This is essentially the debate on whether a specific technology should have been developed. Many possible answers: it was likely inevitable anyway that at least one country would develop the bomb; suppressing atomic research to avoid it would have led to a poorer world; etc.
In any case we have somehow managed not to have a nuclear war, so even though there’s a potential of tragicness, the bomb’s invention itself hasn’t been so bad in real terms (except for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of course).
I’d suggest separating the question of whether a certain technology should have been developed from whether it was possible. For example, let’s suppose someone is dying of cancer and we have no way of saving them.
Do we want to save them? Yes
Can we save them? No
I would be very disappointed if people ended up concluding from our inability to save them that we didn’t actually want to save them anyway.
Similarly for nuclear weapons, the table may very well be:
Do we want to avoid them: Yes
Can we avoid them: No
Which is what I would suggest. Or if suppressing this research would have led to a poorer world it may be:
Do we want to avoid them: No
Can we avoid them: No
But I think it’s best to avoid conflating these two questions. Even if we think there’s nothing we can do, if we conflate that with “We wouldn’t want to stop or slow its development anyway” then we would likely refuse an opportunity to make a difference even if we were handed it on a silver platter.
I suppose it would be possible to argue that atomic research led to a richer world, but would question how big this impact really has been? Is it more than a couple of percent? And if not, is this really worth having nuclear apocalypse hanging over our heads? One potentially useful thought experiment: how much would someone have to pay you to convince you to play a game of Russian roulette[1]?
Sure, I didn’t mean to provide a full treatment of the “should it have been invented?” question. I just wanted to point out that there are many possible lines of reasoning:
It was impossible to suppress research on the bomb at all, e.g. someone in some private lab would eventually have invented it
It was possible to suppress research in one country, but impossible to coordinate all countries (especially in wartime); eventually some country would invent the bomb and gain a massive military and economic advantage over the others
It was possible to suppress research globally, but doing so would have dire moral consequences (e.g. require an authoritarian world government)
It was possible to suppress research globally in morally acceptable ways, but doing so would have prevented other useful innovations that were worth the risk (e.g. nuclear energy)
It was possible to suppress research and the specific outcomes of nuclear research weren’t worth it, but it would have created a progress-negative culture that would have destroyed much of humanity’s future potential
We could have suppressed research without dire consequences and simply failed to do so
Inventing the nuclear bomb was Good, Actually
These are not necessarily exhaustive. To me the most compelling is number 2, although nuclear non-proliferation since the cold war has shown that we can coordinate to a large extent, so maybe 6 is true or would have been if there had been no WWII.
I expect that 2 is true as well and so it made sense to invent the bomb before another less responsible country, but if we could have waved a wand prevented the invention of nukes then I think it would have been worthwhile even if it cost us nuclear energy or slowed global progress.
I mean, a lot of people oppose progress for pretty silly and not really thought out reasons, but as far as reasons go, “We invented/almost invented something that could potentially have killed everyone on earth” seems like not a bad reason to slow things down for a bit and reflect.
This is essentially the debate on whether a specific technology should have been developed. Many possible answers: it was likely inevitable anyway that at least one country would develop the bomb; suppressing atomic research to avoid it would have led to a poorer world; etc.
In any case we have somehow managed not to have a nuclear war, so even though there’s a potential of tragicness, the bomb’s invention itself hasn’t been so bad in real terms (except for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of course).
I’d suggest separating the question of whether a certain technology should have been developed from whether it was possible. For example, let’s suppose someone is dying of cancer and we have no way of saving them.
Do we want to save them? Yes
Can we save them? No
I would be very disappointed if people ended up concluding from our inability to save them that we didn’t actually want to save them anyway.
Similarly for nuclear weapons, the table may very well be:
Do we want to avoid them: Yes
Can we avoid them: No
Which is what I would suggest. Or if suppressing this research would have led to a poorer world it may be:
Do we want to avoid them: No
Can we avoid them: No
But I think it’s best to avoid conflating these two questions. Even if we think there’s nothing we can do, if we conflate that with “We wouldn’t want to stop or slow its development anyway” then we would likely refuse an opportunity to make a difference even if we were handed it on a silver platter.
I suppose it would be possible to argue that atomic research led to a richer world, but would question how big this impact really has been? Is it more than a couple of percent? And if not, is this really worth having nuclear apocalypse hanging over our heads? One potentially useful thought experiment: how much would someone have to pay you to convince you to play a game of Russian roulette[1]?
I only realised after writing this, that the existence of nukes is literally a game of Russian Roulette.
Sure, I didn’t mean to provide a full treatment of the “should it have been invented?” question. I just wanted to point out that there are many possible lines of reasoning:
It was impossible to suppress research on the bomb at all, e.g. someone in some private lab would eventually have invented it
It was possible to suppress research in one country, but impossible to coordinate all countries (especially in wartime); eventually some country would invent the bomb and gain a massive military and economic advantage over the others
It was possible to suppress research globally, but doing so would have dire moral consequences (e.g. require an authoritarian world government)
It was possible to suppress research globally in morally acceptable ways, but doing so would have prevented other useful innovations that were worth the risk (e.g. nuclear energy)
It was possible to suppress research and the specific outcomes of nuclear research weren’t worth it, but it would have created a progress-negative culture that would have destroyed much of humanity’s future potential
We could have suppressed research without dire consequences and simply failed to do so
Inventing the nuclear bomb was Good, Actually
These are not necessarily exhaustive. To me the most compelling is number 2, although nuclear non-proliferation since the cold war has shown that we can coordinate to a large extent, so maybe 6 is true or would have been if there had been no WWII.
I expect that 2 is true as well and so it made sense to invent the bomb before another less responsible country, but if we could have waved a wand prevented the invention of nukes then I think it would have been worthwhile even if it cost us nuclear energy or slowed global progress.
I mean, a lot of people oppose progress for pretty silly and not really thought out reasons, but as far as reasons go, “We invented/almost invented something that could potentially have killed everyone on earth” seems like not a bad reason to slow things down for a bit and reflect.