Film Sparks Debate on Nuclear Threats Amid Real-World Concerns

In a climate heightened by real-world nuclear anxieties, Kathryn Bigelow’s film A House Of Dynamite raises essential questions about the threats posed by nuclear weapons. The film, now available on Netflix, portrays a fictional scenario in which a nuclear missile is launched toward the United States, prompting a frantic scramble among national security officials. The plot echoes the very real tensions faced by policymakers, particularly during the Russian-Ukraine conflict.

Real-World Nuclear Crisis Echoed in Film

Three years ago, during my tenure at the United States National Security Council, we confronted a nuclear crisis. According to esteemed journalist Bob Woodward in his book War, intelligence assessments indicated that if Russian forces were on the brink of collapse in Ukraine, the likelihood of them resorting to tactical nuclear weapons was alarmingly high. In response, we worked diligently to deter such actions and prepared contingency plans should our efforts fail.

The situation escalated over the weekend of October 21 to October 23, 2022, when Russia accused Ukraine of plotting a dirty bomb attack, a claim that many viewed as a potential pretext for nuclear escalation. Emergency meetings were convened to navigate this perilous moment, underscoring the thin line between geopolitical tension and outright catastrophe.

Artistic License and Nuclear Realities

Bigelow’s film captivates viewers with its high-stakes narrative, featuring a countdown to a missile impact aimed at Chicago. The urgency is palpable as the president and his national security team rush to determine the missile’s origin and formulate a response. The film’s gripping visuals and sound design evoke a sense of realism reminiscent of political dramas like The West Wing.

Despite the film’s acclaim and its potential as an Oscar contender, some aspects of its premise raise questions about plausibility. The number of countries equipped with intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities is limited. The principle of deterrence holds that any nation deploying such weapons would face annihilation in retaliation. Even if a nation managed to conceal its missile’s origin through cyberattacks, the United States would likely uncover the truth in the aftermath, meaning any act of aggression would result in significant consequences, albeit delayed.

Additionally, the film implies that the president must act swiftly to respond to the missile threat before it strikes. This notion recalls fears from the early Cold War era, when the threat of a first strike dominated strategic thinking. Today, advancements in submarine-launched nuclear missiles (SLBMs) mean that the president would have time to assess the situation post-detonation, rather than launching preemptive strikes out of fear of losing the initiative.

While some artistic license is acceptable to raise awareness about the dangers of nuclear war, the urgent need for public understanding of these threats cannot be overstated. The real dangers were starkly illustrated in October 2022. Had Russia employed nuclear weapons against Ukraine, it could have instigated a broader conflict, normalizing their use in warfare and potentially igniting a new arms race.

Beyond nuclear threats, we must also contend with emerging dangers, such as those posed by powerful artificial intelligence. The alignment of geopolitical adversaries raises concerns about potential conflicts, particularly regarding Taiwan, which could have far-reaching global implications. Moreover, China’s infiltration of critical infrastructure through operations like Volt Typhoon suggests that civilian populations could be at risk in future confrontations.

The film A House Of Dynamite serves as a reminder of the precarious state of global security. A sequel could further explore these pressing issues, contributing to the public discourse on the complexities of modern warfare and the multifaceted threats we face.

“The danger is real, as we saw in October 2022.”

Thomas Wright, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a Non-Resident Fellow at the Lowy Institute, previously served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Strategic Planning at the National Security Council during the Biden administration. This article first appeared in The Interpreter, published by the Lowy Institute.