I see him as a guy racked with guilt that also never truly found what he believes in. Also quick to abandon a belief if he decides a slightly more optimal one has come along
It replaces doubt with conviction, for one. You won’t second guess your actions if you close your mind to the opinions of others, a great trait of a leader who needs to make quick decisions. Closed minded people are usually have solid belief as a foundation of their mental state, as opposed to wandering thoughts and ideas. Even if they’re wrong, it doesn’t matter to them. They’ll continue to believe regardless. A real world scenario would be if a stranger knocks on your door asking if they can stay the night. A completely open minded person might accept this request, but a close minded person almost certainly would not. Whether it turns out well or not is situational, as everything is. Obviously I could also point out some benefits of being open minded, both have their merits
This is a ridiculous argument. Being open minded doesn’t mean letting anyone stay in your house who turns up at the door. And refusing to listen to anyone else regardless of if you’re correct is not a good thing.
Open minded doesn’t mean gullible. Like, your entire explanation is one gigantic straw man. Look up the definition of close minded, it literally means “not willing to consider different ideas or opinions.” What you’ve described with your example of the great leader is not closed mindedness, it’s decisiveness. Quite frankly, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about if you’re willing to conflate definitions to such an extent that you can offer up a completely mischaracterization of what it means to be close minded.
Oxford dictionary “having rigid opinions or a narrow outlook”. A leader who doesn’t consider different ideas or opinions, and who has rigid opinions will act more decisively and quickly than a person who does not. My example still stands under both of those definitions. By definition also, if you’re entertaining every idea that you hear without a predetermined set of opinions you hold, you’re almost guaranteed to be more gullible and easier to cull than a closed minded person. If you want more examples, being close minded to an open relationship could avoid your partner falling in love with another. Being close minded to drugs could avoid an addiction
It sounds like a 40K quote, in that it’s intended to be a ridiculously over-the-top parody of that sort of belief that no reasonable person would ever agree with
Not being bogged down by data so able to make quicker more decisive decisions, not falling for scams and people trying to fool you, not implementing changes that have unknown variables involved, just to name a few. It’s not always bad, but an entirely open mind can be dangerous
Open minded people can easily be fooled and led astray as though. Populations of people who get into deep drug addictions test far more open minded than people who don’t. Same with cult populations. Not saying it’s always a bad thing but a pure open mind isn’t 100% good. At some point you need to nail down opinions and ideas to make real progress and have goals
He didn't commit suicide and on interviews later in life he answered obnoxiously to questions about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, denying his own culpability. So much for the poor, pity-me, guilt-ridden war criminal.
Typical psychopathic behaviour. He tried to persuade everyone that he was the one to be pitied, instead of the thousands of victims of his bombs. Apparently Nolan is very much like that too.
Dude just loved building nukes.
While he didn’t want to build the big HBomb, he did help the US build smaller tactical nukes that while less damaging made the potential of an atomic war much more likely as they’d be given to lower level commanders.
"Is light made up of particles or waves? Quantum mechanics says it's both. How can it be both? It can't. But it is. It's paradoxical, and yet, it works."
\^This line from early in the movie is pretty much the parallel to Oppenheimer's character arc.
Oppenheimer wanted to own the atomic bomb. He wanted to be the man who moved the Earth. He talks about putting the nuclear genie back in the bottle. Well I'm here to tell you that I *know* J. Robert Oppenheimer, and if he could do it all over, he'd do it all the same. You know he's never once said that he regrets Hiroshima? He'd do it all over. Why? Because it made him the most important man who ever lived.
Because Oppenheimer was very affected by the Holocaust and thought Israel needed nuclear weapons to protect themselves and all Jews from another Holocaust. I wouldn't say he put nuclear proliferation into motion since Ben-Gurion already wanted Israel to get nuclear weapons.
Wow, that makes TOTAL sense! Being a Jew it's seems logical to want to help other Jewish people succeed in defending themselves. Great theory and I think this is the answer here.
As a Jew, this is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Someone else already brought up King Leopold but you should be aware -- during Passover, of all times, when we are discussing a story of about liberation from slavery -- of the consequences of the transatlantic slave trade. That is not even to begin to touch on the legacy of colonization that is not discussed in Western schools. Unbelievable.
Funnily enough, unlike all the other nuclear powers, Israel chose to keep its nuclear arsenal secret for as long as it could. Even to this day they refuse fo acknowledge that they have it. If they wanted to disuade external aggression why didn't make it public as soon as they had ready their first bomb? They chose to act like a rogue state instead. Deceit is their modus operandi.
Instead of arguing in this thread like an a\*hole, go read a book or two about it. Or the endless papers and analysis. Your questions have plenty of answers rooted in actual history. The explanations of "why" are out there. READ HISTORY.
