It's ironic to me that this is the first time I'm hearing that he was caught up in the red scare. I mean I'm no historian but apparently didn't tarnish his name all that much! :-)
But, at the time, it of course did derail careers and destroy lives.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Hall
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Koval
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Gold
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Glasser
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Dexter_White
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Gregory_Silvermaster
There were many, many people in the US who betrayed their country to the Soviets because they believed in Communism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_espionage_in_the_Unit...
The Rosenbergs were known as believers in Communism.
Even Oppenheimer, who was a stance Anti-Stalinist and the liberal under the fascist security clique, had the very same view and motivation. Just from the far right.
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event... names many more.
To this day it is in our best interests to root out and discourage communists and adjacent from participating in our republic. Anything less undermines our natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I would more equate it with someone being very publicly arrested for a horrible crime, only for the verdict to result in "not guilty" or the case dropped before going to court. You know, like OJ or MJ.
Anecdotally, I've only ever heard the name Fermi in the phrase Fermi Paradox. Oppenheimer I know much more about, and I only know there's a movie about him because it's all over HN this month.
I'm sure that the red scare did tarnish his name for decades, but it looks to me like those decades had ended by 2004 when Google's trends pick up.
[0] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...
My context is from being outside of the US though.
Plenty of folks who aren't physics geeks have heard of the Fermi Paradox.
Source: Am not a physics geek.
Case closed.
google trends seems to agree: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=world%20...
Whereas Fermi (in the context of the Fermi paradox) is kinda foundational, if you're in the extraterrestrial life field.
Russians, Sting, 1985
-- so I would say Oppenheimer being the "inventor" of the atomic bomb was (literally) pop culture
Oh also Leo fucking Szilard! From wikipedia ...
> He conceived the nuclear chain reaction in 1933, patented the idea in 1936, and in late 1939 wrote the letter for Albert Einstein's signature that resulted in the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb.
Captain Ramius: “It is an ancient Hindu text, quoted by an American.”
Political Officer: “An American?”
Captain Ramius: “Mmm. He invented the atomic bomb. And was later accused of being a communist.”
--The Hunt for Red October (1990 movie, not sure its in the book)
Public interest in his politics was relevant. He probably was a fellow traveler so what?
How would that tarnish his name today?
I had a vague understanding that he had a bad reputation, but always assumed it came from more of an "anti-nuclear activist" angle (because he was responsible for making nuclear weapons real).
The fact that we didn't is good luck, but it could have gone different during many points in the cold war and then you and I wouldn't be able to discuss about this on here. But if you knew about Oppenheimer and still were alive you would probably not think highly of the man.
So it doesn't have to do with anti-nuclear (as in: against civil nuclear use) — Oppenheimer was just the prototypical smart guy that failed to predict the consequences of his own actions and by that nearly ended humanity. This makes him an ethically ambivalent figure, and that ambivalence has become a defining trait of the public image of Oppenheimer.
That's not my understanding. I don't think you have anti-nuclear activists that are totes fine nuclear weapons and just don't like powerplants. The activists who oppose civil nuclear use are a strict subset of a broader anti-nuclear activist set that includes nuclear disarmament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement:
> The anti-nuclear movement is a social movement that opposes various nuclear technologies....Major anti-nuclear groups include Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Peace Action, Seneca Women's Encampment for a Future of Peace and Justice and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. The initial objective of the movement was nuclear disarmament, though since the late 1960s opposition has included the use of nuclear power. Many anti-nuclear groups oppose both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Which is also a bit funny seeing as Oppenheimer was opposed to the H-bomb and the whole nuclear arms race.
Being labelled a commie is on a whole other scale of bad.
However, even during the red scare, communism/socialism was (and still is) fashionable with the elites. Compare https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-new-su... and see how McCarthyism might have been a reaction.
Example
"Merriam-Webster has a new definition of “racism”"
https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/10/21286656/merriam-we...
There are people who believe it's impossible to be racist against white people, others believe it's simply discriminating based on race.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/us/anti-defamation-league-rac...
>Since 2020, the ADL had described racism as “the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges White people.”
