Does it have an anti-nuke axe to grind? Like "we shouldn't have bombed Japan" nonsense? I'm not talking about a scientist here and there expressing those personal sentiment (that actually happend), but does the movie itself try to sell that BS?

No

aTmAg said:

---

Does it have an anti-nuke axe to grind? Like "we shouldn't have bombed Japan" nonsense? I'm not talking about a scientist here and there expressing those personal sentiment (that actually happend), but does the movie itself try to sell that BS?

---

No. The movie is told almost entirely from Oppenheimer's POV. It does a good job showing how Oppenheimer regretted what became of his invention in that he was hoping it wouldn't turn into an arms race to destroy the world, but that he never regretted or apologized for it being used on the Japanese.

No

It does convey Oppenheimer's regret over what became of his work, though.

Not really, it briefly explains why we only have a few options and they're all bad. What I wish it would have done a better job of explaining (since too many Americans snoozed through history class) is WHY Japan's regime and people were not going to surrender.

Good to hear.

I was worried that the movie might take that position but it does not.

It does present the side of the scientists who worked on the bomb but who decided it would be immoral to use it on Japan (they were apparently not concerned about using it on Germany). That is what actually happened, though, and the counter arguments of those who wanted to use the bomb are presented effectively and persuasively. Oppenheimer himself argues in favor of using the two bombs to force Japan to surrender and to end the war.

There is a scene after the war ends that shows Oppenheimer in a group of scientists watching film showing the effects of the bombs on survivors, but the film audience does not see what he sees. He is clearly made uncomfortable by what he sees, but that is his POV.

After the Hiroshima bomb is dropped, Oppenheimer addresses the assembled group that worked on the bomb and congratulates them for their work. His remarks stir the patriotism of the crowd and they cheer him (for the most part; a few are sickened to learn that the bomb has been so successful).

The celebratory nature of this scene is undercut by having Oppenheimer imagine the bomb melting the crowd around him; he imagines his foot stepping on the burned husk of a body.

That is clearly his POV, however, and one that he arrived at after the fact, not at the time.

The two big takeaways that the movie left me with are

1) Scientists like Oppenheimer and those who worked with him are very driven people. While they always knew what their invention was intended to do, they were so driven to get it done that they focused on success and not what could happen after that. A lot of them were also Jewish, and that was a big motivating factor (because the original intent was to use the bomb on Germany); and

2) When you work for someone else, no matter how much of a genius you are, your work does not belong to you. There was a distinct moment in the movie when I felt this was conveyed. Oppenheimer realized, no matter how important his work was, he wasn't going to really have any say in deciding if, when, or how it was used. His opinions did not matter. Up to that point, he had viewed the whole project as research, to be "published" for the rest of the world to read about and admire (and fear) the accomplishment. Then pile onto that the attack on his character and loyalty after he expressed some regret and didn't support the hydrogen bomb, and there is a theme to explore of selling your soul to the devil.

As an engineer and scientist, I also took away a secondary story about all the up and coming scientists who wanted nothing more than to work/study under the greatest minds of their time (maybe of all time), but in order to do so they have to help develop a device that will kill hundreds of thousands of people. Whether they agreed with dropping the bomb or not (and presumably some did and some didn't), that's quite a choice to have to make. I imagine many of the men and women who worked at Los Alamos spent the rest of their lives wondering if they ultimately made the right decision.

I think the movie did a great job of honoring the people who worked on the project. Their sacrifices are just as deserving of recognition as those who fought on the battlefield.

There is a lot of complicated stuff to address, and it's not as black and white as "We shouldn't have bombed Japan", but depending on your perspective, I'm sure someone could come away with that impression.

Does Richard Feynman have any role?

He appears very briefly but not in any obviously important way. I caught his name (first name, I think) and because I knew he was involved I assumed that was him.

OldArmy71 said:

---

He appears very briefly but not in any obviously important way. I caught his name (first name, I think) and because I knew he was involved I assumed that was him.

---

He is played by Jack Quaid (son of Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid). And yes, it is a small roll.

aTmAg said:

---

Does Richard Feynman have any role?

---

Yes. Played quite well by Jack Quaid. There's a scene where Oppenheimer and Groves specifically recruit him.

I think the movie did a great job of showing the scientists (and even the politicians and military) wrestling with the idea of the bomb. Also, the idea that some of the scientists held at the time has been proven correct (at least to date). Having seen an atomic bomb, the world would never use one again.

