Did he pick New York because they did not vote for him?
It would make sense that the President would not bomb a city of people who voted for him. He must have lost New York in the election.
shareBecause it's the American equivilant of Moscow.
shareIn population, yes, and in some other ways (not the governmental center)...I think in some ways the former Leningrad, now again (and I hope forever) St Petersburg is more like NYC. But the planes weren't bombing Leningrad.
shareNew York City was chosen because when you say "America" the first city your likely to think of is New York,while Moscow is just as likely to be the first city you think of when you say "Russia". In a sense New York is the heart of our Capitalist Economy and Culture, the "capital" of the Western World. Moscow is the center the Soviet's Command Economy and Russian Culture, the center of global communism. Thus they are equivalent.
Most nations are usually dominated by one metropolis that is the center of goverment, economy, and culture. Some like Austrialia (Canberra/Sydney)or Brazil (Brasillia/Rio de Janeiro) have capital citys that are exclusive goverment centers, seperate from the dominate much larger city. Before the F.D.R. Adimistration and "Big Goverment" Washington was also a small sleepy capital overshawdowed both economically and culturally by other American cities.
Some nations now however are evolving along the lines of America being multi-center, like China (Beijing/Shanghai/Hong Kong)or India (New Delhi/Mumbai/Bangalore). China has always been dominated by one great capital city, with merchants and "Capitalism" looked down upon. This is why Shanghai and Hong Kong where built by the British Empire and not by Imperial or Communist China. However capitailism in the "New China" has created a multi-center nation. If a Fail-Safe situation was to occur with China I would say Washington=Beijing, New York=Shanghai, and L.A.=Hong Kong. Any remake I feel would have to be U.S. vs. China, and Morgan Freeman would be a great President.
Just so you know, George Clooney did an excellent remake of the movie on TV a few years back. They did it on live TV, like Playhouse 90, and in black and white. He did a heckuva job. Just another reason I have a man-crush on Clooney - this was one of my very favorite movies growing up, and I love that he loves it too.
I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
Although the Walter Matthau character is generally perceived as a madman, I think Henry Fonda's President is the only one who truly fits that description. He orders the purposeful bombing of NYC and the murder of its millions of residents as a token of goodwill for the accidental bombing of Moscow. That would make him the single biggest mass murderer in history and in the blink of an eye. What sane person would consider that reasonable.
shareRe: " That would make him the single biggest mass murderer in history and in the blink of an eye. What sane person would consider that reasonable."
Phew. At least someone could see this. I can't believe that everyone else seems to just accept the President's decision as reasonable penance.
<<I can't believe that everyone else seems to just accept the President's decision as reasonable penance.>>
So what would you consider penance of a more reasonable sort?
Bearing in mind that the president's purpose for bombing NY City was not so much to atone for bombing Moscow as to prevent the Russian president being pressured by his generals and civilian advisers to retaliate with their own nuclear weapons, thereby forcing the US to launch more nuclear weapons in turn. In other words, to forestall a more widespread and devastating tit-for-tat exchange.
Which raises the question of what would the Americans have accepted from the Soviets had the roles been reversed? You don't have to look very far. When Osama bin Laden bombed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in 2001 America was incensed and immediately set about prepariung to find and retaliate against the perpetrators. So if the Soviets inadvertently hit (say) New York City with an atomic bomb in the same kind of scenario depicted in Fail-Safe do you think even the most grovelling apology from Moscow would suffice to assuage the fury America at large would feel? Even if the US president of the day accepted it, many other Americans would not. They would want revenge--just as many in America did following 9/11; and why so many Americans seem to have seen nothing wrong with the assassination (rather than arrest) of OBL by the Seals. America was getting its own back for 9/11.
Viewed from that context, the bombing of NY City in the movie makes sense. It is the horrifying price countries with such weapons may have to pay when the fellow country you have just (accidentally) bombed, killing untold multitudes of its citizens, has the same sort of weapons you do in order to forestall a more widespread conflict!
I'm guessing no bomber crew in their right mind would ever carry out such an order.
The appropriate response by the pilot would be "Screw you, Mr. President, you want to blow up New York city, do it your own damn self!"
Then they can happily go back to the smoking radioactive holes that had been their homes that the P.Oed Russians bombed in retaliation. With the clock clicking and so much at risk, the best solution would be one that left no side as being seen as getting off lightly. The pressure to retaliate would be too enormous. Something of equal value to the US as Moscow to Russia must be offered. Like others have said, what would you accept if someone nuked your capital city?
The orders would come down the chain of command, but someone high up would probably select someone that they personally trusted to carry out the mission. Those making the decisions would be out a job the next day, but thirty years later, they would be credited with making the gutsy and correct decision.