of the Manhattan
project in Los Alamos, New Mexico, has been described as a modern Prometheus. Hes
portrayed as the moral conscience of the Manhattan project, the scientist who shows remorse
for every scientist involved in the creation of the atomic bomb.1 In November 1945, nearly 3
months after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Oppenheimer delivered a speech to his
fellow scientists in Los Alamos. This speech was his farewell speech to his colleagues as he
prepared to leave following his own ethical dilemmas over the work he had done.2
Oppenheimer is portrayed in contradictory ways through the numerous biographies and
criticisms he appears in. His language in this speech reflects this antithetical life. While he
speaks about the value of science and how the creation of the atomic bomb was an organic
necessity, he also spent much of his life trying to halt use of the atomic bomb in the political
sphere, fearing its awesome destructive powers. The speech in question is rife with content for
rhetorical analysis which could potentially lead to a better understanding of Oppenheimers dual
perspective of the atomic bomb - both as an unavoidable necessity and as a true evil. In turn, this
could lead to a better understanding of how society as a whole interprets scientific progression. I
1 James Buchan, "Review: American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J Sherwin," The Guardian, February
01, 2008.
2 Robert J. Oppenheimer, "J. Robert Oppenheimer's Speech to the Association of Los Alamos Scientists on
the Value of Science and the Development of the Atomic Bomb," International Relations and Security
Network. Speech, November 2, 1945.

believe this speech is worthy of attention due to a number of factors. Robert Oppenheimer is
significant in his field, and work by him, especially in the time frame that his most significant
work was being conducted, is deserving of attention. Its interesting that some of his work has
reached rhetoricians, yet this specific speech goes unexamined.3 4 Rhetoric is important to
analyze in the case of Robert Oppenheimer. He doesnt use language one would think is typical
of a scientist as it isnt as straightforward or objective as scientists are often stereotyped to be.
His rhetoric adds to the ethos of scientists at the time as he humanizes and adds the moral
dilemmas faced by scientists. Rather than showing scientists as purely logical, he adds a
dimension of humanity, both in his own life, and as shown in this speech. He speaks his opinion
about the dangers of the atomic bomb, but shows characteristics of a man conflicted between
pride in his science and guilt over how his creation was used for destruction.
When searching the literature for analysis of Oppenheimers rhetoric and speech, there is
relatively little. Perhaps this is due to the genre of the rhetoric of science focusing on other fields
such as molecular biology or environmental issues, as shown through the genre defining
Halloran article on Watson and Cricks A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid which in
turn focused the attention of many other rhetoricians to this article as well. The fact that this
speech to the association hasnt been analyzed yet draws attention.
In 1965, J. Robert Oppenheimer appeared on camera to speak about being witness to the
detonation of the first atomic bomb. He appears a gaunt man, and doesnt look at the camera as
he utters that upon seeing the test bomb, a quote from the Hindu scripture, the Bhadavad-Gita,

3 Bryan C Taylor, "The Politics of the Nuclear Text: Reading Robert Oppenheimer's Letters and
Recollections," Quarterly Journal of Speech 78, no. 4 (1992): 429-49, doi:10.1080/00335639209384009.
4 Rachel L. Holloway, 1993, In the matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: politics, rhetoric, and self-defense,
Westport, Conn: Praeger.

came to mind: I am become death, the shatterer of worlds.5 In his paper, The Gita of J. Robert
Oppenheimer, James Hijiya describes Oppenheimers reiteration of the Hindu scripture as one
of the most cited, least interpreted quotes from the atomic age.6 Hijiya analyzes this phrase and
draws to attention how this ubiquitous quote has not been widely interpreted by scholars.
However, he analyzes this, as do others in a theological sense, tying it to the Hindu scripture. Its
interesting to note how this one remark has been analyzed more extensively than Oppenheimers
lengthy speech that attempts to convey the same message about the moral complications of
atomic warfare and science. Even then, this hasnt been analyzed by rhetoricians, but by
theologians and historians.
The rhetorical analyses that do exist about Oppenheimer examine not only
Oppenheimers own speech, but how he himself is a textual object that offers insight to
American nuclear culture.7 Additionally, he is referred to as one of the fabulously textual
means through which culture can symbolize and interpret the Bomb.8 This is an interesting, yet
common take on Oppenheimer, as these two texts were published over 20 years apart, therefore
showing how views of Oppenheimer are maintained and not changed much. If Oppenheimer
does serve as a text to analyze American culture in historical context, he could also be a valuable
text to analyze themes that continue to today, such as the relationship between science and
politics.

