Thread 64452619

Why cant millenials write properly about nuclear war and nuclear weapons?

First its this pile of shit and next dennis villeneuve is going to spoon feed us that annie jacobson fear porn about how america is incapable of calling russia on the phone and nuclear winter is like totally real guys

nobody watched this slop?

>>64452619 (OP)
>millenials
do you think this is new?
Since the 1950s we've had hysterical, "ban the bomb" films like Dr Redditlove, The Bedford Incident, On the Beach, all using a veneer of veteran knowledge and inside access to postulate that everyone in the military was insane and incapable of critical thinking and that YOU, as the common man or intelligentsia, were the only thinking person in the room and could prevent the annihilation of the world (so long as you went right outside to march with those friendly looking people with red flags).
This is just a return of that stupidity now that someone they do not like is in office.

>>64452823
regular people > military and government employees > rich people

>>64452837
You, my friend, are exactly the sort of midwit these films have been successfully baiting for more than 70 years.

>>64452840
Seek Christ.

>>64452823
>Since the 1950s we've had hysterical, "ban the bomb" films like Dr Redditlove,
snowflakes can't handle comedies

>>64452850
Self-serious narcissists cannot stand being made fun of. It's psychologically devastating for them to realize people are laughing at how silly they are.

>>64452823
by dawns early light was really good though

>>64452619 (OP)
The writer was born in 1977 anon

>>64452865
But surely not you, anon. You can't be made fun of because you're never serious. Everything is just a silly joke.

I take what I do seriously, but I do not take myself seriously.

>>64452823
floozy kisser

>>64452823
Said the substitute teacher with the poli-sci degree.

>>64452823
The hated him for he spoke truth.
>>64452987
This anon's right though, By Dawn's Early Light was a fucking vibe.
>>64452619 (OP)
2nd post pretty much nails it, but I'd add that millenials are specifically recipients of the legacy of all that Cold War-era nuclear fear porn (regardless of aesthetic quality, even films like Threads and TDA were pretty brazen in their appeal to shock value and sensationalism). That, plus anti-nookism has long been a staple of pseuds and activisits-looking-for-a-cause types (no shortage among millenials).
Those together with other things about my generation mean that we're not only bad at nuke drama, but we're always going to be prone to basically retelling the same stories we saw since the 1960s, with the same moral messaging ("this is madness and we must DE-NOOK"), with the same frozen-in-time understanding of nuclear escalation dictating the story millenials *think* needs to be told about muh nooks. Again.
And again.

It sucks because I'm actually looking forward to Villeneuve's adaptation of the Jacobson slop, just to see his cinematic eye do nukes properly (the Atomics in Dune were underwhelming, as nukes go, but canonically it makes sense and it still looked great).

>>64452823
Extremely fucking correct & based. Daily reminder that nuclear winter is not fucking real, and it was literally a KGB PSYOP. Anyone seriously N00000K-posting is either a retard or working for foreign governments.

>>64453640
Nuclear bombs are evil because war is evil.
>muh deterrent
they've deterred nothing

>>64452778
my inlaws did and thought it was stupid. they said something about a missile being launched and nobody knowing where it came from which sounds even more retarded than I could possibly imagine.

>>64453729
>Nuclear bombs are evil
Evil is a strong word but I'm sensitive to the premise.
>because war is evil
I mean no insult by it (I'm 100% serious) but this is a toddler-tier, almost theatrically overly-reductive take for *many* reasons more than anybody gives a fuck to read from my anon ass.
>>muh deterrent
>they've deterred nothing
This is wrong, but I *think* I agree with where you're arriving at. Nukes are a problem precisely because they *have* deterred a lot, arguably entirely way too fucking much. To the point that their worst end of the spectrum of their existence, just like any other weapon, is characterized by the lowest-common-denominator that can get their hands on it. As a result, a lot of the spooky/grimy/shady/scummy/underhanded fuckery that characterizes our world today only exists because nukes make outright, conventional annihilation impossible against any retard with enough "fuck around with the world" free-cards. This invariably has led to a fucking ludicrously precarious world order that hasn't really existed quite like this before, and one that could still devolve into serious shitshow-mode, just with much more pussyfooting and proxy-warring.

Nukes aren't bad because "nooks bad."

Nooks are bad because they've frozen international geopolitical progression and suspended it in an artificial state where weak nations can play at strong as long as they can split the atom, or attach themselves to a nation that can.

>>64452619 (OP)
i watched it the other night. it was alright. kind of a weird adaptation of annie jacobson's book/the sum of all fears. the lack of information during such a strike, and the shit would pile up in the minutes afterward. it's pretty contrived, all the DSP sats missed it somehow and generally people being retarded. solid 6/10 just because it was unique.

>>64452778
I did, it was crap. It was a teleconference meeting that was literally repeated three different times.

>>64452619 (OP)
The pacing was terrible and why did they leave the president alone with the navy guy at the end? I'm sure the helicopter is big enough for a couple secret service and an advisor plus the guy with the football, kathryn bigelow is such a hack bitch

>>64453893
>muh weak
>muh strong
12 year old's idea of maturity lmao. you are perpetually halo-brained.

I find the premise to be a bit absurd.

The idea that anyone would fire just 1 nuke at the US (and at a non-militsry target at that) seems unrealistic.


And if someone did, would that even require immediate nuclear retaliation?

>>64454027
>And if someone did, would that even require immediate nuclear retaliation?
As far as I understand, it doesn't really matter if it's just one or an entire national arsenal: it really wouldn't be a good idea to set a precedent that a limited usage of them is acceptable

If a rogue nation fired off 1 nuke (seemingly with the sole purpose killing millions of civilations) wouldn't basicly every other nuclear nation just gang up on them for upsetting the balance of power

>>64453999
>12 year old's idea of maturity lmao
I don't know which part you're exactly referring to, but your attempt to "no-u" being called out for saying something as asinine as "war bad" as though it's profound betrays how much that hurt you, which as I said wasn't my intention.

