By Peter Huessy, Senior Fellow, NIDS and President, Geostrategic Analysis
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) describes the movie “Dynamite” as having “rallied the nuclear threat reduction field together.” The story? A nuclear armed missile is heading toward Chicago with one warhead, now streaking across the middle of the Pacific. The sensors failed to work that would have identified the missiles origin but then began to track its path. Attempts to intercept the missile warhead fail, and the US is left without recourse. The film repeatedly ridicules the current nuclear deterrent strategy of the United States, claiming the US military thinks too simply, either believing “I always thought just being ready is the point” or “If they see how prepared we are, no one starts a nuclear war” would keep deterrence from breaking down.
This follows a similar narrative in the 2023 film “Oppenheimer” which depicted the war mongering Dr. Edward Teller seeking to test the H bomb while Dr. Oppenheimer tries to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. The Oppenheimer movie forgot to tell the audience that the H-Bomb allowed the US to build small, high yield warheads and thus missiles small enough to fit into a submarine, allowing the US not to rely solely on strategic bombers and relatively dangerous very large liquid fueled missiles. Having submarine launched missiles allowed the US to have a very secure retaliatory capability as part of a nuclear deterrent Triad. And keep the nuclear peace.
Unfortunately, there are two very clear messages from the movie. First, missile defense is a dangerous illusion as noted earlier the two attempted intercepts of the warhead fail. The second is that current deterrent strategy is worthless, as there is no solution if deterrence breaks down, on top of their being very little time to make any rational decision, and that the breakdown in deterrence could happen at any time.
In the view of the movie’s narrative, an assured retaliatory strike or what is the core requirement of the US nuclear deterrent is considered of no value. What is the alternative? The movie producer and writer both urge President Trump to take steps toward reducing weapons or “denuclearization” otherwise known as abolition or “global zero.” But as for stopping the warhead from hitting Chicago and killing millions, nothing is possible.
Now reducing US and USSR/Russian nuclear weapons has been accomplished since 1987, 1991, 2002 and 2010 in the INF and START series of treaties Initiated by President Reagan. Russia and the United States are down a collective tens of thousands of fewer warheads of all kinds, and roughly an 80-90% reduction in deployed, in the field, long-range strategic weapons. But the authors of the movie say the world is still more dangerous despite these reductions. So why would further reductions—the only concrete idea the film’s writer and producer propose---end the threat laid out in the movie?
The missile strike is from an unknown source—no country or launch point is identified. Of course, nothing could be done in retaliation when the United States has no idea who launched the missile in the first place. The film assumes our space-based satellites that would track the missile threat didn’t initially work.
For years the abolition corner assured us that since all missiles have a recognized return address, they will not be launched in the first place. And thus, no need for crazy ideas like missile defense. That idea is placed in the historical dumpster by the movie, implicitly making a case for missile defenses. But just to cover their bases, the movie authors rig the movie to make sure missile defense fails---so ridicule of Presidents Reagan and Trump and their support for missile defense can be go forward. Left unmentioned is President Clinton’s 1993 decision to kill all national missile defense research and development which further undercut US deterrent capability by delaying an important deterrent development.
The movie also appears ignorant that if deterrence beaks down, the US has only one other choice other than intercepting such weapons. Our retaliatory policy is to stop any further attacks by taking out the bad guy’s nuclear weapons. It is not, however, designed to destroy an attacking country, contrary to what the movie implies.
The only other proposed action is for the US to do nothing. And not surprisingly, the script is so rigged that it is basically all the US can do. This then makes everyone feel helpless and thus turn against the entire concept of nuclear deterrence, which is precisely what Annie Jacobsen called for in her recent book and which the movie Dynamite repeats.
While the movie doesn’t explicit call for abolition, most of those relied upon for expert advice favor such a path. But left unaddressed is what is to be done on the way to abolition? We cannot even get NK to abandon its weapons and have gotten snookered all the way through the process by which Pyongyang joined the NPT (1986) and then tested a bomb (2006).
We could of course take out an emerging nuclear program. But none of the “experts” relied upon for the movie supported the Israeli and US strikes against Iran. The movie “companion notes or guides”—falsely-- that President Trump is “recklessly” putting INF missiles back into Europe. While failing to explain the INF treaty was being serially violated by the Russians.
The movie seems confused that while Congress has approved funding for the SLCM-Nuclear cruise missile--to be deployed at sea—it simply helps balance the Russian very large current 20/1 advantage in theater nuclear forces in Europe, not seeding a new arms race.
Most importantly, “Dynamite” completely ignores that since at least 1999, Putin has adopted an escalate to win strategy of using nuclear weapons for coercion and blackmail. China has joined that bandwagon, too.
While US nuclear deterrent strategy has kept the peace now for 80 years, Hollywood apparently seeks to take that one successful strategy and throw it away, and replace it with platitudes and slogans, even as our enemies build up their nuclear arsenals with which to cause us harm.