When this film was made, the threat of nuclear war was real -- but nobody really believed anybody would be stupid enough to start a nuclear war.
I wish I could say it was still true today.
The difference between then and now:
1983: fewer nuclear weapons and fewer countries that possessed the technology
2006: more nuclear weapons and more countries with crazy dictators targeting the U.S.
Slaves who love their chains will never be set free.
[deleted]
There were MUCH more nukes in 1983 than now. Where do you get your facts?
shareThere were more numerous nukes then but fewer nations had them. The MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) strategy seemed to work when all players knew that whoever used the weapons would endure terrible losses. Now, some players might be willing to risk that, motivated by different desired outcomes. And, as a BBC film about the explosion of a "dirty bomb" in Central London asserted, an actual nuclear explosion isn't needed to cause destruction, misery, chaos and deprivation.
shareHere is a horrible possible reality...that nuclear war is actually more of a threat now. The Cold War was based on peoples of similar values not wanting to spark an event that would end life as they knew it. Now the players have changed and the havenots have no such fear of loss or anything resembling values. Fear has been removed with a sincerely believed promise that there is a better place.
"You light the fuse Mohammed while I will wait for my virgins with fingers in my ears!"
[deleted]
[deleted]
There's actually less of a chance of a nuclear war now, but more of a chance of a nuclear encounter.
By this I mean, if there's a nuclear detonation in this country, it will most likely be very limited (one, two, or a handful of cities) and would most likely be committed by someone or some group that used their entire stockpile of nuclear weapons at one time.
Korea is dangerous, but can only hit the west coast (if that). Iran is dangerous, but can't hit anything outside of Europe.
Basically, if a country is dangerous to us, they can't get it here in any other way than to haul it into America or build it here.
Very true post. Maybe you have to have been born in the 50s to remember what it was like living in the days before the USSR fell, but we all lived every day feeling there was a reasonable chance we would see the WORLD destroyed by nuclear warfare our time. Seeing "Testament" and "The Day After" was genuinely looking at the way we could all die.
Nowadays it is indeed likely we may see a nuclear encounter, perhaps something like portrayed in "Special Bulletin." It's not a happy thought, it's something we have a right to fear; but it is nothing like living under the low grade dread and terror of growing up during the Cold War.
I will never forget the day the Berlin Wall fell. I played Sting's "If the Russians Love Their Children Too" for my children and felt a weight lifted from me that I had carried since I was a child in grade school.
The difference is that in 2006 we have radical religious nut-jobs who are doing everything they can to intentionally bring about the end of the world.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
It will never happen....
1. All the countries outside the U.S who may possess the actuall armaments and/or the capability to deploy them have no strategic benefit of initiating such a conflict... Wether it be political, economic, or (sigh) theological, there is no gain. The only reason to possess the weapons is so that the U.S can continue to force it's population into sociological submission. If you tell them it's a threat than people will believe it is a threat.
2. There is absolutely no proof that all the countries who apparently possess these weapons, actually have them. The possible exception being North Korea. I recommend watching the bbc documentary "The Power of Nightmares" to better explain.
There is no threat. There never was a threat. There never will be a threat.
Move on. And make this planet better.
http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/timeline.htm
I think that's pretty much how it was and still is...
Congrats on your optimism, voss76...
(sigh)... ok lets look at the facts...
The only atomic weapon to EVER be used in an agressive manner was 60 years ago in the bombing of hiroshima and than subsequently of Nagasaki... The courier of this payload was (surprise, surprise) the good ole U.S of A. (A fact which I should mention is hardly ever spoken of when those wonderful holidays memorial day and up here in da north country (hyuk!) Rememberance Day roll around.) Maybe someone can tell me why than with all the threatening, nuclear dice rolling, testing, and escalation? of these weapons has there never been another single "aggresive" act.. ? (And no I will not entertain debates of the validity of the japanese strikes whether they be for or against)
The simple truth is that it is much easier and productive to scare people into submission than it is to just wipe them out... (more money too!!)
LOL Hows that for optimism?
My point is we should watch these films (testament, miracle mile, day after etc..) as pieces of speculative fiction, and NOT as historical speculation...
^_^
Here's something for you to mull over mr. voss. It would take only 12 freighters with one hold converted into giant bombs to wipe out the US, and
they don't even have to touch territorial waters! Sunk at strategic places along both the coasts and in the gulf they would create radioactive Tsunamis that would wipe out the coastal areas and create a radioactive plume from the spray that would take care of the survivors(see Martin Cadin's nonfition book - When War Comes)
is it me or somehow that just don't sound possible?
share"There is no threat. There never was a threat. There never will be a threat."
What about a little freak accident? *beep* happens, you know...
[deleted]
Yes, I remember ignorant fear-mongers and communist sympathizers claiming the President Reagan was going to start the third world war. Blew that call, didn't they?
shareYes...but Reagan was someone who would pull the trigger, and most everyone in the world knew it.
Not all US presidents have maintained that advantage.
[deleted]
I suppose real history doesn't mean much to you, does it?
share[deleted]
That's too bad that you have no interest in real history, because if you did, you would notice these facts:
1. Ronald Reagan served his terms in their entirety without starting the world war that ignorant fear-mongers and communist sympathizers accused him of desiring.
2. Roanld Reagan was not diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease until well after his term as President of the United States was over.
These are facts, and they are indisputable. But don't let the facts stand in the way of your left-wing paranoid delusions.
[deleted]
A long time ago when he was Ronald Raygun and Thatcher was the Plutonium Blonde allowing Pershing to be based on British soil I would have agreed with you, i was in my mid 20`s in 1980.
However a re-reading of history shows a poker game that Reagan most certainly won. He outspent the then Soviet Union and the big SDI con job was the icing on the cake.
3rd rate actor he may have been but his advisors certainly knew how to play poker.
Enjoy it while it lasts
I think that's a good point. We may not be poised to start a full blown nuclear war but use of nukes by terrorists or tactical strikes in a Middle Eastern war are probably more likely now than in 1983. Of course nuclear terrorism could lead to a larger war in retaliation. EX: Terrorists blow up a US city with a small grade nuke, we nuke the sponsor country heavily destabilizing the region and possibly leading to a full scale global conflict that could end in a large scale nuclear war.
share[deleted]