I'll reiterate in zoom zoom:
>Nukes bad because WEAK and PUSSY ASS BITCH countries can FA without having to FO

>>64454055
It's not profound; it's incredibly basic and fundamental to a Christ-centered worldview.

>>64454027
No. Anne Jacobsen gets a lot wrong too btw so this is a case of uncaring midwits repeating bad memes from other careless midwits for five stages until the poop sliding out one end barely resembles the slop shoveled in at the other.

>>64452619 (OP)
>born in 1978
It's another "zoomers blame millenials for gen x" thread. Everything netflix does is gay and you're a fag for watching, even if you pirate it.

>ugh! millennials!
>guys look what zoomers are doing wrong!
>can millennials even?
>this is what zoomers!

i dont fucking care man, millennials and zoomers are the same one group is just ten years older.

>>64454065
>"it's incredibly basic and fundamental to a Christ-centered worldview"
>What is Just War
Forgetting Aquinas, I'm agnostic and I understand warfare to be a constant in the human condition that shouldn't be praised and pursued, but shouldn't be demonized in such a way that makes you unprepared to wage it appropriately when it *inevitably* is upon you.

>>64454078
The differences between generations are exaggerated; teenagers have always acted like teenagers and will always act like teenagers. Old people act like old people and will always act like old people. Etc etc until the end of time.

>>64454079
>I understand warfare to be a constant in the human condition
Humanity has been "behaviorally modern" for at least 40,000 years, whereas there is no evidence war existed more than 10,000 years ago.
In the same way that teenagers are more likely to get into fights than babies or grown adults, adolescent civilizations are more prone to war, and eventually humanity will outgrow it.

>>64452823
Well put
>>64452987
Fantastic movie, Powers Booth is great.

>>64454088
>Humanity has been "behaviorally modern" for at least 40,000 years
I know what you mean by this, but not only is most anthropology on this topic necessarily fuzzy (to the point that almost every decade sees major revisions to the going theory), but even assuming that's accurate, behavioral modernity is secondary to anatomical modernity. If we can see in the closest primates to human beings elements of warfare between two separate social groups (or even power struggles *within* social strata), it's pretty premature to positively conclude that there was zero warfare over that past 200,000-300,000 years of humanity. That's on par with blanket declarations of their being no life in the universe off of Earth, or their definitively being no God based only on human cognition.

>>64454127
You're making the mistake of thinking that humans evolved from chimps; we did not. We both evolved from a common ancestor. There are plenty of primate species that do not engage in war, and in fact have egalitarian forms of social organization and are relatively free from conflict within and between groups.

>>64454088
>In the same way that teenagers are more likely to get into fights than babies or grown adults, adolescent civilizations are more prone to war
>eventually humanity will outgrow it.
I forgot to say that I hope this is true. If it does happen, I don't think it's going to be anatomically modern humans who will. I don't think we're evolved to do so, as we are, not out brains anyway. A lot would need to change over the next several millenia, but I definitely do think it's possible for the species to evolve into something that doesn't do over warfare against itself anymore.

>>64454145
The brain's a brain, and consciousness is a signal we pick up on. The more awakened humanity is, the more awakened humanity will become. The Second Coming is in our hearts, and it's been unfolding before us the entire time.

>>64454145
>>64454154
>the brain's a brain
lmao, the brain's a radio*

>>64453893
>where weak nations can play at strong as long as they can split the atom, or attach themselves to a nation that can.

You had me until here. Claiming a nation is "weak" despite having nukes or being allied with one that does is a peak brainlet take. Survival of the fittest isn't about some platonic ideal of "fit" it's a tautology, the ones at the top of the food chain are the fittest and vice versa.

>>64454088
>whereas there is no evidence war existed more than 10,000 years ago.

There's very little to no evidence for many things that occured 10,000+ years ago anon. Nevermind the fact that a lack of evidence iof something sn't evidence of a lack of something.

>>64454180
Well we can speculate about the state of the pre-historic world all day, but it would just be creative writing if it's not backed up by anything material.

>>64454141
I don't think we evolved from chimps at all, I understand the common ancestor theory. I think chimps and humans evolved along remarkably similar paths, as did gorillas, baboons, and orangutans. All of these demonstrate the characteristics I mentioned, which we share. I think we differ on what we think that means, which is a more than fair point of departure.
I think it points to the fact that whichever pressures drove our species seem to have hammered a fairly "rigid" (obviously not totally rigid) behavioral tendencies. I think those are going to be hard pressed out of the species any time soon, and unfortunately that means many of those tendencies might as well be treated as constants pending our evolution.

Warfare, unfortunately, being one of the big one.
>>64454154
You'd think as a godless heathen I'd ree at this but I'm not necessarily discounting this as something of a possibility. Whether one makes the leap of faith or not, there has been a steadily growing resurgence among Christian faith in the West. Cultural polarity is a real thing, and when the West's polarity is Christian, the world generally benefits.

>>64454195
>All of these demonstrate the characteristics I mentioned, which we share.
No, they don't. Orangutans do not. Bonobos do not. Also, I don't like this new globalist definition of "The West" to mean something other than the Western United States.

>>64454165
>Survival of the fittest isn't about some platonic ideal of "fit" it's a tautology,
I know, and I'm realizing people don't always know how you mean something when you type it.
What I evidently typed poorly is the notion that the very presence of nukes has created a food chain that's fundamentally retardedly untenable and fundamentally unsustainable.
All Real Politik-ing aside, having thirdie despotic shitheads print nukes and wield the Sword of Damocles over our heads as blackmail for freedom to run shenanigans is a very, very, very stupid feature of this food pyramid, one that actively undermines key elements of itself ("muh non-proliferation lmao").

It's less about any concept of physical strength, and more about the fact that non-sensical geopolitical realities are allowed to hold, even after they start to cause far more trouble than they ought to be, all with the added risk of nuclear exchange if you handle it poorly.

