Top 15 Best Nuclear War Movies

1. carp - December 5th, 2008 at 1:58 am

good list

2. ligeia - December 5th, 2008 at 1:58 am

I don’t like nuclear war movies. I’ve only seen two of these (Dr Strangelove and the Day After) but I didn’t really like either.

3. pyderz - December 5th, 2008 at 2:00 am

havent seen any of these films!! Cant see much going on a movie after the nuke goes off :S

4. Donna - December 5th, 2008 at 2:11 am

Depressed now. Boo! ;(

5. astraya - December 5th, 2008 at 2:46 am

I didn’t mention that I’d seen exactly none of the substance abuse movies. I now mention it and add that I’ve never seen any of these nuclear war movies, either. Obviously substance abuse and nuclear war are not on my list of things to see before I die.

6. Spinner - December 5th, 2008 at 2:47 am

I saw Threads and The Day After when I was a neurotic gothic moody teenager and these films DID NOT HELP!!! I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as a good film about nuclear war and I avoided any films on the topic after that. They all suck. Having said that, this is one list that doesn’t inspire me to seek out any of the films .

7. Ash - December 5th, 2008 at 2:49 am

Just another list of films for me to download
Cheers

8. Penguinball - December 5th, 2008 at 2:59 am

And I thought I got angsty as soon as December hit. Depressing list

9. jfrater - December 5th, 2008 at 3:04 am

ligeia: how could you not love Dr Strangelove? It is hilarious!

pyderz: you would be surprised

astraya: if you only see one film from those two lists, see “the day after” from this one - it is a fantastic film.

10. Kikishua - December 5th, 2008 at 3:04 am

I loved Miracle Mile - but no one else I know ever heard of it!

Threads haunted me for years after I saw it on television. I assumed it was a series at first but it just got bleaker… and bleaker…

11. Barabas - December 5th, 2008 at 3:08 am

Didn the little girls in Grave of the Fireflies die from radiation?

12. ligeia - December 5th, 2008 at 3:13 am

jfrater: maybe I’m getting it confused with something else, to be honest I can’t really remember it very well. I guess that’s what happens when you watch too many films and smoke too much dope.

13. T-1000 - December 5th, 2008 at 3:31 am

Hey, erm i’m not exactly the biggest terminator fanboy but i was pritty disapointed to that none of the Terminators were included to this list. I mean the first two Terminators were two of the greatest films of the 90’s and they both focus in on the ultimate inevitable nuclear holocaust.

14. Fred - December 5th, 2008 at 3:37 am

I have only seen a few of these but I agree about Threads. If this is the future after a nuclear war, then I hope I am sitting under ground zero and get it over with right away.

15. BA88 - December 5th, 2008 at 3:37 am

Trinity and Beyond is one of my favorite documentaries. It dares to express that there is something hauntingly beautiful about atomic explosions.

16. astraya - December 5th, 2008 at 3:41 am

BTW Ava Gardner starred in “On the Beach” and later said that Melbourne was the perfect place to make a movie about the end of the world.

17. kiwiboi - December 5th, 2008 at 3:54 am

astraya - Whilst I don’t have her exact words to hand, in his autobiography the well-known Australian-born art critic Robert Hughes (author, Time magazine staff writer etc) quoted Gardner as saying : “If they wanted to make a movie about the ends of the earth, they sure chose the right fucking place…”

Enamoured, she obviously was not.

18. asmz - December 5th, 2008 at 4:16 am

Is there any place that sells Threads that will play on a North American DVD player? So far I’ve only found UK and AUS/NZ format.

19. Jessy - December 5th, 2008 at 4:26 am

Uh, Nineteenth!

I was forced to watch “On the Beach” while working at a Cold War Museum. It was sad, but should have ended about a half hour before it did- it dragged on way too much.

20. astraya - December 5th, 2008 at 4:35 am

From the infallible-pedia:

“It has often been claimed that Ava Gardner described Melbourne as ‘the perfect place to make a film about the end of the world’. However, the purported quote was actually invented by journalist Neil Jillett, who was writing for the Sydney Morning Herald at the time. His original draft of a tongue-in-cheek piece about the making of the film said that he had not been able to confirm a third-party report that Ava Gardner had made this remark. The newspaper’s sub-editor changed it to read as a direct quotation from Gardner, and it was published in that form. It entered Melbourne folklore very quickly.” and the rest of Australia, too!

21. jakeryder - December 5th, 2008 at 4:45 am

I’m not sure Black Rain really belongs on this list. The Nuclear War is a very small back story. Otherwise I like the choices.

22. Muttley - December 5th, 2008 at 4:48 am

I wonder if “White Light / Black Rain had interviews with any Australians?
One of our neighbours - he passed away about 3 years ago, now was an Australian P.O.W. held in a camp in mainland Japan in the hills behind Hiroshima. On August 6th, 1945 he and all other P.O.W’s were driven into the city at bayonet-point to assisit with the ‘clean-up & rescue’ work post-attack.
His experiences in the city over the next two weeks or so (until the surrender after which they were finally released) drove him to become, at first reclusive and then into overt alcoholism. He eventually “straightened out” - after some years and helped form one of Australia’s (and I believe Melbourne’s first) Alcoholics Anonymous during the late 40’s/early 50’s and remained sober until his passing in 2006.

He occasionally talked about it with me and described the sound of the bomb, the wave of heat and the terrible wind which hit the hills but he would only, rarely mention some of the sights he witnessed on those devastated streets.

One of his admissions to me was - “When I was fighting in the army and a P.O.W., I hated the Japs - not so much the people, but their inhumane military. But after Hiroishima, all I could think about for years was - those poor bastards; how could humans do this to other humans?” He wasn’t blaming the A mericans; he was laming warfare in general and the lengths we will go to succeed at all costs.

Mick died of cancer born of his days in those ‘clean-up crews’ - all his mates from those crews are now dead as well - from the same cancer. Mick was the last

I miss ‘Mick’ - he was a true gentleman with never a bad word about anyone - not even the Japanese!

Wonderful list Stl-Mo - very moving. As you mentioned in your intro to the list and I heartily endorse: “May the days depicted in these films never come (again).”

Amen and Amen

23. xXTurkinatorXx - December 5th, 2008 at 5:30 am

JFrater, I thought you weren’t going to make anymore movie lists? Also, I haven’t seen any of these.

24. STL Mo - December 5th, 2008 at 5:31 am

T-1000 - please read the intro.

Barabas - the little girl in Firelies died of starvation. (I had to check, though, when making the list. It had been a while since I had that movie, so I watched it just to make sure; if it had been radiation, then Fireflies would have been an automatic #1.)

All, yes, it is a very depressing list. But I felt compelled to put it together when I stumbled upon The Day AFter clip on You Tube while looking for The Day After Tomorrow. One thing led to another.

Besides, even though the Cold War is over, sadly the threat of nuclear holocaust remains. Makes me want to hug my family all the tighter.

