"109 East Palace: Robert Oppenheimer and the Secret City of Los Alamos" by Jennet Conant (2005) [Abridged Audiobook]

The question is not whether to invent, but whether to invent first. One may claim credit for an invention, but not for the future which the invention has helped shape. If one wishes to have a say in the future, one should keep inventing first. If the good guys fail to invent first, those who invent first go down in history as the good guys.

Oppenheimer expected personal dedication. In the eyes of others, he was the project. Such a dedication confers responsibility. It is irresponsible to suddenly personify an impasse, after having personified the solution for so long.

Oppenheimer was a gentleman philosopher. Some governments heed philosophers (France), others do not (US)---be it because they have too many disparate ones or because democratic values cultivate skepticism towards self-proclaimed superior minds. Oppenheimer had one great paper, led one great project, shaped great many people, and has thus lived many great lives.

There is no moral discontinuity in the adoption of drone warfare. Most advancements in arms technology distance the perpetrator from his victims.

Some would deem it immoral to sacrifice civilians to save five times as many military men. This judgement rests on the premise that the loser in a “fair” contest deserves to die more than a civilian does. It is dubitable, however, that notions of fairness invoked in the military context resemble the notions of fairness on which peaceful societies are built. One could claim that the fallen in combat have the consolation of dying as heroes, but by claiming so, one contaminates the moral calculus with military propaganda.