40 years ago, Stanley Kubrick's classic, “Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” hit the movie theaters. This satire dealt with the cold war and the possibility of nuclear annihilation. Kubrick made us laugh, somewhat nervously, about nuclear war. The thrust of the movie dealt with a crazy general, Jack D. Ripper, who decided to start a nuclear war over fluoridation of water, which he considered a communist plot.
From this point, we are treated to a slickly written satire that summed up the absurdity of the MAD doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction) that permeated war planners throughout much of the cold war and Kubrick’s view of the military culture at the time. Much have been made of Peter Sellers playing three roles: the exchange officer who is serving with Ripper, the President, and Dr. Strangelove, who is a cross between Werner Von Braun, Henry Kissinger and Herman Kahn. However, my favorite actors in the film are George C. Scott, who plays Buck Turgidson and Slim Pickens, who is the Major T.J. “King” Kong.
(Von Braun was the former German weapon expert who designed the German missile program in WW II. He would later help develop the American missile program. As for Henry Kissinger, he was in the beginning of his career and the master of Realpolitik foreign policy. Herman Kahn main thrust was to discuss the possibility of nuclear war and how to win it. )
From the point that the planes are given their order, the action drifts from the air force base, which is sealed off, by Ripper’s, the B-52 piloted by Slim Pickens and the war room.
George C. Scott is General Buck Turgidson, who plays his character to the hit. Turgidson represented the Kubrick view of the military mindset as he advises the President on one occasion to send in the whole fleet since they most likely could not recall the planes already out and at the end, when they discuss survival after the nuclear holocaust- he worries about a mine shaft gap. (In between all of this, he finds time to talk with his girl friend; who has the number of the War Room- a little breach of national security.)
Article comments
1 - jadester
"The weakness of Kubrick’s argument is the same of most of the left then and now- the moral equivalence between the two sides."
could you expand on this please? i'm interested to see what you think. I assume you mean that you consider the US at the time was morally better than the USSR...
2 - Bob A. Booey
I think you missed the point. MAD wasn't moral. Nuclear weapons are immoral. That's the ethics of Kubrick's satire. The title of that book you cite is ironic, because there's a term in nuclear policy called thinkability, which refers to the calculations and choices that make nuclear weapons more likely to be used. The idea that anyone, including yourself, would identify nuclear brinksmanship (especially of the Cold War variety) as rational and guaranteeing our safety proves Kubrick's point better than you can realize. Another reason Strangelove is such a great film.
You may argue that the Soviet empire was immoral, but that doesn't make nuclear weapons moral or necessary. It's equally silly for you to consider Soviet nuclear weapons immoral and not recognize that they were in many ways an immorality of our causing, a response to our own proliferation. That's how arms races work, Mr. No Humor Guy Who Writes About Big Films.
Look at Rumsfeld and Cheney now and you have almost perfect examples of Kubrick's satire of sexually amorphous Dr. Death policymakers. Whatever you think of their policies, most of the Bush foreign policy team would fit in perfectly with Ripper, Turgidson and Dr. Strangelove in terms of personality.
3 - Eric Olsen
can a weapon be "immoral" and if so why? What makes a given weapon immoral and others not? Is it degree of destructivity? Where is the line and why?
4 - JR
What makes a given weapon immoral and others not? Is it degree of destructivity?
Ratio of collateral damage to strategic effectiveness?
5 - Eric Olsen
good answer, where is the line and why?
6 - Joe
James Earl Jones has some interesting reflections of his experience with the film in an article published this week:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005898
7 - Tom Donelson
Thanks for responding and now to the various points made.
First, Are we really going to debate whether the United States was morally superior to the Soviet Empire? As one Russian Dissenter observed the cold war was a battle between an imperfect democracy and the perfect totalitarian state. History has answered that question on which side was more moral.
Second, interesting debate on the morality of nuclear weapons. There are two ways to look at it. By having nuclear weapons, we deterred the other side from using them and vice versa.
The second way is that we did set up a policy that assured that we were all hostages to nuclear weapons. There were no attempt to even design a defensive system against them. While the policy worked, it was certainly questionable if we would want to repeat such a policy.
Yes, you have to consider the morality of weapons by who is holding them. Which is more moral a gun in the hands of police officer who is defending the community or a gun in the hands of a criminal who is threatening the community? The battle in the cold war was simple, either freedom would expand or not. So it does matter who has the weapons. Take it a step further, who is a greater threat to the world, Iran with nuclear weapons or Great Britain with nuclear weapons?
If you notice I did give a good review Dr. Strangelove for the simple reason was that it was brilliant movie. I also noted that Kubrick did capsulate the position of the left very well and the cold war position that the left took.
So here is the million dollar question, who was right? Those who declared nuclear weapons the enemy or those who declared the Soviet Empire the enemy?
8 - JR
So here is the million dollar question, who was right? Those who declared nuclear weapons the enemy or those who declared the Soviet Empire the enemy?
Can't they both be right?
Anyways, who cares? Kubrick made a movie about the absurdity of Mutually Assured Distruction; why should he have to address the "morality" of one side or the other? Such a broad analysis of politics and economics was simply beyond the scope of this film. I mean, if Kubrick was supposed to be making a moral comparison between the Soviet Union and the United States, he'd probably have to include things like America's history of slavery, economic exploitation and discrimination. And if he had, the movie would have been a mess. Nobody can make a movie about everything; Kubrick just made a particularly brilliant satire of one aspect of the Cold War.
9 - Tom Donelson
JR, good point. I do think it does matter who is right since we are now making similar decision on who should or should not have nuclear weapons. I see where you are coming from.
If you notice from my past writings, I have always question from the right, the MAD doctrine and Kubrick's brilliant satire hit many valid points.
Keep plugging away and have good weekend.