How ‘Oppenheimer’ can guide the 21st century race for tech supremacy

In cinemas across America this weekend, “Oppenheimer” audiences are getting a crash course in the history of the Manhattan Project. While chronicling the story of the “American Prometheus,” the film traces the efforts of U.S. civil and military institutions to marshal science, resources and a “can do” spirit in a desperate race to beat the Nazis to the atom bomb. 

While the story and the history behind it illuminate one of the greatest — and most notorious — achievements of the 20th century, the history of the Manhattan Project also offers important lessons that are directly applicable to the geopolitical competition and technology race that 21st century America now finds itself in.   

First, the Manhattan Project was focused on a singular goal: the creation of an unprecedented weapon by assembling the scientific, technical and engineering know-how needed to harness the power of the atom. Much of that know-how was confined to advanced government and university laboratories, and only with the government, academia and industry working closely together could these scientists hope to develop and deliver this fearsome weapon.  

Today’s “geotech” competition is different. The United States and China are not focused on a single technological breakthrough or one weapon, but rather, on an advantage across a range of technologies critical to both victory on the battlefield and success in the all-important economic competition already underway. Artificial intelligence, quantum computers, advanced processors, 5G/6G networks, clean energy, synthetic biotech and other cutting-edge technologies will define the next industrial and technological revolutions. 

Some technologies like quantum computing have similar dynamics to the Manhattan Project, where the United States and its allies still find themselves racing toward a specific technological breakthrough. But most of these advanced technologies are no longer confined to secret government labs. Expertise and innovation in these fields are more likely to be found in the private sector. 

Where the Manhattan Project relied largely on esoteric research projects and a spirit of patriotism, profits often drive today’s innovations. In many fields today the question is thus not whether the government can develop a technology in time, but rather whether the government can buy it from contractors on time. If we accept the idea that we are locked in a critical competition for future technological superiority, our worst enemy could very well be a “business-as-usual” mindset. 

As “Oppenheimer” recounts the story of how scientific expertise was instrumental in charting a course that led to America’s superpower status, it reminds us of the importance of ensuring that our nation has the best talent possible in these critical technology fields. That talent and expertise are the lifeblood that will ensure our technological edge.  

Protecting today’s technologies from our adversaries is also less about hiding scientists in the New Mexico desert as was the case with the Manhattan Project, and more about managing security clearances, export controls, intellectual property protections, and current inbound and future outbound investment reviews. In some of these fields, our policymakers are even fashioning what in the past would have been called “industrial policy,” though the term is no longer used as a pejorative.  

The recent focus on securing supply chains and near-term “de-risking,” however, fails to encompass the broader innovation ecosystem that will prove so critical in this geotech competition. While the Manhattan Project was able to tap the best talent in the specific field of nuclear physics, in this 21st century technology competition the United States needs to attract, educate and employ the best and brightest in all technology fields. What good will policies be that protect our innovations without innovations worth protecting? In this competition victories on future battlefields could thus be decided by the immigration and education policies we adopt today. 

Finally, in the race for the atomic bomb, the United States was able to attract the best scientific talent in large measure because of its underappreciated moral advantage. Some of the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project were exiles of the Nazi regime, and everyone understood the risk of atomic power married to Nazi evil. We cannot forget that moral element in today’s technology competition. 

Technology itself is neutral, though its use inevitably reflects the values and enhances the power of those who shape and wield it. Those who achieved the breakthroughs that led to past industrial and technological revolutions, for instance, reaped the benefits and shaped the world to their ends. Just as it mattered a great deal who had the power to split the atom, it matters today who creates artificial intelligence, holds the world’s data, controls our digital connectivity, powers our future and rearranges the very building blocks of life itself. 

The most important lesson of the Manhattan Project is, thus, less about organizations and methods, and more about the existential stakes involved in the competition for technology. 

Dan Mahaffee is senior vice president and director of policy at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress.