The day before yesterday I watched the film Threads. There are three main reactions to Threads that people have. 1. Traumatized. 2. Quite Traumatized. 3. Extremely traumatized beyond belief.
But why? Were the acting, dialogue and special effects really that bad? No, I’m not going for a silly joke like that here. Threads is possibly one of the best made films of all time. And what’s it about? It’s an absolutely horrific depiction of a nuclear holocaust.
Threads was released in 1984. And though it’s not the first or last of its kind, it’s probably the best of its kind. You see, there was a genre of film back then, and that genre was called, Jesus Almighty, we’re all fucked if the atom bomb gets dropped, so we better make a film to persuade the powers that be not to drop it!
This need for basic self preservation against these horrific weapons produced a wide number of films throughout the cold war. The earliest one I’ve seen is 1959’s On The Beach. The 1960’s gave us Fail Safe and Dr. Strangelove. And 1983 gave us Testament and The Day After.
So while Threads wasn’t covering new ground in its overall plot, it is generally considered the best of the genre of “Oh God, the bomb is going to be dropped, won’t somebody stop this madness!” The reason? It doesn’t, hold back, at all, when showing the devastation of a nuclear holocaust. Even The Day After, often thought of as a “twin” film of Threads, and while hardly a light and fluffy film by any stretch, still has, I would say a slight undercurrent of optimism. It depicts families and communities coming together, forming closer bonds because all they have is each other. It depicts medical staff working day and night, despite being horribly ill from radiation poisoning, to save as many people as they can.
But Threads doesn’t pull any punches. It almost says, “You thought during the insanity of a nuclear holocaust people would still take a moment or two to sing Kumbaya? You are a colossal twit, a colossal twit is all you are and ever will be!”
The aftermath of an atomic bomb being dropped on Sheffield is just, painful to watch. It’s like, its depiction is so real, that the part of your brain that knows that it’s just actors on a screen, just switches off, and you feel their pain. People desperately take shelter inside houses that have mostly fallen down around them, and outside, pretty much everything is in on fire. Seeing the way nuclear radiation twists and tortures the human body, so that those who were instantly killed in the blast are a source of envy. The remains of the government talking about how there’s no point in feeding those who can’t work since they’re just going to die anyway. This remaining government also gives the most draconian and harsh punishments for “looting” though really this is just hungry people taking food from houses that might well be deserted anyway.
And, I’ll try to say this with as few spoilers as possible. I think the ending of the film leaves very little doubt that the human race will not survive this. Humanity couldn’t resist the urge to solve things with the most deadly violence imaginable, and the price is, humanity is now extinct.
How Did We Survive The Cold War?
So, humanity managed to come out of that little incident known as the Cold War. How did we manage that? A popular theory, though an often contested theory, is that it comes down to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/mutual-assured-destruction
Mutually Assured Destruction is the idea that the United States would never launch nuclear weapons at the USSR, or vice versa, because it would result in that nation’s own destruction. If the USSR were to launch enough nuclear weapons to completely annihilate the United States, the United States would still have time to launch enough nuclear weapons to destroy the USSR. The United States’s last act, before complete destruction, would be the complete destruction of the Soviet Union.
The doctrine of mutually assured destruction has been challenged over the last few decades. One thing I find problematic about it is the morality of it. If the United States thinks the USSR will meet complete destruction of the USSR with complete destruction of the United States, then they won’t destroy the USSR. But, the problem is, why SHOULD the USSR respond by firing their nukes back at America? I’m not talking about tactically, I’m talking about morally. As soon as nukes are seen heading towards Russia, then, no matter what happens, Russia is doomed. All a nuclear response wound ensure, is that America is also doomed. So that’s where I think mutually assured destruction runs into problems, it’s dependent on the leaders of either the USSR, or the USA, behaving in a very spiteful manner if facing nuclear annihilation. If you are doomed yourself, why not just let the millions of people in the other country just continue to live?
The other problem with MAD, has been false alarms, where a country has been under the false impression that they were under nuclear attack, and had to make a choice whether or not to respond in kind. Probably the most famous of these cases was when Soviet officer Stanislav Petrov detected a supposed nuclear missile strike from the United States.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24280831
His duty was very clear, he had to launch a counter strike against the United States. However, he strongly suspected it was false alarm, so he did not launch. And of course, it turned out it was a false alarm. Perhaps the reason we are all sitting here now, alive, and not, you know, dead or not having been born, is because of the right man in the right place at the right time, perhaps literally any officer other than Stanislav Petrov would have launched the nukes.
