Skip to main content
"Fat Man and Little Boy" Vs. Fat Giant Lizard

The films "Fat Man and Little Boy" and "Gojira" oddly seem to be two sides of the same coin, with one presenting a different answer to the same moral question. They both pose a similiar question, should weapons of mass destruction be destroyed to protect us? Or should they be created to protect us? I know it seems like a contradictory question but just read through this and you'll understand.

In "Fat Man and Little Boy", the main plot is focused on the scientists of the Manhattan project trying to figure out whether what they're doing is morally right or wrong. Once all the initial excitement and hysteria around the project fades, it quickly becomes apparent that this weapon of mass destruction is not truly necessary once the allies find out that the Germans are nowhere near developing this bomb. There is a lot of argument about whether or not this weapon of mass destruction is truly necessary with the final rule and say going to the U.S. military.

Like you probably can guess, the commander of the project does not want all the money in this endeavor to be wasted and he wants to keep his reputation intact. If a bunch of weak scientists flakes out on him what does that say about his ability to command? As a result, the scientists are practically forced into keeping the project alive.

So, although a good bit of the scientists, including the main leader of them in the film, Oppenheimer, did not want to continue the project. They ultimately did out of fear that they would lose the war and out of pressure from their superiors. Meaning they said that WMD's should be created in order to protect us.

However, Gojira answers this question in the opposite manner in two ways. First, in the act of Godzillas existence. Godzilla was created basically because of harmful nuclear testing. As a result, a lot of the speech in the movie was against the creation of nukes and the testing of them. Along with this, in the final bits of the movie, one of the characters has a weapon he creates to destroy the giant lizard called the "Oxygen Destroyer".

Now, whatever this thing does is completely unrealistic as it seems to strip the flesh clean off of anything in water?? I honestly don't know but I do know that the science is total bogus but that's not the point. The point is that the scientist who created the device decides to destroy it and all of his notes and even himself in the process of destroying lizardo giganto. Meaning that Gojira's metaphorical answer to the question was that we should destroy weapons of mass destruction to protect all of us because, after all, they are weapons of mass destruction.

Gojira completely opposes everything that the Manhatten project did. And by the end of the film, you may be thinking that America is the worst of all possible countries around because they caused such a great deal of pain. However, when you look at it from America's perspective, their reasoning (although not the greatest) is sound. They did it mainly out of fear and out of pressure. And people make bad decisions when under fear and pressure. Which is why the use of the Nuclear bomb on the Japanese is seen as one of the biggest regrets that the United States has.

In my opinion, neither has it right. The creation of these is necessary but only in the pursuit of furthering science and engineering. I know that sounds like a crackpot philosophers idea but its what I believe. And, in a perfect world where human nature didn't suck we would have that but sadly we don't. And besides, without nukes what would've stopped the asteroid from hitting the earth in "Armageddon" right...?




Comments

  1. OK. This is an interesting perspective and way to frame the discussion.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mission Impossible III: No Physics Required

So, in my eyes, "Mission Impossible III" seemed like a hot mess. Some of the scenes where extremely cringe worthy, there were plot holes the size of the grand canyon, and Tom Cruise seemed to be the only half decent actor in my opinion.

However, the main gripe I have with this movie is much nerdier than that. Some of the physics in this movie are appalling. Some are normal Hollywood cliches, some are downright crazy stunts, and some are just downright illogical at best. I'm very interested in being able to determine whether or not these scenes really were accurate. Even though we know that, because they are action movie scenes, some of them are inherently incorrect. None the less, listing out the information that's given to use would definitely shed some light on whether or not some of these scenes are even physically possible in the real world.

Shanghai Fulcrum
The first scene I want to touch on, screams for physicists to a…

The Twin Paradox Problem In Contact

It really seems like the producers of the movie contact were out of touch with their physics in some parts of the movie (sorry for the pun). Nearing the end of the movie the writers made an error in their physics and it really begs to be rewritten. So, here is my attempt at it.

Nearing the end of the movie, Jodie Foster's character comes back from her trip into the space void after falling through the contraption. In essence, what appears to be 18 hours in Jodie's reference frame, is actually only 1 or 2 seconds in the earth's frame of reference. This is sort of right, however, it's backward as to what relatively and the twin paradox actually states should happen. It should have been 1 or 2 seconds in Jodies from of reference and 18 hours for the people on earth if she was traveling at the speed of light for any given portion of time. Even warping space-time with a warp hole would cause the same effects such as the movie suggests happens. So, in essence, Jodie would ha…
Armageddon: The End of Physics (and life) as we Know it

Armageddon is one of those movies that everyone knows about I think? There's no doubt that it's at least a half decent movie and one worthy of watching if you've got a spare 2 hours. However, the whole "let's blow up an asteroid with a nuke and have the two halves of the asteroid miss us entirely" thing, is utterly false and impossible to do. In actual practice, one nuke would barely separate each of the asteroid pieces a football field apart from one another by the time it reaches the movies "0 barrier".

However, it does pose an interesting question. In the event that earth does come into the crosshairs of an "extinction level" asteroid, what on earth (no pun intended) do we do?

The Plan
So, although throwing nukes at the thing last minute would give a great last-minute fireworks show, it won't work. If we are going to actually hit this thing with nukes, we need to be able to do it w…