No one knows where we are going, the aim of life has been forgotten, the end has been left behind. Man has set out at tremendous speed — to go nowhere. - Jacques Ellul
Hard disagree. I think the point is that as a nation and a world if something like this were to happen there are no good or easy answers. The movie doesnt have a concrete ending because it doesnt need one. Any single nation firing a nuclear missle at America (or any major nation) would change the world forever. Successful or not.
Real life isnt a Tom Clancy novel. Jack Ryan wont save the day.
The premise of the movie doesn't make any sense. There is no pressure to retaliate to a single nuclear missile launched at Chicago within the 18 minute flight of the missile. The only scenario that introduces a minutes-long decision window is if the US nuclear capability is in imminent danger, which it obviously is not from a single missile headed for Chicago. What any person not following a Hollywood script would do is wait few hours for credible intelligence, coordinate with other nuclear powers to avoid escalation, and wipe out whoever conducted the attack. Its a movie that only works if you don't think about it, which is a major problem because it is trying to be thought provoking.
> The premise of the movie doesn't make any sense. There is no pressure to retaliate to a single nuclear missile launched at Chicago within the 18 minute flight of the missile.
You don’t think it is plausible for the US detection systems to be offline, inaccurate, or unmanned?
That's not what I said. I said the movie creates a false sense of urgency when the decision-making window is measured in hours or days, not 18 minutes.
> Real life isnt a Tom Clancy novel. Jack Ryan wont save the day.
What made this movie suspenseful* for me was not how realistic it was, but how only half of it was realistic and the other half was completely disconnected from reality. A random incoming nuke of unknown origin, I can easily buy that happening. A deliberative process among highly competent officials deciding on a response, sorry but that is just not real life. Maybe it was at some point in our past, but certainly not in 2025.
As for the ending, it felt like a cop-out to me, but it didn't really matter to me.
A point I think many people are overlooking. Furthermore, to the extent Burevestnik or the seaborne device can deliver nuclear warheads, very little in bomb physics has changed since the last tests were run.
It was my understanding the US bombs production and management facilities ran tests until simulations were good analogues of what they saw in the real test, at which point it's both cheaper and faster to run simulations.
The only possible reason to run real tests, is for a political communication, although who is receiving it and what it says to them, isn't clear.
I think "technically" is doing a lot of heavy lifting when the nuclear component is an engine. It's like classic geek ratholing.
if a nuclear submarine launches a tomahawk with a non-nuclear warhead is the entire weapons system "a nuclear weapon" in your eyes? Is that a breach of the arms treaties, and breaches "no first strike" posture and invites second strike response with nuclear warheads?
I wasn't arguing about semantics. Trump is an idiot but the people who work for him are not as idiotic so they saw the latest propaganda from Russia & decided that the new policy would be the proper response.
Russia tested a nuclear capable long duration engine and the US response as reported to media is that the WH requested a resumption of nuclear weapons tests. Not nuclear engine tests.
The public will be happy w/ their response. You're drawing distinctions very few people care about which is why Trump is president & you're arguing w/ random internet strangers about the absurdity of the response.
> Trump is an idiot but the people who work for him are not as idiotic
Apparently you haven't noticed that Tramp has been purging anyone loyal to the United States as a country and installing subservient apparatchiks in their place. This is not a dynamic which selects for intelligence, competence, or subject matter focus.
If you're willing to work in this space, there's probably a cohort who would like to put a shot in the hole and make it go off. The simulations are good, but people have life goals and "working on a bomb including setting one off" is probably there.
Unless there are some shot holes prepped, there is a bit of engineering to get there first. "As quickly as possible" is slow, unless you repudiate the other treaty and do an above ground or underwater shot which the US hasn't done since 1992 and even then it was basically a buried one. It hasn't done an underwater test for far longer.
I don't think the nuclear physicists & engineers building the bombs are any less competent so I don't know what point you're making. In fact, the people doing the actual work are still the same people as they were when Biden was president.
I didn't specify whether it was policy or implementation or both. The government isn't a monolithic structure w/ everyone being equally stupid or intelligent. In the case of nuclear warheads I'm certain the people who have to do the actual work are not idiots even if the policymakers are idiots.
They do when we're talking about policies being made? I'm not super invested in this either, I just don't understand why we're going around in circles here.
I asked for clarification on the 3rd and 4th reply, when it was clear we were going around in circles. Here's another request for clarification - it seems like you are recommending that I shouldn't assume you mean the words you say?
Also if you'd like to elaborate on this "big hole", please do. I'm only seeing one kind of hole here.
Assumptions are required to have any kind of communication. Assumptions like you're speaking the English language and we each mean the words that you say. But apparently that is too many assumptions for you. Won't someone think of the assumptions!?!
No one knows where we are going, the aim of life has been forgotten, the end has been left behind. Man has set out at tremendous speed — to go nowhere. - Jacques Ellul
Watch Kathryn Bigelow's new movie, "A House of Dynamite".
https://www.netflix.com/title/81744537
I'm sorry I did. Absolutely terrible movie with no real point.
Hard disagree. I think the point is that as a nation and a world if something like this were to happen there are no good or easy answers. The movie doesnt have a concrete ending because it doesnt need one. Any single nation firing a nuclear missle at America (or any major nation) would change the world forever. Successful or not.
Real life isnt a Tom Clancy novel. Jack Ryan wont save the day.
