Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was Based on Fact

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 164 posts

Re: Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was Based on Fact

#91

Post by pmoriarty »

arethuza wrote: post #31
cpursley wrote: post #29

I toured Stalin's secret bunker this summer in Moscow where USSR'S top generals held up during the entire Cuban Missile Crisis. This bunker was the control center for the Soviet's nuclear arsenal at the time. According to the guide, the top leaders debated back and forth whether to preemptively strike the United States. The entire thing was surreal - complete with a freighting nuclear attack simulation (America strik…

"the top leaders debated back and forth whether to preemptively strike the United States" At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis the strategic balance between the US and the Soviets was very one sided - the US had the capability to completely destroy the Soviet Union whereas the Soviets only had a very small number of functioning strategic weapons systems. However, the Soviets could have done an incredible amount of…

"Fifty years ago, the Cuban missile crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster. During the standoff, US President John F. Kennedy thought the chance of escalation to war was "between 1 in 3 and even," and what we have learned in later decades has done nothing to lengthen those odds. We now know, for example, that in addition to nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, the Soviet Union had deployed 100 tactical nuclear weapons to Cuba, and the local Soviet commander there could have launched these weapons without additional codes or commands from Moscow. The US air strike and invasion that were scheduled for the third week of the confrontation would likely have triggered a nuclear response against American ships and troops, and perhaps even Miami. The resulting war might have led to the deaths of 100 million Americans and over 100 million Russians."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Post-cris...

Re: Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was Based on Fact

#92

Post by denova »

adrianhoward wrote: post #27
haukur wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we reached the point of having an astrologist in the loop for international decisions. I'm a little bit curious, did you mean to say astronomer or does the US government have an astrologist advisor?

Meet Joan Quigley. White House astrologer to the Reagan White House. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Quigley

There's a novel like this...

Oh yes, Stranger in a Strange Land. I am pleased to find that this Joan Quigley character "was called on by First Lady Nancy Reagan in 1981", twenty years after Heinlein's book was published.

> [Alice Douglas][1] — (sometimes called "Agnes"), wife of Joe Douglas. As the First Lady, she controls her husband, making major economic, political, and staffing decisions. She frequently consults an astrologer, Becky Vesant

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land#Cha...

edit: Oh, I see other people have posted about this already. Well that's the character's name, anyway.

Re: Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was Based on Fact

#93

Post by pmoriarty »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #44
techrat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another film manages to do this and was nearly written off by the screenwriter for being too "Strangelovian" at times. Network. Highly prescient film. Both Network and Strangelove are mandatory watches, IMHO.

This can't be upvoted enough, Network is just outstanding.

Thirded.

However, Network is more of an economic conspiracy movie and less of a military conspiracy one, and it's got nothing to do with nuclear weapons or war.

Re: Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was Based on Fact

#94

Post by pmoriarty »

dmckeon wrote: post #74
pavel_lishin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me realize that there is probably a lot more that I missed in "Stranger in a Strange Land", just by virtue of my age and not having been born in the USA.

"Stranger" was published in 1961, 20 years before Reagan, but still has many good insights on social and political patterns in the US. For a more dated, but more detailed and insightful view by a stranger, try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America

Also see Philip K Dick's books from the 50's and 60's, which include actors as American Presidents.

Re: Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was Based on Fact

#95

Post by mikeash »

ams6110 wrote: post #19
cstross wrote: post #8

Young folks today just don't believe how downright surreal (and scary) the cold war was to live through. Look, just read this wikipedia entry about the British Blue Peacock nuclear device, and boggle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock Yes. It's a chicken-heated atomic landmine. Not a joke: it was a Real Thing. And so was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device... The M-29 Davy Crock…

Let's keep in mind that people have actually not ony conceived but carried out heious atrocities including genocide with far more ordinary devices.

If the Cold War had gone hot, it would have surpassed all prior genocides, wars, and other atrocities since written history began, combined.

