A House of Dynamite

I watched this Kathryn Bigelow movie a couple of nights ago after anxiously waiting for it to hit Netflix.  It turns out that Bigelow and I are the same age and lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War, and the era of public and private atomic bomb shelters – all based on the idea that you can survive a nuclear war.  As I have written on this blog in a couple of places – it was also my job in my early 20s to disassemble the bomb shelter in the basement of our public library.  Nobody ever gave me a reason – but in retrospect it was probably because planners realized that there would be no survivors.  I am not talking about dying in the blast or even surviving the radioactive fallout and fires.  I am talking about the millions of tons of smoke, soot, and dirt blown up into the atmosphere and the effects of that blocking sunlight.  The direct smoke and soot effects are expected to last for 5 years and the resulting greenhouse gases for a century (1).  There will be climate change and an inability to grow crops for a very long time.  That would mark the end of civilization probably within a few years.

There are differing opinions on what it would take to create a nuclear winter. Over the past 30 years several groups have estimated the environmental effects of numbers of nuclear weapons ranging from 15-100 kilotons of explosive force.  The simulations vary from a limited exchange to a large-scale exchange of several thousand nuclear weapons.

This movie is focused on the launch of a single missile from an unknown location and the people responsible for responding to that attack.  There is the suggestion that early warning systems may have been compromised by a cyberattack.  We see a cross section of military officials and civilians at Fort Greely Alaska, in the White House, and via telecommunications monitoring threats to the United States.  They detect a missile launch and initially think that it will splash down in the Sea of Japan.  They eventually see that it is on a suborbital trajectory and it will hit the continental United States.  Chicago is determined to be the target. 

The tension increases greatly when the staff involved realize that this is a nuclear attack on the United States.  There is some initial confidence that they can intercept the incoming missile with Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) anti-ballistic missiles. The GBIs are used to deploy an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) that is a kinetic energy weapon designed to seek out and destroy the ballistic missile by direct impact. In a tense dialogue between the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy National Security Adviser we learn that the success rate of the GBI system is only 61% and it cost $50 billion.  During these discussions Ft. Greely has 2 GBIs in the air and they both miss.

That leads to increased tension. The alert state is DEFCON 2 and none of the staff has been at that state in the past.  Everyone knows the gravity of the situation.  People are upset, tearful, and trying to contact their families.  A cabinet official jumps off the roof of the Pentagon.  One of the central figures calls her husband and tells him to put their child in the car and get out of town as quickly as possible.  Even though there is only one missile in the air headed for Chicago – the viewer knows only 20 minutes total have elapsed.  There is no adequate amount of time to evacuate most major metropolitan areas.

With the failed countermeasures we see the President in the final frames.  He is with his retaliatory strategy advisor – a Lieutenant Commander.  He has a large book of targets – all specified by certain codes.  The President is anxious and hyperventilating. He is contemplating the gravity of the situation – the human toll, not letting the perpetrator get away with it, what the American people will think of his response, the insanity of selecting military targets when he does not know who launched the missile, and the message it would send if the US does not respond.

This was a very good movie that I enjoyed a lot.  It was well written, directed and acted by some of my favorite actors. Most importantly it contains a solid message about nuclear war – don’t go there.  The anxiety, confusion, mayhem, and desperation portrayed as the product of a single missile launch may be the 21^st century equivalent of that 1964 classic Fail Safe.

But it turns out there is more.  The Pentagon apparently released a memo disputing the low accuracy of the GBI anti-missile system.  I have not been able to access the memo but apparently it claims a 100% success rate in stopping incoming ballistic missiles. 

