This film will always be relevant as long as there are nuclear weapons in this world. Must have been terrifying to watch in 1959, during the Cold War.
shareMy thoughts exactly.
And I wish viewing this movie could be required in high school curriculum.
The movie is about unavoidable death coming to everyone several months away. It is not going to happen immediately, but it is unavoidable. The scenario used by the author is global nuclear war, but it is really inspired by the realistic threat of nuclear war between the only two countries in the world that ever became global threats. The scenario that is given in the movie is never clearly detailed.
Other posters have commented on the scenario in reference to the movie. The accepted premise that has generally come across to me is that while the scenario was implausible at any time in the past, it is irrelevant to the ideas and emotions expressed in the movie. I agree with them.
I think you are fishing for an argument, so I will bite. While the end of the world in a manner that allows weeks or months to ponder it coming about to a final end, there is no conceivable way for the current global nuclear arsenal to cause it. You need to explain your arithmetic to me before I can credit you with any knowledge of math or science.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
~ This was a really strong especially in the late 50's.
*~🌼~*
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
🎶
How you turned my world, you precious thing
You starve and near exhaust me
Everything I've done, I've done for you
I move the stars for no one
-🌹rest in peace David Bowie🎤
I think you are fishing for an argument
Good point, maybe the OP was just expressing a random thought.
I think the film expresses some profound emotions about how people might deal with an event like the end of the World. But I get frustrated by the lack of understanding among the general population about nuclear - war, weapons, politics, and power. Sometimes I let it crawl under my skin.
Best Regards,
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
Forgive me, dannieboy, but if your post is directed at the OP, in what way could he be looking for an argument? His post in its entirety reads:
This film will always be relevant as long as there are nuclear weapons in this world. Must have been terrifying to watch in 1959, during the Cold War.
Nuclear war is not, and never was, the boogie man that the nuclear fear mongers continue to say that it is. If someone wants to wave that flag on a board that I read and have the ability to answer, they need to back up the claim.
At the peak of nuclear weapon development the United States of America maintained approximately 30,000 warheads with an average yield in excess of two hundred kilotons. The Soviet Union maintained approximately 20,000 warheads with a average yield that is classified as to how accurately we estimated it, if we had an accurate estimate. (I have out of the 'community' for over a decade and my knowledge is, admittedly dated, but it has not changed substantively). It has been demonstrated repeatedly through multiple agencies that there was no credible scenario in which the exchange of the entire inventories would bring human life or animal life on the planet to an end. Whether or not the survivors would be able to create a quality of life is open to debate. As a poster wrote in another thread, I would not want to run the experiment.
We are down to somewhere less than 5,000 warheads worldwide, including all of the rogue nations. I can only make an wild guess as to the average yield, but I doubt that it is great than 125 kilotons and nearly all of the warheads greater than WWII sized weapons are in the hands of the United States and the Former Soviet Union. The PRC has some 300 warheads that are in the 100 kT range. Launching them all would release less energy that Krakatoa released in 1885 (or whenever, approximate date).
I am frustrated and irritated with nuclear weapons being the great boogieman in so many people's heads. They continue to be the most powerful type of weapon that we have developed. They are far from the greatest danger to mankind. The development of new viruses, not those made to be weapons, rather those that crop up through evolution are much more threatening.
I stand by my premise that many things could be imagined that might threaten mankind. Nuclear war would injure everybody, but would be directly catastrophic to only some. Things are now as they have been for over twenty years, that is since the fall of the Soviet Union. The risk of a small scale exchange and a nuclear holocaust on a city to a small nation scale is more likely than it used to be. The probability of global nuclear conflict is negligible.
What the heck, we have 7 1/2 Billion people in the world and the vast majority are mouth breathing yokels. The older I get the more depressing the lack of collective intellect becomes to me. Back in the Sixties and Seventies some biologists hoped for an exchange to thin the human population out and give the globe a chance. I don't think any feel that way, but I am also a long way from believing that every life is sacred. I need to belief that life in general is sacred, and I don't want to be the finger pointer to choose who dies - well, maybe I do, but not with the meager amount of knowledge I have as human. Anyway, I think I made my point. You can accept it or dismiss it as you will.
All of that is what I meant by arithmetic and suggesting that he was fishing.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
I'm pretty much acquainted with the stats you cite and don't particularly argue the essential point myself.
All I said was that I think you read way too much into the OP's very basic comment. He didn't say the OTB scenario was realistic, or that this is what he expected might come of a nuclear war, so attacking him on the basis that global annihilation was not possible is misplaced. He didn't say or even infer any such thing as far as I can see. If he had, or does in the future, then your comments would have been appropriate. To be honest, it seems more that you, not the OP, was fishing for an argument.