5 Plenilune Pictures, J. Robert Oppenheimer: I am become death, the destroyer of

worlds, Youtube video, 00:53, Posted [August 2011], https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=lb13ynu3Iac.
6 James A. Hijiya, "The Gita of J. Robert Oppenheimer." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
144, no. 2 (June 2000): 123-67.
7 Lindsey Michael Banco, The Meanings of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Iowa City: U of Iowa, 2016, Print; 19
8 Bryan C Taylor, "The Politics of the Nuclear Text: Reading Robert Oppenheimer's Letters and
Recollections."

Oppenheimer is an important figure in the realm of theoretical physics and is well known
as the director of the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos, but is often seen as a representation of
the insufferable burden of the nuclear age who was plagued by his role in the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.9 However, there is a significant disconnect between the version of
Oppenheimer that told President Harry Truman Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands
and the Oppenheimer that told New York Times Magazine I never regretted, and do not regret
now, having done my part of the job.10 It has also been stated that on the day that bomb was
detonated at the Trinity test site, instead of the quote from the Bhadavad-Gita, Oppenheimer
simply stated it worked, and the reference to the Hindu scripture doesnt show up until many
years later11. Bryan C. Taylor describes Oppenheimer as a figure or sign of the nuclear age that
has lived on past his death as a cultural symbol to understand and interpret the bomb.12 As this
symbol of the atomic bomb, many interpret him in an assortment of ways, some of which are
antithetical and contradictory. Depending on the agenda of the person using Oppenheimer as a
symbol for the atomic age, he can be shown as either supporting or denouncing atomic weapons
and warfare. 13 This analysis of one of Oppenheimers speeches will look to provide an answer to
why he is interpreted in such contradictory ways. What is it that Oppenheimer does and say that
allows room for such interpretation?
This speech has gone unanalyzed for too long. Due to the context of this speech, the
significance of the speaker, and what he is attempting to portray, one cannot help but question
why the rhetoric of it hasnt been analyzed before. Oppenheimers speech is a plea to his
9 Buchan, "Review: American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J Sherwin."
10 Jason Pontin, Oppenheimers Ghost, Technology Review, October 15, 2007,
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/408835/oppenheimers-ghost/
11 Ibid.
12 Taylor, Bryan C, "The Politics of the Nuclear Text: Reading Robert Oppenheimer's Letters and
Recollections," Quarterly Journal of Speech 78, no. 4 (1992): 429-49, doi:10.1080/00335639209384009.
13 Ibid.

coworkers, and the larger community of scientists to maintain the fraternity of science as he
attempts to justify his actions and condemn the use of the atomic bomb while still assuring his
audience of the progression and value of science. This speech offers a glimpse into the ethos of
the scientist at the time. The portrayal of how science is influenced by policy has many ties to the
present in a world still armed with nuclear weapons and rapidly progressing technology and
science. Scientists today are likely to still grapple with ethical and moral debates such as those
that Oppenheimer faced. The relationship between science and politics is one that continues
today, raising questions about what the role of science is in policy and vice versa. Oppenheimer
lays out a conflict between these two worlds as they are different and separate, yet he calls for
cross over between the two.

Analysis
Oppenheimers speech at times seems jumbled due to its contradictory nature. At the beginning
of his address to the scientists at Los Alamos, he acknowledges that he could not talk, and will
not tonight talk, too much about the practical political problems.14 He does stick to this claim
about not discussing the politics of the matter for part of the speech, but eventually returns to
discussing just that. In paragraph 17, he acknowledges proposals for the regulation of atomic
energy on an international level. He introduces his own four points for these proposals to help
them move in the right direction. It seems inconsistent to denounce speaking about practical
politics to then move on to discussing political proposals and actions to take in order to increase
the efficacy of these proposals. This is only one example of him discussing policy. He also states
that there was a period immediately after the first use of the bomb when it seemed most natural
14 Robert J. Oppenheimer, "J. Robert Oppenheimer's Speech to the Association of Los Alamos Scientists on
the Value of Science and the Development of the Atomic Bomb," International Relations and Security
Network, Speech, November 2, 1945. Further references to this speech will be made in parenthesis in the body
of the essay.