Thanks, Jamie, for putting this up.

25. STL Mo - December 5th, 2008 at 5:33 am

Muttley - Wow! Thanks for sharing Mick’s story!

26. MT - December 5th, 2008 at 5:40 am

A good list. I haven’t seen some of these movies but will try to now. But I don’t see how you can add a movie to this list you haven’t even seen. Sounds like you’re relying on other peoples opinion.

.9 jfrater
astraya: if you only see one film from those two lists, see “the day after” from this one - it is a fantastic film.

I disagree. See all the movies you can and draw your own conclusion. Sometimes the best movies to show human carnage are more subtle, on a much smaller scale and without all the special effects.

27. ronsantohof - December 5th, 2008 at 5:46 am

The Day After was all hype. I watched it when it was first on and then watched it again many years later and it didn’t get any better.

28. Duckyjem - December 5th, 2008 at 5:49 am

i remember watchin number 14 in school

29. astraya - December 5th, 2008 at 5:51 am

I am sitting in South Korea (about 50 km from the border), which (if North Korea has developed nuclear weapons) is on a list of possible targets. There is strong theory that states that if the north does have and use (a) nuclear weapon(s), then the target will be Japan, not the south. Japan has been the enemy since at least the 16th century, and particularly during the period 1910-1945, about which feelings still run high.

30. rollinrollin - December 5th, 2008 at 5:52 am

people really melt that way after nuclear bomb radiation? (as in the hadashi ni gen/n0.2)?

31. thewebpromoter - December 5th, 2008 at 6:13 am

great list, I am fond of watching movies of this kind. I will take time to have these to watch. \

Thanks for the list.

32. stevezio - December 5th, 2008 at 6:30 am

“When the Wind Blows” has some wonderful music in it by Roger Waters of Pink Floyd.
I saw it just for that and found the story to be sad and touching.

33. Doghouse Riley - December 5th, 2008 at 6:31 am

My top choice for this list would be “The War Game” produced by Peter Watkins in 1965. It’s a pseudo documentary in gritty British B&W style, and I think presents the post-war environment in a way that is not apocalyptic but extremely chillin never the less.

34. phildrummond - December 5th, 2008 at 6:33 am

Well now I want to see the Top Ten Most Depressing Movies for the overlap.

35. BruceWii - December 5th, 2008 at 6:38 am

Hadashi no Gen is pretty cool, the guy who made it also appeared in White Light Black Rain, which is a great documentary

the lists just keep on staying great!

36. Lalalilo - December 5th, 2008 at 6:39 am

While nuclear war is something horrible I could never get myself to feel sorry for the japs as victims of Nuclear warfare. I always saw it as a way of watering down their own faults and taking the victim role. A great example of this is the basically every person from the West (as in anglosaxon countries- that includes Australia and New Zealand) heard about Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasiki rarely anyone knows about German and Jap war crimes such as the bombings pf Rotterdam, Warsaw or Belgrade, massacre of Nanking and Manilla, Black Christmas, Comfort Women not even going into operation Sanko, concentration camps and the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Tere were many cities that suffered more (Warsaw being the prime example as after the Warsaw uprising - not to be confused with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - the city was burned to the ground and became the most devastated city of World War II (85% of buildings destroyed). Further more the Japs and and especially the Germans had it rather good at the home front for quite some time (especially the germans whose standard of living up until 1944 was higher than before the war - the japs weren’t so lucky but up until 1943 also didn’t have it so bad). I also think this stems from the fact that neither England, USA or Kangarooland and NZ were in fact eever occupied by the axis. England did have the bombings but compared to eastern europe or china it’s barely worth mentioning. America and Down under lands suffered minor inconviences at best. The axis killed more people in Poland, Ukraine or Byelorussia in a year the in GB through out the entire war. And even then it was mostly soldier casaulties, while in Eastern Europe and Asia it wss mostly civilians. While the Germans behaved in Western Europe in the East they let loose. The japs also didn’t hold back in Asia. So it’s pretty hard to feel any sort of sympathy when you walk through a city where on every wall you have a plaque that says here Germans shot 50 Poles or here Germans shot 40 Jews. China and Poland suffered higher loses than the axis and no one cares. There are hardly any known movies about Nanking or the Warsaw uprising (the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is also unlucky - the pianist is way overrated) . I also didn’t mention the USSR on purpose as for any Eastern European like me they are the same category as the axis only with a different ideology. Not to mention the fact that the Russians count the deaths of Ukrainiens, Byelorussians and other “voluntary” members of the USSR as their own.

But apart from what I wrote above this an interesting list. I’ll have to watch some of these movies. I read the manga barefoot Gen and there is no difference from the movie. I’d even say it’s more terryfing. Also the black rain is freaking scary.

37. Quiana - December 5th, 2008 at 6:42 am

Good Job Stl, You have been doing a really good job. Im happy your a fellow st louis native.

38. LordCalvert - December 5th, 2008 at 6:45 am

well, i was having a good day. now i’m depressed…to not see Terminator on this list!!!!

39. warningdontreadthis - December 5th, 2008 at 6:54 am

why in hells name are the people in the bbc series drinking the god damn rain?

40. damien_karras - December 5th, 2008 at 6:56 am

Excellent list… although my favorite nuclear war TV memory is the infamous Twilight Zone episode where Burgess Merideth
breaks his glasses.

41. Randall - December 5th, 2008 at 7:13 am

Okay list… though I question the choice of “Trinity and Beyond,” which is a great documentary, yes, but is mainly about atomic bomb testing, not so much war itself. A better choice there might have been “The Atomic Cafe.”

Also missing are the many cheesy flicks from the Fifties and Sixties about atomic war and its aftermath, but as most of these are just that–cheesy–it’s sensible that they don’t appear alongside the likes of films like “Threads” and “Fail Safe” and “Doctor Strangelove.”

I’m thinking of films like “Panic in the Year Zero,” and “Children of the Damned” and such.

However, one truly weird film I’d have inserted here: “The Bedsitting Room,” a British film from the late sixties about the aftermath of WWIII in Britain. Not serious at all–a black comedy/satire more than anything else–but still interesting.

“The Day After” I remember distinctly. I was 18 when that was shown on television, just graduating from high school. It wasn’t the best–”Testament” was far better–but something about “The Day After” got to a lot of us. Scared the beejeezus out of many of my friends at the time.