I say this as someone who autistically read encyclopedia entries on fission, fusion, tritium, and has a poster of Castle Union hanging in his study back at home.

I luv nooks. I also just really hate that they exist.

>>64454238
The biggest nonsensical geopolitical reality is that we're ruled over by psychotic criminals who hate us, but that'll all be over soon.

>>64453898
Someone /tv/ said the writers admitted up front that they intentionally contrived a scenario that would accommodate the story/characters they wanted and acknowledged how unlikely it was. I can see the logic; there's a limited amount of drama from a "Russia/China just launched a full-on first strike" scenario since people who know about this stuff could easily tell you exactly how that would play out because it's what they were trained for.

>>64454208
>Orangutans do not.
Orangutans have definitely demonstrated the capacity to violent behavior similarly to humans, but you're right that bonobos definitely do not (I love those fuckers like you wouldn't believe). I specifically choose close primates to list that do demonstrate human-like violence and omitted ones that don't.
>Also, I don't like this new globalist definition of "The West"
Anon you betray your youth. "The West" as a term for specifically NATO and NATO-aligned countries is a Cold War term, incidentally just like First World, Second World, and Third World.

>>64454248
>The biggest nonsensical geopolitical reality is that we're ruled over by psychotic criminals who hate us
That's the longest running one we've got anon.
>but that'll all be over soon.
That I can pray for.

>>64454267
I'm 32 years old, and it's still a new definition compared to one I prefer (Utah, Wyoming, etc).

I dont think there's anyone alive today who has seen an atom bomb go off outside of North Korea

>>64452823
Why is it that simpletons like you can't grasp that none of those films are advocating for unilateral disarmament, but instead lamenting the state of things, under which the USSR and the USA led the world during an unstable equilibrium of brinkmanship and game theory? It very well could be that a few political missteps would have plunged the world into a nuclear war. None of those pieces of media advocated you march for shit. You're just a pussy that gets defensive when anything you believe gets questioned.

>>64454285
Eh, for me it's one of those things you file and seclude. It doesn't apply to you because you'r posting on /k/, but most people don't even really have a reason to need to know random Cold War geopolitical jargonese shit.
It's funny because I'll only ever have these kinds of conversations where I know "West" isn't referring to a fishing trip here on /k/ or with this one other autist I know from work. Everyone else I know would only ever think about "west" as Western US.

>>64454285
Only foreigners use it the way he did.

>>64454310
They were propaganda pieces, and often grossly technically incorrect in just-such-a-way as to advance the Soviet narrative, while claiming a veneer of science to oppose the US.

This was hammered out ad nauseaum so long ago it's not surprising many people have completely forgotten about it and thus new people don't know, but you should at least do some basic research before trying to resurrect cope for some of the shittiest propaganda in living memory.

>>64454318
You're trying too hard.

>>64454368
I'm not trying at all. We just don't say that here.

>>64454310
>but instead lamenting the state of things
NTA but this is kind of the problem/ isn't it? If that's the crux of these films (and I like them, they are good nuke movies), then the virtual state of things hasn't much changed, has it? So if it hasn't, then why make the same movie, again and again and again? With this movie they literally had the same plot line three fucking times in the one film, for the real irony.

No one ever seems to want to say something more, and if they do, it's NO NOOKS.
>what else is there to say?
Probably should say invest in a serious means to negate or astronomically complicate the delivery and/or price of using nuclear weapons.
>But that's prohibitively expensive and pie in the sky
It's the only other game in town and leagues more achievable than uninventing nuclear fission/fusion (as long as the principle itself exists, people *will* make weapons).
If that's not good enough, then what justifies continuously lamenting the state of things with no realistic appeal to do doing so?
And why do it with the same ass basic story we've seen for over 60 years at this point on movie screens? At that point they should just devolve into Emmerich-tier popcorn disaster films where the destruction is a set-piece attraction. The fact they all take themselves as seriously as they did in Fail Safe is what makes it all the more off-putting.

>>64454402
>We just don't say that here.
>here
Anon I'm pretty sure you don't live and work in all 50 states of the Union.

I'm going off topic more than a bit here.
Praytell you think Platoon was a pro war movie? Or Apoc?
What did you think Se7en was about, socially speaking not the damn movie plot?

Movies are made to manipulate YOU the watcher first and foremost and you'll be hard pressed to find a movie that hasn't been touched by mind cancer. I side with the villain out of spite and to get a window into "what I don't want you to think"

>>64454435
>So if it hasn't, then why make the same movie, again and again and again?
Because it's a movie made for entertainment with a little bit of things that are supposed to make you think. Do you also complain about movies that have picrel as a structure?

>>64454482
The vast majority of war movies are not critical of the systems that lead to war.

>>64454490
>Because it's a movie made for entertainment with a little bit of things that are supposed to make you think.
Look, I get that I'm weirdly spergy about this genre, but I'm not opposed to archetypal storylines. The problem I have with this very, very wildly specific niche of a genre is that it's grown stagnant, which shouldn't even be possible for something that you shouldn't have to make *too* many movies on before it's retread ground, just by virtue of the archetype.
It's not to say there haven't been unique examples of these kinds of nuke drama movies
>Special Bulletin
>Countdown to Looking Glass
>By Dawn's Early Light
>Testament
Shit, fucking WarGames and Manhattan Project are great examples of "muh nooks bad" movies that hold up well specifically because of how well they executed on that message and VFX, cyber hackerman, and pre-StarGate NORAD-kino novelty for WarGames, especially.

Basically I just wish we had more innovative storylines around nuclear warfare, instead of what's kind of become the boilerplate "A Fail Safe House of All Fears: A Scenario" scenario.

