Oppenheimer - World-Building FAIL or Subversive Choice?

Okay, so I just saw "Oppenheimer" and, like, wow. Visually stunning, acting was top-notch, especially Cillian Murphy – total transformation. But as a huge sci-fi and world-building geek, I'm kinda torn. The movie is OBVIOUSLY about the creation of literally world-shattering tech, but it almost deliberately avoids diving deep into the science or the implications for a post-nuclear world in a traditionally sci-fi way. I mean, there are glimpses, like the scene where they show the chain reaction, but it's mostly focused on the man himself and the political drama. Part of me appreciates the restraint. It's not trying to be a sci-fi spectacle like, say, a Nolan space opera. It's a historical drama first and foremost. But the other part of me is screaming! Imagine the world-building possibilities! They could have played with different realities, explored the potential futures (or lack thereof) that the bomb unleashed. Instead, it's almost claustrophobic, focused on the internal struggles and the immediate consequences during the war. Was this a deliberate choice by the director, keeping the focus on the ethical and personal impact rather than the larger world-building stuff? Or was it just a missed opportunity for some seriously mind-bending sci-fi implications? I'm also a little confused about the characterization of some of the supporting roles, like Strauss? (played by Robert Downey Jr.). Was he always the bad guy? And what about the other scientists, like Groves, I wish the film had spent more time showing the other scientists' contributions and their reactions. Isnt it usually the case that more people work on these major changes? It seems like its just him alone, which i doubt is true. Anyways, what do you guys think? Was the lack of overt sci-fi world-building a strength or a weakness? Am I just being a nerdy purist and missing the point?