I was able to see an interview of Joseph Cirincione (2) – a defense consultant with experience all the way back to the Reagan era and the Star Wars initiative.  He said there have been a limited number of tests of the system but you could claim a 100% success rate if you looked at the last 4 tests.  If you look at the life of the program there have been 20 tests and only 11 or 55% were successful.  He pointed out the technical difficulties of trying to shoot down long-range missiles and said the system was more of a sieve than a protective dome and that it could not be counted on to plan a defense.  Further, the total investment in antiballistic missile technology has been $453 billion and that technology in the form of lasers, rockets, or the GBI/EKV will not be adequate for another 30 years.  He alluded to a study of the technology by the American Physical Society (3) but it was not clear that was his reference for the estimate.  When asked about the most significant nuclear threat to the US, Cirincione said it was Russia and that in an attack of a thousand ballistic missiles – the US would be able to “intercept 1 or 2.”  In the Pentagon versus movie accuracy, he rated it: “House of Dynamite 1 and Pentagon zero.”      

Where does this leave us?  Here are a few considerations.  First, if anyone was serious about waste, fraud, and abuse it is far more likely to be found in the Pentagon than in health and human services.  The $453B spent on several antiballistic missile systems to end up with one that is as effective as a “sieve” says it all. And apparently a new contract has been signed even though physicists are saying the technology will not be ready for another 30 years.  Second, the current system is a coin toss in terms of intercepting ballistic missiles from a rogue state.  In an all-out attack by a nuclear power it can possibly intercept a trivial number of missiles.  It makes no sense to advertise it any other way or pretend that the United States is “protected” against a long-range missile attack.  Third, we are right back where we started when nuclear non-proliferation was the order of the day.  Having all the nuclear weapons in the world is a lose-lose situation rather than a zero-sum game if all of humanity goes extinct during the attacks and the aftermath.  You don't even have to be in the game to lose.  If you are a hemisphere away the resulting climate change and ice age will kill you.   Fourth, rather than being focused on non-proliferation we currently have leaders who are bragging (4-7) about weapons systems.  Fifth, there is not even a tip of the cap to cosmopolitanism at this point.  Billions of people around the world work every day and strive to get home safely to their families every night.  In the meantime, we have a handful of old men with a limited stake in the future playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship – often for no reason other than playing the game.   

When exactly are world leaders really going to work in the interests of their people?  Nuclear war, nuclear winter, and the extinction of humans is the last thing any rational person wants.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

Supplementary 1:  Precedents for holding your nuclear fire:  There was one brief allusion in the movie to a nuclear early warning that was ignored during the Cold War.  There were two – in both cases commanders from the USSR ignored in one case a radar error suggesting an attack by the USA and in the other a direct attack by the US Navy on a Soviet submarine.   This is interesting because the Soviets were typically considered war mongers by Americans at least that was the political hyperbole.  In fact, two of their commanders exercised good judgment under fire and probably prevented an all-out nuclear war.   

Supplementary 2: Kathryn Bigelow responded to Pentagon criticism of the movie about the accuracy of the Ground Based Interceptor missiles (8).  She described the film as realistic and authentic. In The Guardian version of this story a nuclear physicist said that the scenario was “about as easy as they come.”  That same article said the US has 44 GBICs in Alaska and California and has contracted for a new system for $13.3 billion.  Bigelow said she hopes the film will create discussion and cultural change that may produce a more rational approach to the problem - like arms reduction.  Kathryn Bigelow has produced art with a beneficial message to the American people.  It is a message that nobody else is sending.  She deserves credit for this work rather than criticism.  

Supplementary 3:  The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists published a brief essay on what the immediate consequences of a nuclear explosion in Chicago would look like:

Jaworek P, Williams I.  The “House of Dynamite” sequel you didn’t know you needed. October 31, 2025  https://thebulletin.org/2025/10/the-house-of-dynamite-sequel-you-didnt-know-you-needed/

References:

1:  Toon OB, Robock A, Turco RP. Environmental consequences of nuclear war. Physics Today. 2008 Dec 1;61(12):37-42.  https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ToonRobockTurcoPhysicsToday.pdf

2:  Cirincione J.  TMZ Live October 28, 2025  Link to video

3:  American Physical Society.  Strategic ballistic missile defense. Challenges to defending the U.S.  March 3, 2025  Links to 3 different reports

