Nuclear Tensions Echo in New Film, Former NSC Official Warns of Evolving Threats
A new Netflix film, House of Dynamite, is sparking critical conversation about the realities – and potential misrepresentations – of nuclear crisis management, drawing on recent history and anxieties about escalating global conflicts. A former US National Security Council official, reflecting on a period of acute nuclear risk in late 2022, argues the film, while compelling, takes liberties with established nuclear deterrence principles, even as it serves as a valuable “wake-up call.”
The official recounted a harrowing period three years ago, as detailed by Bob Woodward in his book War, when the intelligence community assessed the possibility of Russian nuclear weapon use in Ukraine as a “coin flip” should Russian forces face collapse. “We had been working hard for months to deter Russian nuclear use and we also developed plans for what we would do if those efforts failed,” the official stated. The danger peaked during the weekend of October 21-23, 2022, when Russia falsely accused Ukraine of preparing a “dirty bomb” attack – a move widely perceived as a pretext for potential nuclear escalation. “We rushed in for emergency meetings that Sunday to avert a world changing event.”
The anxieties of that period resurfaced while watching House of Dynamite, which depicts a nuclear missile launch against the United States from the Pacific, with the origin and motivation unknown. The film focuses on the frantic 19-minute countdown as the President and his national security team attempt to understand the situation and formulate a response. The official praised the film’s realism, noting its visuals closely resemble the West Wing and situation room, and its potential as an Oscar contender.
However, the official cautioned against accepting the film’s central premise at face value. “Only a small number of countries have an ICBM capability. Deterrence 101 applies – if they were to use them, they would be annihilated.” Even if, as the film suggests, a cyberattack could initially conceal the missile’s origin, the official asserted, “There is virtually no chance that the United States would not find out in the hours, days, and weeks after the attack.”
A key point of contention lies in the film’s portrayal of the presidential response timeline. House of Dynamite implies the President must decide on retaliation before the missile strikes Chicago, the depicted target, to avoid losing the opportunity for a counterstrike. The official dismissed this as a relic of early Cold War anxieties about a “decapitating first strike,” arguing it doesn’t apply in a modern context with submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). “The president has time to respond after the detonation, allowing him to gather more information about who is responsible rather than attacking all adversaries pre-emptively before Chicago is destroyed.”
The official emphasized that the real danger of nuclear war remains potent, recalling the October 2022 crisis. “If Russia had used nuclear weapons against Ukraine it could have triggered a wider war. If Moscow got away with it, it could have normalised the use of nuclear weapons in conflict and led to a new round of nuclear proliferation.”
Beyond the threat of nuclear conflict, the official warned of emerging dangers, including the rise of artificial intelligence and growing alignment between competitors and adversaries. “The growing alignment of our competitors and adversaries raises the prospect that a war over Taiwan could go global.” Furthermore, the official highlighted the vulnerability of US critical infrastructure, citing China’s “Volt Typhoon” operation as evidence of potential civilian impact in a future conflict. “Perhaps a sequel could address these dangers.”
While acknowledging the necessity of “artistic license” to raise public awareness, the official underscored the importance of understanding the complexities of nuclear strategy and the evolving landscape of global threats. The dangers are real, and require informed discussion and proactive measures to prevent a catastrophic outcome.