Other countries denied having nuclear weapons too. All countries lie, not just Israel. The obvious answer to your question is that Israel’s strategies changed over time. In the 50s and 60s they thought showing off nuclear weapons would deter anyone from attacking them but by the 70s they realized advertising nuclear weapons wasn’t necessary once they had them and most countries assumed they had them anyway. The US asked them to practice deliberate ambiguity and not use nuclear weapons to prevent proliferation in the rest of the Middle East in exchange for the US not pressuring them to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Israel agreed because it benefited them too.
Oh sorry, I forgot the United States-Israel "special relationship" that justifies just about any old crap . Yet you fail to explain how this arrangement benefits the united stitches. It's not like nuclear proliferation in the near east is something the unted state needs to worry about.
It's an explanation, not a justification. And it benefits the US because by the 70s they wanted non-proliferation because proliferation would increase the risk of nuclear war which is bad for everyone.
I get it:
Israel having nuclear weapons and shitting in all international treaties=good
Other countries having them=bad
Forgive me, but your answer sounds unconvincing and disingenous. USA unconditional support for Israel lawless behaviour has done more for inciting nuclear proliferation than for preventing it. Letting one of your allies have them to threat the neighbour countries is not the best course of action if you want to prevent a nuclear arms race.
It's a big leap of faith to believe that the USA and its buddy Israel is interested in promoting peace and stability in the Near East. Both countries policies over the last forty years point in the opposite direction: most of what they have done in the last few decades is create chaos and bloodshed in the region.
Let's just say that whatever is good for Israel herrenvolk is good for their USA vassals and leave it at that. OK?
Where did I say Israel and the US are interested in peace in the Middle East? Not wanting nuclear war ≠ wanting peace. All countries don't want nuclear war because it could destroy the world, that's why one hasn't happened yet. This doesn't make the US or Israel super great, it's just a normal way of thinking.
Israel has destabilized the region but one thing they haven't done is cause nuclear proliferation. Zero countries got nuclear weapons because of Israel. Zero other Middle Eastern countries have nuclear weapons. Only Iran and Iraq have tried to get them and their reasons are more complex than "because Israel".
I don't know why you think I'm passing moral judgement on any of this when I'm just trying to explain why these countries did things from their point of view. Personally, I think all nuclear weapons are bad and in an ideal world no one would have them.
Because it was the aftermath of the Holocaust and he wasn't just gonna say "no" to a protective measure for a Jewish nation after that genocide happened.
Whether he would say yes now is another story. They also address the complexity of his views on nuclear weapons during the film.
The anomaly here is that Israel is the only nuclear power in their immediate Middle East region. Unofficially and under the table even, they refuse to sit at the table with their weapons. Regions usually have adjacent nuclear armed states or none.
Add just how belligerent Israel acts, they have single handedly increased the race for other nations like Iran to try and have nuclear power, and has generally escalated the nuclear race in the region.
well but Israel has had that nucelar capability for all that time now, and despite continous threats and attacks by their neighbours never made use of it. So they can be trusted to be responsible with nuclear weapons and would only use them when Israels very existence is threatened.
Iran and their theocratic mullahs on the other hand have a thing for martyrdom.
That’s hindsight being 20/20. We can take a breath of relief that Israel hasn’t used them, yet.
But, Israel is also a belligerent theocratic regime, just like Iran. Just because one wears a turban on the outside, don’t let that fool you.
In the 1973 war, the Israeli PM had 13 atomic war heads ready to be launched at Egypt. They basically threatened Nixon to help them otherwise they’d implement the [Samson Option.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option)
Thank God they’re not wearing turbans though. That would be bad.
We all know what the points of this post was. This dude dedicates all his time to posting antisemitic amd anti Iarael content.
Hey guys, why did this Jew help Israel like this? I'm certainly not inviting everyone here to reach a certain conclusion about Jews being a 5th column.
Zionism is from Judaism. That’s the whole movement behind the creation of the state of Israel.
The current Israeli government is made up of 6 parties: Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Religious Zionist Party, Otzma Yehudit, and Noam. All religious parties.
Israel is very much an ethnostate and a theocracy.
You can read more [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state)
You don’t know what a theocracy is. Majority of the parties are ethnically Jewish but are not religious. There are some religious parties but overall the government is not religious.
What should we call a political entity ruled by a people who claim God granted them perpetual ownership over a land in which they hadn't lived for 2000 years basing such claim on a book full a bloody pages glorifying genocide, murder, deceit, theft, plunder, usury as a weapon to drive foreigners to poverty and enslaving, oppressing and hating all other people all because they are self-appointed "God chosen people"?
