Los Alamos Rhetorical Analysis

The documentary starts off with the testing of the first Atomic Bomb in Los Alamos, New Mexico on July 14th, 1945. The weapon was originally intended for use against the Germans but since there surrender in early June the bomb has been reassigned for use against Japan as a way to avoided island hopping a full-scale invasion. The bomb was a part of the famous Manhattan project and cost 3 years and 2 million dollars to build. At the test in Los Alamos, it vaporized the tower it was dropped from, and turn the sand into the glass as the equivalent of 67 pounds of TNT exploded with very intense heat. The test became a success and was ready to be used in the war against japan. “I have become death destroyer of worlds,” Robert Oppenheimer said this …show more content…
These were given before but this documentary focused on the new revision of demands for Japanese from the Potsdam conference which states “the unconditional surrender of all armed forces of japan” this made it so the integrity of the emperor could be saved in the end. One of the last living people in this room testified to the debate about this. His name was George Elsey and witness the meeting where they write the demands and the meeting to discuss the non-response from japan. The documentary then goes into the assembly of the 509th composite group on Tinian Island less than 6 hours flying time from japan. The weapon soon meets the boys there and they started to discuss potential targets including Hiroshima, and Nagasaki the ultimate destination for the two bombs. Meanwhile, in Hiroshima, the city has been left untouched by the war so that allies could measure the exact effects of the bomb. The most interviewed Japanese person in the documentary was Akiko Takakura who was 17 years old working at the city band and only 250 meters from where the bomb detonated. The city to her felt odd to untouched for a military …show more content…
I, however, this documentary is very one-sided showing the sorrow lying with just the people of japan when the other side of the story had to make a choice between deaths of some over the lives of many. I felt a little cheated on the feelings of 2016 issues with Atomic bombs and what could I learn from the documentary involving the decisions to use such a weapon. The documentary itself was very well put together and the argument was in a good chronological order showing different characters as they came up in the story line. I felt this documentary was slanted because it wanted me to feel overwhelming empathy toward the Japanese people. Overall though I would recommend this to a friend just to give a personal face to the bombing