The Day After Trinity Analysis

Film: The Day After Trinity

General Observations:

The documentary is about Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist, credited for the invention of the atomic bomb. The atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oppenheimer used to not be politically active until the war. He is known to be a left wing while his family members joined the communist. He is a jew and also has a lot of European friends living where the Nazis are. It is interesting to see how people think Oppenheimer’s political actions would influence him to work on the atomic bomb. I think the film suggested that he got involved more because of the politics rather than the knowledge or the practice of science. Oppenheimer was seen as a genius. He wanted to help save the western civilization, and thought the only way was to use physics by joining the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer then became the leader of scientists for this research at Berkley. Robert was told to convince scientists, traveling under a sealed name, to help in a secret project at a secret place in New Mexico. It was also interesting to see that most of the scientists were men and young graduate students they taught. One quote from the film that I remembered was “Oppenheimer sold his soul for knowledge” because he

was “spiritually killed” after they dropped the bombs and the army gave him all the supplies and the people he needed to be able to do physics.
The film also showed how the atomic bomb affected the people. The bomb was first tested in an area called the “Trinity Land,” the Spanish people called it “Journey of Death.” People were evacuated, but it was still called a land of death. This shows that people were scared.
After pearl harbor, US declared war on Japan and Germany. This also made them increase the speed of the Manhattan Project, to defeat Hitler in the race to the first atomic bomb. Russians also wanted Oppenheimer to share the research. However, this became more of a race to get the first atomic bomb, just like the arms race with the nuclear war. I am impressed by what the human society learned from this because with the nuclear war, they didn’t use it. It was more of a race for dignity, knowledge and protection. Both had the concept of mutually assured destruction.
To make the atomic bomb, Uranium 235 and Plutonium had to be created because the ones found in nature weren’t enough. It was the most expensive scientific investment. 10lb of Plutonium costed 1 billion of dollars and yet many more lives were lose for this bomb research. Many uncertainties affected their decisions. The scientists themselves even feared that they might explode the atmosphere and the world may disappear or it may not work at all. It is fascinating to see humans morality at work. They were brave enough to use it on the defenseless Japanese, but not brave enough to risk the demonstration. It was weighing the importance of life and dignity of the countries.
The scientists involved were interviewed in this film and said they regretted what they did and they knew that the things they did, shouldn’t be done again.

I want to know more if the military also thinks this way.After the war, Oppenheimer became the hero and “Einstein’s boss.” Oppenheimer asked for international control in the use of the Atomic bomb. He was later accused as a Russian spy when the Russian too made a bomb. He gave the best to the US, yet he couldn’t be trusted. He wasn’t a part of the Hydrogen bomb research. The US sent people to study the effects of the bomb such as radiation sickness and burns that people still suffer from today. The countries were too caught up and forgot about the future

consequences.

Questions About the Film:
Did they accused Oppenheimer for the disaster from the atomic bomb? why not accuse the military?
Was Oppenheimer the only one accused and not the rest of the team?
If the initial plan for the atomic bomb was to go against Germany, they why did they drop the bombs on the Japanese cities?
The film mentioned that the Japanese didn't antagonize the US? how reliable is this?

Controversial Issues Raised by the Film:
Many controversies are about the necessity of the bomb and where it was used. Some argues that the bomb stopped the war and actually decreased the possible casualties. However, the other question is, are the casualties from the bomb even necessary? Truman asked Japan for an unconditional surrender, but Japan was reluctant because this would harm the emperor’s position. Should Truman lessen their negotiation to end the war with a victory and less casualty? What is more important, ego or lives of the people. This question applies to both Japan and the United States.
The film suggests that there were people who think a demonstration of the atomic bomb would be a better solution. The Japanese might surrender after seeing the demonstration. However, the US was afraid because the scientists weren’t sure if the bomb will definitely work. They had the test and it worked once. If it didn’t work, the US would loose their dignity and faith, but again the can always build and drop a working bomb later. So a demonstration wouldn’t hurt. Some argues that Japan will still be resistant. All of these uncertainties and fear of loosing led to deaths of innocent people.
Some also stated that Japan was already so weak, they might surrender without the atomic bomb. The US already applied massive saturated bombing. However, some argues that even after the first atomic bomb Japan was still too stubborn. So all two bombs were necessary to end the war. This also brings up the controversial issue about how many bombs were necessary and why drop them on a populated area not a military base? Did they really had to go through all these devastation before realizing that dignity is no longer the priority?
Another controversial issue is about the research and creation of the bomb. Should the US stopped the research after the D-day because it was initially to prevent Hitler from getting the first atomic bomb. I think they’ve come too far with all the investments to just stop. In addition, this would be a useful knowledge for the scientific community. Thus, they should finish the research, but not use the powerful bomb on the civilians. Is this a rational revenge for pearl harbor?
Controversial issues also surround the creation of the bomb. Why would a kind person work to make weapons of massive destruction? Would a weapon make a better world? and was it ethical for the countries to treat humans as matter. Scientists were blame for this catastrophe, but the interviewed said “we are no different from people who built weapons to win the war.”
Humanity always build more powerful destructive materials such as the Hydrogen bomb to kill their own specie and to become the first or the most powerful. Is this arms race necessary for a peaceful world? is mutually assured destruction the key to global peace?

What Role(s) Does the Film Play in the Controversies it Raises?
The film only shows the western point of views. Most of the interviewees were scientists and not even the military personnels. I think this controversial issue is presented in a biased way or it is not well-rounded enough. The film maker has a lot of impact and control over the content. They can cut out parts that they dislike and the society wouldn’t know. Films also reach a wide range of audiences, thus, making a wide impact. This makes people more aware of the history especially because it is a documentary film, a medium that people respect as a presenter of the truth. Although this film was about Oppenheimer, there were very little scenes that show his direct perspective. They were mostly his colleague. I think this film also protagonist Oppenheimer and praises him as the genius and the man who did it all. Therefore, I think it is important for people to be aware of the different institutions in the controversy and see films from different perspectives rather than just seeing this one film.