Why cant millenials write properly about nuclear war and nuclear weapons?First its this pile of shit and next dennis villeneuve is going to spoon feed us that annie jacobson fear porn about how america is incapable of calling russia on the phone and nuclear winter is like totally real guys
nobody watched this slop?
>>64452619>millenialsdo you think this is new?Since the 1950s we've had hysterical, "ban the bomb" films like Dr Redditlove, The Bedford Incident, On the Beach, all using a veneer of veteran knowledge and inside access to postulate that everyone in the military was insane and incapable of critical thinking and that YOU, as the common man or intelligentsia, were the only thinking person in the room and could prevent the annihilation of the world (so long as you went right outside to march with those friendly looking people with red flags).This is just a return of that stupidity now that someone they do not like is in office.
>>64452823regular people > military and government employees > rich people
>>64452837You, my friend, are exactly the sort of midwit these films have been successfully baiting for more than 70 years.
>>64452840Seek Christ.
>>64452823>Since the 1950s we've had hysterical, "ban the bomb" films like Dr Redditlove, snowflakes can't handle comedies
>>64452850Self-serious narcissists cannot stand being made fun of. It's psychologically devastating for them to realize people are laughing at how silly they are.
>>64452823by dawns early light was really good though
>>64452619The writer was born in 1977 anon
>>64452865But surely not you, anon. You can't be made fun of because you're never serious. Everything is just a silly joke.
I take what I do seriously, but I do not take myself seriously.
>>64452823floozy kisser
>>64452823Said the substitute teacher with the poli-sci degree.
>>64452823The hated him for he spoke truth.>>64452987This anon's right though, By Dawn's Early Light was a fucking vibe.>>644526192nd post pretty much nails it, but I'd add that millenials are specifically recipients of the legacy of all that Cold War-era nuclear fear porn (regardless of aesthetic quality, even films like Threads and TDA were pretty brazen in their appeal to shock value and sensationalism). That, plus anti-nookism has long been a staple of pseuds and activisits-looking-for-a-cause types (no shortage among millenials).Those together with other things about my generation mean that we're not only bad at nuke drama, but we're always going to be prone to basically retelling the same stories we saw since the 1960s, with the same moral messaging ("this is madness and we must DE-NOOK"), with the same frozen-in-time understanding of nuclear escalation dictating the story millenials *think* needs to be told about muh nooks. Again.And again.It sucks because I'm actually looking forward to Villeneuve's adaptation of the Jacobson slop, just to see his cinematic eye do nukes properly (the Atomics in Dune were underwhelming, as nukes go, but canonically it makes sense and it still looked great).
>>64452823Extremely fucking correct & based. Daily reminder that nuclear winter is not fucking real, and it was literally a KGB PSYOP. Anyone seriously N00000K-posting is either a retard or working for foreign governments.
>>64453640Nuclear bombs are evil because war is evil. >muh deterrentthey've deterred nothing
>>64452778my inlaws did and thought it was stupid. they said something about a missile being launched and nobody knowing where it came from which sounds even more retarded than I could possibly imagine.
>>64453729>Nuclear bombs are evilEvil is a strong word but I'm sensitive to the premise.>because war is evilI mean no insult by it (I'm 100% serious) but this is a toddler-tier, almost theatrically overly-reductive take for *many* reasons more than anybody gives a fuck to read from my anon ass.>>muh deterrent>they've deterred nothingThis is wrong, but I *think* I agree with where you're arriving at. Nukes are a problem precisely because they *have* deterred a lot, arguably entirely way too fucking much. To the point that their worst end of the spectrum of their existence, just like any other weapon, is characterized by the lowest-common-denominator that can get their hands on it. As a result, a lot of the spooky/grimy/shady/scummy/underhanded fuckery that characterizes our world today only exists because nukes make outright, conventional annihilation impossible against any retard with enough "fuck around with the world" free-cards. This invariably has led to a fucking ludicrously precarious world order that hasn't really existed quite like this before, and one that could still devolve into serious shitshow-mode, just with much more pussyfooting and proxy-warring.Nukes aren't bad because "nooks bad." Nooks are bad because they've frozen international geopolitical progression and suspended it in an artificial state where weak nations can play at strong as long as they can split the atom, or attach themselves to a nation that can.
>>64452619i watched it the other night. it was alright. kind of a weird adaptation of annie jacobson's book/the sum of all fears. the lack of information during such a strike, and the shit would pile up in the minutes afterward. it's pretty contrived, all the DSP sats missed it somehow and generally people being retarded. solid 6/10 just because it was unique.
>>64452778I did, it was crap. It was a teleconference meeting that was literally repeated three different times.