I’ll say one thing about this, in that vein. What some of these films can do, horrible as their subject matter is, is to teach the younger set out there—those that are in their teens and twenties now, some even in their early thirties–what it was like for us who grew up in the midst of the Cold War. And I wasn’t even there for the truly tense part of it, in the Fifties, and just missed being alive for the Cuban Missile Crisis by a couple years. But even so, growing up in the late Sixties, Seventies and early Eighties was at times filled with a terrifying tension for which kids these days have no concept. The atomic-air-raid drills at school… the constant worry you’d feel when international tensions ran high over some crisis or other–the Middle East, for instance, or Eastern Europe… the concern that it could at any time get out of hand, and get away from us. The fear that maybe the Russians were nutty enough to try a first strike in Europe–we *knew* they could grind right through Germany if they wanted to, in no time–and we’d have to respond with nuclear weapons, and that would be it… the chain reactions would begin, and it’d be the end. It was no joke, and no movie, and it wasn’t funny or romantic or interesting, the way “normal” war can seem to kids, when they see it at a distance.

Now that fear is all gone. I can go home today and turn on the news, and it can be very bad, yes–terrorists can kill hundreds in Bombay or thousands in New York–we can be involved in seemingly-endless conflicts in Asia and the Middle East…there can be constant unrest in and around Israel or Africa… there can be a nut-job totalitarian throwback like Hugo Chavez in South America… and as bad as it all gets, it still never feels like it could spill over into the End. Even with North Korea and Iran trying to get nuclear weapons… even if they could explode one somewhere (please no) killing thousands or millions—it wouldn’t be the same as those years of Mutual Assured Destruction. It may not SEEM better, but in that one sense, it is.

It isn’t just that there isn’t a cold war stalemate between two superpowers anymore, though of course that’s most of it. It’s that we HAD that, we lived through it, for 50-odd years… and we didn’t let it happen. We were sensible enough to step back from the edge. Let’s remember something about that–NEVER in human history–NEVER–have two closely-matched and deeply antagonistic enemies stood face to face like that for SO LONG, and then backed away without destroying each other. There were idiots and whackos on both sides during the Cold War, but it’s reassuring to know that in a larger, more important sense, Americans and Russians were equally sane about it, and we both managed to take a step towards life and the future rather than death and the end. Good for us. That says something nice about the entire human race. Presented with the means to annihilate ourselves, we who have always been self-destructive and erratic at times, as a species, didn’t go for it. We showed restraint and sanity.

42. warrrreagl - December 5th, 2008 at 7:15 am

“On the Beach” has always been my favorite of the bunch. So, in typical Listverse fashion, I read the list title, though of “On the Beach,” and found it on the list. Therefore, this list is stamped with the warrrreagl 100% A+ approval sticker.

43. dustin - December 5th, 2008 at 7:29 am

dr. stranglelove seems like its too low on the list

44. Kreachure - December 5th, 2008 at 7:42 am

Wow. This is a very depressing subject. But it is a (very important) part of history. Kudos on the list.

Hadashi no Gen is gruesome and horrifying, but that’s because those things actually did happen when the bomb went off. Even though it’s animation, it’s pretty accurate. Definitely not fo those with a weak stomach.

Also, I thought Dr. Strangelove was gonna be higher up, but to be honest I haven’t seen most of the other films and documentaries, so perhaps it’s okay where it is.

45. Keara - December 5th, 2008 at 7:48 am

Wow. So I just watched When the wind blows on youtube after reading this list and it made me cry: ( Animated movies with serious messages really bum me out more then normal films! Great list though!

46. Lark - December 5th, 2008 at 8:22 am

what, no Boy & His Dog?

joke, joke.

gotta love a post-apocalyptic movie staring don johnson trying to get into the pants of every living female left, though.

47. STL Mo - December 5th, 2008 at 8:27 am

dammien karras - Yes indeed, that was a great Twilight Zone episode.

Lalalilo - I was waiting for someone to bring that up, though I’m a little surprised it took 36 comments.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were unique in the way that the cities were bombed — but not unique in the scale of destruction. As you alluded to, the Allied firebombings of Tokyo, Hamburg, etc. and the German bombings of London produced widespread destruction and loss of life. In 1945, AT THAT MOMENT, the atomic bombs were seen as a much more efficient way to do something that took fleets of aircraft and thousands of incindiaries and HE.

When putting together this list, I both looked backwards to the atomic attacks from the comfort of 2008, and also kept in mind what an old Marine vet of the Pacific war told me. He said, when I interviewed him about 15 years ago, that he would have been among those who would have had to invade the Japanese home islands. He was absolutely certain that the atomic bombs saved not only his life, but the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans AND millions of Japanese. With the intensity of the Pacific war only getting worse, he said, if Truman had a way to end it before an invasion needed to happen, then halleluiah.

And while it may seem hard for you to feel sympathy for citizens of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, keep in mind that the events in August 1945 were a milestone in human history, and the only — thus far, thank God — episodes of the use of nuclear weapons.

48. STL Mo - December 5th, 2008 at 8:30 am

Lark ;)!!

49. Realist - December 5th, 2008 at 9:19 am

T-1000, The Terminator was released in 1984. T2, 1991.

50. Lucien - December 5th, 2008 at 9:27 am

Well you don’t have to worry because a lot lot of whats in these films is technically rubbish. Certainly it wouldn’t be nice to be anywhere near a nuclear explosion especially within the outer lethal zone but to portray nuclear war as the ‘end of the world’ was always a lie.
Ironically the most accurate film about nuclear war was probably Akira because it takes society about 20 to 40 years to recover afterwards. In a real war a lot would die - up to 200 to 500 million people, plus another 50 to 100 million from remote radiation poisoning, and the US certainly wouldn’t recover very easily. But many nations wouldn’t even been have hit and at least half the worlds population wouldn’t even be threatened.
As for nuclear winter its all a bit of a fantasy - 100 years ago Mt Krakatoa put 10 cubic kilometers of ash into the atmosphere, as much as thousands of nuclear bombs, and the Victorians survived. As a Gen Scientist I have done environmental analysis of nuclear war and the bitter truth is that in most cases it is actually much greener than modern society.

51. unca - December 5th, 2008 at 9:30 am

“The Day After” received more hype than any TV movie before or after. Professional counselors and psychologists all chimed in regarding who should watch it, what to do if somebody faints, warnings against watching it alone, how parents should talk to their children, etc. In the end it wasn’t any more powerful than “The Towering Inferno.” The most compelling movie on this awful subject is, IMHO, “Testamant.” The intimate anguish of that film delivers a very powerful blow.

52. Lucien - December 5th, 2008 at 9:37 am

Talking about WWII I heard that the biggest military crime of the war was the US fire-bombing of Tokyo. By some estimates it killed in one night more than both atomic bombs put together and more than died in Britain in the whole war. I could also point out that the Nagasaki bomb was particularly ugly because the Japanese were already preparing to surrender and America knew it. They were basically testing their new weapon.

The Nazi’s have the excuse that they were fascists, but we have to face the fact that in the end days of the war both Britain and the US fire bombed civilians en-mass - and largely not even for military reasons.

53. Jack Deth - December 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am

Threads.. I was around 13 when that was shown. Scared the daylights out of me.

It was so ordinary…then suddenly everything went wrong..

It was a scary time, the cold war.