The premise of the movie doesn't make any sense. There is no pressure to retaliate to a single nuclear missile launched at Chicago within the 18 minute flight of the missile. The only scenario that introduces a minutes-long decision window is if the US nuclear capability is in imminent danger, which it obviously is not from a single missile headed for Chicago. What any person not following a Hollywood script would do is wait few hours for credible intelligence, coordinate with other nuclear powers to avoid escalation, and wipe out whoever conducted the attack. Its a movie that only works if you don't think about it, which is a major problem because it is trying to be thought provoking.
> The premise of the movie doesn't make any sense. There is no pressure to retaliate to a single nuclear missile launched at Chicago within the 18 minute flight of the missile.
You don’t think it is plausible for the US detection systems to be offline, inaccurate, or unmanned?
That's not what I said. I said the movie creates a false sense of urgency when the decision-making window is measured in hours or days, not 18 minutes.
> Real life isnt a Tom Clancy novel. Jack Ryan wont save the day.
What made this movie suspenseful* for me was not how realistic it was, but how only half of it was realistic and the other half was completely disconnected from reality. A random incoming nuke of unknown origin, I can easily buy that happening. A deliberative process among highly competent officials deciding on a response, sorry but that is just not real life. Maybe it was at some point in our past, but certainly not in 2025.
As for the ending, it felt like a cop-out to me, but it didn't really matter to me.
*suspenseful, but not good.
So, is it time to wish for TACO?
We are so back! How many bad 20th century ideas can we fit into the 2020s?
Trump is following his idol Putin and is transforming USA into Russia with every day.
I think he got confused with the terminology - Putin said he tested nuclear-powered Burevestnik, but that's not the same as testing nuclear weapons.
A point I think many people are overlooking. Furthermore, to the extent Burevestnik or the seaborne device can deliver nuclear warheads, very little in bomb physics has changed since the last tests were run.
It was my understanding the US bombs production and management facilities ran tests until simulations were good analogues of what they saw in the real test, at which point it's both cheaper and faster to run simulations.
The only possible reason to run real tests, is for a political communication, although who is receiving it and what it says to them, isn't clear.
Technically it is a nuclear weapon. It uses radioactive material in some non-trivial capacity.
I think "technically" is doing a lot of heavy lifting when the nuclear component is an engine. It's like classic geek ratholing.
if a nuclear submarine launches a tomahawk with a non-nuclear warhead is the entire weapons system "a nuclear weapon" in your eyes? Is that a breach of the arms treaties, and breaches "no first strike" posture and invites second strike response with nuclear warheads?
I wasn't arguing about semantics. Trump is an idiot but the people who work for him are not as idiotic so they saw the latest propaganda from Russia & decided that the new policy would be the proper response.
Russia tested a nuclear capable long duration engine and the US response as reported to media is that the WH requested a resumption of nuclear weapons tests. Not nuclear engine tests.
The public will be happy w/ their response. You're drawing distinctions very few people care about which is why Trump is president & you're arguing w/ random internet strangers about the absurdity of the response.
> Trump is an idiot but the people who work for him are not as idiotic
Apparently you haven't noticed that Tramp has been purging anyone loyal to the United States as a country and installing subservient apparatchiks in their place. This is not a dynamic which selects for intelligence, competence, or subject matter focus.
If you're willing to work in this space, there's probably a cohort who would like to put a shot in the hole and make it go off. The simulations are good, but people have life goals and "working on a bomb including setting one off" is probably there.
Unless there are some shot holes prepped, there is a bit of engineering to get there first. "As quickly as possible" is slow, unless you repudiate the other treaty and do an above ground or underwater shot which the US hasn't done since 1992 and even then it was basically a buried one. It hasn't done an underwater test for far longer.
I don't think the nuclear physicists & engineers building the bombs are any less competent so I don't know what point you're making. In fact, the people doing the actual work are still the same people as they were when Biden was president.
You were talking about policy, not the people designing and building bombs.
I didn't specify whether it was policy or implementation or both. The government isn't a monolithic structure w/ everyone being equally stupid or intelligent. In the case of nuclear warheads I'm certain the people who have to do the actual work are not idiots even if the policymakers are idiots.
> decided that the new policy would be the proper response.
How were you talking about anyone but policymakers?
> people who work for him
Does not mean only policymakers. In any case, I'm not concerned about this issue so good luck to you.
They do when we're talking about policies being made? I'm not super invested in this either, I just don't understand why we're going around in circles here.
Assume less & you'll be less confused in general.
I shouldn't have assumed you meant all of the words you said, or what?
You can do whatever you want but my recommendation is to assume less & ask for clarifications instead of digging yourself into a bigger hole.
I asked for clarification on the 3rd and 4th reply, when it was clear we were going around in circles. Here's another request for clarification - it seems like you are recommending that I shouldn't assume you mean the words you say?
Also if you'd like to elaborate on this "big hole", please do. I'm only seeing one kind of hole here.
You should probably get your vision checked then. Eyesight & cognition tend to deteriorate w/ age.
From your profile:
> Address the substance of my arguments
That is indeed what it says in my profile but this conversation has convinced me I'll need to add another clause about making too many assumptions.
Assumptions are required to have any kind of communication. Assumptions like you're speaking the English language and we each mean the words that you say. But apparently that is too many assumptions for you. Won't someone think of the assumptions!?!
He should get two peace prizes.
He lost the Peace Prize so he's trying his hand at Physics.
Possibly the stupidest president of all time... He thinks with his colon.