I was reading an interview with Richard Rhodes this week. He wrote The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which might be the best non fiction book ever written. He wanted to see it the movie was able to really capture the essence of the project as he learned it to be. That it was inevitable. Not in a "race against the nazis" way, or a "humans are evil" way, juts that the laws of physics themselves made it inevitable. The universe made it possible, so it was going to happen. I think most people on the Manhattan project kind of felt that way too.

Dude, just go see the movie for yourself..

boy09 said:

---

Dude, just go see the movie for yourself..

---

I wasn't going to watch it at all if it was a anti-nuke propaganda-fest.

He does bang a bunch of hot commie women, so if that's going to trigger you then you might want to skip it.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

No

It does convey Oppenheimer's regret over what became of his work, though.

---

Anyone with an ounce of common sense should regret what became of his work.

Stupe said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

No

It does convey Oppenheimer's regret over what became of his work, though.

---

Anyone with an ounce of common sense should regret what became of his work.

---

Not really. He and his team won the race. It was going to be unlocked by some team, somewhere. The world is extremely fortunate that the US got there first. Imagining a world where the Axis or Soviets get there first is harrowing, as is a world where the US has to beat Japan into full surrender with an invasion or a blockade. ANY of those scenarios make what did actually happen look like a walk in the park.

In reality it likely prevented massive war for the past 75 years because we all know the cost will be too high. Everything.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

No

It does convey Oppenheimer's regret over what became of his work, though.

---

Anyone with an ounce of common sense should regret what became of his work.

---

Not really. He and his team won the race. It was going to be unlocked by some team, somewhere. The world is extremely fortunate that the US got there first. Imagining a world where the Axis or Soviets get there first is harrowing, as is a world where the US has to beat Japan into full surrender with an invasion or a blockade. ANY of those scenarios make what did actually happen look like a walk in the park.

---

None of that changes the fact that guaranteed mutual destruction is not a good thing.

Or is it? Estimates are more than 20 million people died as a result of WWI and over 50 million in WWII. MAD has kept the big dogs from tangling beyond local proxy type wars for 75 years.

The weapon is capable of horrible destruction but it had also led to restraint that did not exist previously, the lack of which killed millions and millions.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

No

It does convey Oppenheimer's regret over what became of his work, though.

---

Anyone with an ounce of common sense should regret what became of his work.

---

Not really. He and his team won the race. It was going to be unlocked by some team, somewhere. The world is extremely fortunate that the US got there first. Imagining a world where the Axis or Soviets get there first is harrowing, as is a world where the US has to beat Japan into full surrender with an invasion or a blockade. ANY of those scenarios make what did actually happen look like a walk in the park.

---

The movie actually goes into this, especially when it came to defeating Germany in the arms race. There is a scene where they even discover that they've surpassed the Germans in their research and science.

And the world is one insane leader away from a lot more than that.

I'm not anti-nuke by any means.

I think dropping those to end WW II was a no brainer.

That doesn't mean that where it has progressed is a good thing.

Thankfully it takes more than one insane leader to start a nuclear exchange, it takes a major wing of a department of defense agreeing to start it. The idea of a "launch nukes" button under the desk of leaders is a cartoonish fallacy.

Whether we are better or worse for it is up for debate. Either way it was inevitable. Hell, some think our fatal flaw was industrializing, or systematic agriculture. Mankind marches on.

Stupe said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

No

It does convey Oppenheimer's regret over what became of his work, though.

---

Anyone with an ounce of common sense should regret what became of his work.

---

Not really. He and his team won the race. It was going to be unlocked by some team, somewhere. The world is extremely fortunate that the US got there first. Imagining a world where the Axis or Soviets get there first is harrowing, as is a world where the US has to beat Japan into full surrender with an invasion or a blockade. ANY of those scenarios make what did actually happen look like a walk in the park.

---

None of that changes the fact that guaranteed mutual destruction is not a good thing.

---

Debatable, it can be argued that mutually assured destruction is in part responsible for the unparalleled degree of peace between super powers we've experienced since the end of WW2. 1945 - present is the most peaceful period in human history. There are lots of reasons for that, but the bomb is likely one of them.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

No

It does convey Oppenheimer's regret over what became of his work, though.

---

Anyone with an ounce of common sense should regret what became of his work.

---

Not really. He and his team won the race. It was going to be unlocked by some team, somewhere. The world is extremely fortunate that the US got there first. Imagining a world where the Axis or Soviets get there first is harrowing, as is a world where the US has to beat Japan into full surrender with an invasion or a blockade. ANY of those scenarios make what did actually happen look like a walk in the park.

---

None of that changes the fact that guaranteed mutual destruction is not a good thing.

---

Debatable, it can be argued that mutually assured destruction is in part responsible for the unparalleled degree of peace between super powers we've experienced since the end of WW2. 1945 - present is the most peaceful period in human history. There are lots of reasons for that, but the bomb is likely one of them.