54. DiscHuker - December 5th, 2008 at 10:02 am

lucien: the problem isn’t that the damage isn’t extensive enough, at least for those outside of the immediate blast area. the problem is for the inevitable return volley that is sure to follow.

it would be surprising if a single bomb exploded in the future.

55. postman - December 5th, 2008 at 10:22 am

I personally think Fail-Safe should be higher (probably number 1) because it’s just so good and where is War Games a British documentry style programme from the 60’s that the government banned at the time and was first shown on the 80’s.

56. iamprinz - December 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am

*hadashi no gen*

so damn depressing

57. dave4248 - December 5th, 2008 at 10:27 am

There’s a lot of anti-US hatred on this board. No surprise there. I’ve seen it at this site often. Japan was NOT on the verge of surrender before the first bomb. If they were, how come it took TWO bombs to make them surrender? After the first, they figured that’s all we had and no surrender was on it’s way. After the second they figured we meant business and took the US more seriously. I guess some folks here LIKE the idea of a million Americans dying in an invasion. BTW, good list but DR Strangelove s/be higher.

58. Cedestra - December 5th, 2008 at 10:29 am

I have to admit, at first I was shocked that Dr. Strangelove placed so low, but after I saw the inclusions of all the documentaries, it made sense. Not sure if I agree exactly with the order, but still a very well through out, researched list.
39. warningdontreadthis: First, whomever the bombs didn’t kill were extremely dehydrated. The bombs evaporated a lot of moisure in the air. Secondly, this was the first time this had ever happened and they had no idea what radiation was. In that position, if I had no water and I was dying of thirst, I may want to risk drinking black rain if I had no idea it was contaminated.
I’ve only seen two on the list (the other being White Light/Black Rain), which saddens me because it’s a topic I am fascinated with. The pikadon classification that came later in Japanese society really intrigued me.

59. Posy - December 5th, 2008 at 10:56 am

I knew Threads would be number 1. I remember the horror of this film 25 yrs on. Cormac McCarthy’s The Road is set to be released next year. I hope it does justice to the book!

60. Posy - December 5th, 2008 at 11:06 am

asmz…………. I think computers are region free in terms of dvds. Not sure I’d recommend Threads though. A scary and thought provoking film, but not exactly a recommendation for an enjoyable evenings viewing. Similarly The Road, when it hits cinemas, not sure I’ll be there. Too grim on a big screen.

61. Englandexpects - December 5th, 2008 at 11:07 am

threads came to mind when i saw the name

62. EricB - December 5th, 2008 at 11:27 am

No Terminator? Sure it wasn’t a purely based Nuclear War flick, but it still featured the devastated, post nuclear Apocalypse world that this list is all about.

63. Hillery - December 5th, 2008 at 11:31 am

I saw “When the Wind Blows” when I was quite young. Young enough to be haunted, old enough to know what was going on in the movie. I’m pretty sure it has effected my entire personality since. There are few things I can remember as vividly after so long.

64. Loli - December 5th, 2008 at 11:38 am

Hiroshima Mon Amour is a rather wonderful French New Wave film (in conjunction with a Japanese network) that deals with the bombings of Hiroshima in the only way possible: by avoiding recreation, and displaying the futility of its representation.

65. GreatLarks - December 5th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

I was a freshman at the University of Kansas when they shot “The Day After” there. I finagled an extras part as a “survivor” — they asked us to not shave or bathe for 5 days and wear old, dirty clothes for the part — all easily done as a college freshman. One dorm mate was paid $50 to let them chop his hair up so it looked like it came out in clumps. When they aired the film the following year, Carl Sagan and other radioactive fallout “experts” were on campus to debate nuclear winter, etc. after the movie played — I think on “Nightline.” As someone mentioned, there was a lot of debate about showing the film or not — nightmares and suicides will surely ensue.

As I recall, there were no commercials shown after the attack. It was interesting to see the film show missiles launching from areas of Lawrence that couldn’t possibly be nuclear missile silos. (Or could they…?) This film also ushered in the age of VCRs for my family as my dad bought a top-loading, 100lb unit to record his son’s major network acting debut.

66. Randall - December 5th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Lucien:

You’re dead wrong on a few points. So listen up.

“…to portray nuclear war as the ‘end of the world’ was always a lie.”

Oh, Lucien? Funny how you’re WAY in the minority in this opinion. The fact is that most military and government analysts long ago admitted that a full-scale nuclear war would devastate upwards of 80% of the habitable areas of our world–we’re not talking about the dropping of a FEW bombs here, but THOUSANDS. Thousands of thermonuclear weapons, the average yield of EACH of which is about 5 MEGATONS.

I’m guessing, Lucien, that you’re a kid. In your 20s perhaps? At any rate, it’s clear you haven’t a clue or a concept. If you’re older, say.. my age… you should be ashamed of yourself. You ought to know better.

“…many nations wouldn’t even been have hit and at least half the worlds population wouldn’t even be threatened.”

WRONG. You clearly know nothing about the established policy of both nuclear superpowers towards the end of the Cold War period. The fact is that Mutually Assured Destruction meant just that–that a war between the US and the USSR was going to be considered a war between the free West and the communist totalitarian states, and if such a war began (with the expected nuclear exchange between NATO and the USSR and/or the Warsaw Pact) then ALL associated countries were going to be considered viable targets–and WERE in fact targeted. This meant that the myth of Australia, for instance, being spared destruction, was just that–a myth. In such a war, all the countries of Europe, Japan, China, Australia, all of Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and much of Africa were going down with the two superpowers. The Soviets had ALL western nations targeted, as the US had China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. etc. targeted along with the Warsaw Pact nations. In a full nuclear exchange, there is no question that no major city or military installation anywhere in the world was going to be spared. Part of this also had to do with the fact that western installations were all over the planet, and allies of both nations were in each hemisphere.

To deny this is ridiculous; it’s a policy that was well-established and considered the natural course of things should such a war begin–and both American and former Soviet commanders have admitted this.

Your nonsense about Nagasaki is also dead wrong. Japan was no more prepared to surrender when Nagasaki was bombed than it had been when Hiroshima was destroyed.

Clearly, Lucien, you need some major lessons in history. Get them before you go around on the net shooting your mouth off.

67. rshady - December 5th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

I recently watched ‘When the Wind’ blows, a truly amazing film.

68. andrew - December 5th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Dr. Strangelove has to be much higher, come on have a sense of humor everyone dies sooner or later, I don’t mean that a nuclear holocaust would not be horrible but that’s a hell of a dark comedy one of the best movies period that I’ve ever seen

69. STL Mo - December 5th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Two things: About Terminator movies, please see my intro. If I had expanded the list to 20, T2 would have been on it. But as good as the T movies were, the others were better, which is why T2 didn;t quite make it.

Second, Strangelove is great — which is why it’s on the list — but it’s not the best. And yes, it’s definitely better than The Day After, but I placed the latter one so high because of its immediate impact.