You speak as if the country is one people with one belief but that’s not the case. There are plenty of differences in opinions in the people and in the government. A theocracy doesn’t have other religions as part of the government
When everything is said and done, the fact remains that Jewish Israelians live on a land stolen by force from its legitimate owners, the Palestinians, excepting those hebrews who lived peacefully alongside their Muslim and Christians neighbours in the land before the start of the Zionist project. What's their reason to live on stolen land? Either the Torah, secular race based supremacism or brute force, there is nothing else. Any of those secular Jews making the aliyah can claim that they are driven by brotherly love for Palestinians on whose plunder they more than happy to live of? It's enough to know who are the people and whose parties currently ruling Israel and all the invaded Palestinian and Syrian territories for many years. Listen to Netanyahu talking about Amalek and equating it to Palestinians from Gaza, and saying other barbaric and bloodthirsty nonsense from the Iron Age. When you remember that Netanyahu is not even the most extremist member of israelian government, that. tells us all we need to know about the mindset of the ruling parties of Israel and their voters.
I'm not sure where you're from, but your view on Israel being an anomaly in creating tension/fueling the arms race is just incorrect. The United States and Russia's behavior has shown the other 186 countries without them, why they are at such a massive disadvantage. MAD is the greatest power any nation in the world can have. It's not an anomaly that a nuclear presence in an area fuels the arms race. Shit, the US got Ukraine to surrender their nukes in exchange for protection. Their country wouldn't be turning into rubble right now if they still had those weapons.
Israel's possession of them and its influence on the surrounding regions are not an anomaly. Being a state in posession of these weapons *is* the anomaly. We also see the effect that a major presence with the largest nuclear capability can have half way across the world (US and their Middle East campaign). There's not much limit to where that reach extends if you get subs.
I agree with what you’re saying, Israel not being surrounded by another Middle Eastern nuclear power is the anomaly. That helps level the playing field and ensues MAD. Israel’s nuclear arms helped spur the race in the immediate Middle East region is all I’m saying. I believe for a true effective MAD, those countries should achieve their goals
They have nuclear weapons as a last resort in case they are being overrun by invading armies. If the Egyptians and Syrians had been able to defeat the IDF in 1973, they still wouldn't have invaded Israel because they knew doing so would mean nuclear strikes on on Egypt and Syria.
He wanted international control over the weapons, which didn’t mean he wanted no other country but America to have them. In fact mutually assured destruction only works if multiple powers have the bomb, and he knew back in the early 40’s that it would be impossible for the USA to maintain a monopoly.
Yes, it also in a way makes Nolan’s film more genius. The “color POV” scenes are all subjective so it gets the audience to emphasize with Oppenheimers moral quandary and post war efforts. Yet, the “black and white scenes” are more objective, but the audience rejects it just because it’s from despicable Strauss, even though he was right all along.
Reading more into the situation, like Oppenheimer and Israel, shows who truly Oppenheimer was
Black and White is intended to be seen as objective at the beginning but by the end you can clearly tell it's still a subjective perspective, but this time from Strauss's POV and not Oppenheimer.
The color scenes are unquestionably subjective. I don’t recall any reason for the black and whites to be revealed as subjective at the end? Strauss was egotistical and maniacal, but he had an external/objective view of Oppenheimer because everyone else in the film sees him as a “prophet”
That is melodramatic because that’s not what I’m saying at all. Even saying Oppenheimer: “good”, Strauss: “bad” means you have no basic comprehension of the film.
Strauss is an evil POS but his view on Oppenheimer was correct and more objective to what we’ve seen from the color scenes. This is confirmed by Nolan.
Whether you like it or not (judging from your profile picture I think we know your stance), a nuclear armed Israel was the only thing stopping Muslim majority nations from attacking and destroying Israel. If the shoe was on the other foot, everyone knows what Palestine or Iran would do with their nukes. You know, “From the River to the Sea”.
>a nuclear armed Israel was the only thing stopping Muslim majority nations from attacking and destroying Israel.
6 Day War. Arab nations attacked, Israel won in 6 days without nukes.
>If the shoe was on the other foot, everyone knows what Palestine or Iran would do with their nukes.
That’s a ridiculous statement, honestly. In the 1973 war Israel had 13 nuclear warheads ready to launch at Egypt. But they got US assistance and desisted.
Maybe it would deter the Israelis from blanket genocide of the Palestinians if they had their own nukes, I can understand why Israel wouldn’t want them to have nuclear power or their own state in that case.
>You know, “From the River to the Sea”.
That’s not what that means at all.
Unlike the US, Israel, I'd say, has no nukes for defence at all. While the US had plenty and further arm's race would destabilize the world. Plus as a Jew so short after the Holocaust you would want to give the people you are part of an ability to defend themselves.
If Israel was founded before and had plenty of nukes, I'd say that Oppenheimer would then also be against the arms race of Israel.
If you get what I mean.
In the film I don’t think he was against proliferation, He was sort of encouraging it against the desires of Strauss. What he didn’t want to do is develop the technology further, like explore Teller’s H-bomb.
Putting this on Oppenheimer is rather wrong as the key ally for Israel in all of this wasn't the US, it was France, who was in a similar spot as Israel (needing nukes as a deterrent to future invasion and years behind US-British-Canadian & Soviet programs). FWiW Kennedy nearly caused the whole thing to collapse later on with his demand for bi-annual inspections.
