Trinity & Beyond - The Atomic Bomb Movie

The Atomic Bomb Movie conveys more about the "progress" (if that word can be used in this context) of the nuclear arms race than it perhaps means to. Even as it shows glamorous-looking nuclear footage, it unintentionally conveys a strong anti-nuclear message. As we move sequentially from the detonation of 100 tons of conventional explosives to the initial 10,000-ton (10 kiloton, or 10-kT) Trinity explosion in New Mexico, to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (likewise 10-20 kT yields), and then on to 10-to-60 million-ton (10-60 MT) explosions (jumping not by a factor of two but by a factor of 1000 in explosive yield as we go!), we are witnesses to a spectacular example of psychological desensitization. (And believe me, the footage shown in this film is spectacular, if that's the right word, beyond belief.)This theme of desensitization is borne out by the interviews with two atomic weaponeers, Frank Shelton and Edward Teller. Shelton is a regular-guy engineer, and seems highly accomplished in his trade. But it's Teller who is truly revealing (and revealed), as he disingenuously claims that he only wanted to "gain knowledge that would deter Stalin" militarily when he sought to build the real doomsday weapon, the hydrogen bomb, in the 1950s. (Teller doesn't get around to explaining that, unlike Hiroshima-type fission weapons that can only be built up to a size of tens of kilotons, which is quite enough to establish a deterrent force, fusion-powered hydrogen bombs can reach unlimited yields--tens to hundreds of megatons--limited only by the weight-carrying capacity of delivery systems.) Teller sounds quite proud when he describes how he pushed Truman very hard to build those things, and he looks and sounds immensely and smugly self-satisfied when he says that Truman "made the right choice" to develop those Strangelovian things.In the movie, we see H-bomb shots that reach tens of millions of tons of TNT-equivalent yield, the unholy children of Edward Teller and his co-inventor (and even smarter innovator) Stan Ulam. (Teller, by the way, barely credits Ulam as the co-inventor of the H-bomb, right under his breath. Talk about a display of megalomania--Teller doesn't even want to share the credit for inventing the doomsday device that can end civilization.) What we see happening throughout The Atomic Bomb Movie, despite the efforts of the people who were making these weapons to make us believe otherwise, is the normalization of horrific power into a stockpile of devices that these people apparently believed could be used and controlled as if they were nothing more than oversized artillery shells. (We do see an atomic cannon being fired--WOW, would that have ever been fun, I've got to admit!!) They seem to think of them as merely oversized flash bulbs.They weren't (and aren't) flash bulbs, and the film footage in this movie demonstrates exactly why they simply cannot ever be used in any meaningful sense. After you have seen this film you may be able to begin to understand why only a few dozen of the smallest types, with Hiroshima-Nagasaki types of yields, will always be enough to deter any country from attacking another--and why they are utterly useless as military weapons. Concomitant with that understanding is the realization that the interview claims made by Teller (who eventually talked Reagan into thinking that atomic-bomb-powered Star Wars systems could actually be built and would be effective) are so disingenuous as to amount to lies. This movie clearly demonstrates the futility of pursuing the development of atomic weapons by --any-- country.This DVD does not tell the story of science run amok; science as an enterprise of the human spirit has practically nothing to do with any of the shots that appear in this film. What could have ever been the "scientific" point of subjecting humans and animals to the ghastly "test shot" effects that we see portrayed in this movie, white-coated field technicians who examine post-shot, dead and dying animals notwithstanding? There's that desensitization thing again.No, it wasn't for science that this work was done. This movie demonstrates that it was for the sake of hubris, of satisfying a misguided demand for "power" that these shots were fired, and that humans and animals (both the ones near the bombs and the "downwinders" across the United States and around the world) were treated as if they were irrelevant or worse. The situation regarding human subjects becomes simply ludicrous when we see a little old lady from some Podunk Junction hometown, a real-life Ma Kettle, being interviewed while sitting in a slit trench in pre-dawn darkness, awaiting an atomic-test-range bomb blast while wearing her oversized Civil Defense hard hat. OMG. Apparently the US government wanted to get some film footage of her to reassure "regular" people that, in the event of an actual atomic war, we would all just ride out a blast or two and then go on with our lives--an example of desensitization taken to the tenth power. Never mind that by the time that footage was composed, the bomb arsenals of the US and USSR were large enough to obliterate the entire world's civilization several times over, or that, as Winston Churchill said, all the nuclear powers were managing to do was to ensure that they could "make the rubble bounce".In another example of desensitization, this time with respect to fiscal responsibility, The Atomic Bomb Movie shows how the governments of the US and USSR became accustomed to spending unlimited sums of money to pursue increasingly bizarre and useless engineering feats (namely the building and firing of increasingly larger and increasingly irrelevant bombs) toward no useful end. For some reason, there never was (and apparently still isn't) enough money available in either country to pay for nutrition or health care for people who are poor, but the US and USSR clearly never lacked the money to fund even the weirdest enterprises that people like Teller could devise. This movie documents the firing of hundreds of bombs that each cost hundreds of thousands to millions (and in some cases billions) of dollars apiece. And what have we now got to show for all of that, given that we had a secure deterrent force when we had built the first few hundred Hiroshima-size bombs by about 1950? What have now got to show for all of the money that was spent for the last six decades on developing and building more and more of these things? Just a lot of wasted effort that could have been gone into more productive pursuits, if this movie gives us any indication at all.This movie confirms the conclusion of President Eisenhower (himself no stranger to war and certainly no softie on defense issues) when he bemoaned the unholy alliance that he saw developing between hubristic military leaders who wanted unlimited power, of American industries that profited handsomely from bomb production and bomb testing (we see, for example, how Western Electric found that early atomic bombs were hand-crafted oddities and then turned A-bomb production into an efficient, mass-production operation employing tens of thousands of assembly-line workers including lots of women who look like our mothers), and of political people who thought they could buy "security" and "credibility" if only they could build a big enough atomic stockpile--which turned out to never be big enough to make us secure at all. We see all of them working together to expend uncountable sums of money on utterly useless and destructive weapons.The Atomic Bomb Movie's unintentional messages make it a must-see DVD. By looking like pro-atomic propaganda, it (apparently unwittingly) becomes the best anti-atomic piece that you can find. It has a more effective anti-atomic message than any intentionally anti-atomic movie could have ever achieved. I would like to think that the people who made it understood this--and perhaps they did; they're clearly pretty smart cookies. The movie is ably produced and narrated by Messrs. Kuran and Shatner, respectively. The only reason that I have given it four stars instead of five is that I think it substantially underplays the ghastly effects of atomic bombs on humans, animals, and the Earth's environment. But I do understand why it had to be made this way: If the full extent of atomic effects had been documented in this film, it would have probably been essentially unsellable. No thinking, non-desensitized human being would be able to watch that kind of show for more than a few seconds. So as this genre goes, The Atomic Bomb Movie is as good as you're going to get.