70. segue - December 5th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

41. Randall:…what it was like for us who grew up in the midst of the Cold War. And I wasn’t even there for the truly tense part of it, in the Fifties, and just missed being alive for the Cuban Missile Crisis by a couple years. But even so, growing up in the late Sixties, Seventies and early Eighties was at times filled with a terrifying tension for which kids these days have no concept. The atomic-air-raid drills at school… the constant worry you’d feel when international tensions ran high over some crisis or other–the Middle East, for instance, or Eastern Europe… the concern that it could at any time get out of hand, and get away from us….
****
Randall, I touched on this subject on another list, and the way it has affected my psyche, my way of relating to the world and my own mortality. I grew up in a time where even 8 year-olds were aware of their own mortality.
We were the generation of the Summer of Love, the “hippies”. We were programmed, in a way, to accept the lie of “sex, drugs, and rock and roll”, because we didn’t expect to reach adulthood. No one I knew, including myself, expected to live to 25.
Death was a foregone conclusion.
I can’t watch any of these movies to this day. I still carry the horror of my childhood and adolescence like a touchstone.

71. Ralph - December 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

What doesn’t seem to be mentioned is that the The Day After was set up to deliberately influence Reagan administration policy and that after the movie there was a panel discussion involving various Sec’ys of State and others, including Henry Kissinger (on NBC, I think). What I remember of it was that was there was no real agreement and Kissinger called the movie itself “silly”. I agree with that. It was a heavy handed attempt to stampede public opinion, probably in favor of unilateral disarmament, which was a hobby horse of the left. Didn’t work since no treaty was sign until the ’90s. I don’t remember exactly so someone correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t think its impact was all that great, overall, other than a brief Count Floyd moment (”Oooooooooh…veddy SCAIREE, boys and girls!). Another in a long line of manipulative movies aimed at pushing an agenda, including this movie’s almost-namesake The Day After Tomorrow, which was the best comedy I’d seen in years.

As for Fail Safe, both the original and the live remake were great, especially the live one. Only a couple of negatives. Richard Dreyfuss as the president? And I won’t spoil it but the ending was ridiculous. I can’t imagine a decision like that being made. Liberals + alcohol (or other) + writers meetings = crass emotional manipulation. Nuclear war is a dead serious subject. Nuclear war movies are mostly not.

72. BooRadley - December 5th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Wow. It is appalling to understand just what people are capable of doing to other people.

I was reading comment #41, and the last paragraph really struck me. I read it over several times, and I was amazed at how much sense it made, and I wondered why I had never thought of it that way before. I thought I would send the whole comment to my brother to hear his opinion. Then I scrolled up to see who had written it, and OF COURSE, it was Randall. Thanks for sharing with us. You are an amazing thinker and always add so much to any discussion.

Next time, don’t stay away so long. Welcome back, Randall!

73. Rob S. - December 5th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

I remember when I saw “When the Wind Blows” a few years ago.
Whew. Just blew my socks clean out the door. Very, very strong movie.
As for “On the Beach”, my wife seldom cries, but she cried several times while watching it a year or so ago.
Also a favorite movie of mine.

74. STL Mo - December 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Ralph - I though I had implied that, because The Day After is on this list because of its impact.

75. Nejikun - December 5th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Had seen the Hadashi no Gen clip before, but didn’t know what the movie was called. That was disturbing.

76. bigski - December 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Clip #14 with the old man and his wife their innocence and naivete mix with the horror of their situation creeped me out.

77. Dana - December 5th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Can’t sleep…nuclear bombs will get me…can’t sleep…nuclear bombs will get me…

78. Lucien - December 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

“Oh, Lucien? Funny how you’re WAY in the minority in this opinion. The fact is that most military and government analysts long ago admitted that a full-scale nuclear war would devastate upwards of 80% of the habitable areas of our world–we’re not talking about the dropping of a FEW bombs here, but THOUSANDS. Thousands of thermonuclear weapons, the average yield of EACH of which is about 5 MEGATONS.”

Such arrogance the ignorant have, you sound like a Wikipedia editor. I assume the 80% of Earth you are talking about is that imaginary Earth in the heads of most simple people? a few hundred miles in diameter? The real Earth is 6000Km in diameter with 150 billion km square land surface area. So your 80% damage figue would require some 400,000 five megaton bombs (though radiation would kill all life at between 50,000 and 100,000 warheads).

Ur Randal a few points - Firstly most of that “Mutually assured destruction” stuff was propaganda invented by Thatcher, why would anyone attack countries like Kenya or Sudan or China? In a war between the US and Russia shooting at China would double the number of missiles shot back at you. The truth behind MAD was that the US and USSR were playing a little game where instead of taking the brunt of attack themselves they could pass it off on Europe. It also saved them a lot of money because those orbital space born ICBMs were just too expensive. Not only did the missiles cost a lot but the fuel they needed only lasted a few years before needing to be recycled. In short the number of orbitally delivered warheads was more like 10 or 20 for America and less for Russia.

What they really had was lots of mid range missiles like Cruise and Scud, the SS-20 the Polaris and Trident etc. These are far smaller and carry smaller warheads, they carry multiple small bomblets of 10 to 50 kilotons (sensible because individual warhead reliability is as low as 10 to 30%). Those 5 megaton bombs you talk about are huge things and weigh at least 10 tons and need a big missile or plane delivery.

Those ‘thousands of warheads with an average yield of 5 megatons’ were just a PR lie. Most of those big missiles were already dismantled by the early 80’s.

If you look behind the layers of lies its pretty easy to see that in a real war America would have won, in fact in a first strike Russia might not even have been able to hit back. Russia had basically admitted this publicly since the 70’s, or earlier. The final straw though was the collapse of the Soviet empire after which they simply couldn’t afford such weapons any more. Today America has dismantled much of its remaining arsenal too, again mainly due to cost.
——————————————————-

The funny thing about propaganda and its effect on people is that is that the danger of nuclear war is greater today than its ever been - its just that it wont be that big total war called World War Three. Look at tensions between India and Pakistan, at North Korea, at Israel and Iran, and let us not forget Putin’s Russia. But the biggest danger is from first strike weapons like the B2 and stealth submarines, which push all sides towards firing.

79. santiago - December 5th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I saw a lot of information films at school in the 80s on what to do in the event of an attack, along with a film that I couldn`t remember the title of but was so powerful it stayed with me and it is the only film I have ever seen that has had such a huge impact on me. For years,( and I was in my teens ) when I heard a plane at night I was sick with fear that it was a missile..
I was then on a quest to find out what this film was, and it was Threads.

Randall, you would definitely be on my “must pick thier brains list

80. freya - December 5th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Nuclear war is definitely something I do not want to be a survivor of.

81. Blogball - December 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Nice list! My favorite on the list besides Dr. Strangelove of course is Testament. My wife hates depressing movies and still won’t forgive me for making her watch it. I guess she was waiting for a happy ending.