While you rail against the so-called "boogeyman" of nuclear weapons and warfare, the other side of the coin is how too many people too easily dismiss the potential effects of a major nuclear exchange, and honestly, you seem to fall into that category. Unrealistic hype and panic are one thing, but thoughtless dismissing or minimizing of the possible consequences of such a war is even worse. That's the type of thinking that could too readily allow people to use such weapons, under the delusion that the effects would be minimal, could be contained, more of an inconvenience with an extended clean-up than a serious blow to civilization and the planet itself. Anyone who casually or loosely dismisses the potential impact of even a "limited" nuclear attack is being foolish, and if they're the ones in charge of deciding to use such weapons, criminally foolish. Every life may or may not be sacred -- that's not your call or mine -- but it doesn't give us the right to kill others or callously dismiss their lives. Who are any of us to make that judgment?
Arguments about how much energy is released by a nuclear exchange vs. some natural disaster like Krakatoa are a sophistry. Krakatoa didn't release radioactive fallout into the atmosphere. This is why the tiresome comparison of the energy released by the Hiroshima bomb -- "equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT" -- has always irked me. It makes many people think that the effects of a nuclear bomb are the same as blowing up some amount of dynamite. Here too, it ignores radiation and its effects, both short- and long-term, among other factors.
Sorry, nuclear weapons are not "boogeymen". They are, as you wrote, the most powerful type of weapon we have developed. Whatever the geopolitical risk of their use, or the extent of their use, at any given time, this is not something to be taken lightly. Certainly there are other weapons (biological, etc.) that can be as deadly if not deadlier, but that does not diminish the potential effects of nuclear weapons. And the fact is that no matter how many statistics one cites, no one can be certain what the actual reality of a nuclear war, even a "limited" one, would be. It doesn't have to result in an On the Beach scenario to be catastrophic and permanently life-altering. Whatever the nature or breadth of such an event, I think it's safe to say it'd be horrific, and perhaps not as localized as you might care to believe. You may call this "fear-mongering" but it's preferable to complacency.
The whole point, ultimately, is to be too scared to find out. If people have regarded nuclear weapons as a boogeyman, that may be all to the good. That might be the attitude that's kept the peace, at least in terms of nuclear weapons and another global war, for the past 71 years.
Fear mongers claimed that the radiation would kill everyone in the 1950s. You admit that you accept that the claim is overblown in your first sentence. Then you drag the argument out again and imply that it is true in your fourth paragraph. And you do that after you have accused me of sophistry. Well, you don't quite make me laugh, but it is enough for a sardonic chuckle.
In the next paragraph you raise the new age boogeymen, chemical and biological weapons. There is a reason that those weapons are attractive to terrorists but not to national warriors and it is not because of any international conventions. One of the most toxic nerve agents ever invented was released by Aum Shin Rykyo under ideal conditions, a confined space, dense population, and restricted opportunity for exit. With hundreds trapped in the attack zone, they killed dozens and injured scores. It was a terrible tragedy, a horrendous act, and a tiny casualty list compared to the much simpler attacks on 9/11/2001. Why did the Sarin gas attack fail? Because nerve gas is a gas. Even within the confines of the Tokyo subway it dissipated so rapidly that relatively few of the intended victims had time to be exposed to the very tiny amount necessary to injure, much less kill them.
Shortly after 9/11/2001 an individual scientist staged a simple, but large scale mass mailing of anthrax spores to over a hundred targets. I think he was able to claim five victims. Why was the casualty list so small? Because it was obvious to the victims that they had been targeted. Recognizing that warning, they sought medical attention that was able to identify the microbe at fault and provide the needed antibiotic.
There is your essential problem. It is easier and cheaper to defend against chemical and biological weapons than it is to create and deliver them. Not so with nuclear weapons. But you do need a national level program to create the explosive fuel (U-235 or Pu-239) and the delivery systems.
But radiation is not a major threat. It has been greatly exaggerated by fear mongers who refer constantly to radiation burns in the Hiroshima films. ALMOST NO ONE IN ANY OF THOSE FILMS SUFFERED RADIATION BURNS! Almost all of the horrific burns shown while the narrators drone on about radiation are, in fact flash burns from the thermal radiation.
Over ninety-eight percent of the casualties at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were caused by blast (static and dynamic over pressure) and thermal energy. The good (bad?) news is that if an individual is near enough to the hypocenter to die due to prompt radiation exposure, it is not a problem because that individual will be killed by blast effects or thermal effects. The radiation impact is pounded on because the average person does not understand radiation and therefore their terror is greatly magnified.