If you loved this film, there are some good content additions to this re-release to make it worth rewatching once.While the footage may have been cleaned up and improved, it had been long enough since I'd watched the DVD (and my TV that much nicer) to where I'm not sure it was that much better. (If you just want to watch stuff blow up, there are some solid Youtube videos out there that show the raw power of some of the detonations.)Would I buy it again after rewatching it? Probably - but it's not something I'll likely rewatch again. (Maybe it was just that compelling initially...)

I genuinely enjoyed this film -- although some of it is truly horrifying. It does an excellent job of tracing the history, propaganda, combat logic, and geopolitics of nuclear weapons. As a trained historian, I thought it was fascinating, and chilling, at the same time. Some viewers, though, will find it tedious or boring. They will note that the film consists largely of footage after footage of nuclear weapons exploding, buildings being knocked down, ships sinking, etc. etc. And they would be right. The images ARE repetitious. But the timeline they illustrate is an essential lesson in the Cold War. If you wish to understand more clearly the competitive tensions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., then this documentary will undoubtedly be a valuable tool for you. That being said, I wish the filmmaker had included more scenes and explanations of the horrible maiming and radiation sickness of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims. It would help to clarify and expand the scope and context of learning about these kinds of weapons. William Shatner's narration is first-rate, but the film would have greatly benefited from closed captions, especially in those scenes where people with heavy accents are being interviewed. Also, the musical score by the Moscow Symphony Orchestra is WAY too loud. It almost woke up the entire house. I had to keep muting the sound. Plus, the music is too overdramatic and bombastic. (No pun intended.) All in all, though, this film is a great addition to the video library of any W.W. II buff, or to anyone with an interest in military or general history. The scenes may horrify you, as they did me, but it's obvious that filmmaker Peter Kuran put an immense amount of effort, skill, and scholarship into making this documentary. The film is basically a study of monumental saber-rattling between nations, but it is also a terrifyingly effective history lesson.

Great film for geeks and military history buffs. My only criticism is that I had to pay £30 for it and it is too short!

astounding documentary

good

If this subject field interests you, then get this dvd.The footage is excellent.

This documentary is funny, terrifying, and more than a little depressing.I would recommend it to anyone who is a fan of real horror. The nuclear arms race is the best argument for intelligence being an overrated evolutionary trait .