4:  Wittner LS.  Nuclear arms race intensified during Trump’s presidency.  The Hill. July 5, 2024  https://thehill.com/opinion/4755721-trump-nuclear-arms-race/

5:  Cancian MF, Park CH. Trump Moves “Nuclear” Subs: Negotiating Tactic or Escalatory Gamble?  August 6, 2025.  https://www.csis.org/analysis/trump-moves-nuclear-subs-negotiating-tactic-or-escalatory-gamble

6:  Megerian C.  Putin boasts about new nuclear-powered missile as he digs in over Russia’s demands on Ukraine.  October 27, 2025.  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-boasts-about-new-nuclear-powered-missile-as-he-digs-in-over-russias-demands-on-ukraine

7:  Associated Press.  Trump suggests the U.S. will resume testing nuclear weapons.  NPR October 30, 2025.  https://www.npr.org/2025/10/30/g-s1-95725/trump-testing-nuclear-weapons  

Historical note:  The US had not tested a nuclear warhead since 1992.  Many experts agree it is unnecessary and there is a nuclear test ban treaty. 

8:  Shoard C, Pulver A.  Kathryn Bigelow responds to Pentagon criticism of A House of Dynamite: ‘I just state the truth’.  The Guardian October 29, 2025  https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/oct/29/kathryn-bigelow--pentagon-house-of-dynamite-netflix

 

 

Cosmopolitanism...

 

“I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.” – Socrates

 

I have always considered myself to be a citizen of the world but I don’t know why.  I was born and raised in an isolated place on the northern margins of the United States.  The overriding ethos was “mind your own business”.  I don’t know if that just fit my personality well or if my personality was molded to fit that rule but I was and am very good at it.  Despite that trait my exposure to people from other cultures and ethnicities through sports, school, the Peace Corps, and work went very well largely because I saw them as people with the same day to day problems that I had. Everybody’s trajectory through the world is unique and common at the same time. We all grow up in families and at some point, have families of our own. We all strive for continuity over time.  We get up in the morning, go to work, and expect to come home to the safety and support of our families at night. We all know that despite our efforts – disagreement, illness, accidents, disability, and death are major obstacles that we are going to encounter along the way.  There is no way around them.  It is universal human experience.

I had that idea about people in my neighborhood and people I read about from all over the world. It made sense when I heard from the leaders of the protest movements in the 1960s and 1970s.  It made sense when I heard Muhammad Ali talking about why he objected to the war in Vietnam. It makes perfect sense when I hear from people protesting about gun violence and women’s reproductive rights in the United States. In every case, these protests are about people who are not minding their own business and who are not mindful about the challenges that we all face. Why would you want to perpetrate an unnecessary war, take away women’s rights, and make gun violence a norm when people are just trying to make it home every night and survive?  In my lifetime, the United States has been involved in three unnecessary wars – 2 in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.  The one in Afghanistan was the longest and third most expensive war in the history of the country.  That expense minimizes the total cost of lives lost, disability, and infrastructure destroyed in these countries.

And yet everywhere currently – the world is in a crisis. The multiple crises are not precipitated by average folks like you and me but by a small number who seem intent on inflicting their will on the rest of us. I like the term megalomaniac.  It has nothing to so with psychiatry – but it connotes a person obsessed with their own power. When that exists, it is rare to not see the megalomaniac exercise that power often with horrific results.  The context that the power is exercised is also critical.  Autocrats and dictators who have absolute control of the military are probably the worst-case examples and history is full of them.  On the current world stage – Putin is probably the clearest example. The estimate of his net worth from various sources is anywhere from $1.7 to $200B.  At a time when most people are working toward retirement, he launched as assault on Ukraine based on the fictitious claim that it had to be “denazified”.  He is systematically destroying the infrastructure and killing people. He has also alluded to using nuclear weapons, based on further exaggerations of NATO being a threat to Russia.  At this point he is the clearest example of a leader out of control.  He is holding the world hostage in order to get control of Ukraine.  This strategy benefits only Putin and not the Russian people.

