The Best Movie About The *Reality* of Nuclear War - "Threads"

[moriah]

I think most people of my generation remember when "The Day After" came out in the US. It romanticized nuclear war, and in my opinion, was pure propaganda designed to make Americans think that if war ever started, that it would start without warning -- and though many would die, the scene at the end where the girl was dying was so romanticized as to make people think it was noble to die if it meant Communism was no longer a threat.

The British, however, were much more aware of what nuclear war would mean, especially since they were allied with the US and NATO. They were aware that yes, there would be early signs, and that no, there is NOTHING romantic about the effects of the atomic bomb. (Though their portrayal of "nuclear winter" may be up for debate, the rest of the film is extremely accurate scientifically for what was know at the time.)

So here is the link -- it really is worth watching, even if it was done as a BBC "DocuDrama" with a fairly low budget. The development of the main protagonist's character, from a fairly immature young woman to a shellshocked victim as she witnesses the devastation and realizes she has lost everyone she loves and is portrayed with far more reality than the US would ever allow to be broadcast on TV.

It's not easy viewing. But it shouldn't be. That's the entire point. And with all the hints of possible nukes being dropped in the Middle East, the way the movie protrays the buildup to nuclear conflict is still relevant, even if the Cold War no longer exists.

Please, take the time to watch. I wish it could be subtitled in every language and be required viewing in every country. As one of the activists portrayed in the movie says, "You Cannot Win a Nuclear War!"

[Sanddancer]

1. I remember the TV guide picture (Radio Times - quaint)

" target="_blank">

[Confusious]

2. 'testament' was the best one I ever saw.

The day after was kind of goofy.

[classof56]

6. I agree with you--"Testament" haunts me to this day.

Realistic and terribly, terribly sad to watch the disintegration of that little town and its people.

"The Day After" was pretty effective, too, IMO. The lead-up to it was gut-wrenching. My aunt lived in Kansas then, and I almost called to urge her to get the heck outa Dodge (actually she was in Topeka) before the missiles hit. Seemed that realistic to me. I recall it was an eye-opener for a lot of people around me, who hadn't really thought about what the consequences of a nuclear war would be. I also recall that in the movie, it was never clear who struck first, but as one of the characters pointed out, it didn't matter. Same thing in "Testament"--no one ever knew what had happened. Again, not that it mattered...Sad and scary.

VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

[moriah]

7. Yeah, Threads suggests that Russia is the first to use nukes, but it doesn't matter.....

... who starts it, because we know how it will end. And it also shows how both sides had continued provocations and escalations -- so it really doesn't lay blame on either government.

What I found very interesting about Threads was how they theorized it would come about because of fighting over Iran, and ... well... it seems like a similar scenario could play out between the other governments in that region, even if the US and Russia stayed out of it.

And if, God forbid, we DID get involved aside from diplomatic efforts, just because Iran may not have nukes capable of reaching us doesn't mean their allies might lack that capability.

[moriah]

10. Just watched on Youtube. I was only 3 when it came out.

I still think Threads did a better job explaining what would happen to people who lived in cities.

However, "Testament" was *extremely* moving. It also showed more of the actual effects of fallout even when there was no blast damage, whereas Threads focused on what would happen closer to nuclear targets. I like both of them for different reasons -- at least "Testatment", while not being anywhere close to as graphic as "Threads" -- didn't try to make a romance out of nuclear war.

[matt819]

3. Read Alas, Babylon

This is a post-nuclear attack novel, a la Nevil Shute's On the Beach. Written around 1960, it tells the story of a community in Florida that has survived a US-Soviet nuclear exchange. In some respects it's akin to dystopian novels written today about a world without electricity or modern conveniences and how people adapt, or not. The story is compelling and the characters very well developed. The politics that are integrated into the story are damn near identical to what we hear today about from war activists and peace activists.

I won't give it away, but the absolute best line in the book is the very last line, and if it doesn't resonate, you weren't paying attention.

I listened to it on Audible, but you can find it in the library and on used book sites.

[heaven05]

4. !

sobering

[Spitfire of ATJ]

5. All a nuke on Iran will do is feed the propaganda against us.

[moriah]

8. Agreed. And cause goverments allied with them to consider retaliating aganist the US....

.... even if it's Israel that drops the bomb. Because we have supported them, because the reason they *do* have nuclear capacity has to do with our own efforts and aid.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

9. That's another thing. They ARE a fully recognized member of the United Nations,...

....and have the RIGHT to have a nuclear program.

Pakistan has actual nuclear weapons and as it turns out they aren't as nice as the Right Wing would have us believe.

[moriah]

11. Is there any reason they wouldn't accept Thorium reactors instead?

India and China have been working on them, as well as other countries. They can consume our current nuclear waste as fuel, and many different types of reactors can be converted to using Thorium instead.

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor concept especially has appeal, and the best thing about using Thorium rather than uranium-driven reactors is that they are *very* difficult to extract weapons-grade nuclear material from. Since a country would not have to enrich uranium in order to utilize a thorium reactor -- a lot of our waste is enough to get the thorium fuel cycle going -- it would mean that if Iran truly wanted a *peaceful* nuclear program, it could have one without having to break IAEA guidelines.

It's a technology I think we need to consider, for the US as well, as they are inherently safer than most reactors, even in situations where primary and backup cooling systems fail.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. I'll tell you one reason.

The International Community has acted like a country isn't worthy until they develop warp drive.