7 ms·

By far the most terrifying movie I've seen on nuclear war has been Threads. If you can find a good copy of it, watch it. Also, many people these days act like

By far the most terrifying movie I've seen on nuclear war has been Threads. If you can find a good copy of it, watch it. Also, many people these days act like the threat of nuclear war went away with the end of the Cold War. But the threat is still very real, and there are still thousands of nuclear weapons that the US and Russia continue to aim at each other, not to mention the rest of the world's nuclear powers, some of which have been at war with each other before and stand a good chance of going to war again.

Trasmatta 6y ago
> Also, many people these days act like the threat of nuclear war went away with the end of the Cold War Lots of people seem to be convinced that MAD is a sufficient deterrent for nuclear war. Which may be true if your safeguards are perfect and your actors are always rational. But in reality, all it takes is a mistake or a madman to set off nuclear armageddon.
- simonh 6y ago
  That was certainly true during the Cold War, with two implacably opposes factions that have no dependencies on each other and no real understanding of each other either. It was terrifying, and mistakes were made that brought us extremely close to catastrophe. I think that less of an existential threat now. The works us a lot more interconnected and interdependent. What would Russia be without the west to export its oil and gas to? What would China be without foreign markets? We all need each other. Proliferation means the risk of nuclear terrorise or limited conflict us still significant, but not at the globe killing level we had 40 years ago. A limited or regional nuclear exchange would be catastrophic, but not species killing.
  - acqq 6y ago
    >> But in reality, all it takes is a mistake or a madman to set off nuclear armageddon. > The works us a lot more interconnected and interdependent. What would Russia be without the west to export its oil and gas to? What would China be without foreign markets? We all need each other. The argument was "all it takes is a mistake or a madman." Neither cares about the fact that "we all need each other." If you worked anywhere in tech long enough, you should be aware how much unexpected errors are indeed possible even in "old and tested" workflows. And some madman is always somewhere where "everybody thought he's so nice." > A limited or regional nuclear exchange would be catastrophic, but not species killing. Note: "species" and "civilization" aren't the same.
    - simonh 6y ago
      OK, what is the scenario where a single madman causes a complete simultaneous nuclear conflagration by the USA and USSR, the only countries with enough bombs to cause a global nuclear holocaust? Russia and the USA have no interest in destroying each other. All the other nuclear powers are too small fry to cause more than regional damage.
      - acqq 6y ago
        > what is the scenario where a single madman causes a complete simultaneous nuclear conflagration An actual nuclear war planner wrote a whole book about that: "The Doomsday Machine Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-doomsday-machine-9781608196746/ https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-doomsday-machine-978160819... P.S. USSR doesn't exist anymore.
  - Zigurd 6y ago
    There is certainly less of a threat. But imagine what a small fraction, say a few dozen thermonuclear bombs, a couple SLBM's worth, would do to major population centers and the economies they power. That and the after effects would be enough to call the continued viability of modern civilization into question. Nuclear weapons remain the surest way to end civilization on this planet, and the chances of that happening are far higher than, for example, a meteor strike.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  There have been so many accidents. Does anyone else remember when a satellite launch in the 90's from Scandinavia followed exactly the trajectory of a "blinding" shot to Russian radar and only their willingness to wait and see prevented retaliation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident If America was not a military empire, we could try downsizing our nuclear forces to a so called minimal deterrent of a few hundred nukes and then negotiate with other countries to progressively downsize. We won't though because nuclear diplomacy is how we convince other countries to submit. It's not outright threats, but the quiet knowledge that we could incinerate them if we wanted. Plans were laid for doing so during the Vietnam War. To our planners, the non-offensive use of nuclear weapons is not absolute like we would like to imagine it is. America still has a first strike policy.
thansz 6y ago
Threads is a very good movie. Potential viewers should know that it's old and the special effects have not held up well, but it very much captures the terror of nuclear conflict quite well.
NittLion78 6y ago
I had a high school teacher show us Threads during a breakout portion of 10th grade history where, for 9 weeks, you learned all about nuclear war. It has stuck with me my entire life. Somewhere about 2/3 of the way through the course we watched the film. It singlehandedly hammered into me what weeks of still imagery, theory, and historical facts could not. What you learn most importantly from it is, while the initial hyper-violent effects of a proper nuclear war are so much more horrendous than anything humanity can imagine based on anything ever seen prior, it's the slowly diminishing quality of life that spirals out from it that reminds you of the futility and pointlessness of it all. When, ten years later, you see life is operating at medieval (or worse) levels, it's a truly crushing feeling. The film is available on Amazon (for purchase only), I believe. Everyone should watch it, but I cannot emphasize enough that for some people it can be a real stressor. It has no happy ending.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  You're lucky. In my school, they showed us The Silent Scream (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream) an anti-abortion film. Also, that was in grade school, not high school. Priorities, eh.
RankingMember 6y ago
FYI you can watch it here: https://tubitv.com/movies/531445/threads https://tubitv.com/movies/531445/threads
_iyig 6y ago
Another effective film in the same genre is "The Day After." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After#Effects_on_policymakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After#Effects_on_polic... >President Ronald Reagan watched the film more than a month before its screening, on Columbus Day, October 10, 1983.[28] He wrote in his diary that the film was "very effective and left me greatly depressed,"[29][25] and that it changed his mind on the prevailing policy on a "nuclear war".[30] The film was also screened for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A government advisor who attended the screening, a friend of Meyer's, told him "If you wanted to draw blood, you did it. Those guys sat there like they were turned to stone."[citation needed] Four years later, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed and in Reagan's memoirs he drew a direct line from the film to the signing.
cassianoleal 6y ago
If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, by Daniel Elsberg. It's terrifying but highly informative.
- yboris 6y ago
  Daniel Ellsberg was interviewed on the awesome 80,000 Hours podcast. Great to listen to: https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/daniel-ellsberg-doomsday-machines/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/daniel-ellsberg-doom...