It's a powerful word that can be used to shut people down, so it is liberally used to do so, and its definition is changing to suit the policies and objectives of politicians and organizations.
One example: during the pandemic it was considered "racist" to suggest that the virus might have come from a lab, if you don't believe me I can find you a million reddit threads, Twitter threads, and articles saying as much. NOW it is openly talked about by government institutions and those same institutions that were writing articles decrying it as racist.
I fail to see how talking about the definitions of words and their power makes me a fascist. If anything you are the fascist for misusing the power of certain words to stifle discussion and the free exchange of ideas.
This has been especially common in my home country Sweden,
where these labels were used by the political and media elite to put down the grass roots movement trying to stop mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.
We aren't animals.
2. If you don't like foreigners you're a bigot and terrible person.
Hating someone because of where they are from is illogical because not all people from a specific location act and think the same. Therefore your hatred has no specific valid target.
I'm not saying anything about what behavior is "acceptable" or endorsing anything. I'm saying that people and animals have been acting that way for a very long time. Tolerance for strangers is more in need of sociological explanation than the opposite. Certainly, the trend towards tolerance exists and is rising over the course of history, which I very much like. It's about asking what the default state is from which society makes "progress".
Or are you disputing the historical claim that humans on average have never been more tolerant towards strangers than today?
So? Just because people have done something for a long time doesn't mean it's right.
Or are you disputing the historical claim that humans on average have never been more tolerant towards strangers than today?
This seems like it is true but what's the evidence for this claim and why are you asking if I dispute it? Where did I say anything about changes in tolerance over time?
Tolerance for strangers is more in need of sociological explanation than the opposite
Why? What if humanity over time grows and learns thanks to our ability to store information, like in books.
More importantly why do we need an explanation and why does it matter?
If you are trying to use the fact that something happened for most of human history then changed recently and that makes it abnormal. Think slavery, rape, woman's right, etc
Like I very explicitly said, I do not think it's right. That's not what I'm talking about.
> What if humanity over time grows and learns thanks to our ability to store information, like in books.
That's going for an explanation.
> why do we need an explanation and why does it matter?
The original post I responded to asked for an explanation.
You're asking what the default state is? I assume you mean instincts right?
Why does it matter, what's the relevance?
The same government that wants to revoke citizenships and permanent residence permits. Yup, calling them fascists is an abuse of the word. Hahahaha.
I intentionally didn’t mention the Sweden Democrats. You were branded a fascist, racist, etc. if you spoke up, no matter your political allegiance. You’re just making my point for me.
A majority of Swedes have been opposed to this insanity, not just the Sweden Democrats.
Sadly voting for them is the only option for anyone who understands what a disaster this is(unless you do like me, decide to move out).
I agree that there are big social problems in Sweden. But I don't see how sending Kurds to die in Turkey; and generally blaming every problem that exist on immigrants while doing nothing to address said problems, will solve anything.
I’ve never argued for sending Kurds to turkey, and I’m not blaming Swedens problems on any immigrants - they are completely self made by self centered so called leaders and a gullible populace who has had little exposure to the outside world.
Have a nice day
At the very least, if you are one, don't be offended by being called one...
The last 2-3 decades of migration to Sweden has been disastrous and was done against the majority’s will, with gang violence extreme segregation and a diminished social cohesion.
Sweden will never be the same
But thanks for confirming that most right wing ideology is simply rooted in peoples incapability to cope with change.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Biker_War
Last year alone, Sweden had 60 shot dead.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-hits-record-with...
“Strommer said Sweden's sixty shooting deaths this year compared to four in Norway, four in Denmark and two in Finland. The deaths are the tip of an iceberg of violence and organised crime that have put down deep roots in parts of society, Strommer said.
Last year, 45 people were shot dead in Sweden. In 2012, the total was 17, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.”
I cope well with change. I no longer live in Sweden but I still mourn what happened to my country and what could have been. So much wasted opportunity
Mostly by younger (18 and under) swedes with no prospects thanks to increased economic kettling (segregation) being used by more established swedish criminal gangs as young hitters serve reduced time and are seen as disposable people.
