I watched “A House of Dynamite” twice this weekend.
For the most part, I enjoyed it. Some parts seemed a bit unrealistic to me—the deputy national security advisor was a nitwit and, while I have actually known nitwit deputy national security advisors, I don’t think his role would have been as central in real life as depicted onscreen—but it was pretty well-paced and I get what they were doing with the structure to reveal the multiple layers of how we might react in the face of a nuclear crisis.
But there is a more important dimension to consider. In some ways, it is related to the controversy over the film’s ending, which I will not address here in any way that might produce spoilers—let’s just say it may well have triggered conversations and debates among viewers about nuclear war.
Click through to David Rothkopf’s Substack, Need to Know, for an expanded version of this column.
There are two reasons that the issues raised by the movie strike me as especially timely.
One is that the risks posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear conflict are increasing. There was a period, in the wake of the end of the Cold War and following some considerable breakthroughs in diplomatic accords to contain or limit nuclear threats, that we may have thought they were receding. No longer.
Geopolitical tensions are high. The U.S., China and Russia are engaged in new arms race that could radically change the nature of not just nuclear weapons but of their delivery system, of how space-based weapons may be employed and, especially disturbingly, how artificial intelligence and autonomous platforms may be involved.
Other nations are also moving closer to possessing the capacity to build, deploy and use such weapons.
Secondly, all the above risks are confounded by the fact that theories of nuclear deterrence in the past have depended on the idea that national leaders are rational actors. In several cases, it is unclear that is the case. Certainly, Kim Jong-Un does not appear to be rational. Vladimir Putin is a menace whose nation is falling on hard times and who is coming to the end of his own life, a situation that could invite him to undertake irrational risks. Extremist states like Iran and Israel and those with unresolved animus (assertions by Donald Trump notwithstanding) like India and Pakistan remain far too close to the kind of conflict that could produce nuclear exchanges intentionally or unintentionally.
Then, of course, we have our situation here in the U.S.
Under our system, the president of the United States is the sole decision-maker when it comes to launching a nuclear attack. It is estimated that the amount of time between a decision by the president to launch an attack and missiles leaving their silos is four minutes. While it is possible there are those down the chain of command from the president who might resist an order to attack, we have seen the top echelons of the military under Trump peopled with yes-men hired precisely because they are so unlikely to ever challenge a presidential order.
(Our president has been party to glib and irresponsible conversations about modernization of our nuclear arsenal that has included entertaining the possibility of “smaller,” “more useable” nuclear weapons—an invitation to catastrophe if there ever was one. We have also, simultaneously, fired a number of people in the country responsible for maintaining the safety of our nuclear stockpiles.)
I recall having a conversation on Capitol Hill with a leading Congressman engaged in these issues not too long ago. He was pleased to be supporting legislation (later passed) that would make it illegal for the United States to ever allow AI to be responsible for a nuclear weapons launch decision. I congratulated him on the progress but asked, what are you doing about fixing our system so one individual is not capable of ending the world?
Once, not too long ago, it would have been impossible to imagine a president ordering U.S. troops into American cities. It would have been impossible to imagine him ordering his team to ignore the decision of the courts, and turning the Department of Justice into his own private retribution force to go after his enemies on false charges. It would have been impossible to imagine a president leading an insurrection or pardoning insurrectionists after the fact, giving some of them jobs in his administration. It would have been impossible to imagine him seeking to contravene multiple elements of the Constitution.
Tearing down the White House without process, approval or transparency? Impossible. Denying federal aid to states or citizens because of their political orientation? Impossible. Embracing our worst enemies? Impossible. Banishing science and scientists from our health institutions? Impossible. Demanding universities teach only what he deems the truth? Impossible.
Further, as each day passes, the president’s irrationality increases and his mental capacity seems further compromised. He launched a trade war on our biggest trading partner the other day because he didn’t like a commercial (an accurate commercial, I might add) on regional TV. He has threatened to invade allies. He has ordered people killed on the high seas without due process. He may be on the verge of launching an invasion of another country without any really justifiable pretext.
In addition, he has shown virtually no interest in the well-being of the United States or the American people, placing himself and his riches and his ideology ahead of the ability of average Americans to get fed, to receive healthcare, to enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed them by our government.
In short, at no time in our history have we ever had a president who was more dangerous, more reckless, more erratic and therefore less appropriate to possess command authority over a system that could erase life from this planet in an instant.
The greatest strength of “A House of Dynamite” is not that it brought the unthinkable to life. It is that it did so at that time when the unthinkable is commonplace.
Hopefully, it also has done so in a way that we realize just how close we are to the realization of the nightmare scenarios that have stalked this planet since the dawn of the nuclear age.
But candidly, I’m not confident that it has.
I grew up in America in which, in my elementary school and every other in the country, we regularly ran civil defense drills to prepare for a potential nuclear attack. I went to sleep as a child terrified of nuclear war. It was not a great or comfortable way to live. But it ensured the issue was central to our national debate, and on the mind of voters when they made fateful choices for president.
That is not where we are today. And that is far, far, far more dangerous.
Click through to David Rothkopf’s Substack, Need to Know, for an expanded version of this column.
The post Opinion: Is Trump the Fuse Who Will Detonate ‘A House of Dynamite’? appeared first on The Daily Beast.
