On what had once started as an ordinary day, alarming alerts begin to echo through an Alaskan military installation: a nuclear missile has been spotted over the Pacific Ocean. The origin of the missile is uncertain, but its path indicates it will impact the central United States within 20 minutes, endangering millions. This scenario sets the stage for the new Kathryn Bigelow film, A House of Dynamite, a political thriller that tracks civilian and military officials suddenly navigating a crisis they have trained for repeatedly—yet this time, it is undeniably real.
A House of Dynamite is essential viewing for anyone seeking to grasp the systemic dangers—and the human implications—of the nuclear weapons infrastructure. The film begins streaming on Netflix on October 24 after its theatrical debut in the U.S. on October 10. Here are five key points to consider before viewing.
1. The U.S. has previously detected a nuclear threat.
No nation has ever launched a nuclear missile against the United States, but there have been numerous false alarms that led U.S. leaders to believe an attack was imminent. In 1960, early warning radar systems mistakenly reported numerous Soviet missiles headed for the U.S., when in fact, they had detected the moon rising over Norway. In another event in 1979, the U.S. Strategic Air Command received alarming reports of a significant nuclear assault purportedly initiated by the Soviet Union due to a training scenario tape accidentally sent as a genuine alert.
Both the United States and Russia maintain early warning systems that depend on technology and human oversight. These systems aim to identify a surprise nuclear strike promptly, granting leaders the chance to respond. However, the complexity of these systems makes them susceptible to both technological failures and human errors.
Thankfully, previous false alarms were uncovered before calamitous decisions could be made. However, this has often relied on fortunate circumstances.
2. Response time could be mere minutes.
In A House of Dynamite, leaders are alerted that a missile will land in the U.S. in under 20 minutes (a stark contrast to the film’s nearly two-hour runtime, which delves into multiple viewpoints during the decision-making process). Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which carry strategic nuclear warheads, can travel at speeds up to 30 times faster than commercial jets. Thus, a missile launched from Russia to the United States—or the reverse—could reach its destination within a typical lunch break. The speed at which a nuclear emergency can escalate imposes tremendous pressure on every decision-making facet.
U.S. nuclear warheads are deployed via three delivery systems: submarine-launched missiles, bombers, and land-based ICBMs. Submarines, being both mobile and concealed in the ocean, provide some level of security, while bombers can be deployed during periods of heightened readiness. In contrast, the intercontinental ballistic missiles stationed in silos across the U.S. are effectively targets.
If U.S. silos are suspected to be targeted, it creates added urgency for leaders to launch their missiles at the first sign of a threat instead of waiting for further intelligence. To facilitate this, the U.S. keeps its ICBMs on “hair-trigger” alert, primed to be launched within minutes. This “use-it-or-lose-it” mentality poses significant risks, heightening the chances that a mistake or miscalculation could swiftly lead to nuclear conflict.
3. The fate of our response rests on one individual (and it’s not Idris Elba).
A House of Dynamite portrays how various political and military leaders confront the specter of an impending disaster. Each person strives to fulfill their duties amidst scant information, time constraints, and tremendous stakes. The film challenges us to contemplate how the decision-making process could be influenced under such pressure, especially when there is disagreement on the proper course of action. Ultimately, however, the most critical decisions hinge upon a single person’s judgment.
In the U.S., launching nuclear weapons requires the authorization of the president (portrayed by Idris Elba in A House of Dynamite). In a crisis like that depicted in the film, where it is thought that the U.S. is under attack, the Pentagon presents the president with various options, including the potential for nuclear retaliation. The president is under no obligation to consult with advisors prior to issuing a launch command.
4. Missile defense systems alone cannot prevent nuclear war.
Over the past sixty years, the U.S. has committed nearly $400 billion towards missile defense systems, primarily aimed at countering nuclear-armed ICBMs. While it is natural to hope for technological solutions to mitigate the daunting existential threat posed by nuclear war, missile defense has long been regarded as more fantasy than reality.
The task involved in missile defense is articulated in A House of Dynamite as attempting to “hit a bullet with a bullet.” Current nuclear missile defense systems commonly fail even under optimal conditions during highly controlled tests, which involve only limited threats. A realistic attack could entail hundreds or thousands of missiles, and simple, cost-effective countermeasures, such as decoys, further tip the odds in favor of the attacker.
Despite numerous setbacks and expenditures, many U.S. politicians remain enamored with the idea of a miraculous defense rather than confronting harsh realities—or the even more demanding efforts needed to cultivate a safe, sustainable future. Relying on missile defense distracts from and undermines that endeavor. It fosters false confidence among leaders, propelling reckless decisions while incentivizing others to enhance their weaponry and capabilities.
5. The responsibility falls on us to secure our future.
A House of Dynamite reveals the inflexible, secretive system that operates around us daily, prepared to execute nuclear warfare at a moment’s notice. Our leaders ask us to place undue trust in this system to ensure our safety. Yet, our world is intrinsically fragile. Even when this system functions as designed—and when our leaders conduct themselves “properly,” as depicted in the movie—it cannot shield us from nuclear conflict. Regardless of how much we prepare, invest, or stockpile weapons, we remain vulnerable as long as we depend on a mechanism threatening catastrophic destruction for our security. Humanity cannot indefinitely coexist with nuclear weapons.
No external savior is coming. Many of our leaders either ignore these challenges or double down on the belief that nuclear arms can protect us, opting to build additional weaponry or hide behind illusory defenses. However, regardless of how imposing or fortified these defenses are, a house of dynamite can always be ignited with a single spark.
Ultimately, survival boils down to this: we can capitulate, we can wallow in despair, or we can dismantle the very system promising mass destruction. Join with the Union of Concerned Scientists and our allies to take action in dismantling this house of dynamite. We urge Congress to halt dangerous and unnecessary plans aimed at executing the most costly expansion of the U.S. nuclear arms program in history, including the production of hundreds of new plutonium “pits”—the explosive cores for new nuclear weapons.
