The film “Oppenheimer” skips from 1945 to 1954 with only one stop in between: a 1949 discussion of the results of airborne isotope collection that showed that the Soviets had tested a fission device. But a lot of other things happened in those nine years.

At the end of the war, the Manhattan Project was disbanded as a military project. J. Robert Oppenheimer and others left Los Alamos to return to their universities. The industrial base for building atom bomb remained, but it was not clear that Los Alamos would continue. Norris Bradbury became director. Having been a naval officer, Bradbury used his connections to arrange a series of tests, Operation Crossroads, at Bikini Atoll in 1946, to help justify a future for Los Alamos.

Two bills were introduced in Congress – the May-Johnson bill proposed a heavy military presence in the nuclear venture, and the McMahon bill proposed civilian control. The May-Johnson bill was vehemently opposed by and lobbied against by scientists. The McMahon bill was eventually passed, and the Atomic Energy Commission, the forerunner of today’s Department of Energy, was formed.

The Harry Truman scene in “Oppenheimer” is accurate in spirit, although Truman made the “crybaby” remark later. The film sticks with the conventional telling of the decision to use the bombs, though, which is another narrative we need to jettison. At the same time, we must recognize Truman as the originator of a trope we now find natural, that only the President can authorize the use of nuclear weapons.

The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan is presented as the result of deliberate decisions by a small group, with Truman the ultimate decider. centering on Truman. I’m working mostly from Alex Wellerstein’s accounts of the history. Here are some resources from Alex: perhaps the fullest academic statement of his findings; a more popular version via interview; a focus on Nagasaki; a podcast with transcript.

When Germany surrendered in May 1945, the Manhattan Project was nearing its goal. A month ear;lier, President Franklin Roosevelt died, and Truman became president. Before that, Truman had not been informed of the Manhattan Project. The goal of the Manhattan Project was to get a bomb before the Germans did. With Germany’s surrender, some of the scientists questioned the purpose of their work.

It’s early days, and we will continue to see reactions to “Oppenheimer.” My interest in the response whether any of it is likely to have a political effect on nuclear weapons.

Even before the film was released, some organizations provided lists of “what to look for” in the film. Those lists usually tilted toward the organizations’ agendas.

• Arms Control Center
• Union of Concerned Scientists
• Federation of American Scientists

The Nuclear Threat Initiative provided reading that was less obviously tilted, and in 2020 Alex Wellerstein provided some useful basics.

[There are probably spoilers in this post. I don’t believe in such things, so I can’t be sure. If you are bothered by them, perhaps best not to read.]

Christopher Nolan has commented that he hopes the movie will spark a discussion of nuclear weapons. Many people, particularly those born since the late 20^th century, believe that nuclear weapons are no longer a threat. For others, they are simply a part of our world, not something that can be changed.

But nuclear weapons are very relevant. Vladimir Putin and other Russians have made nuclear threats during Russia’s war against Ukraine. China is expanding its nuclear arsenal so that the nuclear standoff becomes a three-party problem, more difficult to solve than the Cold War two-party problem, which was not a walk in the park. International agreements to limit nuclear weapons are falling. Anticolonialism emphasizes the wrongs done during the development of nuclear weapons to states and communities of color. We need new ways to think about nuclear weapons and war, while a 19^th-century war of conquest is in progress. We need new ways to think about the ongoing damages of an arms race, which were previously ignored.

I may be the worst person in the world to write a movie review. The way I like to watch movies is by immersion, not being analytical. I am not versed in the language of film criticism. If I watch a movie several times, I can start to get that part of it, but I have seen “Oppenheimer” only once.

I have my own priors – I’ve lived in two of the film’s sets for significant periods of time and have interacted with people who knew Opperheimer and participated in the Manhattan Project. I have been indoctrinated into the Oppenheimer cult and was gratified to see E. O. Lawrence portrayed as one of the bad guys, along with, of course, Edward Teller. (Necessary note that the reference to a cult is a deliberate exaggeration.) I drove to the movie past the place where the bridge was where David Greenglass handed off blueprints to a Soviet handler. I sat with two former Lab colleagues t the theater. Later today I drive to Los Alamos to attend a memorial service for a friend at Fuller Lodge.

There are several ways I could go about this, but I think I’ll start with random thoughts about the movie, then, in later posts, move on to locating it in today’s culture. If you want standard film criticism, Abigail Nussbaum addresses the film and some of the criticisms of the criticisms. I mostly agree with her.