>>64452823
>Dr. Redditlove
fuck you too faggot, it was a good movie

>>64454930
t. demoralized gen xer

>>64454261
>Someone /tv/ said the writers admitted up front that they intentionally contrived a scenario that would accommodate the story/characters they wanted and acknowledged how unlikely it was. I can see the logic
Yep. I wrote that here on /k/ too. Honestly a lot of their contrivances are at least within the realm of being possible. Electronics do fail, either directly or due to cyberwarfare or enemy spook actions or traitor sabotage or whatever, obviously everyone would be delighted to have a way to poke out their opponent's electronic eyes. By the same token security and redundancy should be very good, but then again the public has no visibility on it right? And we saw plenty of rot develop during the long LE END OF HISTORY and GWOT bullshit, budget cuts and military flailing around a bit. So I can't give the writers that much shit for running with that part.

As I said other thread the only thing I can really blame them for is the idea that there can't be any attribution after the fact combined with their only being one missile. In a 1 missile scenario with POTUS and CNC in general safe there is zero threat to American 2nd strike capability, so while it'd be deeply shitty of course to lose cities it's also unironically no cause for panic. You can wait for the hits (if they happen), then get the isotope fingerprint, figure out who it was 100%, and annihilate them. I mean shit, for that matter in this day and age of literally billions of cameras there will probably be social media posts within hours of the launch unless it was in the middle of the ocean (and if it was, well that narrows things down quite a lot too). And while there can be believable failures of stuff in a super tight window (mere minutes) there is no possibility of that for analysis across a bunch of labs over the following week.

That's where the drama fell apart for me personally.

>>64454930
It really wasn't. The nihilistic satirical redditism tipping its little hat at serious things with an 'oops you can't criticize me back because it's comedy' is dogshit. Being made in black and white a generation earlier doesn't excuse the subversive nature.

>>64454079
"just war" is an incredibly stupid childish concept, followed by no one and championed by nobodies.

>>64452619 (OP)
>bigelow (b. 1951)
>oppenheim (b. 1977)
>jacobsen (b. 1967)
millennials

>>64454997
Yeah but all that investigation in the "no immediate retaliation" scenario just delays the inevitable to some degree, right? If it turns out it WAS North Korea, they get glassed and I imagine China would be pretty pissed about that, not to mention the Russians who, in the film, have serious reservations about allowing missiles to pass through their airspace. And if it was a Russian SLBM that evaded detection, then, well, pic related

>>64452619 (OP)
I'm so sick of nuke movies pussying out on showing us the actual nuclear war part

I want shit like Red Hammer '94, B1s blasting their way through russian AA with nuclear SRAMs.

>>64455404
I like Red Hammer '94 a lot, but it can only exist as historical fiction, it doesn't work in a modern setting, B-1s would be useless. Also the human aspect (for the most part) isn't very compelling; aside from some initial panic, it quickly turns into "we got hit with 300 more warheads? well shit"

>>64455249

The idea of of only one missile (and one targeting a civilian population center over anything of actual military value) strikes me as being far more likely of being launched by some "rogue element" than as part of any coherent first strike strategy. If anything it would be closer to nuclear terrorism than a genuine start to ww3.


Like what possible strategic benefit is there to pissing off the US in a way that makes 9/11 look like joke while doing literally nothing to its military capabilities.

>>64452619 (OP)
MILLENNIALS MILLENNIALS MILLENNIALS MILLENNIALS!!!
MILLENNIAL WRIIIIIIITING!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Noah Oppenheim (born 1977 or 1978)
>Generation X, often shortened to Gen X, is the demographic cohort following the Baby Boomers and preceding Millennials. Researchers and popular media often use the mid-1960s as its starting birth years and the late 1970s to early 1980s

Hey OP! Kill yourself, gen xir FAGGOT!

>>64455480
That's what makes me lean towards the Best Korea scenario. Also, if the calculation of the launch origin shown on the movie maps is even remotely correct, it would most likely be well out of range of any SLBMs afaik

Also, I read a speculative fiction novel called "The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States" by Jeffrey Lewis which is pretty stupid overall but depicts a Nork first strike against the US that hits Seoul, Tokyo, Honolulu/Pearl Harbor, NYC, DC, and Mar-A-Lago, and in that story the US retaliates with a strictly conventional air war and invasion that topples North Korea

>>64455249
>Yeah but all that investigation in the "no immediate retaliation" scenario just delays the inevitable to some degree, right?
Nah, it actually matters quite a bit whether you get it right or not.
>If it turns out it WAS North Korea, they get glassed and I imagine China would be pretty pissed about that
In 100% seriousness, China wouldn't do shit to protect that norks at that point. If the USA could genuinely prove that NK had launched a nuke and hit cities, and gave that evidence to the world, nobody would stand in our way whatever the whining. National interest ultimately trumps all, and the Chinese would absolutely not accept mutual destruction for the likes of NK.
>not to mention the Russians who, in the film, have serious reservations about allowing missiles to pass through their airspace
Same as above, but even more so, and it's a total joke to even pretend they have the slightest say in a situation like that.
>And if it was a Russian SLBM that evaded detection, then, well, pic related
But the thing is that the US has decision making power in that scenario and that matters a lot. If we find out it really was the ziggers or chinese for some insane reason who did it, and we know our interceptors and shit failed, then we can blame the norks anyway and bide our time. Work hard on more interceptors, and position boomer boats with superfuse SLBMs and aim for a genuine first strike in a planned scenario aiming at actually winning a nuclear war by preventing them from getting enough of theirs off. Or a lot of other options.

But that's the point: to have options, not just 2 panic choices and you're not even sure who did it. It's worth it to be able to rationally decide and try to maximize your odds, get allies prepped and so on. One of the biggest scary bits about nuclear war is it can happen so fast out of the blue. But if you know you're going into one months ahead of time, you've got a lot of options.

