Would YOU sacrifice New York City …?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Fail-Safe
blubb06 — 18 years ago(November 12, 2007 06:35 AM)
I see how this works for the film but it surely is a stranger moment than anything in "Dr. Strangelove". I mean, seriously, guys - he's just a simple President, not Moses! Supposed you ever got into a similar situation, would you do it?
Any living, breathing politician would have said:
"We are terribly sorry, Sir, this is an accident that will never, never happen again, I assure you reign yourself in, Sir! Are you suggesting that our nation of hardworking, peaceloving what? Like I already said, it was an accident! Guard yourself, please, Mister! Don't jump to conclusions you will regret well, do you want to lose any more cities just because we made Wait! Wait! If you give that order, be assured, we will retaliate with full force - extreme prejudice! Yes, yes! You will leave me no choice! We will all die!! Now, I suggest you talk this over with your wife " -
ursapater — 18 years ago(November 24, 2007 08:38 AM)
I can think of only one way to do it. As the only way to advert a nuclear holocaust. I would have to order the destruction of Washington, not NYC. Though I would tape a message to the people explaining the situation and urging them to remain calm, to be played posthumously.
Ursa the ghost bear -
Charles-31 — 18 years ago(December 05, 2007 08:19 AM)
That was what I always thought strange of this film. Why New York? I would have liked to have seen a justification of the city choice. One argument would be similar populations and largest city for largest city. I would have thought capital for capital.
I think the president dying in the attack would be unreasonable. It's the easy way out for sure, but the country will have a mess to clean up and it doesn't make sense that he would not be trying to deal with the mess he made (seeing as how he's a responsible president, as opposed to the current office holder). -
ursapater — 18 years ago(December 06, 2007 11:30 AM)
My thought was more that as President I wouldn't think it right to order the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans while sitting safe in my bunker.
Still, I see your point. (though sometimes I think that the country would run BETTER without the government. Certainly we'd be better off without this administranion)
Ursa the ghost bear -
theBlueGray — 16 years ago(October 25, 2009 04:15 PM)
I think the reason that NYC was valid is because that's where the Russian ambassador was. That way, when his phone disintegrated too, the Soviet Premier would be able to hear it and know that Pres Fonda had carried through on his side of the bargain (we're supposing someone doesn't put some dry ice in a tin can, which also makes a horrid noise like the one of the phone melting, to trick the premier).
-
Alek_Hidell — 16 years ago(April 15, 2009 10:31 PM)
Doc I'm sure that if that situation were real, and time waa as big of a factor as it was, how a president perceives his place in history would be the farthest thing from his mind. After all, the alternative was for the entire country to be destroyed in a counterstrike launched by the USSR. Then we would have to do the same to them. No one would have been left to write any history.
I'm just a patsy! -
cliffdeford — 16 years ago(May 09, 2009 09:43 AM)
First off I love this film.
Secondly, bomarl1969, what on earth gives a US President the right to give Berlin and Western Europe as compensation?
You can't sacrifice something that is not yours He has no choice, he has to give up something that belongs to the US.
And one other thing, people that say how could he bomb NY and not somewhere else like Boise, Idaho WTF. Moscow, like New York, is the business and cultural (and obviously political) centre of Russia you have to sacrifice like for like.
If Fonda said we'll bomb Des Moines, the Russians would have told him to p*ss off and picked a target of their own. -
graham-167 — 14 years ago(December 18, 2011 07:30 AM)
Um, this is just stupid. For one, the answer would be a simple "no".
For another, it would have meant the end of the US as an influential power in the world. What country would ever have allied itself with the US again, knowing that the US would simply screw them over at any opportunity? In the superpower age the very least that would have happened would be the entire world aligning itself with the Russians.
Not to mention that both France and the UK had nuclear weapons of their own, both tactical and strategic. If they saw Russia rolling towards them, that could easily have provoked World War III. No more US anyway.
There really was nothing else to be done but what happened. -
seanspotatobusiness — 12 years ago(December 20, 2013 02:21 PM)
That doesn't work; the offer had to be something
immediate
, not a promise of what you will do over the next couple of months. Again, it was relevant that the Russian ambassador to the US was in New York. -
jgroub — 10 years ago(January 22, 2016 02:34 PM)
Not quite; the Russian ambassador to the UN was in NYC. The Russian ambassador to the US is in Washington. But Washington isn't as big of a target as NYC is.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.