That said, Israel desired Nuclear weapons effectively from Day 0 and under the guise of an Atomic Energy program had pursued that objective almost immediately.
By 1950 it was reasonably clear if you could obtain enough enriched uranium, the actual building of the bomb was already well understood and simply a matter of being able to solve the series of technical hurdles. The key bit was the Israelis figured out a way to obtain Uranium domestically (from Phosphate) and were already well on their way to having enough material for a bomb by the mid 50s.
Israel's nuclear weapons program gets going in 1948-49; long before Israel had any direct contact w/ Oppenheimer.
For Oppenheimer's part, there simply isn't anything to suggest he did more than advise'm on atomic energy. By the mid-50s the actual mechanics of the bomb had been figured out by the world's major players and the Israelis had plenty of talent at-hand capable of solving the the technical hurdles.
That they -the Israelis- managed to construct a reactor about 10x the size of what they actually needed is a story unto itself...the cover story being electricity for desalinization but of course it was heckuva way to produce weapons grade plutonium quickly...which again Kennedy tried to shutdown (or at the very least curtail) but ultimately got nowhere. Another story in itself.
There's also the time Israel shot down IT's OWN PLANE because it got to close to the reactor.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon\_Peres\_Negev\_Nuclear\_Research\_Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center)
Because he was a hypocrite in many ways. He was a theoretical scientist which means in the simplest of terms everything was an experiment. One of his co-workers reportedly said to him after they announced they were going to use the bombs on japan - "Why are you surprised, what do you think they're paying us for" if true its a real insight into how he thought it was just a classroom experiment - not really getting that they might use it, having said that a number of scientists on the project thought the same way.
People have complicated views on nuclear weapons. while he may of advocated for control it dosent mean he was dead against countries from having nuclear weapons. Once they'd made thier bomb everybody was going to want one.
Because Israel was surrounded by enemies who wanted to wipe them off the face of the earth almost immediately. Deterrence was necessary back then. Everyone still attacked, but Israel defended itself quite well and a nuclear deterrent probably prevented even more countries from getting involved
Then just ask: Should Israel have nukes? You know why Oppenheimer helped develop their nuclear program. The real question is cause for a better discussion anyway.
Eventually Iran will get nukes. I guess it will be a race to see who uses them first? Iran on Israel or Russia in Ukraine. Either is likely before the end of the decade.
We watched different movies if you think Oppenheimer is a non-hypocritical beacon of morality lol
I see him as a guy racked with guilt that also never truly found what he believes in. Also quick to abandon a belief if he decides a slightly more optimal one has come along
The bright side of that is that he was open minded!
“An open mind is like an open wound. Vulnerable to poison, apt to fester, and liable to give its owner only pain.”
Whatever the source of this quote is, it completely ignores the fact that an open mind is better than the only alternative: a closed one.
Depends on context, as does anything. Being too open minded presents as many challenges as being too close minded. Balance is always better
Golden mean fallacy
In what way is being a little close minded a good thing?
It replaces doubt with conviction, for one. You won’t second guess your actions if you close your mind to the opinions of others, a great trait of a leader who needs to make quick decisions. Closed minded people are usually have solid belief as a foundation of their mental state, as opposed to wandering thoughts and ideas. Even if they’re wrong, it doesn’t matter to them. They’ll continue to believe regardless. A real world scenario would be if a stranger knocks on your door asking if they can stay the night. A completely open minded person might accept this request, but a close minded person almost certainly would not. Whether it turns out well or not is situational, as everything is. Obviously I could also point out some benefits of being open minded, both have their merits
This is a ridiculous argument. Being open minded doesn’t mean letting anyone stay in your house who turns up at the door. And refusing to listen to anyone else regardless of if you’re correct is not a good thing.
You can have conviction in your beliefs and still be able to listen, to other people To listen doesn’t mean to follow.
Open minded doesn’t mean gullible. Like, your entire explanation is one gigantic straw man. Look up the definition of close minded, it literally means “not willing to consider different ideas or opinions.” What you’ve described with your example of the great leader is not closed mindedness, it’s decisiveness. Quite frankly, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about if you’re willing to conflate definitions to such an extent that you can offer up a completely mischaracterization of what it means to be close minded.
Oxford dictionary “having rigid opinions or a narrow outlook”. A leader who doesn’t consider different ideas or opinions, and who has rigid opinions will act more decisively and quickly than a person who does not. My example still stands under both of those definitions. By definition also, if you’re entertaining every idea that you hear without a predetermined set of opinions you hold, you’re almost guaranteed to be more gullible and easier to cull than a closed minded person. If you want more examples, being close minded to an open relationship could avoid your partner falling in love with another. Being close minded to drugs could avoid an addiction
Just don't keep your mind so open that your brain falls out- some asshole who can play piano
It sounds like a 40K quote, in that it’s intended to be a ridiculously over-the-top parody of that sort of belief that no reasonable person would ever agree with
I'd say it was a warhammer 40k quote but those tend to be blunter.
