what goes around comes around

a movie for the ages

Today is the sixty-first anniversary of the premier of Dr. Strangelove—or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Stanley Kubrick’s tour de force for the post-Wag generation if not all of cinematic history. Focusing on the threat of a nuclear conflict launched by a rouge Air Force General seeking to destroy the Commies he stealing “his precious bodily fluids”, this black comedy brought so many relevant themes to the big screen: Orwellian double speak, the former Nazi scientists the United States welcomed for our desperate attempt to go nuclear to defeat an existential threat, differences between Amerispeak and Britishspeak, the civil military balance between uniformed officers and their civilian leaders, and the automaticity of military protocols to perform their assignments on our behalf, among many.

The British comic genius Peter Sellers performed flawlessly in multiple roles, including the mysterious mad scientist unable to hide his Nazi sympathies, while the rest of the cast, such as George C. Scott in the Pentagon, was equally brilliant for the ability these actors brought to bring enliven stereotypes in this terrifying sequence of events. Virtually none of them are still with us but their performances endure as a commentary on an era, a conflict, and on those of us living in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis two and a half years earlier.

Other movies, some fictional and others documentary (I am especially keen on Atomic Cafe’ for its use of film footage from the era), reminded us that dangers of nuclear war, practicing civil defense, and living under the sustained peril known euphemistically as Mutual Assured Destruction were on-going realities imposed on the entire globe for forty years, as it turned out.

With the implosion of the Soviet Union on 31 December 1991, nuclear anxiety diminished greatly. The fear of Saddam Hussein acquiring even a small nuclear stockpile stimulated the 2003 Iraq invasion, the ramifications of which play out today. As easily as I opposed the action because of not seeing any beneficial outcome other than Saddam’s overthrow (and we can never assume it can’t get worse than a horrible dictator as it most definitely did in Iraq), I have never forgotten a conversation with a former CIA colleague I respect so completely. This fellow spent virtually his entire career on that Middle East country and its Ba’athist leader. In discussing the assumptions leading us into the debacle, my friend noted we might not have had the evidence but nor did not have sufficient evidence to assure he didn’t have a nuclear program, either, so policy-makers acted as they felt required. The nuclear issues in Iraq, of course, provided profound evidence that policy makers never have complete knowledge or certainty, despite the multi-million dollar investments we make in many intelligence organizations.

But nuclear weapons concerned us for decades—and ought still worry us a great deal today because public evidence indicates more than 13,000 still exist globally. Vlad the Impaler still controls the single biggest nuclear stockpile, providing a deterrent to use against NATO moving either too quickly towards Ukraine’s membership in the Alliance or moving towards Russia’s border.

Many press reports and analysts conclude China’s military modernization in recent years has included a health dose of nuclear expansion, though seemingly remaining smaller in count than the Russians or U.S. forces.

India and Pakistan remain under a de facto nuclear stand off as the two states constantly worry that the other will seize an advantage.

Israel still refuses to deny or confirm this capability some six decades after the first hints of an arsenal arose.

The latest member of the nuclear club, the DPRK, continues menacing Northeast Asia while ever increasing the reported ranges for its delivery capabilities despite decades of generations of negotiators attempting desperately to wave off this development.

Other nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are either on the brink or well-positioned for further proliferation in a short time.

In sum, a much more complicated context replaced the highly charged the bilateral Cold War portrayed in Dr. Strangelove without assuring us of any curtailment to the threat.

Indeed, only yesterday the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists released a revised “Doomsday Clock” putting the world merely 89 seconds from human extinction from a nuclear exchange. This is as perilous an assessment (rather than a predication) as the atomic analysts ever provided on the danger of nuclear conflict.

Hardly anything cheery in an unsettled and unsettling start to 2025 for so much of the world.

If you have never seen Dr. Strangelove, get yourself to a streaming site for it right now. Sixty-one years later, it remains haunting for portraying how seemingly impossible errors could lead to an unstoppable nuclear attack. It offers quite a reminder of decisions and consequences, hopefully never fulfilled.

Thank you for your time today. I welcome your thoughts on Peter Sellers, Dr. Strangelove (the character or the movie), T. Boone Pickens, or anything else related to the film. Please feel free to relate your memories of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the early 1980s tensions between Reagan and the Soviets, or about negotiations with the Kim dynasty in Pyongyang. We welcome thoughts, suggestions, reflections, and ever fears as a method of thinking forward.

I appreciate those of you who read this column daily or once in a while. I especially thank the financial supporters who commit to Actions.

Late in January, the days are definitely lengthening (thank goodness) but the ice remains slow to melt along Spa Creek.

Be well and be safe. FIN

Adam Dombovari, “PRESS RELEASE: Doomsday Clock Set at 89 Seconds to Midnight, Closest Ever to Nuclear Extinction”, thebulletin.org, 28 January 2025, retrieved at https://thebulletin.org/2025/01/press-release-doomsday-clock-set-at-89-seconds-to-midnight-closest-ever-to-human-extinction/

Matt Murphy, “China has sharply expanded nuclear arsenal, US says”, bbcnews.com, 10 October 2023, retrieved at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67163903

“Nuclear Weapons by Country, 2025”, WorldPopulationReview.org, 29 January 2025, retrieved at https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nuclear-weapons-by-country