In his book Apocalypse Movies author Kim Newman examines the different genres and periods of apocalyptic films. Particularly notable is Newman’s focus on movies that emphasize the use of weapons to save the world and those that depict weapons destroying the world. Interestingly, in separate chapters the author points out that both types of movie debuted near the beginning of the 1950s, a time of anxiety and progress. The different uses of bombs in movies embody the conflicting perspectives of society. On one hand, one might identify nuclear weapons as a safeguard, an instrument to employ when threatened. Newman points out this attitude in Mant, when a man has to use a weapon to destroy a mutated giant ant man. On the other hand, movies on the other side of the spectrum portrayed weapon use in much different manner. The Damned, for example, “conjures up an age of senseless violence of which the bomb is merely the most fearsome part” (p. 168).

Kubrick’s satiric use of nuclear weapons in Dr. Strangelove is quite different from either of the two extreme modes mentioned. While the film does depict a world that ultimately is destroyed by weapons, the film is humorous and lighthearted enough that it allows the audience to absord a message rather than experience a thrill. Where most weapon films of the time portrayed dismal, alarming environments Dr. Strangelove is comical enough that the message becomes the focus. Other films risk heightening the viewer’s alarm, distracting from actual situations and possibly discouraging the spectator. Unlike many “bomb” films, because Kubrick takes a satirical approach Dr. Strangelove is able to address the issue of nuclear proliferation in a way that allows viewers to approach it critically.

Is there a way to effectively deter a Soviet attack without the threat of retribution?  As we see in Dr. Strangelove and the circumstances of the Cold War, it appears that if either party discontinued its pursuit of arms or renounced forceful retaliation plans the opponent would immediately have an advantage and an incentive to attack.  In the article “Nuclear Arms as a Philosophical and Moral Issue” author Robert Churchill addresses that issue, closely examining the ethical implications of retaliation and alternatives.  Harming the innocent, including not protecting them if an attack is suspect, is central to the morality issue, according to Churchill.  While considering whether to abandon retributive plans a country must also contemplate whether doing so would invite an attack upon its civilians by the other country.  Here arise questions of human nature.

As evidenced by the Cold War, the common mentality is to assume that countries will not cooperate.  Immediately individuals assume that the other nation is an opponent or adversary and means harm.  In Dr. Strangelove the deranged general, certain the Russians plotted to fluoridate US drinking water, embodied the paranoid mindset.  Such suspicious attitudes only strengthen the distrust between countries.  The situation is essentially a catch 22.  Once one country starts amassing weapons the other must do so to avoid attack, and if one stops producing weapons it risks being attacked.  Both countries would benefit from abandoning their programs, but neither can.

The issue seems to rest on the perception of human nature.  Through cooperation both countries could direct resources elsewhere and avoid the anxiety of nuclear competition.  The success of disarmament lies in the balance of whether the two could successful exist without challenging each other.