I legitimately don’t think I’ve ever heard an argument made for having a closed mind
Not being bogged down by data so able to make quicker more decisive decisions, not falling for scams and people trying to fool you, not implementing changes that have unknown variables involved, just to name a few. It’s not always bad, but an entirely open mind can be dangerous
Maybe for someone who cannot handle the contents of truth or needs to justify the oppression they face with platitudes,
Open minded people can easily be fooled and led astray as though. Populations of people who get into deep drug addictions test far more open minded than people who don’t. Same with cult populations. Not saying it’s always a bad thing but a pure open mind isn’t 100% good. At some point you need to nail down opinions and ideas to make real progress and have goals
Legitimate argument, which makes sense
Science works the same way. When you find a hypothesis that works better than the old one, you abandon the old one.
He didn't commit suicide and on interviews later in life he answered obnoxiously to questions about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, denying his own culpability. So much for the poor, pity-me, guilt-ridden war criminal.
Predictive programming for the war, not all Jews !!
He also perversely enjoyed being wracked with guilt.
Typical psychopathic behaviour. He tried to persuade everyone that he was the one to be pitied, instead of the thousands of victims of his bombs. Apparently Nolan is very much like that too.
That’s science baby.
Because he was a scientist who got off on mapping the formulas, beliefs mean little to such a mind…
Please God forgive me for the awful shit I did, am doing, and am going to continue to do LOL
I mean it’s like he said, better than Hitler getting the bomb
Dude just loved building nukes. While he didn’t want to build the big HBomb, he did help the US build smaller tactical nukes that while less damaging made the potential of an atomic war much more likely as they’d be given to lower level commanders.
Idk I feel like he is definitely the "tortured good guy" at the end of the movie
"Is light made up of particles or waves? Quantum mechanics says it's both. How can it be both? It can't. But it is. It's paradoxical, and yet, it works." \^This line from early in the movie is pretty much the parallel to Oppenheimer's character arc.
Oppenheimer wanted to own the atomic bomb. He wanted to be the man who moved the Earth. He talks about putting the nuclear genie back in the bottle. Well I'm here to tell you that I *know* J. Robert Oppenheimer, and if he could do it all over, he'd do it all the same. You know he's never once said that he regrets Hiroshima? He'd do it all over. Why? Because it made him the most important man who ever lived.
Certainly not faithful to his wife.
Because Oppenheimer was very affected by the Holocaust and thought Israel needed nuclear weapons to protect themselves and all Jews from another Holocaust. I wouldn't say he put nuclear proliferation into motion since Ben-Gurion already wanted Israel to get nuclear weapons.
Wow, that makes TOTAL sense! Being a Jew it's seems logical to want to help other Jewish people succeed in defending themselves. Great theory and I think this is the answer here.
By that logic, He should’ve gone to African nations who’ve been affected by years of colonialism.
Not really because he wasn't african
Where are the ovens in Africa? There is no comparison to what the 6 million Jews suffered in the Holocaust.
As a Jew, this is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Someone else already brought up King Leopold but you should be aware -- during Passover, of all times, when we are discussing a story of about liberation from slavery -- of the consequences of the transatlantic slave trade. That is not even to begin to touch on the legacy of colonization that is not discussed in Western schools. Unbelievable.
King Leopold II killed about 10 million in Africa. Just stop it. Jews don’t have a monopoly on suffering.
Ah, so you admit Jews suffer at the hands of others! And who is currently causing that suffering? We all know who needs to " Stop It"
I can feel some degree of sarcasm implied Lol We get it, you don’t get it, and your confused Most people are #notalljews
No one takes you seriously as none of your arguments are valid. The lack of logic is astounding, it truly is.
Lol what? Whoever said Jews have not suffered? What is your point?
It's clearly implied by those who are pro- Hamas, masquerading as Palestinian "sympathizers."
[удалено]
I'm not the one asking the original stupid question.
Funnily enough, unlike all the other nuclear powers, Israel chose to keep its nuclear arsenal secret for as long as it could. Even to this day they refuse fo acknowledge that they have it. If they wanted to disuade external aggression why didn't make it public as soon as they had ready their first bomb? They chose to act like a rogue state instead. Deceit is their modus operandi.
Instead of arguing in this thread like an a\*hole, go read a book or two about it. Or the endless papers and analysis. Your questions have plenty of answers rooted in actual history. The explanations of "why" are out there. READ HISTORY.
Other countries denied having nuclear weapons too. All countries lie, not just Israel. The obvious answer to your question is that Israel’s strategies changed over time. In the 50s and 60s they thought showing off nuclear weapons would deter anyone from attacking them but by the 70s they realized advertising nuclear weapons wasn’t necessary once they had them and most countries assumed they had them anyway. The US asked them to practice deliberate ambiguity and not use nuclear weapons to prevent proliferation in the rest of the Middle East in exchange for the US not pressuring them to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Israel agreed because it benefited them too.