Then the argument comes that is it not the prompt radiation, but the delayed radiation, that other infamous boogeyman, the fallout. Except that fallout is quality of life issue, not a lethal or near-lethal casualty issue. It is lofted to the upper reaches of the -- well, heck, I forget the name of the weather making portion of the atmosphere. Anyway, it's the lower one. Some of the radionuclides (most of them in weapons with yields above 100 kT) are lofted into the atmosphere. There is controversy over how long they stay aloft, but it takes days to weeks before they come down. The longer the half-life, the weaker the radiation from a decaying radionuclide. The high-energy beta emitters and gamma emitters mostly decay away in hours. Some have half-lives on the order of several days. Ultimately, what all of that means is, shower often and wash all of your food before you eat it. The fallout that is prevalent is almost all alpha emitters. They are only dangerous if they get into you. Keep them outside your body.
We can estimate that world wide approximately 70,000 people will die from cancers that would not have happened had the RBMK reactor in Chernobyl exploded. We will never know who those people are. In fact, we will never be able to confirm if that estimate is correct. Because: 70,000 people is significantly less than the error in the prediction of how many people will die due to cancer in the population that includes that 70,000 people. That is because the population used as a basis is in the billions based on the fallout pattern of the reactors effluents. That should give you an idea of what fallout in a large scale nuclear exchange will do. The deaths will come from the blast, not from the prompt or delayed radiation.
What people like you do is provide enormous aid and comfort to the enemy, the terrorists, by magnifying their ultimate casualty inducing effect, TERROR! Please, study the weapons and stop helping the terrorists.
Maybe I was looking for an argument, and maybe you provided it. Thank you. After reading your posts in other threads on this board it is clear that you will gladly take either side.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
Hobnob;
I was thinking back on my last reply to you and then came back to reread it. I owe you an apology for the "people like you" phrase. You have been cordial, honest, and insightful with your discourse, and my use of the phrase is dismissive and accusatory.
As I have written previously, I get frustrated with the paucity of understanding among the general public about weapons of mass destruction. Law enforcement agencies further the misunderstandings with poor laws. One example in particular is the U.S. federal law that blurs the line between any weapon designed to cause multiple casualties and true WMD.
This isn't the right website for the discussion, I suppose. But I feel compelled to dispel cloudy reasoning over threats to national safety whenever I come across them. After all, this site is read by many people who do not typically read sites on military intelligence or global security. It may be a good place to try to teach people that a few crazies with automatic weapons and small (less than 100 lbs) batches of conventional explosives are a much bigger threat in our daily lives that the threat of SPECTRE spreading Ebola through the Flu vaccine.
Thank you for your discussion.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
Hello dannieboy,
Thank you for the apology. I credit you with doing something not often seen on these boards. It proves what I realized in reading your posts, even where I may have taken issue with you: namely, that you are an honest man.
I will admit that I was angered principally by two things you said in that post: one, that I was somehow giving aid and comfort to the terrorists, which is technically an accusation of treason if taken literally (though I understand that is not how you intended it); and two, that from reading my other posts on this site you realized that I was willing to take any side on an issue. I don't think that last is at all accurate; however, I can say that I try to look at things from different points of view and to understand opinions or rationales from others' viewpoints. This is also useful in forming strong, fact-based and logical arguments, as well as, perhaps, learning a few things. There were one or two other points you made that I don't believe are an accurate reflection of what I said; but no matter. I do think you could have been a shade less confrontational in your approach, though it's understandable given how strongly you clearly feel about these topics.
I do not possess, nor pretend to, the level of technical knowledge you evince. That said, I agree with you that an uninformed public is a detriment to rational understanding, not only of WMDs or their potential effects, but of pretty much any issue one can name. Unfortunately that's the norm of the human experience. People generally react out of ignorance and fear, certainly from a lack of understanding of the facts of a situation. But equally of concern is the attitude that may too easily mitigate the potential effects of any scenario, particularly a major disaster, be it nuclear, biological, or something else. For instance, all you say about the effects of radiation may be true. Assume for the moment it is. The concern is that adopting this thinking may make it easier for unscrupulous, insane or just plain stupid individuals to risk such things -- a "limited" nuclear exchange, whatever that may be. Even if the effects are as contained and survivable as you say, is it worth the risk of finding out? Can anyone guarantee with certitude what the effects of such warfare might be? Theory is one thing; reality may be quite another.