>>64455576
NK would actually be a pretty big pita to topple conventionally even for the US. Not impossible but it'd be bloodier then I think we'd tolerate these days particularly after a nuking. There's all the shit aimed at SK to consider as well. So we'd probably want to at least use limited nukes in response to speed things up and reduce our own losses and ally collateral damage. Normally that'd be unthinkable but if norks nuked us first it'd be reasonable to say "why should we take on risk and cost holding back more than necessary?". If we've already suppressed their air defense than this could be all gravity bombs too, so no missile concerns, and done with deliberate timing in terms of wind patterns and such to make sure no significant fallout goes directly to China or SK, which would probably be good enough as a compromise offer.

>>64452619 (OP)
Imagine thinking nukes are real
Talk about fudd-lore
>proof is cgi & spooks
>we were already firestorming japan
>living in fear over boogeyman only the gubmint can save you from

I'll believe one when I see it detonate & am evaporated, cuck

>>64455849
Does that mean anyone who's job it is to maintain ICBM's is the biggest govt welfare queens

>>64453729
>Nuclear bombs are evil because war is evil.

Just where exactly do you think you are? Pinko.

>>64452619 (OP)
Noah Oppenheim is not a millennial. Also this is nothing new.

>>64454435
>Probably should say invest in a serious means to negate or astronomically complicate the delivery and/or price of using nuclear weapons.
And then Orange Man even floating the idea of developing some kind of defense against nuclear weapons gets him accused of brinkmanship too.

>>64456168
He's a poor example, if he cured AIDS he'd be accused of shorting HIV stock before the announcement.
But any President that has the balls to actually get the ball rolling on this would face a shit ton of pushback and difficulty. Golden Dome is a good concept, but only if it's committed to *long term* (I'm highly skeptical of the 2028/29 deadline, see: Sentinel among other key strategic projects, except the B-21 though), regardless of cost. It's always baffled me why for so long it's been treated as a forgone conclusion that we're just stuck with this situation, where we push non-proliferation, yet we allow for the obvious incentive towards proliferation if you're a nation with low or middling conventional warfare capability and poor to middling economic health, but with aggressive or hostile regional (or broader) intentions and you want some indemnity against international intervention.

>>64455480
>>64455249
>>64452619 (OP)
the idea that only two GBIs would be fired (or attempted to) at a missile threatening a major American city is so ridiculous that it completely ruined any shreds of suspension of disbelief I was willing to give this movie. One character even brings it up, saying that if an all out nuclear war breaks out, those 50 interceptors won't do jack shit anyway... and yet gets completely ignored and no further intercept attempts are made. The airmen in charge of the GBIs just fucking get up and desert their stations after the first miss. What the fuck were they thinking?

>>64455849
nice false flag attempt there faggot

>>64457189
It entered its terminal phase after the failed interceptions meaning any other GBIs could not catch up to it.

>>64457315
that doesn't change the fact that there should've been like 10 fired at it, not 2. There's no real reason to be conservative with munitions. At the very least once the second one failed to fire they should have fired off another one right away

>>64452987
Concur. The President having to make decisions on short notice with incomplete information, the Soviets having itchy trigger fingers and poor communication (it's been a while since I've seen it, but in addition to reflexively overreacting from the terrorist nuke, didn't they fail to warn us that they were launching the second strike on China, which caused us to expand the war?), the military folks for the most part working the problem, in some cases even though they knew they were about to die... all good stuff.

The bomber parts were actually the weakest part of the story as far as the writing went, but Powers Boothe pulled them through with sheer personality.

And, of course... "Do better next time" and the salute.

>>64453729
Anybody who genuinely thinks that should be sent back in time to take part in Operation Downfall, or any of the various different Fulda Fucktardation scenarios that were only stopped by the threat of nuclear escalation.

>>64457412
Japan was ready to surrender before the nukes were dropped.

>>64454997
SO much this. Heck, I would expect that given the lack of training and emphasis and alert status, the President wouldn't even get notified of the attack in time to make meaningful decisions prior to impact. And after impact, when it's clear there are no more inbounds, there's time to analyze the warhead's fingerprint and figure out who's getting nuked. And assuming Russia and China don't want to get nuked themselves (a reasonable assumption), they'll likely stay out of it.

The whole premise made more sense in the Cold War when technology was limited, everyone was on a hair trigger, and there were far more warheads in play. Not so much, now.

>>64457476
>SO much this. Heck,
please be bait please be bait please be bait

>>64457410
NTA and it's been a while since I've seen it, too, but if I remember right the chronology of events is the terrorist nuke pops off over Donetsk (irony) and then the Soviets have basically an automatic launch response, about which the Russian President manages to actually reach POTUS to let him know the circumstances
>"Ah, shit, well, uh...we had some dudes in our Strategic Rocket Forces do a mutiny and uh...they nuked us knowing there'd be an automatic response, so you have a shit ton of inbound right now.
>"Please no nuke us back, China is already of nukings us for automatic response nukes to you, so please let's just turn this off."
POTUS has to make a snap decision when he's notified of further Russian launches, unknown if they're for CONUS or a counterstrike against China, all of this just minutes before the first leg of inbounds begins striking targets in CONUS, including D.C.
>>64457410
>The bomber parts were actually the weakest part of the story
I agree wholeheartedly, especially on Powers Boothe pulling them along through sheer screen presence. They could've been really special with some autist attention and better budget.
A personal favorite for me throughout this whole film is Peter McNichols of all people killing it as the President's Navy Attaché.

>>64454322
proofs?

>>64455024
Reddit as an adjective has lost all meaning.

This will get buried in the shit posting but to acknowledge that the US has had interceptors like Nike since the 60’s that rely on essentially gamma-ray assessing incoming warheads to fizzle their fissile material prior to detonation but then pretend like the DoE Labs haven’t continued that sort of neutralization tech is not only absurd, but retarded.

https://youtu.be/Q4LKuvAikso
It seems like most people have the same opinion on this shitpile.

they think nuclear weapons are a meme supervillain weapon like a thanos snap

>>64455249
If NK nuked the US, China would invade them first. China allows NK to exist to make the US, SK, Japan, etc seethe. Building big guns and nukes and other saber rattling bullshit is great for that, triggering a war right on China's doorstep where the norks get eradicated in 12 hours and put an American invasion force directly in China's zone of control is the opposite of what they want.

