MovieChat Forums > Olympus Has Fallen (2013) Discussion > Give up a whole country for one man's li...

Give up a whole country for one man's life?

posted 11 years ago by harahauk
127 replies | jump to latest

Seriously?
I loved this movie, but I think it was just extremely horrid to see the adamant we-dont-negotiate-with-terrorist U.S.A throw South Korea away to save Asher's skin. That is just extremely selfish and plain stupid. No matter how much you love a man or a leader he cannot make up for millions of lives. Better ending he died with dignity - refusing to give up the code that they magically conjured from thin air.

I guess as a Norwegian it's hard to understand, huh? Btw, this is not a anti-U.S.A post, its a stab at the movie - not the country.

[–] youweechube 11 years ago

you have the exact same thoughts about the movie as I do. A completely immoral risk to millions of peoples lives to save one.
I think at times like this tho its best to remember its just a movie and enjoy it for what it is ! :)

[–] mike-ryan-550-586656 11 years ago

basically the first two codes should never have been given in the first place. the general and the secretary of defense should have died before ever giving their codes to a terrorist. but i liked the movie even if it was ridiculous. in fact, i kinda like how ridiculous it is without being cheesy

[–] Dr_Saf_Wartofsky 11 years ago

They were being tortured beyond what a person can stand, I bet you would've done the same in their place.

[–] sdtony42 11 years ago

They were being tortured beyond what a person can stand, I bet you would've done the same in their place.

A. They weren't being tortured all that much. The Admiral had a knife on his throat and the sec of defense was taking a beating. There are far worse tortures.

B. Even if I was tortured, there is now way I would doom millions upon millions of people to a horrible death. They would have to break my body and my mind before it came to that. Chances are I would probably just try to kill myself first. Giving up those codes would be high treason and that president should have been ashamed for doing so.

[–] Lord_Gyaldhart 11 years ago

B. Even if I was tortured, there is now way I would doom millions upon millions of people to a horrible death. They would have to break my body and my mind before it came to that. Chances are I would probably just try to kill myself first. Giving up those codes would be high treason and that president should have been ashamed for doing so.

That's very easy to say when you have never been tortured, and while sitting in the comfort of your chair in front of your computer screen.

The reality is quite different, throughout history the human mind has been so sick to create the most dreadful methods of torture that not many (specially people without training) can resist.

Throughout history people who have been brutally tortured have admitted doing or being guilty of things they never did, knowing that in doing so, they would still be executed.

So you will have to forgive my skepticism when I hear or read about someone who claims that they would "never" yield under torture because it would mean that they would doom millions of people.

Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan

[–] shawnc101 11 years ago

Even if you knew they were probably going to kill you anyway? All except the president, because of who he is, were completely useless to the terrorists after they had their codes.

[–] the_la_baker 10 years ago

Even if you knew they were probably going to kill you anyway? All except the president, because of who he is, were completely useless to the terrorists after they had their codes.

They were all going to die from the nukes, every one of them. In fact, that amount of radiation released at once would have global effects. Probably not extinction level, but very bad. Not to mention the hit the global economy would take.

Those terrorists hated everyone.

[–] darjeeling443 9 years ago

What nukes?

Blowing up the nukes does NOT ignite fission.

[–] the_la_baker 9 years ago

by darjeeling443 » 19 hours ago (Tue Mar 3 2015 17:11:38)
What nukes?

Blowing up the nukes does NOT ignite fission.

[Kang and the other remaining terrorists are holding Asher in the bunker and get the final Cerberus code out of him. Kang's true plan is revealed - he plans to detonate ALL of the nuclear weapons to completely obliterate the United States.]

Are you really that stupid, or just a troll?

[–] SpiltPersonality 9 years ago

Seriously, it was a weak point of the movie. Fair enough if you want to believe that they terminate the US nuclear threat by some-how getting the codes to this mythical 'self destruct' mechanism, but you'd have to be pretty crazy to think that the self destruct mechanism would be to initiate a nuclear explosion. The mechanism WOULD be to just blow up the missile itself and/or the MIRV's without detonation. It's simpler, and it's also cleaner. So, by Mr Kang would have caused extremely minor (like background radiation levels) contamination.