Driven by an increase in black market weapon availability and a criminal culture change away from shooting others in the leg and now shooting to kill.
See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyDZfYzVGJg
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/segregation-behind-gang-rela...
And those social problems, integration of new citizens and migrants, are much more complex than "stop migration". Because even if you did, what's next? Throwing all those people out that are already there? Also those born there (not just Sweden, in Germany it is the same, not to start with France), or just those without proper passports? Everyone, regardless of passport?
Or, radical idea, just find a way to successfully integrate everyone in society, even if it means the existing society will have to change.
In which country has importing millions of uneducated people with a diametrically different culture actually worked out?
I have lived in two highly functional multi cultural societies:
Dubai(UAE) for two years, although predominantly muslim people from all over the planet seem to get more or less along. The Emiratis rule with an iron fist, and that seems to do the trick. You even think about joining a violent gang, you’re sent to some prison dungeon for years before being kicked out.
Although I’m sure the same deal would work out well in Sweden which is in general also an authoritarian nation(although they prentend otherwise), I doubt this is what most proponents of multi culturalism envision.
Now I live in Switzerland, a nation that has three distinct cultures for hundreds of years and seem to integrate foreigners from all over the world very well(though not without problems). The difference between Switzerland and Sweden/Germany/France is the system of direct democracy (where every poor decision can be quickly reverted), in general a bottom up decentralized approach and just as important, you have to QUALIFY YOURSELF to gain residence, and to gain citizenship is difficult(and can be revoked).
Also, all rigjt wing people always bring up Switzerland and direct democracy up. Until, that is, the majority opposses whatever those right wingers want. Good luck in Switzerland so.
Yes, _Dubai_(not UAE) is a good example of a functioning multi cultural society - bear in mind UAE consists of 7 different Emirates, all very different places, independently governed. Hardly perfect, but it’s one of the best examples of multi cultural societies I’ve witnessed.
And you hardly have to be a right winger to like Switzerland - and I find it interesting you think direct democracy is a right wing virtue - wasn’t power to the people what the left used to fight for?
And what’s your best example of a multi cultural country?
That you did not see how low skilled labour in Dubai is treated, housed in ghettos, passports withheld and labor contracts sold, is a pitty. And advocating for Dubai style enforcement against "violant gangs", your point, is hardly something that is compatible with western democracy and freedom as written (in spirit it is getting erroded on a daily basis lately).
Germany is another example, e.g. Berlin, despute what media would make you believe.
Switzerland is, like most European countries, a nice place for qualified folks, preferably white. Poor non-whites, well, all.of a sudden things are less rosey. Still better then elsewhere, but place for improvement.
Mass migration from the middle east and africa so is not necessarily an unsolvable problem, Germany took loads of refugees, up to the point it anbaled the AfD and extreme right, but there were hardly any problems with it. Integration is lacking, but that is, as I said, a point for both, newcomers and those already there. If newcomers are basically marginalized, one doesn't have to wonder crime is a result. Or frustration (France shows this with their problems integrating 2-4 th generation people in their banlieues).
And power to the people, I am all for it. One has to be vigilant so that the means of handing power to the people are not abused by populists and extremists, and ultimately abolished. History has examples of how that happens, we should avoid allowing it again.
I worked closely with the laborers from Bangladesh, Pakistan and India for two years, installing heavy machinery.
In general, they are not badly treated at all. Their living conditions are closer to being in the army. Dubai has done a lot to stamp out bad actors. Taking the passport is now illegal (though it still sometimes happens). One foreman had saved up 250,000 Dirhams and intended to start and electrical contractor company back home in Pakistan.
People from Western Europe seem to think 99% of these guys are slaves - they are not. They go to Dubai to get some of that sweet oil money.
It if mass migration from the Middle East and Africa is not an unsolvable problem(just really really hard), why bother? What is the advantage?
Further, I don’t agree that there should be any limits what power the people has. I want 100% direct democracy(naturally with a guiding constitution, that can be changed)
So it's "either you agree with me or you're a bigot".