>>64455576
>Also, if the calculation of the launch origin shown on the movie maps is even remotely correct, it would most likely be well out of range of any SLBMs afaik
Huh? The Trident can go like a quarter of the way around the entire planet. It can hit Best Korea from Seattle.

>>64457906
>Even Scottish alcoholics in between drunken kebab runs can see this film's main flaws
Vindication.

>>64454165
NTA, but there are plenty of weak nations that have nukes. The Norks, the Russians, the Chinks - who despite having quite an army on paper are not, in fact competent - I mean, JFC man, Pakistan has nukes. India's got nukes. The literal street-shitters of the world.

The food chain is actually pretty simple, it goes something like
>America
>The Rich Parts of the EU
>The Poor Parts of the EU
>Japan
>The Parts of the West that are not America or the EU (Australia, Canada, NZ,)
>Western-leaning Asian Allies of Convenience (SK, Phillipines, Singapore)
>Probably the Chinks, 65-odd countries down from America
>What's Left of Russia
>Ngubu Gai Pan

Its not complicated, just follow the military expenditure and tech advantage from America on down and instead of buying into memery and copypasta, simply assume thirdies are always lying and the West has the same 50+ year tech advantage now that it had 100 years ago. It brings you reasonably close to the truth about the world pecking order.

>>64457311
What did he mean by this

>>64452619 (OP)
>What if someone launched a nuke at us and then we just chose to let it hit us?
I can appreciate that if everything goes to plan then there is no movie, but assuming that there were no THAAD or Patriot batteries or AEGIS-equipped ships in range, it would be a monumentally stupid call to not immediately launch another pair of GBIs when one suffered suffered a midflight failure. This gets passed off in the movie with a line about "we'll need the others if they launch more," but that's complete bullshit. The whole point of GMD is deal with single launches from a country like North Korea, no country on Earth currently has the capability to shoot down a full-scale nuclear attack from Russia, China, or the US. An interceptor missile is always going to be better used fired at an incoming missile than waiting eternally for an attack that may never come.

>>64459131
Japan has a stronger and more competent military than most or all of the EU.

>>64452823
You served on the Little Rock?

>>64452619 (OP)
Speaking of phone calls and nuclear weapons. I'd love to see a movie/series based on Red Alert 2.

I just don't get the focus on nuclear retaliation. Obviously if a full scale strike comes, then it will be obvious who's launching. If not, then it's a spicy 9/11 situation and we get ready for a conventional invasion somewhere once the glowniggers do their job and figure out who's to blame.

>>64454046
If someone is doing a full strike at you, you're in a use it or lose it scenario, and you have to do something NOW.

If someone nukes one city, you actually have time to figure out what the fuck happened, and who has to die. You're not really under any time pressure, since you don't really expect more nukes to come flying.

So that is why immediate retaliation isn't actually needed.

>>64454930
Only the battle at the base was fucking good.

>>64457955
China nuking the Norks would actually be interesting. China would get some goodwill from the world, would be able to choose favourable wind conditions, and if some of the fallout goes south to the Sorks, well that is just a bonus where the chinks can say lol whoops.

>>64457361
>>64457189
Yeah, isn't the GBI there for literally this exact scenario?

>>64452619 (OP)
I mean it's not like the majority of boomers wrote about it correctly either.

>>64457410
>>64457852
Yes, By Dawn's Early Light was a scenario that was genuinely pretty well done and genuine drama without the need for much in the way of asspulls beyond the bomber shit. But the basic setup was decent, automated systems and fog of war combining for a genuine fuckup and on top of that the Soviets actually not merely acknowledging it but also saying
>"we recognize we've committed a massive failure and accept an equivalent millions of deaths, but we didn't go all-out yet and ask you don't either"
That was cool. So that leaves the POTUS ordering millions of deaths purely as vengeance while also trying to discern what the other side is thinking through the fog of war and information on yet another launch that they can't tell the trajectory of right away and having to decide whether to go all out or not.

Much better then not merely this one but most of them. Believable premise and everyone can be adults with everything working as designed from there on out but still be forced into brutally hard, time crunched choices.

I will say in fairness though that scenario probably couldn't be a believable movie anymore, it was very much a product of the cold war at the time.

>>64452619 (OP)
I liked the first act. That was about it. The rest was just family guy tier "hehe let's do it again!". Furthermore, I believe everyone involved in the elimination of the SPRINT 2 program should have their bloodlines erased from history, since it was a solution to a problem, and cool as fuck. Kinetic kill vehicle? We could have been partying with Nike-X systems beyond our wildest comprehension. In the 60s they could hit a needle with another needle, one going machine 25 the other going machine 10 with a w66 warhead, using only ground based radar. Hit a bullet with a bullet? Gay and old. Simpsons did it. I want sum of fears if everyone said fuck it, M.A.D. is fake and gay, and everyone hits the red button.

>>64460976
Also, does anyone else remember the 2018 COG drill when all the nigger women started going to Twitter posting screenshots of their shelter alerts asking "wah gwan?" instead of complying with a KNOWN ORDER. This bitch was EXACTLY the embodiment of those people.

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

>>64452823
>>64452850
>>64452865
>>64453375
Gentlemen, no fighting in the war room.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jHzmMHxQy4

>>64452778
In light of the recent news, Trump definitely did

>>64454065
>Christianity is when absolute pacifism
Oy-fucking-Vey

>>64460976
I like stories that tell the same events from multiple perspectives, but the problem here is that nothing is a matter of perspective. For the most part it's just a straight telling of events, and no one has any agency at any point. Even the president is cheated by the story's stupid insistence on immediate response in kind.

We could have had the tech to prevent this.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=W4dYA5Kvn4E

>>64460823
This. There have always been shitty nuclear war stories OP.