To my mind, the simplest mechanism would be to deliberately mis-time the implosion, which would be simple AND effective.

SpiltPersonality

[–] the_la_baker 9 years ago

It is a really stupid plan for many reasons.

crazy to think that the self destruct mechanism would be to initiate a nuclear explosion.

They try hard to cement that idea(propaganda) in the public's mind, but nuclear weapons are designed with safety mechanisms to prevent detonation. Those mechanisms are susceptible to failure, however unlikely.

In July 1956, a plane crashed in Suffolk, nearly detonating an atomic bomb.
North Carolina in January 1961,a B-52 bomber accidentally dropped two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs over Goldsboro,"by the slightest margin of chance, literally the failure of two wires to cross, a nuclear explosion was averted". -Robert McNamara
1958: Warheads of all Mark 28 bombs are replaced after tests determine that an accident could trigger a nuclear detonation.
1970: The head of Sandia National Laboratory's nuclear safety department briefs the Atomic Energy Commission on how supposedly "failsafe" nukes can detonate under extreme heat and stress. The AEC takes no action.
1974: In a letter to a top AEC official, a Sandia VP warns that many nukes could accidentally detonate during a fire or crash. The AEC takes no action.
September 1980: A socket dropped by a maintenance worker punctures a Titan II missile in Arkansas. Its highly toxic fuel explodes, killing one person, injuring 21, and hurling the warhead 200 yards into a roadside ditch. That same month, a safety expert at the Sandia lab demonstrates to the Air Force inspector general how a Mark 28 nuclear bomb could detonate in a plane crash. The IG commissions a study.
1990: Advances in computing bring about "a realization that unintended nuclear detonations present a greater risk than previously estimated," notes a House Armed Services Committee report.
2003: Half of the Air Force units responsible for nuclear weapons fail their safety inspections, despite a three-day advance warning.
February 2010: A nuclear munitions crew at Kirtland Air Force Base is decertified for failing safety inspections.

[–] luv_onlynce 11 years ago

I get where your coming from but there's still issues for me. In the military members in programs like SERE are put thru torture training in order to prepare for it in the case of capture. If someone is going to be in charge of certain codes that keep the nations security at risk, don't you think they would have some form of training for extenuating circumstances or a least a fail safe incase things go south. That plus with the president, he so easily ordered them to give up their codes in the beginning stages of torture. I know no one likes to see torture especially if u know the people, but what's to stop them from saying hey this worked well to make him give it up the first time, let's do a replay & turn it up a notch. Especially now that his colleagues have given up all there use they could easily tear them apart in front of him. I guess he could b hoping that once they weren't needed anymore they could just execute them instead of torture, where a quick death is better then pain. That's the only logical reason I could think of. To me he just showed a weakness way to early in the situation giving terrorist a lot to work with.
Sorry my friends and I tore apart this movie the whole way thru for it's plotholes & just everything that made no sense.

Then again if we're being realistic here, given our past few presidents I wouldn't be surprised if a situation like this did come up they reacted the same or much worse. We gotta understand that presidents are human too & they are trained to lead & BE protected. Plus us Americans give them such a high level of importance. It'd be a wonder what they'd consider to be expendable compared to their safety.

[–] actionmanrandell 10 years ago

no matter how much training a person has all individual will eventually break

[–] TurnerJazz 10 years ago

This is false. Actual research has proven again and again that torture is not effective in getting real information.