I will have to check out Threads. I think I will ask my wife to watch it with me.

82. Diogenes - December 5th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

There is something about some things, that connect to memories, when first experienced.
Like Gene Siskel said,”You can only see a movie for the first time once”.
There is a connective tissue that runs back for me, when I was young and watched “The Day After” on Television. I have thought about it over the years but have never seen it again since. The impact was such that for me it was equivalent to a child’s first thoughts of about death, and nothingness, and God, and Santa Claus.

I have only seen three others on your list STL Mo… Which is good. Peeks interest, regardless of subject matter. Broadens the pallet.

Don’t know if it has been mentioned, but, Peter Watkins’s “The War Game from 1965 would make a likely addition.
A couple others that come to mind: maybe “The Atomic Cafe”,
Akira Kurosawa’s “I Live In Fear” or one of his two more abstraction shorts in “Dreams”(the one about the traveler meeting the once-human horned demon and the one titled, “Mount Fuji In Red”).

Culturally, most all 1950’s B-movie monster/aliens films ( of which the like 1990’s Hollywood blockbusters reflected) are nuclear war films, to some degree.

83. nahi - December 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pm

hiroshima mon amour is also pretty good

84. NO - December 5th, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Wtf no godzilla the very epitome of the dangers of nuclear weapons

85. Dickens - December 5th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Very interesting list, but I was disappointed that La Jetee was missing!

Opinions?

86. PhantomBanker - December 5th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Nice list. I remember The Day After coming out when I was in the first grade. I distinctly remember the people turning into skeletons before they flashed away. I also remember a few days later when one of our vocabulary words in class was either “disaster” or “catastrophe.” I asked the teacher if this movie would be a good example. She had not seen nor heard of it, so there I am, in my 6-yr-old innocence, trying to explain this and watching the teacher trying to comprehend what I had seen.

Years later, when I understood the film and its meaning, I saw it on SciFi Channel. The final scene stuck out at me. The old man trying to reclaim something of his wife’s (a clock or a watch?) from a looter. There was so much helplessness in that scene.

The year when “Threads” came out, my older brother wouldn’t let me watch it, telling me it’s not the kind of movie I would have liked. I suppose, like “The Day After,” I probably would not have fully understood what I was seeing at that age. Perhaps now that I’ve been reminded of it, I should finally see what I’ve missed.

I remember coming across the Waterston show at random. His acting, as usual, was superb, although somewhat diminished by everyone else’s subpar acting abilities. It was really a great storyline to watch the doctor try to draw a confession from him.

Post 41 about how the Cold War affected us…Yeah, I missed the worst of it (’50s, ’60s), but there was just enough of it in my developmental years of the ’80s that it will always be a part of my psyche. Whenever I hear that a rogue nation like North Korea is developing nuclear weapons, or a terrorist group someplace getting their hands on something like that, I think back to those skeletons I saw on “The Day After.”

87. shadow - December 5th, 2008 at 9:35 pm

RANDALL,
Lucien’s rebuttal shows that he does have many facts behind his argument. He did not respond to any of the personal attacks you aimed at him ( assuming you knew his age and background - therefore assuming he had less life experiences than one our age) His rebuttal was well thought out and replied to most of your objections. I truly love these debates. (Still need to do more research, but I am leaning toward Lucien right now. Spent a few years on a nuclear ballistic submarine in my earliest career, so it does hit close to home)

88. qwertyiop - December 5th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

I was in my 20`s in the 80`s and as I live in Sheffield,threads had a BIG effect on me,when you see a mushroom cloud appear at the end of Fargate (the street they were all running about in blind panic) it does bring it home to you.Talking of the things people used to worry about,I remember listening to Radio luxenbourg and thinking if the Russians attack that will go off the air and I would get an early warning of something happening,also I work for BT (British Telecom) and was involved in putting the lines in that activated the sirens,so I knew where they all were located and I used to think,I wonder which one I will hear when it all kicks off.I concur with the earlier comments that it really was a time of worry..

89. shadow - December 5th, 2008 at 10:31 pm

78. Lucien
“The funny thing about propaganda and its effect on people is that is that the danger of nuclear war is greater today than its ever been - its just that it wont be that big total war called World War Three. Look at tensions between India and Pakistan, at North Korea, at Israel and Iran, and let us not forget Putin’s Russia. But the biggest danger is from first strike weapons like the B2 and stealth submarines, which push all sides towards firing.”

I really think this is one of the most intelligent observations I have seen anywhere. The cold war was about mutual destruction, and that concept really no longer exists. Many nations now have tactical nuclear weapons and can use them as political portrayal of there right to existence. The mutual destruction deterrent really no longer exists. We have a few countries who possess the capability of deploying nuclear weapons and we should be wary of the political climate in these countries. Can we control what happens? Obviously not, but we can have an influence.

90. Mom424 - December 5th, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Randall, Segue; Funny thing - we’re of an age Randall, we live not far from one another, - and I spent my teen years, aware of the threat, but not terrified. We didn’t have unnecessary (and ineffectual) bomb raid sirens, or a constant exposure to doom and gloom. I wonder how much of the perceived threat was just that, perceived. An even more troubling thought is just how much of it was propaganda on both sides, propaganda used to justify insane defense spending?

91. shadow - December 5th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

90. Mom424
I have been watching the dialogue on listverse for a while. You normally support Randall, and I normally agree with you and Randall.
I do think that the personal attacks on Lucien by Randall were unwarranted and I admire the reply did not address these, and stuck to the facts.
Randall is quick to discourage disparaging remarks without backup from reliable sources. Yet, in the above opinions, he provided no sources other than his opinion. I appreciate anyone’s opinion, but Randall hates anyone expressing an opinion that can not be backed up by another source. I looked through the previous posts and found only Randalls opinion. Is this allowed? Yes!! I do appreciate anyones opinion.

92. Beldalf - December 5th, 2008 at 11:28 pm

I saw threads in 11th Grade History class… very powerful film. From what I heard that threads was a response to the Hollywood The Day after tomorrow. Not surprised it was number 1.

93. shadow - December 5th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Your nonsense about Nagasaki is also dead wrong. Japan was no more prepared to surrender when Nagasaki was bombed than it had been when Hiroshima was destroyed.

Clearly, Lucien, you need some major lessons in history. Get them before you go around on the net shooting your mouth off.

94. shadow - December 5th, 2008 at 11:55 pm

The above comment was due to my lack of familiarity with this forum. It was a copy of of a previous post that had nothing to do with my opinions.

95. shadow - December 6th, 2008 at 12:10 am

I have tried to get rid of the above two comments because they were caused with the unfamiliarity of posting to this site .Comments 92 and 93 were a mistake.