Calling Swedes hateful is a joke, they are the nicest and most tolerant people you will find. Leaving 0 middle ground and creating a dichotomy of either "on our side or a nazi" is precisely what is causing so much division in western societies.
These words mean nothing anymore, all "racist" means now is just someone who you don't agree with.
Additionally, you have elected federal politicians in the US calling people communists.
You can see it going on year on year. All this new-fangled self-flattering non-sense written in history books is little more than PR to finally colonize and destroy the 'lesser' nations of the East.
Europe fantasizes about being connected to the destroyed civilizations of Greece/Egypt, but it really is not. People who jubiliantly celebrate the destruction of the temples of Isis and Serapis can't possibly claim the glories of those people.
That propension didn't appear randomly either, it is the result of millenias of hard lessons learned where those outside tribes were indeed threats.
That learned behavior still dictates our actions today, except for some of us, the notion of "tribe" has been enlarged to include a vast number of people, or, for the most idealistic, the entire planet.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Using a throwaway account to make a needlessly incendiary comment is unproductive. If you're not willing to put your main identity behind a comment, maybe consider if it needs to be rephrased rather than hiding behind a throwaway.
At least to international eyes.
Better to give money to USA to buy one F22 and to complain about darkies being criminals, than to put money to education so that criminality isn't the only route out of poverty right? /s
And of course in Sweden the schools where the residents are poor get less money, aren't as good, and it's much more difficult for their students to be accepted into a university.
God. If my grandparents saw what being a republican would become in thirty short years I don’t know if they’d be able to take it. Reagan republicans would probably shoot the lot of them.
> It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men (Oppenheimer, Compton, Tolman, Smyth, Urey, and Rabi) could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best - summing it all up - without having to say it three times. These were very great men indeed.
He was considered the most brilliant theoreticist behind Dirac, Schroedinger, Bohr, Pauli and Heisenberg in Goettingen and early Berkeley years. But then he didn't push out that many papers as before, so he didn't win the Nobel as all his other colleagues, below him. He should have won it for the black hole paper at least, but that was too advanced and too theoretical for those folks then. Instead he was an extremely good teacher, manager and later politician, which was more important than advancing physics. E.g. Bethe and many of his students surpassed him in physics, and he was happy with delegation. This article mentions most of it, the book goes far deeper.
Absolutely agree with this. I am so glad Americans killed ~200k mostly Japanese civilians when Japan was already militarily crippled and Germany capitulated three months prior.
If you have not watched https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War then it provides an interesting point of view to counter the simplistic "the war was already over we only did it to scare the russians" viewpoint.
It is funny so, how many people still fail to see the targeted and indiscriminate bombing of civilians done during WW2 by the allies as the war crime it was. Heck, even the RAF bomber command addmitted that in internal memos.
I'd claim in modern history, on large enough scale only Germany went properly through this, and is still source of a lot of guilt in their population. Allied fire bombings of whole cities, turks doing Armenian genocide, Japanese atrocities in China, russians with whatever they did anywhere in past 50 years etc... I see rather ignorance and lies and desperate attempts to look the other way rather than anything else.
Don't forget Chinese atrocities in China.
Grafitti/street art seems to be encouraged as an emotional and creative outlet. Plenty of world class free museums, and most others are rather cheap (8-10 euros) compared to other locations in Europe.
"Never again" is still a big part of the culture. The rise of the Nazis is a common theme at school, not only in history lessons, but also others ("analyze this speech's rhetoric").
I suppose as a German it feels natural to be able to criticize what the people in your country have done before yourself and some patterns are fairly easy to spot. It's sometimes hard to understand why it can be so difficult for others.
My partner on this trip is a Brazilian (from Sao Paolo) who has been living in Paris for the past decade. She touched on the fairly complex history of that country and how someone like Bolsonaro could be popular. The country is large with very different regions, each with their own capital, etc, which leads to a sort of isolation in ways. Yet their supreme court was still able to see fit to punish claims of election fraud that the US is incapable of doing.