_____________________
Need a new signature?
Why not Zoidberg? (\/)(°,,°)(\/)

[–] actionmanrandell 9 years ago

not even remotely true. sure passive torture(the type that police use, such as putting them into a room turning down the lights turning the temperature down low not giving them water and questioning them for days) doesn't get real information.

but torture can and will give results if done by someone who is trained.

if you are getting the *beep* kicked out of you you will eventually speak this is an irrefutable fact and the best torture is not torturing someone to get information from them but torturing a friend of theirs to get information out of said person like in the movie where they tortured the women to get the code from her. in reality that would be the method used to get information out of the pres by torturing her in front of him. and despite governments saying that torture doesn't work they still do it. why? because they say it doesn't work as an excuse to say look we know it doesn't work so we don't use it in reality every government uses torture

[–] star-tube-audio 11 years ago

stockholm syndrome?

the latest true example that i knew of, yvonne ridley, you can google it and make your own conclusion

[–] Hexeon 11 years ago

Very true, that's why Mr. acting president should have used a bunker buster the first chance he got to kill everything underground.

[–] stijntje44 10 years ago

Like the guy said, they weren't being tortured that much. A knife to the throat isn't even torture, it's a pathetic threat.

I've been in a situation where I was beaten up and threatened with being stabbed, I told the guys doing it that they hit like girls and that they should just *beep* do it instead of just threatening me like a bunch of pussies, and I said it purely our of principle, if millions of lives were at stake, I would go down in glorious battle.

And if they start torturing me I would scream lie after lie until they can't take it anymore. At the very least I wouldn't tell others to give up their code like the president in this movie did, that was just *beep* retarded.

[–] actionmanrandell 10 years ago

the c.i.a teach that if a person gets caught and interrogated you better kill yourself or kill as many as enemy as possible because once torture starts everyone will eventually give in

[–] actionmanrandell 10 years ago

your full of it if you think you could with stand torture. in fact the C.I.A teach that once torture starts ANYONE AND I MEAN ANYONE will eventually break

[–] elladeon 10 years ago

The key word here is eventually. The SoD was beaten for a minute or two, the head of the Joint Chiefs had a knife to his throat for a few seconds. The entire seige lasted about 12 hours. It is not at all unreasonable to expect people to hold out for 12 hours. Torture -- unless you are dealing with very weak and cowardly people -- is effective because it builds. Pain, release, pain, release, pain, release. The cycle of torture is what is effective to break people down, and that cycle takes time.

These people were pussies who were willing to sacrifice their families, friends, country, and honor to avoid minimal and momentary pain. Torture really had nothing to do with it.

[–] actionmanrandell 9 years ago

you are an idiot. everyone's pain tolerance is different calling a person a pussy because they broke fast makes you a jackass *beep* douchebag

[–] actionmanrandell 9 years ago

its a little known fact, if you are being tortured EVENTUALLY YOU WILL GIVE IN this is just human nature.

no matter how tough you think you are. better men than you have been tortured and spilled all the beans

[–] ackmondual 8 years ago

It's never that easy. They'll find kids, your loved ones, and just torture them. Start cutting out their intestines, dig out their eyes... either use your imagination, or find someone else's sick imagination.

ORANGE for all

__
_____

[–] RomeoQQ 11 years ago

If you are entrusted with such a sacred task, as for example the fictive Cerberus system codes, you should be prepared for what that might entail - If your failure to uphold that trust would be the result of millions of lives being lost, then yes, you have to hold out. It's awful, and it literally 'sucks' but in my opinion you should be mentally prepared for it to happen, otherwise you're not fit to uphold such a scared task.

[–] slayerman7 11 years ago

Sure but I don't thing there are any absolutes as to what any person has to do in any situation. I know this is a short answer but I'm a brief kinda guy. Cheers

[–] saetyr 11 years ago

i agree,

heres my pass-code: g.U.1.1.a.B.1.E.

[–] saetyr 11 years ago

please dont hurt me anymore

[–] TimRohn 11 years ago

Okay, fair enough if they were actually being tortured, but they weren't. getting slapped and kicked a few times is nothing. Having a knife held against your neck is nothing. I mean it would be a horrible situation to be in, and it would be very uncomfortable having a knife against your neck knowing one slice and your dead... But they were entrusted with something very serious. It should take a lot more than that for them to give up those codes. I know for a fact I could take a few slaps and kicks without giving up something of that importance. If they used their brains they would of realised his main goal was getting those codes, therefore he couldn't kill them without giving up on his ultimate reason for being there.