Another thing Mutually Assured Destruction doesn’t take into account is, somebody with no self preservation. A leader who is willing to launch the nukes, knowing that they will be killed too, because they are certain the world will be a better place if a certain country or people don’t exist. Ironically, Mutually Assured Destruction doesn’t take into account of world leaders who might be MAD! And people might ask what are the odds of an insane leader getting into power. Well, firstly, you have heard of Biden and Trump, right? You have heard of these guys? And secondly, it only has to happen once. If I take it to be very unlikely, thought not impossible, that an unhinged leader will launch the nukes, well, frankly, that’s not very reassuring.
Did Mutually Assured Destruction Save Us?
My honest answer is, I have no idea. I’m glad all of those films like Threads were made, because the possibility of either Russia or the United States deciding to press the button was always something that couldn’t be ruled out. It could be the case that things would have worked out the same way if only the United States ever developed nukes, because, if they were to drop them on several countries, the damage would still eventually be enough to destroy the United States, even with no retaliation to worry about. Perhaps this is the reason why these weapons were only ever used twice, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Perhaps this is the reason, outside of these two examples, they were never used on countries without nuclear capability? Perhaps, even the most bloodthirsty and vicious leaders, even they see nuclear weapons for what they are, and wish the proverbial genie could be put back in the bottle?
We are still alive today, but it feels like we came moments away from being wiped out, as in the incident where Stanislav Petrov’s quick thinking may well have saved us all. But, I have a really profound, and really intelligent conclusion, that nobody has been smart enough to think of, before I did. Do you want to hear my conclusion? It’s this.
Nuclear weapons are really bad!
Threads and Gaza
Since the genocide in Gaza begun, I’ve become much more inclined to watch Threads, even though before that, it had been years since I saw it. I think part of this is, the destruction you see in the film is very similar to what is happening in Gaza. Indeed, it’s not difficult for me to imagine Palestinians in place of the people of Sheffield depicted in the film.
But, there’s more to it than that. There is something, oddly comforting about films like Threads. It feels like, and yes, it’s true there are still things like false alarms and insane leaders getting nukes to worry about, but I feel comforted somewhat, that everyone is on board with the idea, that nuclear weapons are evil, and horrible, and really, really bad. If I was to go out and ask a few people, right now, “Do you think nuclear holocaust is bad?” I’m pretty confident that the unanimous answer would be yes, nuclear holocaust bad.
But with Gaza, you’ve got that ever shifting set of justifications. It’s complicated, Israel has a right to defend itself, and yes, those two seem to have gone out of style, but they just got replaced by new justifications, such as the fake ceasefire that our lord and savior Trump has implemented.
It’s like, the nuclear holocaust in Threads gives the unanimous answer of, terrible, what an awful thing if that happens, while the genocide in Gaza, gives an answer of, excuse, excuse, excuse.
People were horrified by Threads, and, while a scientifically accurate film, about something that could, too easily happen, it was never the less about an event that didn’t happen, and it had people terrified. During this, the first live streamed genocide, we have effectively had the horrors depicted in Threads, on our phones, constantly, for two years, except it was happening in real life. And in many, it doesn’t elicit horror, it just elicits a shrug of the shoulders.
The main difference seems to be, that there is no threat of mutually assured destruction from the people of Gaza. They can’t fight back, not in the same way the USSR could have fought back against the United States. So, the answer from many people seems to be, the people of Gaza can’t nuke us so, it’s fine, go back to sleep.
Climate Change And Mutually Assured Destruction
To the 21st century mind, climate change tends to be a bigger fear than nuclear holocaust. And, while I think the threat of nuclear Armageddon is still something we need to worry about, I think the switch in concern to climate change is largely justified. World leaders will (hopefully) avoid nuclear war so that they themselves won’t be killed. With climate change, there is no mutually assured destruction.
And I don’t want to be misunderstood here, I’m not downplaying the horrific destruction that climate change is going to bring on our world. Many people are going to die in the ever worsening climate catastrophe. What I am saying is that, the likes of Trump doesn’t have to worry about it the way he would have to worry about nuclear holocaust.
