The Fear Factor

A new film aims to be the Inconvenient Truth for the nuclear danger. But is terrifying people the only way to get the message across?

BY DAVID E. HOFFMAN | JULY 8, 2010

Just after 2:26 a.m., on June 3, 1980, computer screens at the command post of the Strategic Air Command in Nebraska suddenly indicated that two submarine-launched ballistic missiles were headed toward the United States. Eighteen seconds after the first signals, the displays showed even more launches. The duty commander ordered B-52 and FB-111 bomber pilots to their planes and told them to start their engines.

The duty officers checked with the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) in Colorado, which mans the satellites and radars that monitor North American airspace. At this moment, the NORAD command said the radars and satellites showed no incoming missiles. Then the Strategic Air Command screens also cleared, showing no threats. The pilots were told to shut down their engines, but remain in their planes.

After a brief period, the Strategic Air Command warning display again lit up, this time showing that intercontinental ballistic missiles had been launched toward the United States. And soon after that, a similar warning appeared on the screens of the Pentagon's National Military Command Center in Washington, D.C. The duty officers in each location suspected the warning was in error. In the Pentagon command center, a threat assessment conference was called, and all locations were then assured that there were no real signs of missile attack. The pilots returned to their barracks. The alert was ended.

But what happened? Three days later, on June 6, 1980, at 3:38 p.m., the same error occurred again. Again, no missiles were seen by satellites and radar, only on the NORAD data link.

It turned out the false alarm had been caused by the failure of a computer chip in one of NORAD's communications devices. The peacetime message was supposed to continuously broadcast the digits 000, indicating there were no attacking missiles. The failed chip began inserting random 2s into the message, so it came out showing that 200 or 2,000 missiles were in flight. The chip was about the size of a dime and cost 46 cents.

This is just one of the harrowing tales of the nuclear age thrust back into the limelight this summer in a new documentary film, Countdown to Zero, which opens in theaters July 23. The 91-minute film, written and directed by Lucy Walker and produced by Lawrence Bender, is intended to startle us out of complacency about nuclear dangers. It is a cauldron of stark, unsettling scenes, ending with an appeal for the Global Zero movement to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

The 1980 incident has long been known, but there is still something surprising about it, perhaps because it so vividly captures the tense, hair-trigger mentality of the Cold War. In the film, the episode is recalled by Bruce Blair, president of the World Security Institute in Washington, who served as a launch officer for Minuteman missiles in the 1970s and is an executive producer of the film. The false alarm, he says, led to "eight minutes of nuclear-launch preparations that were triggered by a malfunctioning computer chip that costs less than a dollar."

Countdown is full of such moments. Atomic bombs fall off airplanes by mistake; desperate men peddle uranium across borders; nuclear-weapons technology is spread by master proliferator A.Q. Khan of Pakistan. Perhaps the most unsettling and still little-understood episode was the launch of a four-stage rocket, Black Brant, from Norway as part of a scientific experiment on the morning of Jan. 25, 1995. The launch triggered confusion in the Kremlin about whether it was an intercontinental ballistic missile attack. The paperwork announcing the planned rocket launch got lost. When radars spotted the rocket and reported up the chain of command, it was considered serious enough to trigger the first-ever use of the nuclear briefcase by Russian President Boris Yeltsin.

Photo Courtesy of Magnolia Pictures

 SUBJECTS: NUKES
 

David E. Hoffman is a contributing editor to the Washington Post and the author of The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy.

DLIMON

5:03 PM ET

July 8, 2010

To the author: if we’ve been

To the author: if we’ve been spared so far from a nuclear terrorist attack, it is because a few nuclear powers have historically monopolized nuclear weapons and fissile material. This is less true today, as nuclear technology and weapons have proliferated, and as terrorists have more opportunities to buy or steal nuclear technology. This threat is, if not imminent, inevitable.

 

JAY G

9:16 AM ET

July 9, 2010

Realistic please

Well recommended >>> John Mueller s book , ' ATOMIC OBSESSION nuclear alarmism from hiroshima to al-qaeda ' Oxford ISBN 978 0 19 538136 8 US $ 27.95

 

DLIMON

5:04 PM ET

July 8, 2010

Postscript: I saw the film

Postscript: I saw the film and it was compelling and persuasive. It is a must see for all, especially because today's nuclear threats loom over all.

 

WALKING WOUNDED

9:13 PM ET

July 8, 2010

'six decades without a nuke being used in war' ??

Really.

Nukes were used monthly from the early 50's into the 70's. It was called 'testing' but the vast majority of bombs set off in Nevada were military 'demonstrations', a potlatch sort of wastage of the worlds rarest metal, in case anyone thought we couldn't use it abundance in war. I remember when San Diego was rocked by underwater testing off of San Clemente Island, and control of the media was demonstrated when US Navy denials went unchallenged.

