Director Kathryn Bigelow’s new film, A House of Dynamite, dramatizes the catastrophic consequences that could follow the launch of an untraceable nuclear missile toward the United States, highlighting the urgent risks of nuclear conflict in today’s world. The movie, streaming on Netflix, arrives amid an unprecedented resurgence of cultural works focusing on nuclear weapons, underscoring its relevance as global tensions over these arms grow.
The Fictional Premise Reflects Real Nuclear Dangers
A House of Dynamite follows the scramble to identify the source and decide the response after a mysterious nuclear attack on U.S. soil. Its story brings audiences face-to-face with the harrowing possibility that one mistaken launch or miscalculation could trigger a disaster far worse than any test scenario. Ernest J. Moniz, former U.S. Secretary of Energy and current CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, recognizes this vividly from his own experience:
“Watching as the fictional president is evacuated from Washington in Director Kathryn Bigelow’s film, A House of Dynamite, brought me back to my own helicopter ride to an underground bunker as Secretary of Energy. Fortunately, my ride was a test-run for ensuring continuity of government in the event of a nuclear attack — but as the film underscores, one wrong move could take us beyond test runs and bring civilization crashing down.”
The Current Cultural Focus on Nuclear Threats
This film debuts alongside a wider cultural revival centered on nuclear weapons. Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer recently reignited interest in the origins and dangers of nuclear arms, and James Cameron’s upcoming adaptation of Ghosts of Hiroshima promises to deepen the conversation. Even television series like Netflix’s The Diplomat and Amazon’s Fallout are engaging millions by dramatizing the geopolitical tensions and societal impacts linked to nuclear stockpiles. Notably, the expiration of the New START treaty—one of the last agreements limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals—is looming, adding urgency to the debate about disarmament and global security.
Despite being featured in films and shows, nuclear weapons remain a stark reality. Currently, over 12,000 nuclear warheads exist worldwide, a number experts expect to rise for the first time in over 40 years. The risk of intentional or accidental nuclear use has soared to levels not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, making the warnings in Bigelow’s film particularly urgent.
Shifting Public Perception Through Film
The impact of A House of Dynamite extends beyond entertainment. Research commissioned by the Nuclear Threat Initiative found that viewers exposed to the film’s trailer became more skeptical of the notion that nuclear weapons provide safety. They also showed increased support for reducing global nuclear arsenals and placed greater personal importance on lowering nuclear risks. This response underscores the longstanding role culture plays in shaping public opinion and policy.
The influence of cultural works on nuclear policy is not new. The 1983 TV movie The Day After, which depicted the aftermath of a nuclear strike on the U.S. heartland, altered public attitudes dramatically—reaching over 100 million viewers and impacting President Ronald Reagan’s stance on the arms race. This shift helped pave the way for arms control treaties, including the New START treaty, which have substantially reduced the global nuclear stockpile.
Generational Distance and Reality of Nuclear Threats
For many younger people, especially those in Gen-Z, nuclear war may seem like a distant, almost fictional concern. Moniz recounts how a young colleague reacted after viewing Bigelow’s film with skepticism, saying, “That would never happen.” He counters this complacency, emphasizing the fragile nature of the global nuclear system:
“We live in a nuclear system that was not built for a messy, complicated world — it’s a system that hinges on perfect performances from rational humans and machines every day. What is shown in the film could happen, and it — or something worse — will happen if we stay on the current path.”
Steps Toward Reducing Nuclear Risks
To avoid the grim scenarios depicted in the film, Moniz outlines vital actions that world leaders should take promptly. He stresses the importance of extending the New START treaty’s current limits, noting that former President Trump expressed some support for prolonging the agreement:
“A solid first step would be for President Trump to accept a recent offer from Russian President Vladimir Putin to adhere for an additional year to the numerical limits of New START, which Trump himself said sounds like a good idea.”
Beyond an extension, Moniz argues for negotiations on a successor agreement that would not only reduce the number of nuclear weapons but also address the composition and safety of arsenals.
Such agreements are critical to reestablishing reliable communication channels and mechanisms to verify treaty compliance, which are essential to prevent miscalculations that could trigger nuclear catastrophe. Additionally, nuclear-armed states must reexamine their command and control systems, especially given emerging threats from artificial intelligence and cyber warfare. Moniz warns,
“No one wants to see a blunder lead to a nuclear catastrophe on the long journey towards a more secure world — without nuclear weapons.”
The Urgency of Dialogue and Leadership
Kathryn Bigelow has expressed her hope that A House of Dynamite will ignite a broader conversation on nuclear disarmament. The film’s stark portrayal of looming nuclear danger serves as a wake-up call for both the public and policymakers. Moniz concludes with a call to action:
“For the future of humanity, let’s hope that the movie wakes people up to the nuclear nightmare festering in our house of dynamite and gets leaders back to the negotiating table.”
