3 ms·

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the pinnacle event that solidified the US being a nuclear super power. Its willful use of nuclear weapons on civili

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the pinnacle event that solidified the US being a nuclear super power. Its willful use of nuclear weapons on civilians is one of the main ways the US projected power in the last century. The movie not showing how the sausage was made, is because Hollywood has a tendency to show propaganda movies. US good, world bad. This movie had a huge reach. "Economist / YouGov Poll, which found that 32% of U.S. adult citizens say they had seen "Barbie" and 24% had seen "Oppenheimer." A nuclear conflict with Russia, is what is on the table. Perhaps, if US citizens were exposed to graphic brutality of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it might sway political opinion. And for example influence the next election. >So the Tokyo firebombing alone is sufficient then? Is it sufficient for you? It might not be for some people. However, all plausible deniability is lost, that you're not targeting civilians when you nuclear bomb their city. If Putin deployed nuclear weapons on Kiev tomorrow, with the goal of ending the war faster, it would be a war crime. I hope we agree.

defrost 2y ago
You haven't advanced the odd assertion made here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40713250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40713250 that some outside force prevented the director from depicting scenes of nuclear devastation. There are films, some from US directors, that already make such depictions. You'd make a far better case if you made more concrete claims that could be backed up, eg: that the director in question made a number of past films and wanted to make future films that had US DoD support with access to real military equipment (this is a thing) that would otherwise be unobtainable | cost vast sums of money .. and the rider that comes with such cooperation is an agreement not to depict US military in particular ways. This reparations line isn't particularly convincing.

defrost 2y ago

You haven't advanced the odd assertion made here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40713250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40713250 that some outside force prevented the director from depicting scenes of nuclear devastation. There are films, some from US directors, that already make such depictions. You'd make a far better case if you made more concrete claims that could be backed up, eg: that the director in question made a number of past films and wanted to make future films that had US DoD support with access to real military equipment (this is a thing) that would otherwise be unobtainable | cost vast sums of money .. and the rider that comes with such cooperation is an agreement not to depict US military in particular ways. This reparations line isn't particularly convincing.