A little information about neutron bombs. They are just normal weapons without the outlet layer used to reflect the neutrons back to the fissionable material. This allows the neutrons to escape. The idea was to use then in the event of a massive Russian tank invasion across the Iron Curtain in Germany. The neutrons would penetrate the steel of the tank and fry the tank drivers. The defense was to simply put a layer of water over the tank that would thermalize the neutrons and lower their damage to living things. The whole thing about killing people and leaving building intact was pure 'anti-nuke" fantasy.
2 Likes
I recall it being something that pro-nuke politicians propagated. There was a big problem with the neutron bomb because development never got it to be as efficient in neutron production as theory indicated, so to get the effect desires in terms of killing Warsaw Pact soldiers it ended up with a blast zone radius larger than the mean distance between population centers in the area where it was expected to be used. And that in turn meant that while it could kill enemy soldiers quickly in about a square kilometerās area it would kill anyone else in the vicinity in about four additional square kilometers, except slowly and agonizingly. So the killing of everyone in the blast area was played up and the collateral damage in civilian lives was ignored.
1 Like
It is possible that Oppenheimer was very worried that Hitler would have a nuclear bomb before the U.S. and that was his motivation over all other concerns. When the project began, there was no way to predict how the war in Europe would unfold, or how it would eventually affect this country or the rest of the world. As it turned out, the war went awry for Germany and Hitler committed suicide a few months before the weapon was successfully tested. At this point, the Government took over and used two of the inventions to end the war with Japan. Oppenheimer hoped that the tremendous power unleashed by the bomb would be a deterrent to the scourge of war around the world, but the images of suffering and death coming out of Japan haunted him for the rest of his life.
2 Likes
I guess it worked to a greater or lesser extent. It is hard to justify the cruelty of Hiroshima but perhaps this is the rare occasion where the end did justify the means? If the world had never seen the results of the bomb would it not be tempted to use it now?
I think we all hate the cold calculation of 1 for a thousand. Perhaps there are times when we have to just bite the bullet, literally.
Richard
Or even one to ten. Humans have the innate impulse to want to rescue individuals, so we tend to recoil when the choice is between a hundred thousand casualties from one bomb versus a million otherwise.
That was actually something included in lifeguard training: given a family whose boat has overturned, with two adults and three children, and you only have the energy to save either two adults or three children, who do you save? (Thank God I never faced such a choice!)
2 Likes
The Germans getting the weapon first was the entire motivation behind the Manhattan project. It was known that they were working on it, and feared at the time that they were farther along than the US towards making it happen. To your point about Oppenheimer specifically, thereās a line in the film, where heās recruiting one of the scientists to join the project. Oppenheimer says something to the effect of, āI donāt know if we can be trusted with this weapon, but I know the Naziās cannot be.ā Whether he actually ever said this specifically or not, I have no way of knowing, of course, but it aligns with what Iāve previously read about the mindset of many of those involved with the project at the time.
Back to the movie itselfā¦I cannot recommend it more highly. I think Mr. Nolan is perhaps the most interesting director working in Hollywood today, and he doesnāt disappoint here. To my way of thinking, most movies are just thatā¦movies. Some are entertaining enough, and thatās fine. Some are awful. Some are pretentious nonsense. But some are truly art, and belong there alongside other art forms. IMO, Oppenheimer is just that. Cillian Murphy is perfect in the title role, and Emily Blunt is great as Oppenheimerās wife. But of course, Iāve liked her work in everything Iāve ever seen her do.
I think @jpm mentioned this earlier, but to point out again - there are a couple sex scenes involving Oppenheimer and his former girlfriend, and a few times where her breasts are exposed. I didnāt find it over-the-top personally, but since this is a forum mostly frequented by Christian believers, I think that disclaimer is worth mentioning. Iām sure some here usually find such things in movies to be in poor taste, or at minimum it would impact whether youād let your kids see it.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.