Christopher Nolan wants Oppenheimer to be a cautionary tale for Silicon Valley

There is none for nukes as it involves the zero sum game of war. Because you'll die if you don't. Russia and Japan were already developing nukes independent of the US, as the theory for nuclear fission was well known. Logic says to fire immediately if you opponent can't, as eventually you'll lose advantage, a scenario that scared the Soviets to whits end, despite the US not doing so. So you either make your defense or be at the whim of your opponent. Being moral and dead isn't a very good outcome is it?

Overall, the history of nukes lends credence to the idea of keeping doors open, to naively and hopefully trying to avoid zero sum games. The US decided against Kyoto to keep Japan postwar. It's willing to go fire the nukes in defense of Japan today. The US didn't annihilate the Soviets post WW2, despite offense. Khrushchev talked an idiot out of nuclear war and a Soviet operator said the sensors were wrong. But it's only something a single side can control, and it's not assured that you won't end up with a cruel or zealous antagonist, who at best will pause to thoughts of their own death, or you need to make pay to have any hope afterwards.

It turns out you have to abstract put the gun to the head of humanity form them to realize that pulling the trigger is a bad idea.

It's sad, but its very true. I also stopped worrying and love the bomb, and I'm willing to justify the US nuclear bomb usages on many grounds, namely that even after they were dropped, Japan almost did a military coup against their own emperor to keep the war going. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

I agree. It doesn't make Nolan look good. But he's probably just trying to generate publicity.

I suspect that facebook's contribution to Myanmar was more as a place of organization and evidence of opponents, than the feeds somehow generated most of the zeitgeist to slaughter. It kinda ignores the other causes of zeitgeist/organization and absolves the villains of the affair in doing so. But the idea latched on to some journalist.

The Soviet Union had a semi/automated system for firing if Moscow got blown up before making a decision.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

They're is an air of vanity to the media and researchers who compare AI to nukes. It's sorta like Nolan making a film about Oppenheimer, in the hope to associate with them.

Why a cautionary tale? The manhattan project was a succees. Does anyone doubt that if a similar war broke out nukes won't be used?

Just look at the number of civilians the japanese killed (nanjing massacare is arguably worse than the holocaust) and they would have kept doing that. Assuming all lives are equal, nukes saved a crapton of lives.

I think it is hypocritical to say cluster and fire bombs that have high rates od civilian casualty and even chemical weapons were ok but nukes somehow are not.

Moreover, can you imagine the world we would live in without nukes? A whole lot of countries would be fighting a whole lot of wars were it not for the fear of starting a nuclear war. Even now, without nukes, do you think there is a chance the US would be attacking Russia over Ukraine? Or if there is a war with China, do you think there would be more or less casualities if there was no nukes? Short of multipe nukes hitting multiple cities on both sides continually, a drawn out conventional war would kill more people, especially with other WMDs still in play. Cholrine gas was used on civilians as early as WW1.

You gotta understand, in a major war like WW2 where losing means nazis and imperial japanese invade the US homeland, most people have no problem nuking their cities (self included). Youe choice is between your children and family or theirs. This isn't like vietnam/iraq/afghanistan which are wars of ideology and interference not wars of self defense. Also keep in mind that most japanese would have fought tooth and nail (civilians included) against an american invasion. Many killed themselves and their own families simply because their land was invaded and they felt dishonored.

Fortunately we are all pretty far away from an existential war. That's the only thing keeping us alive after Oppenheimer's grand success. Even if a nation crumbles the things that replace it need to at least offer the trappings of a legitimate state if they don't wan to be immediately crushed by nuclear superpowers (assuming they themselves are a nuclear superpower or adjacent to one).

So the cutting edge isn't what's physically most effective, but what's most effective while also being within the gray and constantly shifting "acceptable" range. It's nice that we don't have to go all out, but as soon as scarcity or existential threats enter the picture things can get very ugly quickly. Best to steer clear of such things if possible. I consider chemical, biological, and weather weapons all in the same class of "you better not if you don't want to start a world war".