that a clear statement of policy, and the initial steps on implementing it, should have been made
(24). This could be a callout for politicians failing to act, but as he is calling on scientists to
participate in policy making, it could also be a reasoning as to why scientists need to be
providing input. This is only added to by his reminder at the end of the speech that we are not
only scientists; we are men, too meaning that men are bound to each other and have moral
dependences upon each other (28). He also makes an analogy between the current politics and
those of the American Civil War. His analogy compares how Lincoln treated the war not as an
issue about slavery, but rather an issue of the community of people in the country with how he
hopes the political action about atomic energy regulation. He admits that its not a particularly
good analogy, yet hopes that it isnt due to the fact that Lincoln failed and a civil war ensued.
At the beginning of the speech, Oppenheimer works to establish credibility and connect
with his immediate audience of scientists. His language in the first paragraph appeals to the
audience and lays the foundations for the fraternity of scientists he speaks about later. He
accomplishes this through a use of pronouns, using we and us to join himself to the others.
This language continues throughout the speech, as he constantly aligns himself with his scientific
community. Additionally, he affirms his professional qualifications as director at Los Alamos and
as a technical advisor to the Secretary of War. Oppenheimer works to establish his credibility,
adding another layer to his contradictory image. If Oppenheimer is read as a proponent of the
atomic bomb, these qualifications make his advocacy and pride in the technology justified.
However, if he is read in the opposite sense, as an activist against use of the atomic bomb, these
qualifications portray him as the ethically unsound scientist. Depending on how he is being
viewed, his qualifications can either help or hinder him.

The Ethos of the Scientist

The ethos of the scientist as portrayed in this speech is complex. Although he attempts to
establish his credentials as a scientist, this is shaken by his conflicting rhetoric. However, he
offers great insight to the ethos of a scientist, from a scientist. He aligns himself with his primary
audience as a fellow scientist. The way Oppenheimer portrays the scientist in this age is in part
as a submissive lackey to the progression of science. Oppenheimer attributes the ethical decision
to make atomic bombs as solely due to the progression of science. Scientists couldnt help but to
make this technology and deal with its applications after. The anaphoric refrain of they forced
on us found in paragraph 2 refers to the discovery of relativity, and to the whole development
of atomic theory and its interpretations as the thing forcing the scientists to do what they do
(2). A striking example of the helpless scientist described by Oppenheimer is that the reason that
[the scientists] did this job is because it was an organic necessity. If you are a scientist you
cannot stop such a thing (7). This confirms the idea that the hands of the scientists are forced. It
takes the responsibility of creating the atomic bomb off of the scientists as it is merely a force
that cannot be stopped.
In addition to the helpless image of the scientist, of someone completely at the will of the
force that is science, Oppenheimer works to portray the scientist as a human being who makes
choices. The appearance of the frontier metaphor helps flesh this out. Oppenheimer explicitly
speaks about how the frontier of science moved with incredible speed to affect many living
people (5). He states that scientists have played such a large part by not only designing atomic
weapons, but also by making them (5). He shows scientists as diligent, hard workers that produce
these weapons, but they also had good breaks in order to succeed, a very human trait (5). Many
people who came to work at Los Alamos were motivated by curiosity and some by a sense of

adventure, and rightly so (5). This shows the scientist as a human being, not a stereotyped,
boring scientist in a lab coat. This humanization also works to portray scientists as capable of
emotion and remorse. This is contradicted by the way that Oppenheimer regards the bombing of
Nagasaki. He merely states that the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki- that if these [bombs]
can destroy ten square miles, then that is really quite something (11). This is a very cold
reaction to a bombing that caused mass damage and casualties. This directly contradicts the
evidence that Oppenheimer provides to attempt to paint scientists in a warmer light as he is then
himself acting very cold and distant.
Another attempt at humanizing scientists is to explicitly say we are not only scientists;
we are men, too and call to attention the face that their deep moral dependence in the value of
science must lie in the world of men (28). Not only is there a needed fraternity between
scientists, but Oppenheimer wants to drive the point that scientists also must create a stable
fraternity between scientists and nonscientists.
Using Burkes pentad, its interesting to look at the shifting of agent/agency in
Oppenheimers speech. When the progression of science leads to helpless scientists that cannot
stop such a thing, this makes science as an entity the agent (7). Science is moving forward and
actively causing other things to happen, such as making scientists just go along with the
progression. However, this example of science being an agent occurs shortly after Oppenheimer
attributes scientists to the creation of the bomb, saying that scientists themselves played such a
large part, not merely in providing the foundation for atomic weapons, but in actually making
them (5). However, science is also shown as agency for scientists to help the spread of
knowledge to a general public (8). At the conclusion of the speech, Oppenheimer urges scientists
to maintain their belief in the value of science. This belief in science, of the good that it can bring

