DoD officials criticized the new Kathryn Bigelow film for depicting efforts to intercept a nuclear missile as a “coin toss,” stressing higher reliability rates.
Movie viewing often requires a suspension of disbelief, in which the audience accepts a fictional reality, even when it is illogical or impossible at times. Moreover, movies aren’t history. Nor are they always 100 percent factual about real-world events. They are entertainment, and liberties often need to be taken for dramatic effect and to fit the story’s narrative.
Clearly, some in the Pentagon didn’t get that memo, as officials expressed their dislike of a key plot twist in the new Netflix film A House of Dynamite.
[Spoilers for A House of Dynamite ahead.]
How Would the Pentagon React to a Nuclear Missile?
The film chronicles a seemingly all-too-realistic scenario where the country’s top intelligence and defense teams must deal with the threat of a potential nuclear missile striking an American city, and they have just 18 minutes to respond.
A House of Dynamite is presented in three acts—each offering a mix of perspectives that covers the same period of time. It includes sequences in the White House, the Pentagon, FEMA, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), and Fort Greely’s missile defense base, as the characters in those locations (and others) react to a sea-based nuclear attack of unknown origin. It shows the efforts taken to understand which country may have launched the missile and, more importantly, how the United States should respond.
Since its debut on Netflix, real-world Department of Defense (DoD) officials have taken issue with a pivotal plot point that the ground-based interceptor (GBI) missiles fired by Fort Greely are stated to have a 61 percent success rate. In the film, the fictional NSA deputy director states that intercepting the missile is like shooting a bullet with a bullet.
This line didn’t sit well with some at the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, which claimed it had achieved a “100 percent” accuracy rate with its GBIs.
“The numbers tell us what is occurring and we need to know,” a well-positioned military official told Deadline regarding DoD’s assertion. “The results are very, very good, with the program scheduled to grow over the next decade.”
The film’s writer, Noah Oppenheim, has said he respectfully disagrees with the Pentagon’s assessment. At the same time, director Kathryn Bigelow stressed that the film is meant to remind the viewers of the literally thousands of nuclear weapons that are now in the arsenals of the United States, and capable of destroying all life on Earth.
“I feel like nuclear weapons, the prospect of their use, has become normalized,” Bigelow had previously told Awardsline’s Antonia Blyth. “We don’t think about it, we don’t talk about it. And it’s an unthinkable situation. So, my hope was to maybe move it to the forefront of our lives.”
Is Missile Interception Really a Billion-Dollar Coin Toss?
GBIs are just one part of the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system, with 40 based in Alaska and four more in California. The system has been described as having a “single shot probability of kill” at 56 percent—but if four interceptors were launched, it would have an effective rate of 97 percent.
The film’s characters make note that the remaining GBIs needed to be saved in case of a follow-up attack.
What the film doesn’t note is that each interceptor is also reported to have a price tag of around $75 million—but compared to the potential loss of an American city, it would be a small price to pay to launch a few more!
Nuclear Materials Have a “Fingerprint” for Investigators
The other key point in the film that has drawn criticism is that the United States simply doesn’t know who fired the missile. Early speculation is that it was North Korea, but it could have been China or Russia. That leads to a debate as to how the United States should respond.
What the film doesn’t mention is that a nuclear weapon would have “fissile material fingerprints,” as uranium and plutonium are manufactured in different reactors. It wouldn’t take all that long for the United States to determine the origin of a nuclear weapon.
Likewise, there isn’t even a throwaway line from any of the characters that America’s allies would be alerted to the impending attack.
“In an actual crisis, there would likely be more efforts at diplomacy and contact with foreign leaders, including allies, and there would certainly be a bit more time for response, but slowing down events this way would have damaged the movie’s pacing and sense of drama,” the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation explained.
The Real-Life White House Is Worried About Nuclear Weapons, Too
The release of the movie comes as President Donald Trump has pressed ahead with the “Golden Dome for America,” a massively expensive missile defense program modeled on Israel’s Iron Dome, with elements from President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative.
The White House, which has earmarked $25 billion for the program in the first year, has claimed the Golden Dome could have a total cost of $175 billion. However, some experts believe it will be vastly more, perhaps costing in the trillions of dollars.
More importantly, the question is whether it will be effective in stopping the majority of incoming threats, especially as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other nations are developing hypersonic weapons.
Among the critics of the Golden Dome is Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who, in an op-ed for MSNBC in response to A House of Dynamite, warned, “The US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars chasing long-range missile defense systems. Not one has delivered dependable protection. The bloated contracts persist, the well-connected lobbyists benefit and the public clings to hope.”
Markey further suggested the film should serve as a reminder that spending billions or trillions on programs like the Golden Dome isn’t the answer.
“Rather than investing even more in the fool’s gold of missile defense, such as by spending trillions on President Donald Trump’s delusional Golden Dome, we need to focus on what works: arms reductions,” the senator added.
Since its release, including a brief run in theaters before debuting on Netflix, A House of Dynamite has received mixed reactions, with many viewers unhappy with its ambiguous ending. We don’t know who launched the missile. We don’t know if Chicago (the city it targeted) was destroyed. And we don’t know how the president, played by Idris Elba, even responds to the attack.
According to Bigelow, that was the point.
The film has Americans talking, the Pentagon responding, and at least one lawmaker suggesting how to ensure it doesn’t become a self-fulfilling prophecy. For that, Kathryn Bigelow and Noah Oppenheim have achieved a rare feat in modern cinema.
About the Author: Peter Suciu
Peter Suciu has contributed over 3,200 published pieces to more than four dozen magazines and websites over a 30-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a contributing writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. He is based in Michigan. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: [email protected].
Image courtesy of Netflix.
