You need to see the film as it essentially covers what you're saying in your post.
A lot of the film covers the scope of the Manhattan Project and just how many scientists were involved in it - the fact that the likes of Bohr, Heisenberg, Rabí, Álvarez, Lawrence, Lomenitz, Donald and Lili Hornig, Feynmen, Bainbridge, Neddermeyer and many more physicists are included in the ensemble cast shows just how much Nolan wanted to show the scope of the project.
Murphy as Oppenheimer might be the focus of the movie but the ensemble cast show that he was just one of many cogs and if it hadn't been Oppenheimer organising the Manhattan Project then it could have been one of countless others and that was the point. The bomb was always going to be made, with or without Oppenheimer, but at the time it was a decision of whether they made it first or the Nazis did, because someone was going to do it and they wanted it to be the Allies.
There were a few subtle throwaway lines that showed that nobody wanted the Nazis to have the bomb, even the scientists being forced to work for the Nazis - at one point someone was talking about Heisenberg making a mistake by picking the deuterium as the moderator and not graphite in his (forced) work for the Nazis, which had set their progress back; he knew what he was doing and made the 'wrong' choice knowing it would hinder their progress because he didn't want the Nazis to get the bomb before the Allies.
As for stereotyping theoretical physicists - the film shows plenty of Oppenheimer before and after his involvement in the Manhattan project, before the project he is shown to focus only on the science and developing that - it goes into his professorship at Caltech, Berkeley and Harvard as well as his his time in Europe at Cambridge, Leiden and Zurich prewar. He is shown to be an impressive academic who people either admired or resented for his ability to make the work look effortlessly brilliant.
The film actually goes into a lot more of the actual science than I was expecting - I have a science background but even I was lost in places and a friend of mine who studies theoretical physics at Caltech loved how much science they included (she saw it before I did as they got it earlier in the US and she could barely contain her joy at the amount of science and "physics cameos" they included when they could have skipped right over it in favour of making it easier for the audience).
Because of that it allows the film to explore the relationship between the politics and the science, a lot of the early part of the film focuses on Oppenheimer's political stance and the complications this caused both personally and professionally before, during and after the war. In fact his political stance is a big focus, especially for the later part of the film where it looks more to the vilification of Oppenheimer when he came out against the H-Bomb and in his role on the Atomic Energy Commission he fought hard to prevent continuing work on the H-Bomb at that time, due to both lack of need and the enormous human casualties that would result from its use, but the politicians disagreed. That ultimately lead to Oppenheimer's downfall as the politicians used their connections and influence to blackball him and discredit him for wanting to limit their powers because he had realised just what he had created when he became "Death, the Destroyer of Worlds" in his creation of the bomb.