Trump is 79. Let’s be generous about his life expectancy and say he lives another fifteen years. He doesn’t have to worry about climate change, not the way he has to worry about nuclear Armageddon. If he provokes a country sufficiently, he could, in principle, die tomorrow if they respond with nuclear weapons. But, the horrible effects of climate change are much slower than that. If he keeps destroying the Earth’s climate during his presidency, from his point of view, what of it? He’s old enough that he might well die of old age before his life is negatively effected. And if the place where he lives gets too hot, or too cold, or ends up underwater? Well, he’s rich enough to just move somewhere else. The young, and the poor, will be affected by climate change. But Trump will not.
That’s what I think explains the differing reaction by the rich and powerful to the threat of nuclear war than to climate change. Reagan was famously deeply upset by the film The Day After, which led to him changing to less sabre rattling policies when dealing with the Soviet Union:
https://time.com/6337667/day-after-tomorrow-cold-war-essay/
You would hope that he was worried about the safety of the whole world, but there’s no way we can ever know that. It’s equally possible he was only worried about his own “tribe” not so much about the rest of humanity.
While it’s of course an oversimplification to say that nuclear annihilation is the 20th century threat and climate change is the 21st century threat, I think it’s still very useful to look at the very different reactions to them from world leaders, now that we’re 25% of the way into the 21st century. With atomic Armageddon, they had to worry about themselves. With climate change, they can bet on being old enough and rich enough to escape the consequences.
Gaza And Climate Change
While it is true that the genocide in Gaza is causing horrific environmental damage, in addition to the absolutely horrific loss of life, that’s not what I’ll be talking about here. There is a question that I’ve been asking myself for quite some time. And that is, why are so many of the leaders of the world allowing a genocide to happen? It’s not that I think those who run the world are particularly moral, far from it, but I can’t understand why they would be in favour of a genocide in Gaza. This is because I think that they are indifferent to the welfare of the people of Gaza, they are not actively in favour of killing Palestinians, rather they don’t care whether they live or die.
So I don’t understand why Biden, or Trump, didn’t say to Nehenyahu, “Look, we still want a major power in the Middle East, so we’ll keep funding you, and you can keep doing apartheid against the people of Palestine, but that genocide you started in 2023, it’s attracting too much attention, so if you can scale that back to apartheid again, that would be great!”
I just can’t shake the feeling that the genocide should be an inconvenience to Western leaders, because of the international outrage about it. It feels like the leaders of the West should want to stop the genocide, not out of concern for Palestinians, but because they are finding all of the protesting to be a massive pain in the ass.
So, why would Trump, Starmer and many other worlds leaders, want the genocide to continue?
I have been forming a theory on it, I can’t say for certain if it’s true, but if it is true, it’s beyond horrifying.
As the climate crisis worsens, we will be deluged with the sight of more and more suffering human beings. A family who’s home was destroyed, a child starving due to crop failure, the sight of scores and scores of scared, hungry, miserable people, on the move because the place they once called home has been obliterated by the climate disaster.
People in more privileged countries may well sympathize with these people, as you would hope, and they may want their countries to take these people in, or as importantly, take more measures to slow down the climate catastrophe (we’re beyond stopping it.)
But, the leaders of the world, as the past few decades have shown, aren’t interested, or at least not sufficiently interested, in taking much action that might reduce the severity of climate change. So there IS going to be image, after image, after image, of victims of the climate crisis. That is the inevitable result of the course that world leaders have taken.
What better way to numb people to the horror that they are experiencing, then to allow a live streamed genocide to happen?
Indeed, I fear for people who are children or are teenagers during this genocide, many of them have been conditioned to think that the mass slaughter in Gaza is just “normal”. And they will think the same when they see the horrors that climate change refugees have to go through.
For years I have said, that there needs to be a new law implemented in every country in the world. And that is, any president or prime minister, once elected, has to sign an agreement that, once their term is over, they must spend the rest of their lives living in whatever country or region in the world is most severely affected by climate change. There I’ve solved climate change, you’re welcome. If Donald Trump, Keir Starmer, or Micheál Martin are at risk of having to spend the remainder of their lives in a baking hellhole with no water, I think they might develop a bit of enthusiasm for doing something about climate change.
Ponderings Of An Autist 