A more conventional use of nukes is current in the standoff between India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the 'land of the pure'. Israel threatened use of battlefield nukes in 1973, according to Henry Kissinger, and thereby blackmailed the Nixon administration into rushing anti-tank weapons in to save IDF occupation forces at the Suez. Given the Israeli targeting of Moscow at that time, Israel's active use of their nuclear deterrant involved our Sixth Fleet and NATO/Europe in a shooting war backed by nukes. A Soviet boomer parked at Alexandria during a war on the Suez was pretty scary stuff.

The forward deployment of US nukes against China is thought to have brought an end to the shooting war in Korea.

The way we 'tested' nukes, fallout on our cities, eventually doubling global background radiation, would be regarded as terrorism if anyone else did that to us today. They were used in varied and interesting ways in the Cold War. And by Israel, Pakistan and India, in the way that the most powerful weapons succeed best, as a credible threat.

Anyone who tells us nukes have been safely at rest since Nagasaki is selling something.

 

STANSKI

9:51 PM ET

July 8, 2010

Why?

I think before we bomb Iran we should bomb Isreal's nuclear facilities - Dimona and all storage points - to destroy their capacity to build and launch nuclear weapons. They refuse to acknowledge that they have over 200-400 weapons, have refused IAEA inspection and boasted about their "Sampson Option" plan - attacking Europe with nukes if overwhelmingly attacked by enemy forces.

They sound like a bunch of paranoid terrorists and DO OWN many nuclear weapons which they threaten to use. Iran sounds like Disneyland compared to them.

Can we get real here? Isreal has alot to own up to before anyone should consider giving Iran crap about. Otherwise everyone looks like a bunch of hypocritical retards and the world will have no choice but to tan our hides.

 

EZ-E

12:01 PM ET

July 9, 2010

Because

Israel does not regular threaten to slaughter their enemies. Israel doesn't protest with signs showing a mushroom cloud and "get ready for the real holocaust."

Israel is the refuge for women and gays in the middle east, where in other countries they are subjugated and killed.

In all of these anti-semetic arguments, one has to put Israel on the same level as Iran, or which ever country is threatening them. Iran's 'moderate' former president has said that Iran can ride out an Israeli retaliation to a nuclear attack, but Israel would be destroyed, and the price for destroying Israel would be worth it. All of these fanatics promise to use nuclear weapons, should they acquire them, yet Israel has them as a weapn of last resort.

But, in today's realm of moral relativism, people cannot see the difference - they only know their hate. We aren't threatening to invade Finland or France, because Finland or France or not threatening anyone.

The moment the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist, hold hand, and sing 'We shall overcome' - they will have won.

 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

8:24 AM ET

July 9, 2010

The movie creators should

The movie creators should take some classes in game theory. The only solution to this game is everybody arming up with nuclear capability. Even the countries that have no homegrown nuclear weapons capability are usually protected by the "nuclear umbrella" of the US. If they no longer had this, it is highly reasonable to suggest they would get their own nukes.That we have had 60+ years of peace despite the destructiveness of our weapons suggests that nuclear weapons are the first which obviously cause "too much damage" and inspire peace and guarantee national sovereignty. Unless everyone disarms, which will be impossible because rogue states will always have an incentive to arm, the only solution is everybody acquiring the capability. As a result, some nukes will go off in major cities as some states will take far less care of them than we do. There is a nonzero chance of this, and we might as well begin preparing for some disaster scenarios.

 

BECK12

11:04 AM ET

July 9, 2010

Shipping material through ports

Getting nuclear material through a port is very unlikely. As part of the security improvements after 9/11, all North American ports have been required to install radiation detectors to scan every incoming shipping container. I don't know if all US ports have been equipped yet, but every Canadian port has. (Fewer ports, easier to complete)

The radiation detectors are so sensitive, Canadian Border Services has been using them to characterize general cargo, many types of which emit tiny amounts of radiation. For example, bananas and stone tiles are relatively strong emitters, and are pretty much the strongest types of radiation detected by the equipment--except, of course, for the authorized Class 7 shipments of nuclear fuel that are shipped through the ports. Having been involved in the planning of such shipments, I can say that the precautions are extreme almost to the point of being ridiculous.

The idea of smuggling a small amount of nuclear material encased in a lead pipe has some merit, but unless the shipper has a pretty sophisticated lab, there will be residue outside the seal on the pipe. All it takes is a tiny residue of uranium to register on the detectors, which detect well below the microsievert range,

Anyone who might have the idea of smuggling nuclear material into North America knows these detectors are in place, and knows how sensitive they are. Not having worked on an airport for many years, I don't know what their detection systems are like, but I imagine they're equally capable.

If anyone is going to smuggle nuclear material into North America, it would have to happen through small centers, such as a marina or small airport in the Gulf states, where the 'importer' would have to dodge the Coast Guard and other border services officers. It wouldn't be impossible, but it really wouldn't be worth the risk, considering how easy it is to create explosives with ordinary materials such as fertilizer and diesel fuel.

Nuclear terrorism may be a legitimate concern in some parts of the world, but it's unlikely to happen in North America with the precautions in place.

