CBRNPro.net

Some decon guys are better than others.



https://www.facebook.com/share/r/eYaAL3vU2g3qD1LN/?mibextid=D5vuiz

So, I did the Barbenheimer. Brief review of Oppenheimer follows (Barbie does not have any CBRN elements, depending on how you classify toxic masculinity).

Oppenheimer must be seen in a theater. The sound is incredible and an essential part of the experience, likely lost at home. It will definitely win an Oscar for its sound. So, don't wait for it on streaming unless you have a hell of a sound system at home. If you do the Barbenheimer you will hear Oppenheimer rumbling next door while watching Barbie. Oppenheimer deploys overwhelming walls of sound in unique ways that you have to feel in your chest for the full effect...and you will, but only in a good theater.

My only historical quibble, as with all history of the Manhattan project, is the poor characterization of Groves, his importance to the project, and nature of his collaboration with Oppenheimer. I'm sure there are some minor ones, but the movie is a biopic of one man and in that regard it does an excellent job exploring the gray areas and the ambiguous life of a man often compared to a sphinx or a chameleon.

I really appreciated that Nolan decided to explore post-war events and the debate between Oppenheimer and Teller over fusion weapons, framing the entire movie in the layered, contrasting context of the Strauss confirmation hearing and Oppenheimer's security clearance hearing. Teller, like Groves, has long deserved his own biopic and a better biography - fortunately we have one for Groves, (see below).

That said, the Strauss hearing is another area where historians may have quibbles (despite Downy, Jr.'s excellent portrayal). Strauss's arrogance and demeanor toward senators contributed as much to his downfall as the scientists who spoke out against him over the Oppenheimer affair. It is definitely there in the film, but may be too subtle for those unaware to notice, as the movie frames the hearing more as Oppenheimer's vindication or some sort of karmic justice, rather than the downfall of a petty, dismissive, arrogant bureaucrat with an overcompensating demeanor that masked a fragile ego, running into a political buzzsaw of equally preening senators (the nod to JFK at the end, whose criticism of Strauss and Eisenhower's nuclear policy, as well as JFKs own presidential ambitions in 1958, is brief, and another aspect the film leaves out regarding the broader political dimensions of that hearing, for more context see must reads below).

The ambiguity of many elements of the film as to Oppenheimer's motives and actions is probably it's strongest point and the Strauss/Oppenheimer conflict and post war events as shown in the film are perhaps Nolan's best work in the film exploring these gray areas. In part, because Nolan is careful to never provide a definitive "answer" or portray Oppenheimer sympathetically, letting him and events retain their somewhat opaque nature. He generally adheres to actual transcripts where available (something else worth appreciating about the film).

Was the ever shifty, arrogant Oppenheimer a martyr to some cause or a willing sacrifice avoiding responsibility for actions he was unwilling to accept responsibility for? Nolan let's you decide.

In that, the film is often at its most accurate in its portrayal of Oppenheimer and the intersection of the public and private man and his many insecurities (sound plays a key role in this, I can't stress that enough - you need to hear this movie as much as see it). Nolan suggests, based on evidence, again without providing a definite conclusion, that Oppenheimer struggled with any number of mental health issues, especially anxiety. The way Nolan does this is the most artistic part of the film and the reason it is worth paying to sit in a movie theater for 3+ hours to see it.

As much as I liked the film, I definitely think it is worth watching Fat Man and Little Boy for a better examination of the Groves/Oppenheimer relationship and Manhattan Project key events, despite that film's well known issues with fictionalized characters. Paul Newman did his homework on Groves and it shows, though neither film casts an actor that resembles Groves physically.

While I enjoyed it, I do not recommend watching the WGN TV series Manhattan (available on streaming) for anything resembling history - it is entirely fictionalized and only occasionally touches on actual events or real people.

Must reads (If you want more of the history):

Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986) and Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (1995);

Robert Norris, General Leslie R. Groves: the Manhattan Project's Indispensable Man (2002)

Baker, Richard A. "A Slap at the `Hidden-Hand Presidency': The Senate and the Lewis Strauss Affair." Congress and the Presidency 14 (Spring, 1987): 1-15.

While there are any number of great books on the broader arguments about US nuclear deterrence and strategy in the post war era and the shift from Massive Retaliation under Eisenhower to JFKs Flexible Response that played a role in the Strauss hearings, I generally recommend one of the time, Maxwell Taylor's The Uncertain Trumpet (1959), and two more recent works: Aaron Friedberg's In the Shadow of the Garrison State (2000), and Nicholas Thompson's, The Hawk and the Dove (2009).

As long a they keep making these videos, I'm gonna keep sharing them.

Happy birthday to the senior service, stay crazy my brothers and sisters.