Nuclear film heist and hero foster indifference to the weapon itself
(full of spoilers)
I love my job as a communications associate at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, but there’s nothing more refreshing than stepping away from the problem and starring in a movie or TV show. But art reflects the anxieties of the world around us, and as such, I still find myself following nuclear weapons, whether it’s a throwaway line or an important plot point.
Oppenheimer’s influence led me to take a critical look at films around the world that were commercially successful and included nuclear weapons as a plot. The release of Oppenheimer reminded us of how movies can draw more attention to the nuclear field, but how big-budget films from Hollywood to Bollywood could potentially bring audiences into the discussion of nuclear policy. We should be concerned about whether we are encouraging people to move away from themselves.
deus ex machina
Tom Cruise seems to have an affinity for preventing nuclear disaster. At the climax of Mission: Impossible – Fallout, three nuclear bombs are set off to destroy the water supply systems of India, China, and Pakistan. Superspy Ethan Hunt saves the day by stealing impossibly handsome Henry Cavill’s detonator and evading a nuclear poison plot. Most recently, “Top Gun: Maverick.”” The nuclear dimensions were also somewhat obscured by the dazzling noise of supersonic jets. The clock running Maverick’s plot is an unapproved uranium enrichment plant that must be eliminated before it can become operational. The plant is destroyed and Maverick makes a daredevil escape, leaving the audience in awe as questions about nuclear security go unanswered.
Nuclear weapons have long held their place in Hollywood as MacGuffins and deus ex machinas, and it’s not hard to see why. At the height of the Cold War, movies like “Doctor Martin” were released. “Strange love” and “On the Beach” It allowed viewers to critically engage with their worst fears. Even when nuclear weapons seemed to have left the cultural zeitgeist, they found a home in Hollywood as entertainment. What better way to advance the interests of our heroes than by threatening nuclear disaster? Or, if the writers have forced themselves into a corner with an absurd plot, nuclear weapons might offer a way out? Dew. Need to get the aliens off Earth? Follow Will Smith’s example in Independence Day and nuke them! The lack of transparency regarding nuclear weapons helps keep them relevant. Since the capabilities of nuclear weapons are unclear to most audiences, filmmakers can shape their potential based on the demands of the plot.
Hollywood isn’t the only film industry capitalizing on the allure of nuclear weapons. The number of blockbuster spy movies in Bollywood has skyrocketed in recent years, led by the success of YRF Spy Universe, a franchise of Bollywood “spy-themed action movies” similar to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. ing. His two protagonists in the series, Tiger and Pathan, both began their journey to film stardom with nuclear conundrums. In “Ek Tha Tiger”, Tiger tries to stop Pakistani intelligence from obtaining a physicist’s nuclear weapons research. “Pasan” has him two weapons of mass destruction for the price of one. Pathan must not only stop the adversary from detonating his nuclear-capable Saber missile, but he must also contain the threat of the mutated smallpox virus.
If the dominant image of those fighting nuclear weapons is of people who have transcended the mental and physical limits of normal humans, what role does that leave for average people?
Nuclear weapons in Bollywood may be a recent phenomenon, but their inclusion reflects a long-standing controversial theme in Indian filmmaking. Relations between India and Pakistan since Partition have been the backdrop for many Bollywood films, from melodramas like Veer Zahra to historical dramas like Earth..” The introduction of nuclear weapons can be seen as an extension of a well-worn narrative device, a flashy way to refresh an old theme. Beyond narrative use, India and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals and the increasingly contentious relationship between India, Pakistan, and China are often a cause for concern on the world stage. The significant inclusion of nuclear weapons in Bollywood provides an access point to this anxiety, and their use as entertainment downplays the horrors of nuclear conflict for viewers.
nuclear exceptionalism
Although the plot lines of these nuclear films are diverse, they all reaffirm a similar concept of exceptionalism. Mission: Impossible’s Ethan Hunt may have had his share of failures, but he ranks high on the list of cinema’s greatest spies. Maverick constantly pushes the limits of his human capabilities and survives unscathed every time. Tiger and Pathan are not only played by two of Bollywood’s top stars, but both perform feats beyond human comprehension. Oppenheimer is no slouch either. Although he struggles with his own actions, his portrayal in the biopic cements him as a great man among great men martyred by institutional terror.
Movies aren’t reality. I get annoyed by the idea that it has to be real. For example, you might expect the number of near-nuclear disasters in movies to occur more often than they actually occur. But if the dominant image of those fighting nuclear weapons is of people who exceed the mental and physical limits of normal humans, what role does that leave for ordinary people? It confirms that many people feel helpless in their ability to effect change on the nuclear issue. A recent survey conducted by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Chicago Council on International Affairs found that only two in 10 people said they wanted more involvement in nuclear policy. As for the rest who don’t want to get more involved, 25% said they were held back by a “feeling that they didn’t have enough influence to make a difference.” The proliferation of discourses supporting the idea that only the exceptional or powerful can influence nuclear issues only reaffirms these concerns.
I’ve encountered questions from friends, family, and others asking, “What impact can I have on issues like nuclear weapons?” My answer, like most others, is a story. My main characters are not super geniuses or super scientists, but “a nuclear, chemical, and industrial hygiene physicist, a packaging expert, a safety engineer, a maintenance engineer, a doctor, and three Russian-speaking interpreters.” What is their purpose? Repack highly enriched uranium from Kazakhstan and transport it to the United States without interception. Project Sapphire was a highly successful covert operation conducted in 1994, despite the absence of Ethan Hunt and Pathan on the team.
I point to Project Sapphire to emphasize something that those of us in arms control know all too well. Stopping nuclear proliferation does not require scientific genius or the work of an arrogant spy. It requires very ordinary people (myself included!) to focus their time, creativity, and unique skills on a single problem. In order for the public to understand the importance of nuclear issues, it is necessary to empower the public to view nuclear weapons as an area in which everyone can contribute, rather than as the domain of spies and scientists.
It’s also important to note that real-life incidents in which cartoon-like bad guys threaten to detonate nuclear weapons don’t happen as often as action movie fans might think. The reality is not so exciting.
Involving the public on nuclear weapons is a difficult task. When we talk about nuclear weapons, we need to be aware of how we can encourage the public and future nuclear experts to bring something to the table. It is important to emphasize ordinary acts in our art and activities. The threat of nuclear weapons may seem extraordinary, but it doesn’t have to be extraordinary to create tangible change.
