Oppenheimer Movie Review

[TimFox]

Are you afraid of them?  It seems it has worked.

[David Hess]

You may feel uncomfortable with this, but shouldn't we consider people who used nuclear weapons on towns with hundreds of thousands of people terrorists? Think about it.

Luckily for those people, they were on the side which won the war.

Next time they may not be that lucky.

There was no next time for them, and most or all of them have died of old age by now.  So you must be referring to some even which has not happened yet involving a different group of people.

[EEVblog]

As was correctly pointed out in the film, the same number was killed daily with conventional bombing, and brought Japan no nearer to surrender.

Not many people know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki where arguably not the biggest single bombings of all time. The bombing raid of Tokyo was bigger and resulted in more destruction and death than either of the nuclear bombs. It just took around 280 B-29 bombers instead of 1.

[coppice]

As was correctly pointed out in the film, the same number was killed daily with conventional bombing, and brought Japan no nearer to surrender.

Not many people know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki where arguably not the biggest single bombings of all time. The bombing raid of Tokyo was bigger and resulted in more destruction and death than either of the nuclear bombs. It just took around 280 B-29 bombers instead of 1.

Dresden was a bigger event than any single attack on Tokyo, but a lot more bombers were used to get the firestorm going.

[BrianHG]

As was correctly pointed out in the film, the same number was killed daily with conventional bombing, and brought Japan no nearer to surrender.

Not many people know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki where arguably not the biggest single bombings of all time. The bombing raid of Tokyo was bigger and resulted in more destruction and death than either of the nuclear bombs. It just took around 280 B-29 bombers instead of 1.

Dresden was a bigger event than any single attack on Tokyo, but a lot more bombers were used to get the firestorm going.

I would say that the 2 Nukes gave the Japanese a legitimate reason for surrender without completely loosing face.  On the other hand, I wonder if at the time they knew the US only had those 2 bombs.  A reasonable fear would be that instead of 200 flights to demolish a single city, they might have thought that 200 nukes, 1 per B-29 could completely flatten their entire country in 1 day.  And again a week later.  Never stopping.

[Stray Electron]

  The US only had two bombs at the time but within a month they would had more and they planned to be able to produce about 3 per month very shortly. So the Japanese were smart to surrender when they did.

[msuffidy]

  The US only had two bombs at the time but within a month they would had more and they planned to be able to produce about 3 per month very shortly. So the Japanese were smart to surrender when they did.

I was thinking maybe the Japanese may have thought they won some legitimate race so that could have worked out for the US.

[vad]

The US had four bombs: one uranium gun type, three plutonium cores, and four implosion assemblies, allowing them to build three plutonium bombs. The uranium one was detonated over Hiroshima. The first plutonium bomb, Trinity, was tested in the desert. The second plutonium bomb was used over Nagasaki. The third plutonium core and the two remaining assemblies were not used but were available for a potential third bombing if needed.

[TimFox]

For those who were disappointed in the movie "Oppenheimer" because it was, as advertised, about Robert Oppenheimer and not about hardware, I can recommend a very interesting book that I just received:
Martin Miller: Weapons of Mass Destruction: Specters of the Nuclear Age, Schiffer Publishing 2017.

The first 68 pages are an historical survey from WW II through 1991, concentrating on American weaponry and nuclear-weapons laboratories.
The remaining 145 pages are the author's own stunning photographs, mainly of weapon exhibits in military museums.
He started out with a proper 8x10 inch camera, but later used modern digital cameras (with manual focusing) and complex mosaic software, to assemble his high-resolution, deep-focus monochrome images.
(Trading mobility for complexity.)

Among other things, there are interior shots of the Minuteman launch control center at the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site, many shots of aircraft and missiles, the BA-53 H-bomb and other bombs, and even the HTRE-3 Experimental Nuclear Propulsion Reactor for the abandoned strategic nuclear bomber project.

