Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it’s complicated.

    • infamousbelgian@waste-of.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed, but that is not what the movie is about.

      He did say (no one knows what he believed) that just having the bomb would mean world peace…

        • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Literally part of the film is him realising this, did you leave after the bomb went off in testing or what?

          • ormr@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Typical aggressive online SJW behaviour. Preaching absolute truths and spitting condemnations as if no one had thought about it before. Obviously, the world can be best explained without any nuance or shades of grey ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        • kayjay@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          His reasoning was if the US didn’t make it, the Nazis would, and that would be even worse. He never wanted to make the bomb, it was just the lesser of two evils.

          • RatherBeMTB
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Making the bomb was a good decision, dropping two over civilians after the war finished was genocide.

            • TopRamenBinLaden
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The US was never trying to exterminate the Japanese race and culture, so no it wasn’t genocide. It was a fucked up act of war, maybe you could even call it an atrocity, but calling it a genocide is wrong by definition.

        • Nythos
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Used on a nation who’s army’s actions led to the murder of millions

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can’t use a weapon on a nation, you can only use a weapon on a nation’s population.

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, but part of the story of the film is that he’s so caught up in the joy of science and discovery he isn’t thinking that far ahead and it suddenly becomes real after he’s in the meeting deciding on targets (note how that’s one of the few scenes without a score). Then the distance he’s kept at from the use of the weapons inspires his outlook in later scenes.