Anyone see "Oppenheimer" film?
07-25-2023, 09:46 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,507
Originally Posted by TransWorld
I have heard the Allies win.
Originally Posted by Ice Bear
Christopher Nolan is one of the all-time greats, but I'd have to rate this as one of his lower movies between Insomnia
and Dunkirk.
and Dunkirk.
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
Try googling it.
07-26-2023, 03:54 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 687
Originally Posted by Ice Bear
Christopher Nolan is one of the all-time greats, but I'd have to rate this as one of his lower movies between Insomnia and Dunkirk. Certainly not a bad film, mind you.
I think the main problem was that it was more about Oppenheimer the man than The Manhattan Project. Honestly, the latter is a lot more interesting.
I think the main problem was that it was more about Oppenheimer the man than The Manhattan Project. Honestly, the latter is a lot more interesting.
The Manhattan Project probably would require a many hour documentary series to do it any justice.
07-26-2023, 04:04 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,539
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
It's pretty well known. Try googling it.
“From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.”
07-26-2023, 07:13 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,375
"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s emperor would be allowed to stay as a figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion could begin."
https://www.thenation.com/article/wo...bed-hiroshima/
https://www.thenation.com/article/wo...bed-hiroshima/
07-26-2023, 07:16 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,375
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” He later publicly declared, “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
Even the famous hawk Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, the head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”
Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., the commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [The scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey
The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement 11 days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”
“The use of this barbarous weapon…was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” —Adm. William Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff
Even the famous hawk Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, the head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”
Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., the commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [The scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey
The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement 11 days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”
“The use of this barbarous weapon…was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” —Adm. William Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff
07-26-2023, 08:23 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2021
Posts: 141
The US ordered 500,000 body bags for the invasion of the home islands. The Japanese would have fought to the death, including women and children. The shock effect of those new weapons did play a big roll. Granted, militarily not so much. The fire bombings were far deadlier than either nuke. But the psychological effect was huge. And I believe another big reason to use them was a demonstration to regimes like the Soviet Union, that they were indeed fearsome weapons and we would be willing to use them against any new aggressors.
07-26-2023, 08:25 AM
#19
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,385
Here is President Truman’s options, decisions, and what he said in later years. There were neigh-sayers, there were Monday morning quarter-backers. But it was his decision alone to make, as the Commander in Chief. All the rest of his years, he did not regret dropping the bombs. Given the circumstances, I have to agree with him.
From the National Park Service website:
https://www.nps.gov/articles/trumanatomicbomb.htm
From the National Park Service website:
https://www.nps.gov/articles/trumanatomicbomb.htm
07-26-2023, 08:38 AM
#20
Ice Bear… strong PBS game
Joined APC: May 2022
Posts: 60
Guys, we got three posts in about a *movie* and it was already an argument. Seriously. FFS.
Sure, I just wonder how much more fascinating it might've been if Nolan had pivoted more towards the project. I wanted to hear about Oak Ridge and Hanford. How Groves chose those. The benefits and drawbacks of gun type vs implosion. Jumbo (not even mentioned!). The technicals. That stuff is neat to me. Florence Pugh is gorgeous (maybe this thread can at least agree on that), but historically I just don't care that the dude had affairs. WWII and the development of the Bomb are far more momentous.
Will look into it, thanks.
Originally Posted by MaxQ
The film is titled Oppenheimer, not The Manhattan Project.
Originally Posted by John Carr
The Norwegian original with Skarsgard is excellent as well.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