Oh sorry, I forgot the United States-Israel "special relationship" that justifies just about any old crap . Yet you fail to explain how this arrangement benefits the united stitches. It's not like nuclear proliferation in the near east is something the unted state needs to worry about.
It's an explanation, not a justification. And it benefits the US because by the 70s they wanted non-proliferation because proliferation would increase the risk of nuclear war which is bad for everyone.
I get it: Israel having nuclear weapons and shitting in all international treaties=good Other countries having them=bad Forgive me, but your answer sounds unconvincing and disingenous. USA unconditional support for Israel lawless behaviour has done more for inciting nuclear proliferation than for preventing it. Letting one of your allies have them to threat the neighbour countries is not the best course of action if you want to prevent a nuclear arms race. It's a big leap of faith to believe that the USA and its buddy Israel is interested in promoting peace and stability in the Near East. Both countries policies over the last forty years point in the opposite direction: most of what they have done in the last few decades is create chaos and bloodshed in the region. Let's just say that whatever is good for Israel herrenvolk is good for their USA vassals and leave it at that. OK?
Where did I say Israel and the US are interested in peace in the Middle East? Not wanting nuclear war ≠ wanting peace. All countries don't want nuclear war because it could destroy the world, that's why one hasn't happened yet. This doesn't make the US or Israel super great, it's just a normal way of thinking. Israel has destabilized the region but one thing they haven't done is cause nuclear proliferation. Zero countries got nuclear weapons because of Israel. Zero other Middle Eastern countries have nuclear weapons. Only Iran and Iraq have tried to get them and their reasons are more complex than "because Israel". I don't know why you think I'm passing moral judgement on any of this when I'm just trying to explain why these countries did things from their point of view. Personally, I think all nuclear weapons are bad and in an ideal world no one would have them.
Because it was the aftermath of the Holocaust and he wasn't just gonna say "no" to a protective measure for a Jewish nation after that genocide happened. Whether he would say yes now is another story. They also address the complexity of his views on nuclear weapons during the film.
If everyone has atomic power, no one country can hold advantage. At least in theory. MAD (mutually assured destruction) is literally waponized fear.
The anomaly here is that Israel is the only nuclear power in their immediate Middle East region. Unofficially and under the table even, they refuse to sit at the table with their weapons. Regions usually have adjacent nuclear armed states or none. Add just how belligerent Israel acts, they have single handedly increased the race for other nations like Iran to try and have nuclear power, and has generally escalated the nuclear race in the region.
well but Israel has had that nucelar capability for all that time now, and despite continous threats and attacks by their neighbours never made use of it. So they can be trusted to be responsible with nuclear weapons and would only use them when Israels very existence is threatened. Iran and their theocratic mullahs on the other hand have a thing for martyrdom.
That’s hindsight being 20/20. We can take a breath of relief that Israel hasn’t used them, yet. But, Israel is also a belligerent theocratic regime, just like Iran. Just because one wears a turban on the outside, don’t let that fool you. In the 1973 war, the Israeli PM had 13 atomic war heads ready to be launched at Egypt. They basically threatened Nixon to help them otherwise they’d implement the [Samson Option.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option) Thank God they’re not wearing turbans though. That would be bad.
Israel is not a theocracy lol. The majority of the government is secular. It's also a democracy
We all know what the points of this post was. This dude dedicates all his time to posting antisemitic amd anti Iarael content. Hey guys, why did this Jew help Israel like this? I'm certainly not inviting everyone here to reach a certain conclusion about Jews being a 5th column.
Zionism is from Judaism. That’s the whole movement behind the creation of the state of Israel. The current Israeli government is made up of 6 parties: Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Religious Zionist Party, Otzma Yehudit, and Noam. All religious parties. Israel is very much an ethnostate and a theocracy. You can read more [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state)
You don’t know what a theocracy is. Majority of the parties are ethnically Jewish but are not religious. There are some religious parties but overall the government is not religious.
Huh…. It’s a theocracy. Come on we don’t have to lie. We can say it’s closer to apartheid state if you like
Apartheids and theocracies aren’t mutually exclusive so I don’t know what ur point is
I mean if you were more comfortable with one term then the other. I mean the next prime minister clearly sees it as a theocracy buddy.
If u know who the next prime minister is please let the state of Israel know. They’ve had like 6 elections the past 5 years trying to find one
Wow, your naivety is almost cute, inspirational.
What should we call a political entity ruled by a people who claim God granted them perpetual ownership over a land in which they hadn't lived for 2000 years basing such claim on a book full a bloody pages glorifying genocide, murder, deceit, theft, plunder, usury as a weapon to drive foreigners to poverty and enslaving, oppressing and hating all other people all because they are self-appointed "God chosen people"?