 

EW66

2:04 PM ET

July 9, 2010

Horrific Conventional Arms

Maybe they should show some clips from WW2, scenes of trench warfare from WW1, or any other images of what happens when we are left with conventional arms and no MAD doctrine/weapons deterrent. People are so quick to forget what we are left with in the absence of nuclear arms. Do you think there would have been more or less bloodshed during the Cold War if such weapons did not exist. Let's approach this rationally. Small arms (see stats on AK models particularly) are the real killer.

 

RAMIS

8:45 AM ET

July 10, 2010

good

a good film which will be watched by me.
porno sex video porno film

 

AANCHAL.ANAND

2:34 AM ET

July 11, 2010

Point of Departure

The nuclear threat may be real but the solution is not disarmament. Two reasons why:
1. Moral hazard: Can we trust everyone when they say nuclear weapons will been destroyed? And if you believe that terrorists have access to enriched uranium and can easily make bombs, they will become instant beneficiaries of a global nuclear disarmament. Think Tom and Jerry and Jerry cuts off his limbs - we'll have nowhere to run and terrorists can hold us hostage to get their demands met with nuclear threats!
2. World War III: I firmly believe that the real reason World War III has not happened yet and Cold War remained "cold" is because of nuclear weapons. The threat is so great that it prevents large scale wars and rash decisions from leaders. Yes nuclear weapons are dangerous but they are the best deterrent we have in this world today. So can we all please nuke up?

 

YUEXIANG

8:18 AM ET

July 11, 2010

5756

Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company.
Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recently
launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable
and welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary, please
input: http://www.onseeking.com/ We need your support and trust!!

 

YUEXIANG

8:35 AM ET

July 11, 2010

dgfg

Send Christmas Gifts. Buy more to send. On this site __ http://www.onseeking.com

_________________________$$$$$$$__________
________________________$$$$$$$$$$________
________________________$$$$$$$$$$$_______
_________________________$$$$$$$$$$$______
__________________________$$$$$$$$$$$_____
_____________________________$$$$$$$$$____
___________________________$$$$$$$$$$_____
http://www.onseeking.com $$$$$$$$$$$$$____
________________$$$______$$$$$$$$$$$$$$___
______________$$$$$$$$_____$$$$$$__$$$$$__
_____________$$$$$$$$$$_____$$$$____$$$$$_
___________$$$$$$_$$$$$$$$__$$$$______$$$$
__________$$$$$_____$$$$$$$$_$$$$_______$$$
___ _____$$$$$_________$$$$$$$$$$$$_______$$$
_______ $$$_____________$$$$$$$$$$$________$$$
_____$$$__ ______________$$$$$$$$$$________$$$$$$
sneaker: airmax 90, 95 etc $35-42 free shiping.
boots: UGG etc $60 free shiping.
Jeans : polo etc $35-49 free shipping
T-shirts : A&f etc $12-18 free shipping.
hoodies: 5ive etc $28-40 free shipping
handbags: Ed hardy etc $35-68 free shipping
Sunglasses: LV etc $17 free shipping
Belts: BOSS etc $15 free shipping
Caps: red bull etc $12-15 free shipping
Watches:rolex etc $80 free shipping

http://www.onseeking.com

How to order
1. Visit our website browse our products or send the picture of product to us if there are not in our website.
2. Please email us the product's name (picture), size, quantity that you need.
3. Negotiate the Price and then you make order confirmation to us.
4. We tell you Western Union Information for payment transfer.
5. You transfer the payment via Western Union to us.
6. You send the track MTCN to us, and tell us you?e Name, Address, and zip code for deliver.
7. We deliver your products after we receive the payment.
8. We send the tracking number to you.
9. Give us feedback after you get the products.
For more informations, please visit our website:
http://www.onseeking.com

 

MICHA

3:35 PM ET

July 12, 2010

The Film

I saw the film and was very shocked

Riester Rente

 

MARTINBR

9:05 AM ET

July 13, 2010

To the author: if we’ve been

To the author: if we’ve been spared so far from a nuclear terrorist attack, it is because a few nuclear powers have historically monopolized nuclear weapons and fissile material. This is less true today, as nuclear technology and weapons have proliferated, and as terrorists have more opportunities to buy or steal nuclear technology. This threat is, if not imminent, inevitable.

I still hope this won't happen in the near future though what you said is true, atomic bombs are at terrorists' reach more than ever. Martin

 

CJP1958

6:44 PM ET

July 15, 2010

potential catastrophe

Maybe we should be made to feel uncomfortable. A good jolt of reality will push us out of our apathy don' t you think.

I have been looking into the Vela incident which occurred in 1979 (1979!) in which a satellite detected a nuclear detonation of unknow source somewhere in the Indian ocean between the Cape of Good Hope and the South Pole. It transpires that it was most likely the work of the South African regime, who naturally had plenty of plausible deniability ready to present to the media so they could cover their own white racist behinds.

Hell, it's going on all the time, and the point is that nobody tells Joe Public anything, until it suits the powers that be to tell Joe Public, presumably when we'll all be taking shelter from the flash of a nuclear detonation, which is the last thing we are ever likely to see.