[–] be236 10 years ago

But who's to say that Kang would do more serious torture if they (the lady) didn't give up her code?

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 8 years ago

That's not the point. The point is the President ordered her to give up the codes without them actually even starting to torture her.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

[–] be236 10 years ago

But who's to say that Kang would not do more serious torture if they (the lady) didn't give up her code? I figured he'd go further.

[–] actionmanrandell 9 years ago

Krang is a North Korean commando. who is an expert in hand to hand combat his kick was likely well over 1000 pounds of force. she was a fragile middle aged lady. you really think a kick from him wouldn't be excessive torture to her?

[–] somathus-1 11 years ago

They only gave in once the wussy-ass President ordered them to.

[–] Carols_Murderous_Moppets 10 years ago

Being tortured had nothing to do with them giving up their codes. If The Pres didn't order them to give up their codes the Admiral would have more than likely had his throat slit and The SoS would have probably let them beat her to death. If you are willing to go that far, why risk the Country on one Mans orders?
___

My men fight just as well when they are stinking of P*U*S*S*Y- Julius Caesar

[–] calikidd2k 10 years ago

No they weren't! Did you even watch the movie? Both were prepared to hold out until the president ordered them to give up their codes

[–] MrRazorz 9 years ago

Ah, but they didn't. Both refused to give up their codes, even the Secretary of Defense when she was getting the crap beaten out of her. The only reason they eventually gave them up was because President Asher caved in and ordered them to do so. "Just give him your code! He won't get mine!"

That was one of the frustrating things about the character. His top people are clearly willing to take a beating and even a bullet to protect the country, but he's wimping out on their behalf and playing right into the bad guy's hands. What's the point of having three access codes if the Commander In Chief's going to just hand two of them over under pressure?

The Secretary of Defense should run for President when Asher's term is up - she was a total badass.

[–] captainburrito (128) 4 years ago

If I wasn't prepared to die, I'd have declined the job in the first place. That General should have killed himself. Even if the president ordered him to give the code he should have disobeyed. He was the former president at that point and also under duress. He was the military man, how could he live with himself, at the pinnacle of his career and whimpering like this? What would be his legacy? The shame would be worse than living with that. He could have had a swift death. He likely faced situations like that before in his lifetime.

Both of them should have ignored the president. They were resolute in their defiance, his order shouldn't have swayed them.

[–] jimel98 10 years ago

All three original posts sum up my feelings 100%. We can ALWAYS get another President. "Mr. Kang, you can kill him if you wish but you KNOW you'll die as well, right?" Simple enough. And why in hell didn't the army show up and just destroy the garbage trucks. I'm sure someone mentioned the machine guns in them, even if the gunners abandoned the trucks, just as a precaution, destroy or secure them, don't ignore them.

Great movie for a load of reasons; dumb as hell for several.

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 8 years ago

Exactly. That's what annoyed me about this movie. The President was such an ass here. He orders them to give up the codes. What an idiot. And like another poster states below, they were hardly tortured at all. In fact, I wouldn't call it torture at all.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

[–] colingbradley 11 years ago

All I could think of was how ridiculous to weigh one person's life against the possibility of a major war.
That alone made the film a bit more rubbish that it should have been.
The story line was a great idea but the security failings would just not have been possible.

Baddies breaking the last code? Not possible
All the code holders together and no backup plan? Give me a break!
Visitors being hearded into the lockdown with the Chief? Forget it.
Visitors not vetted properly and in-depth? Not likely.

I quite liked the reference to Breaking Bad, "...quiet time watching...")but then that is a GREAT series and nothing like this load of tosh.

http://www.amctv.com/shows/breaking-bad

At the end, I thought I would throw up with the President's speech.

Still, it kept a few people employed.

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 8 years ago

Visitors being hearded into the lockdown with the Chief? Forget it.

Another dumbass decision by the President.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

[–] HuGoL1101 9 years ago

the idea is not to save one person, it's what if that person dies and the terrorist get what they want?