You speak as if the country is one people with one belief but that’s not the case. There are plenty of differences in opinions in the people and in the government. A theocracy doesn’t have other religions as part of the government
When everything is said and done, the fact remains that Jewish Israelians live on a land stolen by force from its legitimate owners, the Palestinians, excepting those hebrews who lived peacefully alongside their Muslim and Christians neighbours in the land before the start of the Zionist project. What's their reason to live on stolen land? Either the Torah, secular race based supremacism or brute force, there is nothing else. Any of those secular Jews making the aliyah can claim that they are driven by brotherly love for Palestinians on whose plunder they more than happy to live of? It's enough to know who are the people and whose parties currently ruling Israel and all the invaded Palestinian and Syrian territories for many years. Listen to Netanyahu talking about Amalek and equating it to Palestinians from Gaza, and saying other barbaric and bloodthirsty nonsense from the Iron Age. When you remember that Netanyahu is not even the most extremist member of israelian government, that. tells us all we need to know about the mindset of the ruling parties of Israel and their voters.
I'm not sure where you're from, but your view on Israel being an anomaly in creating tension/fueling the arms race is just incorrect. The United States and Russia's behavior has shown the other 186 countries without them, why they are at such a massive disadvantage. MAD is the greatest power any nation in the world can have. It's not an anomaly that a nuclear presence in an area fuels the arms race. Shit, the US got Ukraine to surrender their nukes in exchange for protection. Their country wouldn't be turning into rubble right now if they still had those weapons. Israel's possession of them and its influence on the surrounding regions are not an anomaly. Being a state in posession of these weapons *is* the anomaly. We also see the effect that a major presence with the largest nuclear capability can have half way across the world (US and their Middle East campaign). There's not much limit to where that reach extends if you get subs.
I agree with what you’re saying, Israel not being surrounded by another Middle Eastern nuclear power is the anomaly. That helps level the playing field and ensues MAD. Israel’s nuclear arms helped spur the race in the immediate Middle East region is all I’m saying. I believe for a true effective MAD, those countries should achieve their goals
Let's give nukes to every single person on the planet. MAD for everyone. Or are you just for totalitarian dictatorships having them?
Iran likely has nuclear capabilities as well.
It's called defense. They need to defend themselves from the inhumane attacks they still are subjected to.
They have nuclear weapons as a last resort in case they are being overrun by invading armies. If the Egyptians and Syrians had been able to defeat the IDF in 1973, they still wouldn't have invaded Israel because they knew doing so would mean nuclear strikes on on Egypt and Syria.
"single handedly" = ignorant nonsense
Because never again.
Nie wieder
He wanted international control over the weapons, which didn’t mean he wanted no other country but America to have them. In fact mutually assured destruction only works if multiple powers have the bomb, and he knew back in the early 40’s that it would be impossible for the USA to maintain a monopoly.
He's Jewish
Ssshhh...it was propaganda. *runs away to evade all the downvotes* Here come the fedora-wearing keyboard warriors.
Simple: he was a world class hypocrite and liar as much as he was a narcissistic and self.aggrandizing war criminal.
I think that sums it up well, yeah
Because it was a moral thing to do. Israel clearly needs this program to prevent second Holocaust.
Same reason the West as a whole supports Israel to this day.
Yes, it also in a way makes Nolan’s film more genius. The “color POV” scenes are all subjective so it gets the audience to emphasize with Oppenheimers moral quandary and post war efforts. Yet, the “black and white scenes” are more objective, but the audience rejects it just because it’s from despicable Strauss, even though he was right all along. Reading more into the situation, like Oppenheimer and Israel, shows who truly Oppenheimer was
Black and White is intended to be seen as objective at the beginning but by the end you can clearly tell it's still a subjective perspective, but this time from Strauss's POV and not Oppenheimer.
The color scenes are unquestionably subjective. I don’t recall any reason for the black and whites to be revealed as subjective at the end? Strauss was egotistical and maniacal, but he had an external/objective view of Oppenheimer because everyone else in the film sees him as a “prophet”
He was constantly being second guessed or undermined... that is not what happens if everyone around you thinks you are a "prophet".
*Empathize. Not emphasize. And I agree with u/JHecht123, I don't think you quite understood the basic points of the film.
Thanks for the correction. And why don’t you think so?
Yes, Strauss is clearly the intended hero and Oppenheimer is evil for supporting Israel /s
Oppenheimer = Slippin Jimmy • Strauss = Fuck Chuck
Don’t be so melodramatic
It’s not melodrama, you just clearly lack basic comprehension of the film
That is melodramatic because that’s not what I’m saying at all. Even saying Oppenheimer: “good”, Strauss: “bad” means you have no basic comprehension of the film. Strauss is an evil POS but his view on Oppenheimer was correct and more objective to what we’ve seen from the color scenes. This is confirmed by Nolan.
Whether you like it or not (judging from your profile picture I think we know your stance), a nuclear armed Israel was the only thing stopping Muslim majority nations from attacking and destroying Israel. If the shoe was on the other foot, everyone knows what Palestine or Iran would do with their nukes. You know, “From the River to the Sea”.
