Read the passage by J. Robert Oppenheimer about the potential use of an atomic weapon during World War II. You have asked us to comment on the initial use of the new weapon. . . . We recognize our obligation to our nation to use the weapons to help save American lives in the Japanese war. . . .

The opinions of our scientific colleagues on the initial use of these weapons are not unanimous: they range from the proposal of a purely technical demonstration to that of the military application best designed to induce surrender. Those who advocate a purely technical demonstration would wish to outlaw the use of atomic weapons, and have feared that if we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced. Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use, and believe that such use will improve the international prospects, in that they are more concerned with the prevention of war than with the elimination of this specific weapon. We find ourselves closer to these latter views; we can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use.

–J. Robert Oppenheimer,
June 16, 1945

Which statement does this passage support?

The scientists are divided on the best way to implement the atomic weapon to help end the war.
All of the scientists believe that the atomic weapon they built needs to be used in Japan to end the war.
The scientists fear that the atomic weapon is too dangerous for any type of use and believe that it should never be detonated.
All of the scientists agree that the atomic weapon should be used only to demonstrate the military might of the United States.