The Dark History Oppenheimer Didn’t Show

In a movie specifically about the <i>person</i> Oppenheimer, why would it be considered weird that it focuses mostly on him?<p>I mean, the movie isn&#x27;t about the broad topic of the nuclear arms race, it explicitly makes the choice <i>not</i> to show the bombing of Japan, there are many things it consciously leaves out. It&#x27;s not a documentary, it&#x27;s explicitly very subjective.

The movie shows Oppenheimer averting his eyes from footage of the horrors, which is a meta nod to the film taking the same approach.<p>The movie is not so much about the morality of dropping the bomb as it is about the subtler question of what it means to live the sanitized experience of being half a world away from it.<p>If you don&#x27;t have to face it, what then? Do you still find it troubling, or does it become easy to latch onto projections of how many people might die if you don&#x27;t use it? Or how much influence you&#x27;ll lose decades off if you don&#x27;t intimidate a future superpower now?<p>If you don&#x27;t see civilians dying do you still approach it with humility, or attend pep rallies where we lament missing the chance to have used it on the Germans?

Folks, this article isn’t a criticism of the movie. It’s literally a “Oppenheimer, and…” not “Oppenheimer, but…” type of article. If you appreciate history, you will appreciate this article.

Oh, here we go. Somebody always has to stir something up. Can we not enjoy anything without someone writing up something like this?