>>64460823
>>64461741
What are some GOOD nuclear war stories then?

>Red Hammer 1994
>Arc Light
>Trinity's child

turtledove's WW3 series has some nuke warfare but I found it contrivedT

>>64459448
No, just a ship I consider historically important. Also a museum ship in New York.

>>64454289
Plenty off greatest gen, silent gen and early boomers who saw nuke test are still allive especially if you were born in Nevada or Polynesia.

>>64452619 (OP)
Just finished watching it, Ground-Based Midcourse Defence failing is realistic as there are only 44 know to exist and you aren't going to fire a heap at a single missile.

They ignore THAAD and Patriot as potential terminal interceptors but with so few THAADs I would be surprised if Chicago would get priority over DC, NYC, LA ect. Patriots are common enough I would expect a few around Chicago but we have seen them have mixed results against Kinzhal with some good intercepts and some impacts on Kiev which is known to have a heavy Patriot defence. Kinzhal is much slower than a ICBM RV.

The hardest thing to believe is the launch location wasn't known to the nearest meter but it would be possible for a SSBN to launch without it being clear who owns it especially if it was a new missile with an unknown IR signature. Yes they are tailed by SSNs but with a readiness rate of ~60% and 50 in service they can't be everywhere at once with between 11 and 22 attached to carrier groups.

All things considered I don't think it's terribly unrealistic and I get them removing Patriot from the table for story reasons, they want the impact to be inevitable from the time the EKV misses rather than changing the tone with "maybe Patriot will get it" down to the last second.
As for the political aspect I think not launching a counter force strike when you don't know who fired a single missile is believable, if it was a major player like Russia or China they will see your counter force coming and launch a counter value as the war is already lost. If it was a minor player like the Norks you can wait for evidence, surround them with Aegis so they can't launch another, present the evidence to China and Russia and then remove best Korea from the face of the planet.

>>64452619 (OP)
Because the KGB spent a huge amount of money getting westerners to fear nuclear energy.

>>64464575
Yeah, the KGB.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=E01
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=E1210

>>64461785
>This book is neutral - in the sense that it does not defend either the East or the West. It is not neutral in the sense that it accuses both. It is submitted for the benefit of the West and the East, as well as anybody caught in between.
>The Diary of Push-Button Officer X-127 is intended as a preventative anti-radioactive medicine, good for consumption in any place in the world. It is especially offered to button-pushers, rocket constructors, nuclear physicists, megaton bomb manufacturers, "small" atomic bomb producers, and last but not least, statesmen and politicians. It is 'not' (!) effective against buttons, robots, rockets, and the bombs themselves.

>>64464567
I find it really interesting that some people get so hung up on the interception side, when the point of the film is 'what would people do in the window between inevitability and outcome'. Like you said, it's a different tone if there's still any hope of aversion in the narrative, you're puckering for if it hits instead of when.
It's deliberately constructing a situation that's as muddy as possible, too. Failed intercept, no known state behind it and only a single missile heading for a single city.
Now, I'd probably watch a film that was instead about interception attempts and determining the actor responsible but that's not what this was about.

>>64464618
That's why I think it's a good companion piece to The Sum of All Fears (novel, not movie). Both have the whodunnit aspect but in TSOAF the tension comes not only from figuring out the responsible party but 2 sides becoming increasingly panicked and creeping closer and closer to an all-out launch.

>>64464618
I think a lot of people just don't get story telling, even realistic media deviates from reality when it makes for a better narrative. The tenson of the film would be lost if the RV was streaking across the sky and the audience still didn't know if it was going to hit.

>>64464641
In TSOAF it's great when through isotopic composition they find out it was soviet plutonium but have no idea if it was stolen, sold or actually the Russians.

>>64457896
>>64460976
SPRINT my beloved <3

>>64464581
Even the clean energy communists hate nuclear. No one but native nationalist Whites wants the West to have nuclear power.

>>64464659
>In TSOAF it's great when through isotopic composition they find out it was soviet plutonium but have no idea if it was stolen, sold or actually the Russians.
What? The original bomb was Israeli and the nuclear material came from the US (spoiler for a >35 year old book)

>>64464659
>In TSOAF it's great when through isotopic composition they find out it was soviet plutonium but have no idea if it was stolen, sold or actually the Russians.
Anon I think you're misremembering what Cabot and Mary-Pat assumed was the going theory behind why the Russians *would* be using scientists from Arzamaz-16 off-books to build a "suitcase-nuke" when they discovered that scientists were missing and were doing bomb-making shit innawoods somewhere in Ukraine.
They assumed the Russian logic would be that the US wouldn't be able to credibly know in good time whether the bomb was stolen, sold corruptly, or actually the Russians.

I could be flubbing that shit, I haven't watched the film in years but I remember a lot of the plot points because it was just so weirdly distantly-parallel to Clancy's novel.

>>64464567
>Ground-Based Midcourse Defence failing is realistic as there are only 44 know to exist and you aren't going to fire a heap at a single missile.
Why wouldn't you? Especially when one experiences a failure even before the intercept stage? At 50 million each, they're a lot cheaper than a city.

>They ignore THAAD and Patriot as potential terminal interceptors but with so few THAADs I would be surprised if Chicago would get priority over DC, NYC, LA ect.
There's only dozens of THAADs and hundreds of Patriots and most of them are deployed overseas. I would be surprised if Chicago had any air defenses at all. Are they going to be intercepting Canadian Scuds?

>>64452987
Easily top 3 movie for me. RIP James Earl Jones

I recognized the actor from Chernobyl playing the SecDef, now twice I've seen him, and both in roles where he kills himself.

>>64461062
Which is odd, since historically Trump has been a boomer who fell in to the “nooks bad” crowd. Either he saw some reports or it’s part of the White House’s larger plan to privatize nuclear energy by providing private companies with weapons grade cores from our stocks and ramping up production to replace them.