96. Nicosia - December 6th, 2008 at 12:21 am

Dang- now I am depressed. I hope my babies never have to live through this stuff…

97. the_cloaked schemer - December 6th, 2008 at 1:43 am

I just finished watching when the wind blows, it is truly haunting, very sad. I watched bare foot gen a few years ago, and that movie tremendously effected me at the time. The world must never use these weapons, not ever again.

98. the_cloaked schemer - December 6th, 2008 at 1:47 am

Oh, and Randall, you are a demi-god in my self made religion, and my friend is your high preist, if you don’t mind the worship. I wholly agree with you on the issue of the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, and I am of japanese descent. Fight the good fight Randall!

99. loop - December 6th, 2008 at 2:58 am

Another vote for “Atomic Cafe”. My father used to make nuclear weapons. I was raised during the cold war, influenced by this and books such as Frank’s, “Alas, Babylon” and Miller’s, “A canticle for Leibowitz” Movies such as these, hopefully raised the level of consciousness in a few people, but, sadly, the world will likely see more of the same and probably in “documentary” fashion after the next great tragedy (If anyone is left to hold the camera).

“Science has tasted Sin.”

More’s the pity.

Nice list all the same.

100. Jessy - December 6th, 2008 at 4:18 am

Previous experience working at Canada’s government Cold War Bunker tells me:

-Hiding under your desk in the event of a nuke is laughably useless.

-In the 1950s/60s, Canada was worried about 5 megaton bombs dropping on the Capital- so they put the bunker about a 30-40 minute drive out of town and 50 feet underground. Even then, if a 5 megatonner dropped right on that spot or near it, that bunker would have been history despite 40 feet of dirt and concrete, and 3 foot thick concrete walls.

-With eastbound prevailing winds, the bunker was placed west of the city. Hull and Montreal were screwed (apologies to anyone reading this from there), but eventually the cloud would disperse enough so as not to kill everyone in its path.

-The government had a shelter built that could hold 500ish government and military officials-but not their families- for 30 days. After that, hopefully it would be safe enough to come out again. If the bad guys caught on and staggered their bombing, we were screwed.

-Nowadays, bombs are MUCH bigger and MUCH more powerful- the specific numbers escape me at the moment, but there are nukes in existence that can crack the earth’s crust. That means powerful enough to break the freaking planet. Ain’t no one living through that.

I could write a book of useless nuclear trivia I learned while working at that place for four months. But in response to the idea that nuclear war would not doom the planet: maybe not in the 1950s, but these days even if you live through nuclear war, your day to day life would be altered in a fundamental way.

And guess who now lives in one of the industrial centres of North Korea’s dubious ally!

101. McSquida - December 6th, 2008 at 4:46 am

“(Think Grave of the Fireflies for emotional impact.) ”
“This is the bleakest and most depressing movie ever made (outside of, perhaps, Grave of the Fireflies)”

After what Grave of the Fireflies did to me, I don’t think I want to watch the last two films on this list!

102. Ralph - December 6th, 2008 at 6:59 am

STL Mo,

Sorry, I didn’t read all of the posts, just skimmed. Evelyn
Wood would be ashamed of me.

103. Randy - December 6th, 2008 at 8:09 am

What, no “Damnation Alley”?
Interesting list. Bit depressing watching some of the clips.

104. scottrodo - December 6th, 2008 at 10:25 am

The title of the list is presently wrong. Until January 20th, the word is “Nuke-u-lur”. After that date, reason and intelligence return to political affairs.

105. Mom424 - December 6th, 2008 at 11:59 am

Shadow: I don’t exactly know what the question is. Is what allowed?

I usually agree with Randall because he is usually right. Quite the annoying habit he has. That said, I have been known, on occasion, to disagree with him (his music tastes are horrid; loves namby pamby 80’s crap, the kind that disaffected university students listened to while figuring out how Reaganomics was gonna save the poor. While the rest of us were trying to keep a roof over our heads.), and even to chastise him when his reaction has been inappropriate or over the top. I don’t see that here. A little forceful maybe, but I think that is more impatience than nastiness. If you’ve read any of the previous lists you will see that this is far from the first time that Randall has had to correct someone about Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the rationale behind it. He is right-on correct about it btw. It was necessary at the time and it ended the war quickly and efficiently. There would have been many more deaths without it.

106. scottrodo - December 6th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

#105 The ultimate goal of the bombing was achieved and you are correct in assessment that it very likely would have led to far more horrific bloodshed had the decision been to not use the bombs. This was, at the time, understood to be a decision that would be second-guessed throughout eternity. The decision must be viewed in the context of its time and place. Many more lives were saved than were lost, an extremely bloody and costly war ended at least six months earlier than it would have. It must not be forgotten that this was, above all, a war for the survival of decency and sanity against what turned out to be very evil men who had preempted humanity in their nations.

107. Randall - December 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Lucien:

The ignorant, Lucien? No, try again, putz. I note with interest that you didn’t admit to your age. It further confirms my suspicions that I’m addressing some kid who hasn’t got a REAL clue of what he’s talking about. My sense is that on this topic you’re operating on fumes, and fumes that have been handed down laced with a good dose of BS. Your prattle about propaganda should perhaps be turned in your own direction, since between the two of us, you’re spouting something much more akin to it.

“So your 80% damage figue would require some 400,000 five megaton bombs (though radiation would kill all life at between 50,000 and 100,000 warheads).”

Splitting hairs is no way to win arguments, Lucien. No one ever said that every square inch of the earth itself had to be devastated for it to be a global disaster. What we’re talking about is the annihilation of a large chunk of humanity and the maintenance of what we would call “civilization”… this does NOT require that the entire globe be broiled into kingdom come. YOU were prattling on in your original post about how MOST of the world (presumably meaning most nations and the bulk of humanity as a species) would not be targeted and would not have suffered from a nuclear war—and that statement of yours remains bullshit no matter how much you try to skirt and squirm around the issue now. Presenting the mere fact that the blast and heat damage from thousands of nuclear weapons would not have touched every single inch of ground IS NOT a negation of what I was saying. Rather, it’s a desperate ploy on your part to shore up your bogus reasoning, which was not only illogical, but untruthful to boot.

“…most of that “Mutually assured destruction” stuff was propaganda invented by Thatcher,”

BULLSHIT. Mutually assured destruction was only a TERM that was brought into being later in the Cold War. (as for it being invented by Margaret Thatcher, that too is in error–last I knew it was coughed up originally in the State Department during the Nixon administration). IN FACT, the policies ON BOTH SIDES had been in place since the 1960s–guaranteeing that in a FULL nuclear exchange, allies and associated nations would be targeted–particularly when such nations harbored military bases of one of the superpowers. If you don’t believe this, you need an education. I suggest you go read up in some old copies of Foreign Affairs, THE journal on such matters, as well as The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which had several articles on the subject back… oh… I think it was in the 70s.

Propaganda? Hardly clown.

“…why would anyone attack countries like Kenya or Sudan or China?”

