Would YOU sacrifice New York City …?
-
Ulex — 15 years ago(August 22, 2010 08:29 PM)
If I was president, no way I would be able to bomb New York, or D.C. for that matter. Maybe Indianapolis or some place .. but I'd likely just sit their and wait for the apocalypse.
I'm pretty sure that if this really played out, that's what would happen. There would have been a lot of confusion and yelling, and then a lot of people saying "There's no way that the Russians would do that," and then boom boom boom.
I think the point of the movie is to say, "This would be the only way out of the situation. As crazy as it is, can you think of a better option?"
I don't think that any amount of negotiation would ever work. Yes, you could give up West Berlin. Hell, throw in France in the deal. The Russian Premier's response would be, "That's awful nice of you, but what with our entire government destroyed, with no way to provide food or money to our citizens, we've got slightly bigger problems on our hands."
It's like negotiating over the price of someone to kill you. How much money would you ever accept? -
Urpomies — 14 years ago(June 03, 2011 10:43 AM)
I would say byebye NY but I maybe it's too easy for me as I'm not American. No good choices left to choose from. Either millions or everyone. How is that a choice?. No envy for the Prez from here.
There's no way Soviets would've settled for less either, not after Moscow is glassed. And no need to kid yourself and think offering Germany or even the whole Europe would suffice. Russians would still have to fight for that and UK/France would retaliate with their nukes before being overrun. How is that good for Soviets? "Yey, we got whole Eurasia and now we all glow together! A Glorious day for International Socialism, isn't it Comrade Premier!" -
dkilgore4376-1 — 14 years ago(September 30, 2011 05:35 PM)
The Duke would have told them " So sorry about Moscow but your jamming caused this so it's your fault, and like I said so sorry about Moscow but any attempt at retaliation will be returned in kind to your commie asses!"
-
josborn828 — 14 years ago(December 31, 2011 07:44 PM)
I am reminded of the old pre 9/11/01 joke. A hurricane making it's way up the eastern seaboard toward New York, they expect that it could make $100 or $200 million worth of improvements.
You have to remember that 1964 was before the global economy exisited and it had a population similar to Moscow. No way you would send bombers to DC because most records at the time where actual "physical documents" which would be impossible to replace.
However, trying to justify the feasibility of the decisions in this movie is like saying Hogan's Heroes is unrealistic because Sgt. Kinchloe was black. We have sensors that can hear a whale farts and determine that a jet engine is not ingesting enough air through it's intakes because of a tail wind (WTH)but we have no way of talking to the bombers. Not to mention the issue of aircraft in operation "chrome dome" circulating a fail safe point for 3 minutes being a such a longtime, that there had to be something wrong and attack on Moscow was feasable.
It is obvious that this movie was written by a person who had no clue of what they wrote and were more interested in making a point than telling the truth. I am sure that Dr. Strangelove gave a much more realistic to the safeties involved in a system of mutually assured destruction. Ignoring the fact that Strangelove was a black comedy, I find a general who drinks nothing but pure grain alcohol far more sympathetic than a general who flies around in a Mooney M20 saying "I am the Matador". Next time go run with the bulls and save us all a big favor. -
drjukebox — 14 years ago(February 22, 2012 08:38 AM)
I think whether you prefer Dr Strangelove or Failsafe depends on if you prefer comedy or tragedy. Sellers or Fonda.
Dr Strangelove is a bit of both. I would think comedy did work better since it attracted a larger audience, and posed the same question -"WHAT IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG?"
Now we're almost out of the nukin' era (unless the Iranians/Israeli/Pakistani/North Koreans want to have a go at it)(or if something goes wrong), and purrrhaps these two movies played a small role in raising awareness? Making it impossible for Americans and Russians to even think of using their arsenals?
One must remember the paranoia of the time these movies were made; perhaps not easy to understand for those who weren't around then.
God, I love the b/w cinematography and so many of those actors. Thank you Stanley. Thank you Sid.
As for the original question, of course not! Only in a movie. But it is interesting to see how many Americans even in this thread thinks the rest of the world is expendable, esp. if the alternative is to sacrifice American lives.
Thank God there is also a lot of the opposite - a will to even sacrifice the best you have, your own young people, to stand up against fascism and, hopefully, make the world a better place. This idealism is hard to find in Europe these days, or anywhere else for that matter.
The USA surely contains the best and the worst, all in one big love/hate package. -
oldsalt61 — 14 years ago(March 08, 2012 08:10 PM)
Wasn't the Soviet PM already out of Moscow at the time the bomb went off? In addition to the reasons listed in favor of NYC over DC, I recall the heads of state having a conversation about them needing to be alive to insure it doesn't escalate.
-
AustrianA340 — 14 years ago(March 13, 2012 12:39 PM)
It's interesting to see numerous replies stating:
"Never would I sacrifice American lives" I think I've only found one replier talking about human lives. And even worse than being selfish is wanting to sacrifice foreign lives as compensation. Would you be willing to swear on your friend??
I watched the movie Crimson Tide and Denzel Washington said some very true words: "In the nuclear world, war itself is the true enemy". I couldn't agree more I'd vote any president or country leader that is willing to fight this 'true' enemy. Many people believe wars are fought to preserve peace. I don't have to tell you the true motives of (the leading) nations wanting to start war. The Roman Empire, Spain and Britain during the Imperial Age, Austria-Hungary, Nazi-Germany, etc. all had one main reason to fight a war.. power and control. What makes you believe just because it's the 20th/21st century that the USA or the Soviet Union for that matter haven't followed the same motives? Do you really think that after thousands of years it got any different? World War I didn't learn from past wars, World War II didn't learn from World War I and World War III isn't going to learn from World War II and the history books in a thousand year are going to wonder about how stupid we were as we're wondering about the stupidity of the past wars. Talking about the presidents decision. Would I be able to do it? I guess not. but then again I couldn't even make the same decision for Moscow. For me killing people is killing people no matter if American, Russian, German, Chinese, etc.
But I think it was neccesary. and to sacrfice five million of ones own people for the sake of peace/not wanting war is always going to make more sense to me than to murder millions of people for the sake of power and control. I hope that in this story the USA and USSR have learnt their (very painful) lessons. -
bradford-1 — 13 years ago(July 12, 2012 12:02 PM)
I live in NYC, so obviously, I'd think long and hard about nuking myself and a few million others. But if I were the President, maybe. Actually, I might dispose of either Washington D.C. or the largest cache of nuclear weapons in the U.S.
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?" -
ls1961-687-342572 — 12 years ago(August 03, 2013 09:15 PM)
I was born in 1961 in NYC. This movie made a big impression on my parents and their friends. The Cuban Missile Crisis scared the hell out of my Mom & Dad. This movie resonated with them because they believed the President had made the only call he could. She believed a sacrifice of many American citizens is the only thing that would stop all out war. I think that's probably true. Also, as I recall, the 9-5 population of NYC in those days was around 10 million people.
I've learned since that many people thought their hometown was "ground zero" for a variety of reasons. New Yorkers thought they were ground zero for several reasons: the density of population, the destruction of financial centers and because NY is the cultural center of our country.