---

Exactly. I truly don't think an all out thermonuclear exchange is nearly as likely as people make it out to be. Again, it can't be done by a few leaders, it takes many people to all make that suicidal decision, which really doesnt seem plausible. The technology more likely to kill all of us due to the evil or negligence of a few is biological warfare. If you imagine the destructive force of Covid, which was leaked by a Chinese lab, but a much more contagious and deadly pathogen....much more likely than nukes raining down.

Nukes have save millions of lives. Hell it saved JAPANESE lives at the end of the war. Anybody who argues otherwise, should be mocked mercilessly.

aTmAg said:

---

Nukes have save millions of lives. Hell it saved JAPANESE lives at the end of the war. Anybody who argues otherwise, should be mocked mercilessly.

---

This. They are still giving out Purple Heart awards that were made for the invasion of Japan. Millions on each side would have been killed if we hadn't dropped the bombs.

His thought that it would create a period of unparalleled peace is pretty accurate.

Between the Napoleonic wars, World War I, World War II, and a dozen violent revolutions and civil wars involving the world powers, wars were escalating in terms of deaths, countries involved and weapons used.

Unfortunately, it is much harder to depose of a bad actor than in was 100 years ago. You basically have to accept the Kim Jung Uns and Putins of the world now.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

His thought that it would create a period of unparalleled peace is pretty accurate.

Between the Napoleonic wars, World War I, World War II, and a dozen violent revolutions and civil wars involving the world powers, wars were escalating in terms of deaths, countries involved and weapons used.

Unfortunately, it is much harder to depose of a bad actor than in was 100 years ago. You basically have to accept the Kim Jung Uns and Putins of the world now.

---

It's always been difficult to depose bad actors with enough power. The Romanov's ruled Russia for over 300 years and were incredibly exploitative, despotic and cruel towards their population for the majority of that time. The last 50 years or so of their reign saw them actively repress industrialization just to preserve power. And with all it wasnt until nearly 2 decades into the 20th century that they were removed from power.

The difference now is there are far fewer despots than there once were, and those that do exist are largely prevented from acting out their worst impulses.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

No

It does convey Oppenheimer's regret over what became of his work, though.

---

Anyone with an ounce of common sense should regret what became of his work.

---

Not really. He and his team won the race. It was going to be unlocked by some team, somewhere. The world is extremely fortunate that the US got there first. Imagining a world where the Axis or Soviets get there first is harrowing, as is a world where the US has to beat Japan into full surrender with an invasion or a blockade. ANY of those scenarios make what did actually happen look like a walk in the park.

---

None of that changes the fact that guaranteed mutual destruction is not a good thing.

---

Debatable, it can be argued that mutually assured destruction is in part responsible for the unparalleled degree of peace between super powers we've experienced since the end of WW2. 1945 - present is the most peaceful period in human history. There are lots of reasons for that, but the bomb is likely one of them.

---

Exactly. I truly don't think an all out thermonuclear exchange is nearly as likely as people make it out to be. Again, it can't be done by a few leaders, it takes many people to all make that suicidal decision, which really doesnt seem plausible. The technology more likely to kill all of us due to the evil or negligence of a few is biological warfare. If you imagine the destructive force of Covid, which was leaked by a Chinese lab, but a much more contagious and deadly pathogen....much more likely than nukes raining down.

---

Was that proven? Intentional leakage?

No, investigations weren't pursued about why a deadly outbreak seemed to have started in a Chinese city hosting a number of government labs actively testing bio agents.

Why not

Before you go too far down the rabbit hole, I'd like to point out, as a scientist who makes viruses for a living, that comparing the potential of bio weapons to nukes way overestimates our abilities.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

His thought that it would create a period of unparalleled peace is pretty accurate.

Between the Napoleonic wars, World War I, World War II, and a dozen violent revolutions and civil wars involving the world powers, wars were escalating in terms of deaths, countries involved and weapons used.

Unfortunately, it is much harder to depose of a bad actor than in was 100 years ago. You basically have to accept the Kim Jung Uns and Putins of the world now.

---

It's always been difficult to depose bad actors with enough power. The Romanov's ruled Russia for over 300 years and were incredibly exploitative, despotic and cruel towards their population for the majority of that time. The last 50 years or so of their reign saw them actively repress industrialization just to preserve power. And with all it wasnt until nearly 2 decades into the 20th century that they were removed from power.

The difference now is there are far fewer despots than there once were, and those that do exist are largely prevented from acting out their worst impulses.

---

And replaced with something worse