[–] AtheistRevolution 11 years ago

Yea like South Korea would show loyalty to the US if they were in the same situation.

- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] youweechube 11 years ago

" AtheistRevolution

Yea like South Korea would show loyalty to the US if they were in the same situation. "

so youre prepared to make poor moral choices if you think someone else may do the same ?

[–] Strazdamonas 11 years ago

I am prepared to make choices that you consider immoral if it benefits me.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

[–] askebisgaard 9 years ago

That's rare in Scandinavia, where I'm from. Sounds like a psychopath's logic to me, but that's probably a good thing to you.

Where are you from?

[–] Strazdamonas 9 years ago

Ah, the scandinavian SJWs have found me!

I am from Lithuania, not that far from scandinavia.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

[–] askebisgaard 9 years ago

That surprises me. I have an acquiantance from Lithuania who described Lithuania like a far more civil place. It sounded almost Scandinavian when he described it. Would you disagre?

From your experience, how common is your moral view of social Darwinism in Lithuania?

[–] Strazdamonas 9 years ago

we tend to be pretty civil, on the surface at least. nowhere close to scandinavia though. there is a lot of social darwinism here, of course the EU thing makes us pretend its not sometimes.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

[–] Lightbrand 11 years ago

Let me guess, fan of the Joker from Dark Knight?

[–] omutafull 11 years ago

I guarantee you amongst all of our "allies", South Korea would be amongst the most staunch and stubbornly loyal.

[–] AtheistRevolution 11 years ago

Where do you get that? UK seems to be the only ally willing to commit as much and follow us into the rat hole.

- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] bazkie 11 years ago

And where do you get THAT?
South Koreans are pretty proud people, they won't *beep* people over for their own advantage like that. I even find your post kind of insulting and racist..

[–] alwaysforgiven821 11 years ago

South Korea isn't exactly the big player in the world stage that the UK is. Otherwise, you would hear more about it.

South Korea just doesn't have the ability to do much in the world stage because they have to worry about a couple million troops from North Korea constantly.

I know many South Koreans (was in a dorm with four during two of my college years) and South Korea/US are very, very close allies. South Koreans likely think better of us Americans than just about an other nation in the world (including the UK and Israel).

[–] ChuckFinnley 11 years ago

Hey, guys, you are going too far with this argument over one of the stupidest movies ever made.

[–] alwaysforgiven821 11 years ago

I wasn't arguing anything about the movie - I was replying to what someone said about real life countries.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zooymtoo-527-334409 11 years ago

I'm an American and of everything else that I see people complaining about this was the only thing that gave me pause also..
I could run with the rest and just enjoy the action but this is the one thing that pushed the envelope for me too..
Millions for one life?
And 1000's of Americans were slaughtered but it's a happy ending because the President walked out the door..
Evidently everyone else is disposable..
So yeah..you've got that right.

[–] rickjames2505-677-364956 11 years ago

its not about the saving the lives its about sending a message that no one can come in and just kill the president and win. save the president so they dont get the codes when they thought they couldnt save him they were gonna pull out the troops but in the end nothing matter except saving the president because regardless the dude was gonna blow up the U.S so yes saving the president and killing that dude was the most important thing and the only thing that mattered nno matter how you slice they take priority over a million strangers because you got 6 billion about to be killed in your home town.

[–] georgegliddy 11 years ago

sir or m'am pls ur confusin on me????

[–] timlin-4 11 years ago

Love a movie when the whole premise is absurd? The President is the position in the hierarchy, it doesn't really matter when the organism in the position dies. And this one gave an illegitimate order to his subordinates to give up missile recall codes when the situation didn't warrant it, and should be declared unfit for office anyway.

[–] joli1921 11 years ago

Amen!

For crying out loud "would of", "should of", "could of" do NOT exist!

[–] Clouseau2 (152) 3 years ago

Thank you - a soldier cannot follow an illegal order and giving terrorists access to nuclear weapons would be an illegal order. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an elite soldier. You would need to torture him for a long time for him to give up his code.