Is it true that US whistleblowers should consider getting to Berlin before leaking their information as German laws on speech would help protect them? For example wouldn’t Assange and Snowden have been much better off if they had?
Anti-whistleblower/leaker sentiment has always been a strong force in every gov’t - only being physically in the jurisdiction of the ‘enemy’ is decent protection, and even then assassinations happen.
Governemt criticism and whistleblowing is generally regarded more highly. As far as I can tell Snowden is well respected and the idea of granting him asylum is fairly popular (it almost happened, but the US's pressure is strong).
The laws in place aren't as good as you'd hope, though. The powers that be are, for some reason, not very happy with the idea of it becoming easier to expose their misbehavior, so protections for whistleblowers are not all that great. There was a recent attempt to pass a law that improves these protections, but it got watered down quite far.
But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our one hundred million people – the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Japan lost the war in the Pacific by then (the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage).
The USSR entered war, but had yet to actively fight imperial Japan (while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest). Also, Germany had lost, and most of the troops and resources bound in Europe could be redeployed now.
Re atomic bombs: The enemy so was only the US (in practical terms, the other allies did not play a major role, except the fighting in India that Japan had already lost a year prior), and yes, the atomic bombs were devastating.
But Hihoroto himself said, it was much more than just the two atomic bombs being dropped.
But hey, if ypu need to justify the use of WMDs against civilians, every excuse is a good one I guess.
Your claim Sean as a Nazi apologist to discredit him literally are repeat soviet propaganda lines. In fact Putin recently made all of these arguments again to justify his invasion of Ukraine - I trust you see the irony.
War is hell - and atomic war is hell. War isn’t justifiable, and yet war is part of human nature. This is something that Historians have studied since there were historians. Ignore that research at your peril. The WW2 and modern conflict historians have done just that.
Also, I didn't say Stalin's War is Nazi apologist BS, just that it seems borderline to some BS that was spread right after the war. Which makes sense, since it was the early days of the Cold War.
Churchil was never in favor of a seperate peace, nor someone else in the Allied camp. Every declaration made that extremely clear. Claiming otherwise is delusional.
You are glossing over this as if it means nothing. The "when" is incredibly important during an active war. Would the "when" be after an American invasion? Taking Okinawa killed 12,500 Americans, 77,000 Japanese military, and at least 100,000 Japanese civilians. That was less than 2 months before the dropping of the atomic bombs. If didn't Japan surrender then, how many more of those battles would it have taken to produce the "when" of a Japanese surrender? How many battles on the Russian side in Manchuria would it have taken? Not only had Japan never surrendered in it's entire 2,000 year plus history, no military unit had surrendered during the entire war. There was organized coup attempted literally the night before the surrender was broadcast and Prime Minister Suzuki, who had survived a different assassination attempt 9 years earlier, only escaped by minutes. Prime Ministers that were not ultranationalist enough had been assassinated in 1921 and 1930, with two former Prime Ministers dying during another coup attempt in 1936.
The casual confidence in the outcome of the war is so disconnected from reality that it is laughable. Japanese political surrender, and that surrender being followed by the military was not in any way, some sort of forgone conclusion.
And yes, tze end of WW2 was predictable in mid 1944, no doubt about that in any shape or form. The details were up for grabs, sure, the overall outcome was not.
First, convenient to ignore the 100,000 civilian deaths. Second, what you are saying is the war was basically won*
*After hundreds of thousands of additional military deaths fighting to completely dismantle Japan.
>The details were up for grabs
Again, these "details" are hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths. You are acting like death from atomic bombs are the only deaths that matter, so people that die during battle or millions of deaths from starvation from a blockade[1] are fine. This is just so divorced from reality I don't even understand what you are trying to say. Yeah, we could have just killed millions Japanese people with a blockade or kill 100,000 Americans and a million Japanese during an invasion. Atomic weapons were totally unneeded.
[1]https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/victory-in-ja...
To put that in perspective, the Civil War ended 80 years prior to that. We are almost as far removed from WWII as WWII is from the Civil War. While there are still people alive today who were alive during WWII, we're talking about people like Joe Biden, who is 80, who was 3 when it ended.
