Kathryn Bigelow’s House of Dynamite Is Wake-Up Call on Nuclear Weapons

Ernest J. Moniz served as the 13th U.S. Secretary of Energy and is Co-Chair and CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit, nonpartisan global security organization focused on reducing nuclear, biological, and emerging technology threats imperiling humanity.

Watching as the fictional president is evacuated from Washington in Director Kathryn Bigelow’s film, “A House of Dynamite,” brought me back to my own helicopter ride to an underground bunker as Secretary of Energy. Fortunately, my ride was a test-run for ensuring continuity of government in the event of a nuclear attack — but as the film underscores, one wrong move could take us beyond test runs and bring civilization crashing down.

Bigelow’s plot centers on what happens when a single, unattributed nuclear-armed missile is launched at the United States, setting off a race against the clock to determine who is responsible and how to respond.

“A House of Dynamite” debuts on Netflix amid a well-timed cultural renaissance happening on nuclear weapons right now, kicked off by Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” and ahead of James Cameron’s forthcoming adaptation of “Ghosts of Hiroshima.” It’s extending beyond the silver screen, too, with Season 3 of Netflix’s “The Diplomat” premiering last week, and the Season 2 finale of Amazon’s record-breaking series “Fallout” dropping on Feb. 5, the day before New START, the last remaining treaty limiting the size of nuclear stockpiles, expires.

These powerful films and shows come at a time when the number of nuclear weapons in the world is expected to tick up for the first time in more than four decades, and they have an important role to play in reminding people that we live in the real world with 12,000 nuclear weapons — under the constant threat of global catastrophe. Today, nuclear risks are escalating across nearly every measure, and many experts agree that the risk a nuclear weapon will be used — on purpose or by accident — is at the highest point since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Nuclear weapons are in the zeitgeist, but can culture stir public demand for real-world progress once again?

There’s emerging evidence that Bigelow’s jarring thriller will shift audience beliefs about nuclear risks. My organization commissioned research centered around the film’s two-minute trailer, with 1,000 Americans watching the trailer and 1,000 watching another piece of content. Those who watched the trailer were less likely to say that nuclear weapons keep us safe, more likely to desire a world without nuclear weapons, more likely to believe the United States should work to reduce nuclear weapons globally, and more likely to say reducing nuclear weapon risks was important to them personally.

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast” is a popular maxim for a reason: There is ample evidence that culture lays the groundwork for policy progress by changing public beliefs and societal narratives — even on nuclear weapons.

Take “The Day After,” the 1983 TV movie seen by 100 million Americans that depicted the aftermath of a fictional nuclear attack on Kansas and Missouri and helped Americans rethink their support for an arms race with the Soviet Union. It also helped change Ronald Reagan’s mind about whether a nuclear war was winnable and helped make arms control treaties possible over the decades that followed. Thanks to those treaties, including the New START treaty between the United States and Russia, the world now has “only” 12,000 nuclear weapons instead of 70,000.

For many who grew up after the Cold War and without the constant fear of nuclear war, these threats may seem distant and unrealistic. For instance, walking out of “A House of Dynamite,” my Gen-Z colleague heard her peer say, “That would never happen.”

Wrong. As someone who had a front-row seat to nuclear weapons realities, let me underscore: We live in a nuclear system that was not built for a messy, complicated world — it’s a system that hinges on perfect performances from rational humans and machines every day. What is shown in the film could happen, and it — or something worse — will happen if we stay on the current path.

So, how do we move off that path?

A solid first step would be for President Trump to accept a recent offer from Russian President Vladimir Putin to adhere for an additional year to the numerical limits of New START, which Trump himself said “sounds like a good idea.” Then, he should use the time to begin negotiations on a follow-on agreement that could decrease the size and address the composition of the nuclear stockpile. Handshakes are a first step, but only a new agreement can verify compliance and reestablish the regular channels of communications that are critical to prevent a civilization-ending miscalculation.

And there’s more. For example, nuclear weapons states should follow the lead of the United States in taking a fresh look at the safety of their own stockpiles and command and control systems, especially in this age of rapidly emerging technology, such as AI and cyberthreats. No one wants to see a blunder lead to a nuclear catastrophe on the long journey towards a more secure world — without nuclear weapons.

Bigelow has said that she hopes the film will start a conversation that can lead to fewer nuclear weapons. For the future of humanity, let’s hope that the movie wakes people up to the nuclear nightmare festering in our house of dynamite and gets leaders back to the negotiating table.