Re: Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was Based on Fact

#96

Post by pmoriarty »

arethuza wrote: post #69
mark_l_watson wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Dad worked with Edward Teller, and Teller was often at our house while I was growing up. The Peter Sellers character was totally different than Teller in real life. Teller was a refined gentleman. Peter Seller's character was funny, and not at all like Teller. BTW, I think that we are fortunate to have all survived the cold war!

The book "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer" doesn't present Teller in a particularly favorable light - he is presented as being very political, scheming and rather two faced (i.e. being perfectly civilized directly to Oppenheimer while working closely with those people who undermine Oppenheimer). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Prometheus

"Teller was one of the strongest and best-known advocates for investigating non-military uses of nuclear explosives, which the United States explored under Operation Plowshare.

One of the most controversial projects he proposed was a plan to use a multi-megaton hydrogen bomb to dig a deep-water harbor more than a mile long and half a mile wide to use for shipment of resources from coal and oil fields through Point Hope, Alaska...

A related experiment which also had Teller's endorsement was a plan to extract oil from the tar sands in northern Alberta with nuclear explosions, titled Project Oilsands."[1]

Truth is stranger than fiction.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller

Re: Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was Based on Fact

#97

Post by Ygg2 »

cperciva wrote: post #80

“This is absolute madness, Ambassador,” President Merkin Muffley says in the film, after being told about the Soviets’ automated retaliatory system. “Why should you build such a thing?” In the case of the Russian "Dead Hand", one of the stated purposes was to reduce the potential for nuclear war, by allowing the command-and-control structure to delay the decision about retaliation until it is clear that a possible at…

It's missing the point somewhat. Dead Hand is Russia's nuclear deterrent against Russia. It would make no sense to broadcast it's existence to US.

Why would Russia need deterrent against Russia? Some people in charge were wary of America and wanted a preemptive nuclear attack, to thwart chance of total nuclear annihilation. Dead Hand in theory allows Russia to deliver a Strike from beyond, thereby removing need for premature nuclear annihilation.

Re: Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was Based on Fact

#98

Post by jacquesm »

arethuza wrote: post #67
paulhauggis wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that in some wars, if you don't, the enemy will strike you just as hard or harder.

Fortunately the political leaders on both sides knew that they could never use nuclear weapons. Reagan was horrified and changed his policies, much to his credit, when he realised that the Soviets really were terrified of an attack from the West. Even Khrushchev, who had a lot of blood on his hands, couldn't sleep for days after he had been briefed on what a nuclear war would actually mean - he only calmed down once…

You're missing a 'probably' in there somewhere.

Re: Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was Based on Fact

#99

Post by jacquesm »

jeangenie wrote: post #43
geichel wrote: post #2

This is also true for Enemy of the State. Watch it again. Your jaw will hit the floor: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/

I'll have to rewatch. My family and I were also discussing this same idea in relation to Minority Report . Are these instances of life imitating art?

Minority Report is (good) SF, remote precognition seems far-fetched at best (hence the 'F' in SF). Enemy of the State is more of a 'could happen' scenario, it contains no technology that wasn't present when the movie was made afaik.

Re: Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was Based on Fact

#100

Post by jacquesm »

cstross wrote: post #8

Young folks today just don't believe how downright surreal (and scary) the cold war was to live through. Look, just read this wikipedia entry about the British Blue Peacock nuclear device, and boggle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock Yes. It's a chicken-heated atomic landmine. Not a joke: it was a Real Thing. And so was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device... The M-29 Davy Crock…

The Davy Crockett is one of the most scary devices ever made. You could smuggle that thing into just about anywhere with relatively little chance of detection. I assume they kept good track of where those ended up, that's as close to a suitcase nuke as there ever existed (as far as I know). That's a proliferation nightmare and the only good thing about it is probably that it's very hard to make a small nuke work reliably.
Post reply on HN