Trasmatta 6y ago

> Also, many people these days act like the threat of nuclear war went away with the end of the Cold War Lots of people seem to be convinced that MAD is a sufficient deterrent for nuclear war. Which may be true if your safeguards are perfect and your actors are always rational. But in reality, all it takes is a mistake or a madman to set off nuclear armageddon.

simonh 6y ago
That was certainly true during the Cold War, with two implacably opposes factions that have no dependencies on each other and no real understanding of each other either. It was terrifying, and mistakes were made that brought us extremely close to catastrophe. I think that less of an existential threat now. The works us a lot more interconnected and interdependent. What would Russia be without the west to export its oil and gas to? What would China be without foreign markets? We all need each other. Proliferation means the risk of nuclear terrorise or limited conflict us still significant, but not at the globe killing level we had 40 years ago. A limited or regional nuclear exchange would be catastrophic, but not species killing.
- acqq 6y ago
  >> But in reality, all it takes is a mistake or a madman to set off nuclear armageddon. > The works us a lot more interconnected and interdependent. What would Russia be without the west to export its oil and gas to? What would China be without foreign markets? We all need each other. The argument was "all it takes is a mistake or a madman." Neither cares about the fact that "we all need each other." If you worked anywhere in tech long enough, you should be aware how much unexpected errors are indeed possible even in "old and tested" workflows. And some madman is always somewhere where "everybody thought he's so nice." > A limited or regional nuclear exchange would be catastrophic, but not species killing. Note: "species" and "civilization" aren't the same.
  - simonh 6y ago
    OK, what is the scenario where a single madman causes a complete simultaneous nuclear conflagration by the USA and USSR, the only countries with enough bombs to cause a global nuclear holocaust? Russia and the USA have no interest in destroying each other. All the other nuclear powers are too small fry to cause more than regional damage.
    - acqq 6y ago
      > what is the scenario where a single madman causes a complete simultaneous nuclear conflagration An actual nuclear war planner wrote a whole book about that: "The Doomsday Machine Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-doomsday-machine-9781608196746/ https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-doomsday-machine-978160819... P.S. USSR doesn't exist anymore.
- Zigurd 6y ago
  There is certainly less of a threat. But imagine what a small fraction, say a few dozen thermonuclear bombs, a couple SLBM's worth, would do to major population centers and the economies they power. That and the after effects would be enough to call the continued viability of modern civilization into question. Nuclear weapons remain the surest way to end civilization on this planet, and the chances of that happening are far higher than, for example, a meteor strike.
tehjoker 6y ago
There have been so many accidents. Does anyone else remember when a satellite launch in the 90's from Scandinavia followed exactly the trajectory of a "blinding" shot to Russian radar and only their willingness to wait and see prevented retaliation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident If America was not a military empire, we could try downsizing our nuclear forces to a so called minimal deterrent of a few hundred nukes and then negotiate with other countries to progressively downsize. We won't though because nuclear diplomacy is how we convince other countries to submit. It's not outright threats, but the quiet knowledge that we could incinerate them if we wanted. Plans were laid for doing so during the Vietnam War. To our planners, the non-offensive use of nuclear weapons is not absolute like we would like to imagine it is. America still has a first strike policy.

thansz 6y ago

Threads is a very good movie. Potential viewers should know that it's old and the special effects have not held up well, but it very much captures the terror of nuclear conflict quite well.

NittLion78 6y ago

I had a high school teacher show us Threads during a breakout portion of 10th grade history where, for 9 weeks, you learned all about nuclear war. It has stuck with me my entire life. Somewhere about 2/3 of the way through the course we watched the film. It singlehandedly hammered into me what weeks of still imagery, theory, and historical facts could not. What you learn most importantly from it is, while the initial hyper-violent effects of a proper nuclear war are so much more horrendous than anything humanity can imagine based on anything ever seen prior, it's the slowly diminishing quality of life that spirals out from it that reminds you of the futility and pointlessness of it all. When, ten years later, you see life is operating at medieval (or worse) levels, it's a truly crushing feeling. The film is available on Amazon (for purchase only), I believe. Everyone should watch it, but I cannot emphasize enough that for some people it can be a real stressor. It has no happy ending.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
You're lucky. In my school, they showed us The Silent Scream (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream) an anti-abortion film. Also, that was in grade school, not high school. Priorities, eh.

RankingMember 6y ago

FYI you can watch it here: https://tubitv.com/movies/531445/threads https://tubitv.com/movies/531445/threads

_iyig 6y ago

Another effective film in the same genre is "The Day After." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After#Effects_on_policymakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After#Effects_on_polic... >President Ronald Reagan watched the film more than a month before its screening, on Columbus Day, October 10, 1983.[28] He wrote in his diary that the film was "very effective and left me greatly depressed,"[29][25] and that it changed his mind on the prevailing policy on a "nuclear war".[30] The film was also screened for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A government advisor who attended the screening, a friend of Meyer's, told him "If you wanted to draw blood, you did it. Those guys sat there like they were turned to stone."[citation needed] Four years later, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed and in Reagan's memoirs he drew a direct line from the film to the signing.

cassianoleal 6y ago

If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, by Daniel Elsberg. It's terrifying but highly informative.

yboris 6y ago
Daniel Ellsberg was interviewed on the awesome 80,000 Hours podcast. Great to listen to: https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/daniel-ellsberg-doomsday-machines/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/daniel-ellsberg-doom...