Connect with us

The Dictatorship

‘A House of Dynamite’ is absurd — and frighteningly true to life

Published

on

‘A House of Dynamite’ is absurd — and frighteningly true to life

Director Kathryn Bigelow has a knack for making movies about America’s power on the global stage that make viewers’ heart race. “Zero Dark Thirty” depicts the manhunt for Osama bin Laden, complete with a lifelike recreation of the raid of Abbottabad. “The Hurt Locker” tells the story of a talented Army sergeant carrying out harrowing missions with a bomb disposal squad in Iraq in 2004. Now, Bigelow has made another such thriller in “A House of Dynamite,” about the U.S. government and military’s attempt to respond to a mysterious nuclear missile fired at the U.S. — in under 20 minutes.

But while “Zero Dark Thirty” and “The Hurt Locker” display a fawning awe of imperial power that functions as reactionary pro-War on Terror propaganda“House of Dynamite” questions the wisdom of the American security state. The movie has some flaws, but it’s a worthy exploration of the alarming folly of American — and global — complacency in a world filled with expanding and increasingly sophisticated nuclear arsenals and severely weakened arms control agreements. That nuclear war doesn’t seem zeitgeisty these days might make it seem like an odd time for “A House of Dynamite” to come out — but that’s exactly its point.

Atop our nuclear monarchy today, for example, stands an impulsive, incurious man who has demonstrated no interest in long-term consequences.

“A House of Dynamite” derives its suspense from an unfathomably intense ticking clock scenario. After the discovery that an airborne intercontinental ballistic missile — initially assumed to be a routine North Korean nuclear test — turns out to be a missile of unknown origin on a trajectory for Chicago, we watch as defense officials, military personnel, bureaucrats and the president, played by Idris Elba, are abruptly ejected from their daily routines and forced to contemplate not just immediate and unprecedented loss of life in the U.S., but also potentially across the globe.

That these operators have to not just absorb the event intellectually but also emotionally, and then scramble to formulate a response in less time than it takes to watch an episode of “Seinfeld,” is absurd — and true to real life. Bigelow’s naturalistic beat-by-beat breakdown of these moments, which includes all kinds of quotidian details of their lives, helps hammer home the absurdity of the predicament. And the film’s conceit of telling the story from the perspectives of different players in the operation illustrates how all of them face extreme constraints in terms of obtaining reliable information for making judgment calls.

Rebecca Ferguson as Captain Olivia Walker in
Rebecca Ferguson as Captain Olivia Walker in “A House of Dynamite.”Eros Hoagland / Netflix

After the U.S.’ missile defense fails against the incoming missile, the president is given sharply diverging advice on how to respond to what seems to be an unstoppable extinction event for Chicago. A dovish deputy national security adviser counsels the president to wait for the smoke to clear. A hawkish general at U.S. Strategic Command warns the president that a nonresponse could be worse and advises him to consider immediately preemptively striking at any and all adversaries who could’ve sent the missile, proposing an exchange that could possibly set in motion a global nuclear holocaust. And the president — who has the sole authority to make the final call — can’t even get in touch with his wife, who is abroad, for advice. “This is insanity!” cries out the president. “No, sir. This is reality,” replies the hawkish Gen. Anthony Brady of U.S. Strategic Command, played by Tracy Letts.

Is “A House of Dynamite” actually realistic? (Mild spoilers ahead.) Some experts contest the plausibility of various points of its premise: Experts on nuclear missiles and national security say the lone nuclear missile scenario is far-fetched, and having a missile of unknown origin is also unlikely given the number of potential satellites that could pick up that information. And NPR reports that while “U.S. forces are capable of launching their missiles ‘on warning’ before an attacker’s missiles arrive … the country’s nuclear doctrine actually emphasizes what’s known as a ‘second strike’ capability. That would allow it to strike back even if it were hit with a nuclear attack much larger than the one in the movie.” In other words, the hawkish general in the film is perhaps more trigger-happy than one would likely be in real life.

But none of that should really give us any comfort. Experts say the movie still captures the timing, the decision-making process and the low rate of success of missile defense accurately. And on a deeper level, it serves as a reminder that nuclear deterrence — discouraging a nuclear attack by building one’s own nuclear capabilities — is not necessarily a sufficient safeguard against nuclear exchange that can easily spiral into a global extinction event.

The movie raises the possibility that the mysterious missile could be an error induced by artificial intelligence — which experts say will indeed be baked into nuclear systems in the future. The possibility that nuclear weapons fall into the hands of nonstate extremist actors is always possible, and could unravel the traditional logic of mutually assured destruction. And even conventional warfare can always spiral if the belligerents are armed with nuclear weapons — U.S. intelligence officials believe the risk of nuclear exchange has surged dramatically since Russia has invaded Ukraine. Unlikely events are, well, unlikely, but in this realm their consequences are so vast that they cannot be ignored.

Kyle Allen as Captain Jon Zimmer in
Kyle Allen as Captain Jon Zimmer in “A House of Dynamite.”Eros Hoagland / Netflix

And while in the film the U.S. president is hinted at as an Obama-like reasonable leader who could possibly be trusted to behave as prudently as possible, not every president is. Atop our nuclear monarchy today, for example, stands an impulsive, incurious man who has demonstrated no interest in long-term consequences or for the well-being of people he considers to be not on his team. To have him contemplate how to operate in a nuclear emergency is simply unthinkable.

Ultimately however being a relatively wise and moral leader is little consolation against the reality that nuclear exchange is controlled by actors with little time to make reasoned, ethical and strategic judgment calls. Part of the point of the film — only underscored by its provocative ending — is to elucidate that this scenario is unwinnable. Don’t hate the players; hate the game.

Nuclear arsenals around the world are growing more fearsome, more countries are trying to become nuclear powers, and nuclear disarmament treaties are expiring (the U.S. and Russia only have one remaining — and that expires in 2026). The viewer is likely to leave the movie rightly convinced that there is no humane way to respond to the beginning of a nuclear war, because no humans can or should be trusted with so much power.

Zeeshan Aleem

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for BLN Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Blue Light News, and he has also been published in, among other places, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Intercept. You can sign up for his free politics newsletter here.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions

Published

on

Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.

In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.

Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.

In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”

A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.

Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.

Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.

In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.

It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.

On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring

Published

on

The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring

About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.

All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.

The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.

The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.

The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

The Times summarized the broader context nicely:

Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.

Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.

In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.

The article added:

Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.

Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.

This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race

Published

on

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.

* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”

* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.

* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.

* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.

* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.

* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending