A House of Dynamite: A Cinematic Exploration of Nuclear Anxiety
The film of the week in Washington, A House of Dynamite, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, delves into a chilling narrative centered around the threat of a nuclear attack on the United States. With its limited theatrical release followed by a streaming debut on Netflix, the film has sparked significant conversation in a city often more preoccupied with the news cycle than with cinematic achievements.
A Gripping Premise
At its core, A House of Dynamite presents a scenario that resonates deeply with contemporary anxieties. The film explores what could happen if one of the many adversaries of the U.S. were to miscalculate or act rashly, leading to catastrophic consequences. This premise leaves viewers with an unsettling sense of dread, particularly given the U.S.’s status as a nation with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Credibility and Controversy
The film’s plot is crafted with a level of detail that feels credible to those familiar with Washington’s protocols. However, this realism has not been well-received by the Pentagon. Officials have expressed concern over the film’s portrayal of the U.S. land-based missile defense program, particularly its estimated budget of around $50 billion. An internal Missile Defense Agency (MDA) document, recently obtained by Bloomberg, argues that the catastrophic scenarios depicted in the film are “inaccurate,” aiming to prepare agency leaders for potential discussions about the film.
Pentagon’s Pushback
The MDA document highlights specific concerns regarding the film’s representation of the missile interception program, which ultimately fails to prevent an existential threat aimed at Chicago. The Pentagon contends that the film “underestimates the power of the United States,” noting that while the fictional interceptors miss their targets, real-world testing results tell a different story. The agency insists that the film’s dramatization, while entertaining, does not reflect the actual capabilities of the U.S. defense system.
Media Relations and National Security
Adding to the tension, the Trump administration, particularly Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, has taken a hard stance against any criticism of American military supremacy. Just a day before Bloomberg’s report on the MDA memo, reporters from major U.S. media outlets staged a walkout at the Pentagon, protesting new restrictions that would limit press freedom under the guise of national security.
The Cost of Defense
The MDA document also critiques the film’s discussion of the missile defense system’s costs, which are maintained by Boeing and the U.S. Northern Command. While the film suggests a high price tag, officials argue that it pales in comparison to the cost of allowing a nuclear missile to strike the nation. A 2020 report pegged the cost of the defense system at around $53 billion, excluding an additional $10 billion annually for maintenance.
The Golden Dome Initiative
In May, Trump unveiled a plan to enhance U.S. defenses, dubbed the Golden Dome project. This ambitious initiative aims to create a comprehensive missile defense shield, utilizing a network of satellites and interceptors to protect the vast expanse of U.S. territory from various missile threats, including hypersonic missiles. However, details on how this plan will be executed remain sparse.
Accuracy in Defense
The film also raises eyebrows with a line where the Secretary of Defense, portrayed by Jared Harris, expresses surprise at the missile defense system’s success rate of around 60%. The MDA document counters this claim, asserting that the system has achieved a 100% accuracy rate in testing for over a decade. In a discussion with The New York Times, defense expert W. J. Hennigan suggests a more conservative success rate of 55%.
A Dialogue on Defense
Noah Oppenheim, the film’s screenwriter and a former president of NBC News, has publicly disagreed with the Pentagon’s assessment. He emphasized that while he is not a missile defense expert, he consulted numerous experts who were on the record. Oppenheim expressed satisfaction that the Pentagon is engaging with the film, as it fosters the very conversation he believes is necessary.
Artistic Independence
Both Oppenheim and Bigelow have denied seeking approval from the Trump administration during the film’s production. Bigelow, known for her politically charged works like The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, has also distanced her team from the administration’s claims that the film does not reflect its views or priorities.
The Bigger Picture
As A House of Dynamite continues to make waves in Washington, it serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between art, politics, and national security. The film not only entertains but also provokes critical discussions about the realities of nuclear defense and the implications of military power in a world fraught with uncertainty.