[–] rcwells86 11 years ago

This was one of my complaints about the movie, as it was what it was a die hard type flick. The movie played that role very well and was entertaining, however them recalling the US fleet was just ridiculous and would never happen so I had to dock it a few points.

Also it didn't make sense how they obtained the code or why they didn't just send their troops in to deactivate at the end.

----
John 3:16 : Eternal life through Christ only.

[–] IamTheCheese2 11 years ago

Yeah, it was pretty absurd. As important as he is, the president is still just a man. If capturing the president forced the US to literally do everything the bad guys wanted, including abandon our closest allies, then the president would pretty much never be able to step foot in a foreign country.

[–] proteus122 10 years ago

I was just going to say; I liked it better when it was called Die Hard.

[–] olivr942 11 years ago

You're forgetting the wider implications if the president was assassinated. How weak and powerless would that make the US look, if it couldn't even protect its head of state?

[–] Lightbrand 11 years ago

But sacrificing everyone else just so the President survives makes US look strong?

It's literally just a handful of people's lives, politicians no less. It's not like Morgan Freeman's character can't do the president's job, it is not one that requires specific talent that only president has, the hardest part is getting elected.

He should've literally looked deadeyed when he heard the terrorist's demand and say: "Tell you what, you kill the president, or torture him or whatever you want, after you killed them all, we will come in and kill you. There will be no military movement anywhere. Let the hunger games begin."

[–] CrimsonQ 11 years ago

OMG, yes! This ^! This is what I would have LOVED to hear in the movie!

Only zombies star in zombie movies. Everyone else is fodder.

[–] lemner 11 years ago

It was a stalling game. The fleet could hardly move very far in a matter of hours, and the US was hoping to end the situation by then. They could always order the fleet to turn back around, and after the hostages were apparently all killed, that should have been the first thing done.

Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam

[–] insdel2004 11 years ago

Yeah similar to what I thought. If I was in Morgan Freemans position I would have said: "Go ahead and kill him. You'll be doing me a favor by making me the president of the United States".

Then tell him he has one hour to surrender before we send the army in to kill everyone. They might be well armed and we trained. But there's no way they could hold out against the entire U.S. Army. They'd just get run over.

[–] NeoLobo 11 years ago

Lightbrand, I could not have said it better myself. That was fricking hilarious and true! That's why we have a succession of command in place. Granted your way would have made a completely different movie. Hell, I hope someone in Hollywood is reading this right now and starts to option it in that direction for the next one of these movies. LOL!

Don't get me wrong, I love movies that are just over the top entertainment value minded but as I always say, movie makers have to live within the realm of the world that they create and this is supposed to be "real" and they fail at every turn.

Was it fun? Yes.
Was it great acting? Sure in some parts.
Was it worth $30+ at a theater? Hell, No.

It deserves a solid 5. :)

All of this is just my opinion, but trust me, use sunscreen. :)

[–] bartblommaert 11 years ago

Ask Vietnam

[–] jeff-1076 11 years ago

"You're forgetting the wider implications if the president was assassinated. How weak and powerless would that make the US look, if it couldn't even protect its head of state? "

Everyone remember how the world totally fell apart when JFK died? Me neither.

[–] joker_900 11 years ago

I don't really see why pulling those troops out of the DMZ for a few hours while they sort out the situation is going to lead to the loss of South Korea. First, the troops will still be in South Korea - where else have they been pulled back to? Second, I imagine the South Koreans have a far better equipped army than the North Koreans.

[–] harahauk 11 years ago

Well it was not gonna be for a few hours was it? Kang planned on holding Asher untill badass Gerard put a knife through his thinkbox.
In the setting of the movie it was expressed (by Freeman i think) that such a move would doom South Korea , the reason the South Korean prime minister was at the white house was a pressing concern of mobilization of North Korean troops. Well, thats how I remember it at least.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oasis_from_life 11 years ago

A a US citizen I can without a doubt say that this movie is propaganda and nonsense. Presidents are completely expendable, that's why their lifetime is limited to two, four year terms.