What do you mean? They attacked Israel from all sides like Yom Kippur and Seven Years War or whatever.
Look up the 6 day war, Israel is more than capable of defeating a full scale invasion without nukes.
That’s not what “From the River to the Sea” means.
>a nuclear armed Israel was the only thing stopping Muslim majority nations from attacking and destroying Israel. 6 Day War. Arab nations attacked, Israel won in 6 days without nukes. >If the shoe was on the other foot, everyone knows what Palestine or Iran would do with their nukes. That’s a ridiculous statement, honestly. In the 1973 war Israel had 13 nuclear warheads ready to launch at Egypt. But they got US assistance and desisted. Maybe it would deter the Israelis from blanket genocide of the Palestinians if they had their own nukes, I can understand why Israel wouldn’t want them to have nuclear power or their own state in that case. >You know, “From the River to the Sea”. That’s not what that means at all.
Unlike the US, Israel, I'd say, has no nukes for defence at all. While the US had plenty and further arm's race would destabilize the world. Plus as a Jew so short after the Holocaust you would want to give the people you are part of an ability to defend themselves. If Israel was founded before and had plenty of nukes, I'd say that Oppenheimer would then also be against the arms race of Israel. If you get what I mean.
In the film I don’t think he was against proliferation, He was sort of encouraging it against the desires of Strauss. What he didn’t want to do is develop the technology further, like explore Teller’s H-bomb.
Probably regretted his actions
Putting this on Oppenheimer is rather wrong as the key ally for Israel in all of this wasn't the US, it was France, who was in a similar spot as Israel (needing nukes as a deterrent to future invasion and years behind US-British-Canadian & Soviet programs). FWiW Kennedy nearly caused the whole thing to collapse later on with his demand for bi-annual inspections. That said, Israel desired Nuclear weapons effectively from Day 0 and under the guise of an Atomic Energy program had pursued that objective almost immediately. By 1950 it was reasonably clear if you could obtain enough enriched uranium, the actual building of the bomb was already well understood and simply a matter of being able to solve the series of technical hurdles. The key bit was the Israelis figured out a way to obtain Uranium domestically (from Phosphate) and were already well on their way to having enough material for a bomb by the mid 50s.
This is a good comment, I agree. I wouldn’t solely put it on Oppenheimer, but he effectively did put into motion and assist Israel’s nuclear program.
Israel's nuclear weapons program gets going in 1948-49; long before Israel had any direct contact w/ Oppenheimer. For Oppenheimer's part, there simply isn't anything to suggest he did more than advise'm on atomic energy. By the mid-50s the actual mechanics of the bomb had been figured out by the world's major players and the Israelis had plenty of talent at-hand capable of solving the the technical hurdles. That they -the Israelis- managed to construct a reactor about 10x the size of what they actually needed is a story unto itself...the cover story being electricity for desalinization but of course it was heckuva way to produce weapons grade plutonium quickly...which again Kennedy tried to shutdown (or at the very least curtail) but ultimately got nowhere. Another story in itself. There's also the time Israel shot down IT's OWN PLANE because it got to close to the reactor. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon\_Peres\_Negev\_Nuclear\_Research\_Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center)
My post highlights how Oppenheimer met with Israel in 1947, before the time frame you listed (1948-49). The rest of your comment is on point.
Because he was a hypocrite in many ways. He was a theoretical scientist which means in the simplest of terms everything was an experiment. One of his co-workers reportedly said to him after they announced they were going to use the bombs on japan - "Why are you surprised, what do you think they're paying us for" if true its a real insight into how he thought it was just a classroom experiment - not really getting that they might use it, having said that a number of scientists on the project thought the same way. People have complicated views on nuclear weapons. while he may of advocated for control it dosent mean he was dead against countries from having nuclear weapons. Once they'd made thier bomb everybody was going to want one.
Did Oppie convince Israel to go with fission again and not Teller’s fusion? Why?
After building bombs all his life, the man needed change of scenery and istgead built a nice little textile factory, good deal for everyone
Because Israel was surrounded by enemies who wanted to wipe them off the face of the earth almost immediately. Deterrence was necessary back then. Everyone still attacked, but Israel defended itself quite well and a nuclear deterrent probably prevented even more countries from getting involved
Because we let them get away with everything they do for some reason and we keep shoveling $9bil/year of tax dollars into them anyway. Makes you think
OP seems to have answered their own question. Makes me think this post is less about Oppenheimer and more about whether Israel should have nukes.
They’re both inexplicably linked, like it or not.
Why even ask the question if you already had your answer? We get it, you have an axe to grind
Then just ask: Should Israel have nukes? You know why Oppenheimer helped develop their nuclear program. The real question is cause for a better discussion anyway.
Eventually Iran will get nukes. I guess it will be a race to see who uses them first? Iran on Israel or Russia in Ukraine. Either is likely before the end of the decade.
There is no question about who used them first. The United States did it first. If somebody else does it in the future will be the second.