It if very likely that no one who served is still alive. Our fathers and grandfathers are the ones who had fathers and grandfathers serve.
All of our information about World War II and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is from stuff written about it. Something told to someone who then told it to us. So of course there's a disconnect.
You are sticking to the term "militarily crippled" but is it justified? Yes, Japan had lost the war by that point. But crippled implies that they could not fight back, or inflict losses on an invading force. There is no evidence to suggest that.
If the two bombs had not been used, when would the war have ended and how many lives would it have cost on both sides before it was over? More or less than 200 000? Would that have been better or worse morally?
Those are difficult questions. I don't claim to have good answers to them, but I would not glibly dismiss them with sarcasm.
> Lesson #5: Proportionality should be a guideline in war.
> McNamara talks about the proportions of cities destroyed in Japan by the US before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, comparing the destroyed Japanese cities to similarly-sized cities in the US: Tokyo, roughly the size of New York City, was 51% destroyed; Toyama, the size of Chattanooga, was 99% destroyed; Nagoya, the size of Los Angeles, was 40% destroyed; Osaka, the size of Chicago, was 35% destroyed; Kobe, the size of Baltimore, was 55% destroyed; etc. He says LeMay once said that, had the United States lost the war, they would have been tried for war crimes, and agrees with this assessment.
I'm not sure I would class that as 'heavily under dispute'.
Certainly the death toll would have been higher without the two bombs. By what measure would you claim that there is no dispute that Japan was "militarily crippled"? There is difference between losing a war and being unable to mount a punishing defense.
(Japan was not militarily crippled, they actually had far more forces then the United States anticipated in the home islands. Japan was also pretty much completely disconnected from Germany even before Germany fell)
The ethics of strategic bombing in general and nuclear bombing in particular are rightly debated, but you should bring better facts and understanding when touching such an incandescent topic.
- Option 1: Drop nuclear bombs on Japan, kill 200 000 people, end the war right there.
- Option 2: Continue as is and let 400 000 people die every month.
There's an argument that Japan was ready to surrender. When? In a month? Two? Three?
Which one do you choose?
I would also argue that the use of those bombs saved many more lives by teaching the world a lesson about the horror of nuclear weapons. Its very possible that nuclear weapons would have been used in future conflicts when they would have been much more prevalent had it not been for the example set in WWII.
Japan didn’t even surrender after the first one! It took two to convince them it wasn’t a one-time fluke and that it was real and could be repeated.
I think it is a fact of life that atrocities happen during war. Just admit it and say that this was one of them. Do not give me the "This was for the betterment of the world" BS.
No need to debate ethics. Shooting someone with a gun, killing them in a concentration camp, using an atomic bomb on them, bayoneting them. Just admit they are all bad. All sides are the same and it is BS for the US or Nazis or Imperial Japan or anyone to say anything was "for the betterment of the world".
How is that the Japanese's fault? The US invaded.
Americans always justify the genocide by saying "we had to bomb them otherwise we would have killed more of them by conventional means"... Well maybe don't kill them?
Japan knew it was beaten, but Roosevelt insisted on unconditional surrender. A negotiated peace would have been better for everyone especially since the Americans kept the emperor, which was the principal condition the Japanese wanted.
Hell, even when the Japanese emperor finally tried to surrender, his own military cabinet tried to stop him.
It’s like hitler in his bunker. He only finally gave up when essentially everyone else was dead and/or the fight was completely, literally, impossible.
General Leslie Groves thought very highly of Oppenheimer, and if you got the stamp of approval from Groves, you were doing something right.
Oppenheimer was dragged through the mud during the red scare and his name is still tarnished because of that. It is ironic and a little sad that he was awarded the Fermi medal once his name was finally cleared because Fermi worked for him during the Manhattan Project. It probably would have been the Oppenheimer Medal if it weren’t for Senator McCarthy.
Oppenheimer beat Heisenberg (also a pretty smart guy) to the bomb and not by a little either. And thank whatever higher power is out there he did.
(I am reusing most of my comment from a different story)