The most recent crisis that prompted me to complete this piece was the balloon over US airspace that originated from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The timing coincided with a scheduled visit to China by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. The visit was cancelled because of the balloon. As I type this the United States has added six PRC businesses to an Entity list to restrict them from buying US technology.  That decision was made based on inspection of the retrieved wreckage after the balloon was shot down by a US fighter jet over the Atlantic.  The United States also claims that US spy plane flybys confirmed that this was a surveillance balloon capable of eavesdropping on communications at US nuclear installations.  When I first heard about his development I thought the obvious concern would also be the dispersal of some kind of weapon at high altitude.  At any rate, it is a clear violation of US air space by a hostile government, despite denials by the PRC and their failure to communicate directly about this incident over a hotline between Washington and Beijing.

What does all of this mean for cosmopolitanism?  It leads to an obvious level of analysis that nobody ever seem to comment on. Is the average person in Russia, the PRC, or the US involved in all of these decisions?  Are they cheering their governments on? Are they keeping scorecards on who is winning?  I have no reason to believe that they are. At some level people around the world realize that their counterparts in other countries are facing the same challenges that they are and just trying to make it through the day.  At that level of analysis – all of these actions by their governments are detached form that simple reality. I some cases, so detached that nuclear war is being threatened. Nuclear war is really a euphemism for the end of civilization as we know it. Even a limited number of nuclear explosions can put enough debris into the atmosphere to destroy the crop growing environment and cause mass starvation. What citizen of the world wants that?

That disconnect between people and the governments who are supposed to represent them endangers the entire planet and it is unnecessary. There are very few places where this disconnect is not evident, but in some cases it is obvious. Iran comes to mind.  The Iranian government is clearly not sensitive to the day-to-day concerns of its people especially women, but at the same time is actively exporting weapons and terrorism across the globe. It illustrates a qualitative difference in governments that directly impacts cosmopolitanism captured in this quote (1):

"Only a state which understands its role as a governmental mechanism, rather than as having claims to particular truths, is likely to be able to play the enabling role that cosmopolitanism needs."

There are clearly many governments across the world that see themselves as much more that a “governmental mechanism” and instead insist that people under their rule live a certain way. Theocracies work out of the assumption that a certain religion is superior.  Autocracies do the same for a particular ideology.  In both cases large segments of their population can be suppressed, persecuted, or in extreme cases killed for non-adherence to these doctrines. There are many obvious historical and ongoing examples.

Reviewing some of the literature on cosmopolitanism it is typically criticized for being too idealistic and impractical. How can large numbers of people practically adhere humanistic principles when they are fractionated by governments and in many cases oppressive governments opposed to humanism? Some authors write about socioeconomic status of cosmopolitans – seeing the very wealthy classes as being the most likely cosmopolitans while others see refugees as having that status of necessity. Critical features that are not mentioned are humanism and empathy. Both need to be emphasized at an international level to attempt to move the threshold for more appropriate international behavior in the right direction.  Citizens of the world recognize that their counterparts around the world have the same problems and the same goals every day. They hopefully have some input into the mechanism of government in their geographic locations, but that is obviously not universal.   

One of my favorite modern philosophers Massimo Pigliucci (2) examined the issue of cosmopolitanism from the standpoint of tension between altruism and selfishness.  He suggests that this may be a false dichotomy.  Pigliucci is an expert in Stoic philosophy and the developments that group added to cosmopolitanism.  He explains that the Stoics as intelligent social beings had an expanded concern for humanity and thought that free people flourish in a cooperative society, therefore caring for others assures that you will also flourish. 

