Somewhere over the Arctic reaches of North America, a nuclear bomber flies in a squadron, awaiting its orders. When a secret code appears on a machine in the cockpit, the crew looks at each other, stunned. The code is instructing them to attack. Ripping open a sealed envelope marked “Top Secret,” the pilot reads the name of their target: MOSCOW. They set their course. The end of the world has begun.
Or so they think. It’s actually all a big mistake—the result of a computer glitch at a military base that sent the attack code to the bomber by accident. This is the premise of Sidney Lumet’s 1964 masterpiece Fail Safe—a movie that asked Cold War audiences to question unbridled nuclear weapons proliferation at a time when, to many, building up a massive arsenal seemed like an imperative.
I watched Fail Safe recently to remind myself just how good it is after I was left disappointed by A House of Dynamite, Kathryn Bigelow’s portrayal of a nuclear crisis, which arrived on Netflix on October 24.
Some political analysts argue that nuclear war has never been more likely than it is today. And yet, despite that ongoing threat to humanity’s very existence, few films or TV shows seem to agonize about the prospect anymore. A House of Dynamite bucks the trend by thrusting nukes back into the spotlight.
In the film, radar systems detect an intercontinental ballistic missile of unknown origin barreling toward the US.
Analysis of the missile’s trajectory soon reveals its likely target: Chicago. A weapon like that, government officials tell each other, could kill 10 million people on impact. Many more will likely die due to radioactive fallout created by the nuclear blast. The missile will hit in just 19 minutes, meaning there’s no time to evacuate Chicago. All America can do is try to shoot down the ICBM, while contemplating catastrophe.
The first act is gripping. Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson), a senior officer in the White House Situation Room, quickly recognizes the magnitude of what is unfolding on the big board in front of her and her colleagues. We feel the urgency of each desperate action, order, and argument that follows.
But A House of Dynamite is nearly two hours long. Those 19 minutes till impact are both elongated and played out no fewer than three times, from three slightly different perspectives. In the second act, we join generals and government officials on a bizarre Zoom call as they try to work out what, if anything, they can do. And in the third act, we follow the US president, played by Idris Elba, who looks hopelessly bewildered, even before he learns about the incoming ICBM. In short, the tension gradually dries up, the script falls flat, and we never even find out what comes of it all. The ending, or lack thereof, has enraged some viewers.
In Fail Safe, by contrast, the tension never eases. The drama gradually builds to a climax that involves personal sacrifice and other dreadful choices. Some of the key people involved must finally reckon with the situation they and their colleagues have created.
In A House of Dynamite, the crisis blasts into view from outside. Some unidentified other has sent the ICBM, leaving everyone scrambling. Most of the characters are figured as victims. In Fail Safe, though, there are hotheads and war-mongers, too.
It’s all the more pointed because the film is adapted from a best-selling novel that was—incredibly—first published right in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Other films released in 1964, including Seven Days in May and the better-remembered Dr. Strangelove also deal with questions around nuclear posturing and the inherent risks of nuclear proliferation.
The title Fail Safe invokes the checks and balances intended to prevent a nuclear war starting by accident. “Who checks the checker?” asks a senator on a tour of a military control room shortly before the film’s crisis begins. “That’s what really bothers me. The only thing everyone can agree on is that no one’s responsible.” In 2025, automation seems ubiquitous—we regularly grasp for an answer to the question “Who is accountable?” when AI, or automated vehicles, go wrong. The senator’s line hits even harder today than it did when it was written.
But Fail Safe also serves up a heady cocktail of human personalities and interests. There’s the general who is unexpectedly horrified by nuclear weapons; the political scientist determined to eliminate any and all threats to America; and the president (Henry Fonda) who finds that, when it really matters, his supposed authority actually means nothing.
The bomber crew’s orders are to ignore any commands once their attack run begins. Voices on their radios, training has told them, could be imitated by the enemy. And so as lead pilot Colonel Jack Grady (Edward Binns) nears his target, Fonda insists that he return to base, bellowing: “Damn it, Grady, this is the president!” All to no avail.
It’s a situation that has been called “the human button,” in which military personnel are trained to carry out the procedures for launching a nuclear attack without hesitation or deviation. These procedures may be repeatedly rehearsed in order to induce a kind of unthinking muscle memory. The idea is that, should the order ever come in, that’s it. Soldiers in silos and submarines would carry out the last rites like automatons. Then, the world will be over. It’s important that the enemy knows and believes this will be the case. That’s a key part of deterrence, the idea that having and maintaining a nuclear arsenal, as well as plans to use it, secures a state against possible threats from enemy states.
Many have questioned whether this chain of events would really unfold so neatly. In 1983, for instance, one real-life Russian duty officer did famously deviate from the doomsday script. Stanislav Petrov received a computer warning that several nuclear missiles had been fired toward the Soviet Union from the US. In principle, this ought to have triggered an immediate retaliatory strike against the US. But Petrov had a hunch it was a false alarm and, against protocol, chose not to alert his superiors, potentially averting Armageddon.
A House of Dynamite envisions a world where deterrence has, inexplicably, failed. Yes, this is arguably the fault of all those who have supported nuclear posturing, that’s what the film’s title is about. But Fail Safe is much more successful at showing how and why the worst risks come from within. It depicts the hubris and viciousness of certain individuals involved, as well as the ridiculousness of the complex systems and protocols that people put between one another. We risk losing ourselves in it all.
Early in Fail Safe, before the chilling alarms and frantic phone calls, there’s a scene in which two old-school Air Force pilots hang out and play pool. One complains that younger pilots don’t have the individuality, the humanity, of his generation of war-fighters.
“You could tell them apart. They were all people,” he says. “These kids … You open them up, you’ll find they run on transistors.”
Ironically, the pilot who utters these words is none other than Colonel Grady, the human button who goes on to fly unwaveringly toward Moscow.
In Fail Safe, after the initial computer error, the system takes over and functions exactly as designed.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: wired.com