[EEVblog]

For those who were disappointed in the movie "Oppenheimer" because it was, as advertised, about Robert Oppenheimer and not about hardware

The "advertisment" was the trailer. And the trailer implies that there is a LOT about the hardware and the project.
Add in the fact that Oppenheimer would be essentially a nobody, and a movie never made about him if it wasn't for the project. Hence why the had to sell the trailer as being about the project.

[magic]

It's your fault for not knowing that Hollywood is a bunch of SJWs only interested in a poor persecuted communist, not nukes

[EEVblog]

It's your fault for not knowing that Hollywood is a bunch of SJWs only interested in a poor persecuted communist, not nukes

Oh I knew that, I was just dumb enough to think what I saw in the trailer might be expanded on in the movie somewhat. Stupid me.

[iMo]

Next time you may let design, assemble and detonate the nuke in a reality show shot directly in the Disney Studios Australia..
Not sure how much a ticket would cost then, however..
 

It's your fault for not knowing that Hollywood is a bunch of SJWs only interested in a poor persecuted communist, not nukes

Oh I knew that, I was just dumb enough to think what I saw in the trailer might be expanded on in the movie somewhat. Stupid me.

[TimFox]

For those who were disappointed in the movie "Oppenheimer" because it was, as advertised, about Robert Oppenheimer and not about hardware

The "advertisment" was the trailer. And the trailer implies that there is a LOT about the hardware and the project.
Add in the fact that Oppenheimer would be essentially a nobody, and a movie never made about him if it wasn't for the project. Hence why the had to sell the trailer as being about the project.

Yes, Hollywood has a bad habit of releasing trailers that are often more interesting than the movie.

However, I object strenuously to your statement that "Oppenheimer would be essentially a nobody" if it weren't for the project.
The project actually ruined him as a scientist:  besides the official government proceedings against him, culminating in not being allowed to read papers he had authored, it almost stopped his publication.
According to Wikipedia "After World War II, Oppenheimer published only five scientific papers, one of them in biophysics, and none after 1950."
During the interwar years, Oppenheimer had a lot of competition in terms of scientific novelty (before going into the bomb business), and was an imperfect human being, but made many useful contributions to physics.

Prior to the project, summarizing from that Wikipedia article, he worked on many important topics in quantum mechanics and other subjects that were evolving between the wars.
A few: 
The quantum theory of molecular band spectra and a method to carry out calculations of its transition probabilities.
He calculated the photoelectric effect for hydrogen and X-rays, obtaining the absorption coefficient at the K-edge.
Field emission of electrons.
The Oppenheimer-Phillips process for deuteron-induced radioactivity.
Prediction that the positron was a positive electron (not a proton).
Shortly before the war, he concentrated on astrophysics, especially gravitational collapse of neutron stars and production of black holes.
The last above is his most famous work, along with the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, which separates nuclear motion from electronic motion in the mathematical treatment of molecules, allowing nuclear motion to be neglected to simplify calculations (published in 1927, fresh out of graduate school).

Meanwhile, I seriously recommend the book I cited.  I especially liked the deep-focus interior shots from the two US museums dedicated to Titan and Minuteman launch control centers.

[coppice]

Yes, Hollywood has a bad habit of releasing trailers that are often more interesting than the movie.

I'd say they have a bad habit of releasing trailers that simply misrepresent movies. I've avoided several films based on trailers that made it seem the movie was not for me. Then years later I stumbled on the film on a plane or in a hotel room, and found it was quite good.

[EEVblog]

However, I object strenuously to your statement that "Oppenheimer would be essentially a nobody" if it weren't for the project.

Oh come on, you know I meant a nobody to Joe Average.
He's not even remotely close to an Einstein, Feynman,  Bohr et.al in terms of public name recognition.
If it wasn't for him leading the Manhatten project he'd only be known within the physics circles, and there wouldn't be any movies or documentaries made about him.