That's why I believe that it isn't so much an irrational or exaggerated fear of an attack using so-called weapons of mass destruction that would encourage terrorists or other aggressive elements. I would argue the opposite: that it would be an attitude of complacency born of nothing more than a theoretical certitude that the effects would not be serious, or at least not widespread, and of short duration, that would more likely trigger a terrorist act. Even if such a belief were justified on the merits -- maybe especially if so -- such a stance could easily provoke such an attack; certainly there is no reason to believe it would discourage one, particularly since we would not be dealing with individuals known for their rational or considered approach to crises. Such beliefs could even result in supposedly benevolent people on "our side" to make moves that would leave our enemies with no recourse but to retaliate with such devastating attacks. Even a few well-placed nuclear "devices", or other weapons of mass killing, in a few selected locales would cause unimaginable destruction and suffering. Not all decision-makers are well-informed or educated enough to make smart policy judgments of war or peace, as our experience with the Iraq War should have made abundantly plain.
I'll close by bringing this back to the subject of On the Beach. In writing his tale, Nevil Shute conjured a deliberately apocalyptic scenario as a cautionary tale for mankind. In his most limited purpose, he wanted to disabuse people in the Southern Hemisphere of the notion that a nuclear war across the North would somehow leave them unaffected, a common belief of the time. If his scientifically inaccurate depiction of the extinguishing of all life made some people stop and think and draw back a bit from notions of an "easy war" -- another not-uncommon belief of the era -- I don't think that was a bad thing. Better a sense of caution -- preferably, informed caution -- than either unreasonable fear and paralysis on the one hand, or, on the other, reckless disregard for the potential hazards involved or an unintended invitation to aggression as a result of such disregard.
Anyway, I think we may have exhausted the topic. Let me simply say that while you may well be right in your assessments of the effects of various forms of attack, my hope -- and I would assume yours -- is that we never have occasion to find out from experience.
Thank you for the discussion and the information provided in your posts.
The posters above have helped answer the question I posed over on the Fail Safe board:
https://moviechat.org/tt0058083/Fail-Safe/60a1380ceef34017ede7af56/So-In-2021-Nuclear-Annhilation-Isnt-a-Worry-Anymore
Many thanks!
How is that argumentative...
Great film
This film will always be relevant as long as there are nuclear weapons in this world.
Well, I don't know anything about the OP or his posting history and don't really care about it. I just don't read his message as fishing for an argument or making some egregious or stupid statement. I certainly don't see anything "trollish" in what he wrote. It seems a perfectly straightforward statement to me, not making an argument at all. If he is looking for a fight or is just a troll he's disguising it pretty well to me.
You mentioned something above that you'd written earlier:
I have to wonder why they have not followed up.
Why would you expect him to have answered back so quickly
Hello everyone!
Original poster back. Yes, I do have notifications turned off. I was not trolling at all. I just find nuclear weapons terrifying, due to the massive destruction and death they cause. That's the point I was trying to make. I have no idea as to the accuracy of the scenario of this film but I do know that nuclear weapons can cause mass death, disease and effects that last for a very long time.
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
This was a really good film.
shareI really enjoyed it
my rating 7/10
Yes, great, but flawed in many ways. I didn't like that the characters were so petty. Like Peck cared about losing his family, but didn't care that the world ended. And just some of the dumb interaction; I guess much of it was filler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HusewgIe_1k
Not sure what you mean by filler. These are the characters in the book facing inevitable death in a few months. Some deciding to live out a dream and go out with a bang. Other quietly doing thier duty and supporting others. As I remember it's very close to Nevil Shute's story.
shareA lot of soap operish stuff, like the singing scene, and lots of superfluous dialogue. My favorite nuke film is Fail Safe.
shareNot sure I've seen fail safe - it looks interesting but a totally different type of film. There used to be a lot of books that start in a post nuclear war world (something I'm not sure I realised until recently) and I always like the melancholy approach of On The Beach.
shareI love On the Beach. The premise is a bit outdated, but the drama, the performances, and the melancholic sense in inevitability are superb. Plus, what a cast!
shareI disagree. It's a soap opera except that the world is ending, which doesn't seem to bother any of the characters much. Had some good scenes like with Anthony Perkins and his wife Donna Anderson (the only surviving cast member), but Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner didn't even pretend to care about the world ending. They only cared about their relationship and Peck's family. Fred Astaire cared about his car, etc. I just heard the book is better, so I'll audible it.
shareYou're all going to die. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it happening. So focus on things you can do, fulfill a dream, support the people you love, do your duty and die with dignity. That's the way I understood it anyway.
shareThe key word is "all". Accepting ones' own death or even ones' family is one thing. Accepting the death of the whole world quite another. That realization was what was completely missing from this film.
shareI think it realistic that people would be focused on their own fate. The fact that everyone else was already dead would be an accepted fact, muted in the background. It's just too big a subject to be openly discussed and mourned over.
share