This is an excellent individual philosophy that may not translate well at the international level.  Part of the problem seems to be that entire nations do not operate on cosmopolitanism – at least not predominately.  There are certainly elements like international assistance in the event of natural disasters and catastrophes where it may occur.  But countries are more likely to operate out of a vaguely defined self-interest. That self-interest may lead to the vilification of average people in other countries rather than understanding that we all share similar struggles and problems in living. In some cases that vilification may extend to factions in the country of interest for not supporting government propaganda and aggression.

A recent review of the current situation in Russia by Hill and Stent (3) is illustrative. They describe the 23-year reign of Vladimir Putin in Russia and how his absolute power is basically unchecked.  The clearest evidence is prosecuting a war against Ukraine based on his fantasies about what Russia should be and making mistakes that would have led to his removal in any country where there was personal accountability. In addition to the ruthless attacks on Ukraine and its people – he is equally ruthless on the home front. The authors describe deserters from the army being murdered and the videos of those murders released.  He has assassinated businessmen who do not support the war against Ukraine.  He has sent poorly trained and equipped inmates from Russian prisons to the front lines to fight. He has basically inflicted a tremendous amount of suffering on both the Russian and Ukrainian people. And yet at this point he continues to maintain absolute control over the country.

Many countries in the world today are run by similar autocrats.  Autocrats have also been a part of human history and the amount of suffering they have caused is beyond biblical proportions. Why does that cycle continue to repeat itself?  I think a lot of it has to do with the human tendency to simplify issues by tribalism. There is significant anthropological study showing that very early humans have a tendency to get into all out wars at the tribal level and then successively higher levels of organization. That suggests that it is easier to mobilize for a violent conflict than to think about or conduct negotiations. It also implies that there is very little thought given to the fact that the purported enemy is facing the same uncertainties and problems as the aggressors. Wartime rhetoric suggests that the enemy is the cause of the problem.

What are the potential solutions?  If cosmopolitanism is a tough sell – it can potentially guide solutions. The first necessary step is to make all the people of the world aware of the process. Education is a first step.  If you are a citizen of the world, you must be aware of the similarities of all people and how they differ from governments. There must be a sense of empathy for fellow citizens across the globe. That must be true for people of different regions within the same nation.  The only way to be a global citizen is to be see yourself as like everyone else in your geographic location as a first step.   A second step is to notice how politics attempts to affect that basic inclusiveness. Politicians everywhere thrive on pointing out the differences between people, suggesting that they are irreconcilable, and then proposing a plan for winning against the marginalized group. Recent events suggest that this process is very common in democracies including the United States where we witnessed an insurrection against the government and a significant increase in hate crimes against ethnic groups as a direct result of extremist rhetoric from a specific political party and their members. Cosmopolitanism cannot get off the ground in those conditions, but there is a chance that exposure to those principles may harden the population against demagoguery.

Cosmopolitanism after all is a very humanistic approach to relationships. That runs counter to recent human history where the focus has been on episodic warfare and violent confrontations. It would seem to set the baseline conditions for peace and peace is not a common word these days.  It only comes up when the direst of conditions exist and lately with the threat of nuclear weapons from the Kremlin. Peace and cosmopolitanism, need to occupy a much higher position on individual and collective agendas.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

References:

1:  Kendall G, Woodward I, Skrbis Z. The sociology of cosmopolitanism: Globalization, identity, culture and government. Springer; 2009 Apr 28.

2:  Massimo Pigliucci. When I Help You, I Also Help Myself: On Being a Cosmopolitan.  November 17, 2017.   https://ordinaryphilosophy.com/2017/11/17/when-i-help-you-i-also-help-myself-on-being-a-cosmopolitan-by-massimo-pigliucci/

3:  Hill F, Stent A.  The Kremlin’s Grand Delusions What the War in Ukraine Has Revealed About Putin’s Regime.  Foreign Affairs February 15, 2023.

Graphics Credit:

Image of Chinese surveillance balloon over Billing MT 

Chase Doak, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Page URL:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Chinese_surveillance_balloon_over_Billings%2C_MT.jpg

File URL

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chinese_surveillance_balloon_over_Billings,_MT.jpg