to the world is seen in the good it can be to the world to know about reality, about nature, to
attain a gradually greater and greater control of nature (28). In this example, science is the
agency that scientists can use to understand, and even control the surrounding world.
Additionally, when urging scientists to remember that they cannot forget their dependence on
[their] fellow men, he says that without material dependence, no science would be possible
(28). This contradicts his earlier claims that portrayed science as a relentless progression of ideas
and concepts as here he is saying that without materials, science would not be able to be done.
Oppenheimer works to dispel some stereotypes of the scientist by displaying them as humans
with moral obligations to their fellow man. The use of the frontier metaphor also elevates the
ethos of the scientist to a loftier position of adventure, versatility, and usefulness. However, this
is bizarre when considering the recurring idea that scientists are pawns in the progression of
science as they are forced to create and discover more. Frontiersmen are typically empowered,
strong adventurers that may have some direction from a greater power or authority, but are never
forced. This makes the ethos of a scientist working with policy and ethical dilemmas much
more complex.

Conclusion
Robert Oppenheimers speech to his coworkers at Los Alamos offers a window into his
persona that has been widely distributed during his life and past his death. The former director of
the Manhattan project can be seen as either disapproving of the atomic bomb or proud and
approving of it due in large part to his contradictory language. He doesnt initially want to
discuss the politics surrounding atomic weapons and focus rather on science and how its
progression has moved scientists to action. This is effective and portrays scientists as pawns with
no real control over what they create because it was an organic necessity. He loses this early

claim to avoid politics as he delves into how policies should be enacted to control atomic
weapons and calls scientists to action as men in order to successfully enact this shift in thinking
and therefore policy. This speech shows when Oppenheimer started to display his two
contradictory sides; that of the remorseful scientist, and that of the proud innovator. However, he
seems to start showing signs of second guessing the atomic bombs dropped in Japan, a decision
that American society as a whole wouldnt start to question until much later. In a Gallup poll
conducted in August 1945, immediately following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
85% of Americans polled in favor of the use of the bombs.15 This plays into the how the
contradictory nature of Oppenheimer started as he is grappling with conflicting emotions that the
majority of others havent yet started to consider. Oppenheimer is sharing in the ethical
conundrum that his audience is facing as well recently after their work resulted in mass
casualties in Japan. His humanization of the scientists helps to alleviate the sense that they are
just cold blooded killers with no remorse. They are also people, who came into their job with
ambitions, seeking adventure, wanting to end a war. He also validates these reasons by enacting a
frontier metaphor, making these scientists into brave adventurers moving forward for the sake of
their country. He humanizes scientists, painting them as frontiersmen, and also takes the
responsibility off of them and placing it on science. This all combines to alleviate any moral
qualms Oppenheimer or his audience may have. This plays into his contradictions because he is
able to justify his work but then continuously speaks about how awful a thing the atomic bomb is
and how it needs to be regulated.
Out of this speech, Oppenheimers contradictions become more clear in context as a newer facet.
The different sides of Oppenheimer that have been portrayed all have grounding in this speech
15 Diana Steele, "America's Reaction to the Atomic Bomb," America's Reaction to the Atomic Bomb,
http://users.dickinson.edu/~history/product/steele/seniorthesis.htm.

alone. He is grappling with too many concepts and contrasting emotions at once that he ends up
providing evidence that he is both the remorseful scientist, yet also a proud man who merely did
his job to create. Its impossible to say who Oppenheimer truly was or how he felt, but his
contradictions deepen the complexity of his character and provide validation for both readings of
Oppenheimer.

Bibliography
Buchan, James. "Review: American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J Sherwin." The
Guardian. February 01, 2008.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/feb/02/featuresreviews.guardianreview7.

Hijiya, James A. "The Gita of J. Robert Oppenheimer." Proceedings of the American

Philosophical Society 144, no. 2 (June 2000): 123-67.
https://amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/proceedings/Hijiya.pdf.
Robert J. Oppenheimer. "J. Robert Oppenheimer's Speech to the Association of Los Alamos
Scientists on the Value of Science and the Development of the Atomic Bomb."
International Relations and Security Network. Speech. November 2, 1945.
Pontin, Jason. 2007. Oppenheimers Ghost. Technology Review, October 15, 2007.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/408835/oppenheimers-ghost/
Plenilune Pictures. J. Robert Oppenheimer: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds..
Youtube video, 00:53. Posted [August 2011]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=lb13ynu3Iac.
Steele, Diana. "America's Reaction to the Atomic Bomb." America's Reaction to the Atomic
Bomb. http://users.dickinson.edu/~history/product/steele/seniorthesis.htm.
Taylor, Bryan C. "The Politics of the Nuclear Text: Reading Robert Oppenheimer's Letters and
Recollections." Quarterly Journal of Speech 78, no. 4 (1992): 429-49.
doi:10.1080/00335639209384009.