>>64465746
I think he just sees Kim and Putin get a lot of media coverage for saber rattling and wants the same for himself. He probably doesn't even know about the Minuteman III test launch 6 months ago because Fox didn't cover it.

>>64460885
>that scenario probably couldn't be a believable movie anymore
I think that it could actually work pretty well, and less could use a remake as much as the current landscape of media desperately could use a well done remake of a film specifically like By Dawn's Early Light, specifically at this kind of time (not for any other reason I'm concerned with beyond marketing).
The dynamic of a Putin-derivative or Xi-facsimile in the place of the Soviet Premier in the novel/film would instantly serve to recharacterize a lot of the film without necessarily needing to change much.

Except the bomber scenes. I'd change a lot about the bomber scenes and the entire story arc of the Pilot and Commander.

>>64455024
The only shit part was the bunker stuff and you know it. The office with the general and the limey was cool.

>>64452987
Was that the one where they had blinds on the plane windows? I remember this scene but I can't recall what movie it was from.

the only apocalypse movie i could see coming true is a boy and his dog

most old good movies are free on youtube these days, i dont pay for streaming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBfWS0BniJE

>>64468358
They closed the flash curtains twice - first when Fairchild gets nuked and then when they drop a bomb to take out two Foxbats

>>64452619 (OP)

I thought it was alright. I enjoyed the first part of the movie the most. It's downhill by the 2nd and pretty much useless virtue signaling in the 3rd act. It's a compelling theoretical scenario. I expected the cliff-hanger ending so I wasn't too irritated by it.

But NORAD is 100% launching more than 2 GBIs at a ICBM aimed at Chicago especially when one fails immediately but that annihilates a lot of the tension. Leaving out things like THAD and Patriot aren't that surprising, THAD is an uncommon system and I imagine they only have a couple batteries covering crucial government sites like D.C or major cities like New York.

Neither is POTUS going to lollygag and whine for 15 mins on a plane about how to respond. Dude is taking that football and glassing North Korea in it's entirety, even if it was China or Russia, blaming North Korea and glassing them gets the point across.

I think it's obvious that the director was far more focused on how these characters would approach the coming apocalypse, rather than a comprehensive military analysis of the response to a singular unknown nuclear attack. It's Hollywood, not the U.S War College after all.

I don't think Hollywood will ever be even 50% accurate when it comes to global thermonuclear war because of just how much information and knowledge about these systems and responses are classified for rather obvious reasons. So I can't fault the director for not knowing. Like we definitely have more than 50 GBIs but the idea that we would disclose how much there are ready to go is frankly absurd.

>>64454208
>No, they don't... Bonobos do not.
>>64454267
>you're right that bonobos definitely do not
Wrong, you guys are almost 15 years out of date in Bonobo research, Bonobos are not significantly less violent than Chimpanzees, their social structure is different so their hierarchical violence has different form than the Chimpanzee model (which is different from the anatomically modern human model, etc etc). One of the key drivers of this difference is the reduced sexual dimorphism. An adult male Chimp or Human can beat the shit out of several women, even if they band together to attack him, but an adult male bonobo is likely to die in this case. Male on male fighting is 3 times more likely in Bonobos than in Chimpanzees, and the aggressive males are the ones most likely to successfully mate (Mouginot, Wilson, et al,), and though it's far less likely that a male Bonobo kills another than it is a Male Chimpanzee kills another, female Bonobos will form "lynch mobs" and kill male Bonobos who are insufficiently deferential to the female members of the troop (Pashchevskaya, Fruth, et al). Even if you have a mother who's powerful and influential in the troop, you may still be lynched for disrespect by the other females (Robbins, Boesch,). The empowerment of females to act as the organizers and enforcers of the troop turns the male violence into something more like competition than war, but it doesn't eliminate hierarchical violence. In the paper by Pashchevskaya and Fruth paper, they record how Hugo's brother was present for the attack on him, and was unable to bring himself to actively resist the females of the troop, but he interposed himself between Hugo and his assailants, only for another female to attack from the direction behind him, and he also attempted to help Hugo treat his wounds, but Hugo died regardless.

>>64472116
>Wrong
You're right, I didn't feel like making a post about it but I was confusing bonobos in my head with gibbons (I hope it's obvious why I would love gibbons over bonobos, even beyond behavior).
And I know gibbon research has broadened what people popularly associated with them as recently as 10 or 15 years ago but I challenge anyone not to love those lovable dangly retards.

>>64453640
I've read her book, and her premise is sort of retarded.
>Somehow a lone NK submarine makes it all the way to the California coast and launches a surprise nuclear strike
>Russia knows we aren't attacking them, but says "fuck it we ride" and launches entirety of nuclear arsenal because "Putin is paranoid"
It's a good book all the way up to the last couple of chapters. Just like her Area 51 book. Great until you hit that "Roswell was Russian and filled with child medical experiments by Josef Mengele...nevermind the actual piloting of the aircraft from Russia to the US".

>>64457896
>Gamma rays
It's my personal thought the Dugway Zapper started off life as an ABM shield.

>>64454285
It's a definition centuries older than you are. Why do you think they call Asia "the Orient"?

>>64473729
Because that's where you get oriental rugs?

>>64466826
>I think that it could actually work pretty well, and less could use a remake as much as the current landscape of media desperately could use a well done remake of a film specifically like By Dawn's Early Light, specifically at this kind of time (not for any other reason I'm concerned with beyond marketing).
The reason I don't is because we don't have dead-hand sorts of systems anymore, the numbers of weapons, nor the clearly delineated sides with serious people on each, many/most of whom at least somewhat were genuinely patriotic and somewhat having a few core shared values/ideals. The fog of war was also a lot thicker, it's hard to overstate how massively more sophisticated sensors and networks are now and how many of them there are. And that trend is only accelerating.

>>64452619 (OP)
I said this in the other thread, but it absolutely bears repeating. The Hurt Locker was a shitty film.