I never mentioned Kenya or Sudan. China shouldn’t require explanation. But I already explained the policy. Allies, associated nations… particularly those with bases.

“In a war between the US and Russia shooting at China would double the number of missiles shot back at you.”

More ignorance on YOUR part. China, during most of the Cold War, had only rudimentary ICBM technology.

“The truth behind MAD was that the US and USSR were playing a little game where instead of taking the brunt of attack themselves they could pass it off on Europe.”

This is just outrageous silliness. Are you suggesting that in a full nuclear war the US and USSR would not have been devastated? What lives between your ears besides air?

“It also saved them a lot of money because those orbital space born ICBMs were just too expensive.”

In fact, orbital nuclear weapons were banned by treaty, not abandoned out of expense.

Sadly I’m too short on time to continue. More later.

108. Phillies - December 6th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Heart-wrenching stuff. BTW, a sarcastic thank you to many of the earlier posters for making me curious, so I watched Grave of the Fireflies. Never before have I been more depressed.

Having said that, though, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, while tragic, resulted in fewer deaths than if America had gone ahead with its original plan for an invasion of the Japanese mainlands. It was speculated that, had the American forces actually gone through with such an invasion, many Japanese citizens were willing to give their lives to defend their country and Emperor. The death toll of such an invasion was estimated (by the Americans) to be around one million dead; I’m not sure if that’s for the American forces or if it was a combined estimate for both Japan and America.

Further more, by that point in history, the technology was in place for a nuclear attack. Eventually, a nuclear weapon was going to be used; it was simply a matter of time and place. And, as Randall pointed out earlier (as he is wont to do), ever since the bombings, there has never been another nuclear attack between warring nations. The Eastern and Western powers can yell and rant and make accusations and even become incredibly hostile towards one another, but, having seen what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there has never been an attempt to provoke nuclear war by either side.

The bombings were necessary, yet tragic. And for the record, I am a 21 year old college boy, just to get that out there.

109. Frustrat - December 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

A BOY AND HIS DOG
How could you miss that one? ;]

110. Lucien - December 6th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Duh!
For a start Randal ‘braniac’ all ICBMs are orbital weapons since they put their warheads in an orbital trajectory and use that to transport them around the earth. Orbital SATELLITE weapons are totally different because they are a first strike weapon and would have pushed everyone towards firing

Secondly the thing about nuclear attack was that both America and Russia only ever had few actual functional long range missiles. Until they started using titanium nitrate fuel they had to use liquid fuel and the missiles took days or even weeks to get ready for launch. The US kept around THREE missiles fueled and ready to launch, but like any spacecraft once fueled they could explode at any instant, and the fuel was highly corrosive so it would rot through the fuel tanks in a few weeks or months meaning that that these missiles would then have to be thrown away.
Even Titanium Nitrate isn’t very nice and only lasts a few years.

The real killer for you though is the warheads 100 kilotons is 50 times smaller than 5 megatons. But more than that the small modern warheads use a different technology that can’t be scaled up. Like I said a 5-10 megaton warhead weighs at LEAST 10 tons - a whole Trident missile only weighs about 10 to 20 tons.
Like I said most real warheads are on mid and short range missiles and guess what very few are in range of the US only a few Russian submarines, if there was a war in the 80’s the Russians were planning to fire mostly at western Europe which they could actually hit. America had weapons everywhere so Russia and eastern Europe were very vulnerable.

To me and my generation MAD appeared in the 80’s and at about the same time as all the stuff about Nuclear winter. Put simply 1000 of the huge test bombs from the 50’s probably would have caused a Nuclear Winter. But 1000 modern warheads is equivalent to only about five or ten of those bombs - about three Chernobyl’s.
By the way I saw When the Wind Blows, Threads et al and so on when I was a kid and was very disturbed by them but the science behind all these films was fundamentally flawed. After Chernobyl they discovered that humans are often much more resilient to radiation. The fears of mutation were also based on an obsolete science.

As for me I’m around 37 a General Scientist specializing in Computing and AI, rocket and space science and Relativity, and as well as this ecology and genetics. I am a ‘futurist’ so a lot of the work I do is speculative. As for my knowledge of all things nuclear my main sources are probably FAS, Wikipedia, and New Scientist plus physics books and other sources - and of course over many years the BBC. Many years ago I did a course that included military physics including nuclear and radiation physics. I also like look in odd places and have many oddments of old data (including some considered extremely classified). Apart from all this I have done quite a bit of research into propaganda and have quite extensive knowledge of politics and secrecy.

From your arrogance I guess your either American or Australian, probably very conservative, probably a supporter of George W Bush? ‘Conservatives’ often seem to be especially gullible about things like government ‘truth’ and propaganda. but then again - do you believe that the Earth was created in 7 days? hmmm..

111. Ocean Man - December 6th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

well…my momma can make a great chocolate cake.

112. Phillies - December 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

110. Lucien

“As for my knowledge of all things nuclear my main sources are probably…Wikipedia…”

I figure it’s only fair to warn you that you are going to be destroyed for that statement. Oh, and Randall is an admitted liberal (ex-conservative though), but has proven time and again that he has a good grasp of the topics he is discussing.

He’s also ruthless

You’ve been warned

113. DiscHuker - December 6th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

lucien: wow, you were doing good as far as rebutal without raising any hockels. but that last paragraph, just from what i have learned about randall over the past year and change, is going to cause the nuclear bomb of randall’s wrath to fall on you.

you called him several things that i’m sure he will find offensive; conservative, gullible, a literal biblical creationist, and possibly worst of all a W supporter.

heads up.

114. Lucien - December 6th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Hey I was just doing my boring science bit and this rabid dog suddenly leapt at me. I admit some of my facts are a bit flaky but his are ten times more. I’ve been on the internet more than long enough not to like this kind of fight, I guess I should just have shut up but his 5 megaton thing just got to me. I’ve only really noticed Randall here and he does sound very like W supporter.

115. DiscHuker - December 6th, 2008 at 7:52 pm

lucien: it should be entertaining at least. from what i know of him, he might see that as the worst possible thing someone could call him.

116. Nicosia - December 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

I have a bit of morbid curiosity but I suspect Grave of the Fireflies would be too much for me… Sounds intensely disturbing.

117. Phillies - December 6th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

116. Nicosia

Forgive me for asking, but when you watch movies, are you a cryer? I gave into morbid curiosity and watched the film on Youtube today…and I assure you, if you are a cryer, you will be bawling your eyes till they dehydrate.

Take all our words for it. It might be the most depressing movie I’ve ever seen. See it if you must, but it’s not going to be pleasant

118. Nicosia - December 6th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

A crier? LOL I was audibly weeping in the theater when I saw Titanic! I read the description on Imdb… I have a daughter the same age as the main character and couldn’t imagine her suffering through that. I’ll take your advice and skip this one… Extra Zoloft, please!