16 ms·

I watched Threads last year. Maybe because it is set in the north of England in the 1980s, a region and a era that I grew up in, but I found it very distressing

I watched Threads last year. Maybe because it is set in the north of England in the 1980s, a region and a era that I grew up in, but I found it very distressing. I don't frighten easily, but I honestly did not sleep well for a couple of nights afterwards. All national leaders should somehow be legally compelled to watch it. We need them to be as scared as possible of nuclear war.

arethuza 10y ago
I don't think it's just you - I found it deeply disturbing as did many other people I knew. Charlie Stross has a vivid account of his feelings on the subject: "I'm a child of the 1970s and 1980s; I grew up under the shadow of the mushroom cloud. Prior to the end of the cold war in 1989-91, I don't believe I ever lived more than 10 kilometres from a strategic nuclear target." http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-uk-and-nuclear-disarmam.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-u... I think a lot of people who grew up in the Cold War and who contemplated what might actually happen still have that lingering "Lovecraftian horror" from the whole business.
- andyjohnson0 10y ago
  I spent the first eighteen years of my life living in a major port city, only a couple of miles from the docks. Everyone, even children, knew the city would be flattened if a war went nuclear. Its hard to remember now what the constant subliminal awareness of imminent destruction felt like. Seems that we just don't think about it anymore, even though Russia and the US still have ~2000 active nukes each.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  The thing is, there are still thousands of nuclear missiles pointed from the USA to the states of the former Soviet Union, and vice-versa. There are other nuclear states as well, which could use their nukes if push came to shove (Pakistan/India, North Korea, China). We are still very much under threat of a nuclear war breaking out, and the cold war is showing signs of starting up again. Trump is making pro-Russia noises, but anti-China noises, and he could easily change his mind on a dime and go ballistic over some perceived slight from Putin. Many people feel complacent about it because the Soviet Union has collapsed and relations between the USA and Russia are relatively peaceful, but this is a false sense of security.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    The risk with Trump isn't so much that he might blow his top (which of course he very well might). It's that (if Joe Scarborough's not entirely substantiated disclosure -- he hasn't named the "foreign policy expert" he claimed to have heard this from, which is unfortunate) he apparently doesn't seem to have a solid grasp of what nuclear weapons are for, and what their limitations are -- or even we actually still had them: He said on his Morning Joe programme: “Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. “And three times he [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can’t we use them. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/696241/Donald-Trump-asks-about-nuclear-weapon-use http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/696241/Donald-Trump-asks...
    - ars 10y ago
      Presumably you'd be happier if he didn't ask? And he just assumed that he knew? I assume you think you know what they are for. How do you know you're right if you don't ask? I don't know the name of it, but there is a fallacy among some people that equates asking for more information with a lack of knowledge. But actually it's the opposite: Ignorant people tend not to ask for information, while those who actually understand ask a lot, because unlike the others they know what they don't know. Foolish people confuse this for ignorance.
      - kafkaesq 10y ago
        I'd be happiest if he didn't exist, quite frankly. But either way -- it's fine for him, as a human being, if he still needs to look up in an encyclopedia, or "ask an expert" what nuclear weapons are really useful for -- or whether the U.S. still has access to them. But if he's that far out on the "happy-ignorant-foolish" spectrum -- then I'd greatly, greatly prefer that he not be placed in charge of the disposition of such instruments. Are you with me on this?
        ars 10y ago
        No, I am not. I'm not happy with everything he's said and done. But unlike you I'm not so quick to dismiss people as "happy-ignorant-foolish" just because they don't agree with me. If you are incapable of understanding why people act in a certain way when it differs from yours then that's your failure, not theirs. PS. It's clear from your reply that you did not understand what I wrote in my previous message, in fact you seemed to understand almost exactly the opposite of what I wrote. Is that my fault for not being clear? Or are you uninterested in understanding Trump any other way?

arethuza 10y ago

I don't think it's just you - I found it deeply disturbing as did many other people I knew. Charlie Stross has a vivid account of his feelings on the subject: "I'm a child of the 1970s and 1980s; I grew up under the shadow of the mushroom cloud. Prior to the end of the cold war in 1989-91, I don't believe I ever lived more than 10 kilometres from a strategic nuclear target." http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-uk-and-nuclear-disarmam.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-u... I think a lot of people who grew up in the Cold War and who contemplated what might actually happen still have that lingering "Lovecraftian horror" from the whole business.

andyjohnson0 10y ago
I spent the first eighteen years of my life living in a major port city, only a couple of miles from the docks. Everyone, even children, knew the city would be flattened if a war went nuclear. Its hard to remember now what the constant subliminal awareness of imminent destruction felt like. Seems that we just don't think about it anymore, even though Russia and the US still have ~2000 active nukes each.
pmoriarty 10y ago
The thing is, there are still thousands of nuclear missiles pointed from the USA to the states of the former Soviet Union, and vice-versa. There are other nuclear states as well, which could use their nukes if push came to shove (Pakistan/India, North Korea, China). We are still very much under threat of a nuclear war breaking out, and the cold war is showing signs of starting up again. Trump is making pro-Russia noises, but anti-China noises, and he could easily change his mind on a dime and go ballistic over some perceived slight from Putin. Many people feel complacent about it because the Soviet Union has collapsed and relations between the USA and Russia are relatively peaceful, but this is a false sense of security.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  The risk with Trump isn't so much that he might blow his top (which of course he very well might). It's that (if Joe Scarborough's not entirely substantiated disclosure -- he hasn't named the "foreign policy expert" he claimed to have heard this from, which is unfortunate) he apparently doesn't seem to have a solid grasp of what nuclear weapons are for, and what their limitations are -- or even we actually still had them: He said on his Morning Joe programme: “Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. “And three times he [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can’t we use them. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/696241/Donald-Trump-asks-about-nuclear-weapon-use http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/696241/Donald-Trump-asks...
  - ars 10y ago
    Presumably you'd be happier if he didn't ask? And he just assumed that he knew? I assume you think you know what they are for. How do you know you're right if you don't ask? I don't know the name of it, but there is a fallacy among some people that equates asking for more information with a lack of knowledge. But actually it's the opposite: Ignorant people tend not to ask for information, while those who actually understand ask a lot, because unlike the others they know what they don't know. Foolish people confuse this for ignorance.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      I'd be happiest if he didn't exist, quite frankly. But either way -- it's fine for him, as a human being, if he still needs to look up in an encyclopedia, or "ask an expert" what nuclear weapons are really useful for -- or whether the U.S. still has access to them. But if he's that far out on the "happy-ignorant-foolish" spectrum -- then I'd greatly, greatly prefer that he not be placed in charge of the disposition of such instruments. Are you with me on this?
      - ars 10y ago
        No, I am not. I'm not happy with everything he's said and done. But unlike you I'm not so quick to dismiss people as "happy-ignorant-foolish" just because they don't agree with me. If you are incapable of understanding why people act in a certain way when it differs from yours then that's your failure, not theirs. PS. It's clear from your reply that you did not understand what I wrote in my previous message, in fact you seemed to understand almost exactly the opposite of what I wrote. Is that my fault for not being clear? Or are you uninterested in understanding Trump any other way?