[TimFox]

I reacted to your actual statement with respect to the effect of the Project on his career.
One could make the opposite point that had Oppenheimer not directed the Manhattan Project, he would have continued real science and become more famous.
Although I never met the man, I did interact with professors who knew him and had interesting opinions and anecdotes about him as a person.
Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) is not known to "Joe six-pack", but is still an important figure.
Perhaps someone should make a movie about him.
Einstein was certainly very well-known to the general public, but Bohr and Feynman, although very well known to the technical and scientific communities and Einstein's equal in terms of scientific production, are not that well-known to the general public.
Einstein and Oppenheimer have operas written about them (by Glass and Adams, respectively).
Of the scientists directly involved, Enrico Fermi was perhaps the most productive, but how well known is he to the general public?

[EEVblog]

I reacted to your actual statement with respect to the effect of the Project on his career.
One could make the opposite point that had Oppenheimer not directed the Manhattan Project, he would have continued real science and become more famous.

Entirely speculation. Odds are he wouldn't have. Few of the well known physicists that we (engineers and scientists) would have heard of became big household names, enough to warrant a movie or documetnary.

Although I never met the man, I did interact with professors who knew him and had interesting opinions and anecdotes about him as a person.
Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) is not known to "Joe six-pack", but is still an important figure.
Perhaps someone should make a movie about him.

Ask Kathy
https://www.youtube.com/@KathyLovesPhysics

Einstein was certainly very well-known to the general public, but Bohr and Feynman, although very well known to the technical and scientific communities and Einstein's equal in terms of scientific production, are not that well-known to the general public.

Feynman was huge in the US. He had so much name recognition with the public that even though he had terminal cancer, NASA asked him to be the head phyicist investigating the Challenger disaster.
He hosted very popular TV series and stared in various documentaries and TV show appearances. Him and Carl Sagan were probably the two "go to" scientists of that era when public outreach was required.

[coppice]

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) is not known to "Joe six-pack", but is still an important figure.
Perhaps someone should make a movie about him.

Noooo. Hollywood is afraid of bell curves.

[TimFox]

Feynman's most famous moment with the general public was probably his cogent analysis of the Challenger disaster.
The statement "Oppenheimer would be essentially a nobody, and a movie never made about him if it wasn't for the project." is not "speculation".
Both of us are speculating on a situation contrary to fact.
In fact, both Feynman and Bohr ended up far more important in actual science than Oppenheimer.
Neils Bohr, besides being a great scientist, was a good human being:  the biographies of such people are edifying, but not as interesting as those of less perfect subjects.
(Of course, quite a few biographies of Bohr have been published.)

[rsjsouza]

Ask Kathy
https://www.youtube.com/@KathyLovesPhysics

That is an excellent channel!

[quadtech]

A very interesting talk by Jennet Conant (James Conant's grand daughter) -

https://www.c-span.org/video/?187135-8/109-east-palace-robert-oppenheimer

Her book, Tuxedo Park, was an excellent read.

[KE5FX]

A very interesting talk by Jennet Conant (James Conant's grand daughter) -

https://www.c-span.org/video/?187135-8/109-east-palace-robert-oppenheimer

Her book, Tuxedo Park, was an excellent read.

That's a hell of an unscripted talk.  Whatever she's on, I want some.

[Joebeazelman]

I saw the movie last night and it was terrible. The creators couldn't figure out whether to target a general audience, or your typical science buff. It failed spectacularly at engaging either. It was a major disappointment for those expecting a nuclear horror film with earth shattering atomic blasts, radiation sickness, and charred corpses. Despite hundreds of hours of restored nuclear test films sitting in the archives, there was hardly any footage of the bomb. The Trinity test scene was anti-climactic after building up so much anticipation. The nuclear accidents at Los Alamos, particularly the Demon Core accident, was painfully overlooked and a major ball drop.

It's really a longwinded drama film and a horrible one at that. The characters spoke in annoyingly contrived sound bites. A lot of time was wasted on the security hearings where the characters were barely heard against the loud melodramatic soundtrack. Of course, there were the obligatory sex scenes, including a surreal one that tool place during Oppenheimer's questioning. It was cheap and awkward way to emphasize how his privacy was being exposed to the world. Overall, it was not a great movie. I really struggled to stay awake watching it.

[lezginka_kabardinka]

“Barbie” movie was absolute woke-signalling rubbish, but held at gunpoint and forced to choose, I’d take it over Oppenheimer.