Either that, or self-detonate? I recall a silly Cold War movie when some archetypal bleeding heart President (played by Henry Fonda, perhaps?) would detonate an H-bomb over NYC, in order to placate the Russkies or something. Typical Pepean logic.
That was "Fail Safe". Movie was contemporary and similarly set up to Strangelove. The point was we had hit the Russians by accident but talked them out of retaliating full-scale by wrecking just one place, NYC. Not sure about Pepeanity of the logic. It was a dilemma.
Right -- Fail Safe. Still, that President was a pussy. The Shermanesque position woulda been to tough it out, and keep on bombing the commies, not NYC. That's why I like Dr. Strangelove better.
9 comments:
It's a good thing. They would end up in Islamic hands if not.
Also, we know, and they know, that the French would just chicken out and surrender, no matter what. So safer for them not to have the Bomb, right?
Fall into enemy hands one way or another?
Either that, or self-detonate? I recall a silly Cold War movie when some archetypal bleeding heart President (played by Henry Fonda, perhaps?) would detonate an H-bomb over NYC, in order to placate the Russkies or something. Typical Pepean logic.
That was "Fail Safe". Movie was contemporary and similarly set up to Strangelove. The point was we had hit the Russians by accident but talked them out of retaliating full-scale by wrecking just one place, NYC. Not sure about Pepeanity of the logic. It was a dilemma.
Right -- Fail Safe. Still, that President was a pussy. The Shermanesque position woulda been to tough it out, and keep on bombing the commies, not NYC. That's why I like Dr. Strangelove better.
I don't think Kubrick was serious, AI.
You don't think so? Let's watch the movie again. I take it literally.
Dr. Strangelove is a precious and fluid historical document, JJ.
Whaddya mean Kubrick wasn't serious?
Post a Comment