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.

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      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.

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          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.

      • 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.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Look up most of the contemporary US pacific command saying the bombings were unnecessary. I know Asian people are just ants to people like you but Jesus, the pathetic rationalizations.

        • TheBurlapBandit@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ants is a pretty apt comparison to Japanese culture at the time. All expected to become soldiers and die for the hive. Seriously, shit was crazy. They were not going to surrender otherwise.

          Firebombings were daily killing more than the bombs did as well.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ants is a pretty apt comparison to Japanese culture at the time.

            Okay, thank you for proving my point and admitting you’re a virulent racist so publicly.

            • TheBurlapBandit@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I mean… That’s what the culture was at the time. No need to name call over it. It is well documented and any attempt to obfuscate it is revisionism.

              Our discussion is prompting me to look more into the history here, though. Your comment on modern generals’ statements is intriguing. That lead me to learn about Soviet entry into the war, defeating Japan in Manchuria, which may have promoted talk of surrender among Japanese leadership.

              I’ll certainly keep researching and I’m open to changing my view. Feel free to present me with some material to consider rather than calling me racist.