>>64452619The pacing was terrible and why did they leave the president alone with the navy guy at the end? I'm sure the helicopter is big enough for a couple secret service and an advisor plus the guy with the football, kathryn bigelow is such a hack bitch
>>64453893>muh weak>muh strong12 year old's idea of maturity lmao. you are perpetually halo-brained.
I find the premise to be a bit absurd.The idea that anyone would fire just 1 nuke at the US (and at a non-militsry target at that) seems unrealistic. And if someone did, would that even require immediate nuclear retaliation?
>>64454027>And if someone did, would that even require immediate nuclear retaliation?As far as I understand, it doesn't really matter if it's just one or an entire national arsenal: it really wouldn't be a good idea to set a precedent that a limited usage of them is acceptable
If a rogue nation fired off 1 nuke (seemingly with the sole purpose killing millions of civilations) wouldn't basicly every other nuclear nation just gang up on them for upsetting the balance of power
>>64453999>12 year old's idea of maturity lmaoI don't know which part you're exactly referring to, but your attempt to "no-u" being called out for saying something as asinine as "war bad" as though it's profound betrays how much that hurt you, which as I said wasn't my intention.I'll reiterate in zoom zoom:>Nukes bad because WEAK and PUSSY ASS BITCH countries can FA without having to FO
>>64454055It's not profound; it's incredibly basic and fundamental to a Christ-centered worldview.
>>64454027No. Anne Jacobsen gets a lot wrong too btw so this is a case of uncaring midwits repeating bad memes from other careless midwits for five stages until the poop sliding out one end barely resembles the slop shoveled in at the other.
>>64452619>born in 1978It's another "zoomers blame millenials for gen x" thread. Everything netflix does is gay and you're a fag for watching, even if you pirate it.
>ugh! millennials!>guys look what zoomers are doing wrong!>can millennials even?>this is what zoomers!i dont fucking care man, millennials and zoomers are the same one group is just ten years older.
>>64454065>"it's incredibly basic and fundamental to a Christ-centered worldview">What is Just WarForgetting Aquinas, I'm agnostic and I understand warfare to be a constant in the human condition that shouldn't be praised and pursued, but shouldn't be demonized in such a way that makes you unprepared to wage it appropriately when it *inevitably* is upon you.
>>64454078The differences between generations are exaggerated; teenagers have always acted like teenagers and will always act like teenagers. Old people act like old people and will always act like old people. Etc etc until the end of time.
>>64454079>I understand warfare to be a constant in the human conditionHumanity has been "behaviorally modern" for at least 40,000 years, whereas there is no evidence war existed more than 10,000 years ago.In the same way that teenagers are more likely to get into fights than babies or grown adults, adolescent civilizations are more prone to war, and eventually humanity will outgrow it.
>>64452823Well put>>64452987Fantastic movie, Powers Booth is great.
>>64454088>Humanity has been "behaviorally modern" for at least 40,000 yearsI know what you mean by this, but not only is most anthropology on this topic necessarily fuzzy (to the point that almost every decade sees major revisions to the going theory), but even assuming that's accurate, behavioral modernity is secondary to anatomical modernity. If we can see in the closest primates to human beings elements of warfare between two separate social groups (or even power struggles *within* social strata), it's pretty premature to positively conclude that there was zero warfare over that past 200,000-300,000 years of humanity. That's on par with blanket declarations of their being no life in the universe off of Earth, or their definitively being no God based only on human cognition.
>>64454127You're making the mistake of thinking that humans evolved from chimps; we did not. We both evolved from a common ancestor. There are plenty of primate species that do not engage in war, and in fact have egalitarian forms of social organization and are relatively free from conflict within and between groups.
>>64454088>In the same way that teenagers are more likely to get into fights than babies or grown adults, adolescent civilizations are more prone to war>eventually humanity will outgrow it.I forgot to say that I hope this is true. If it does happen, I don't think it's going to be anatomically modern humans who will. I don't think we're evolved to do so, as we are, not out brains anyway. A lot would need to change over the next several millenia, but I definitely do think it's possible for the species to evolve into something that doesn't do over warfare against itself anymore.
>>64454145The brain's a brain, and consciousness is a signal we pick up on. The more awakened humanity is, the more awakened humanity will become. The Second Coming is in our hearts, and it's been unfolding before us the entire time.
>>64454145>>64454154>the brain's a brainlmao, the brain's a radio*
>>64453893>where weak nations can play at strong as long as they can split the atom, or attach themselves to a nation that can.You had me until here. Claiming a nation is "weak" despite having nukes or being allied with one that does is a peak brainlet take. Survival of the fittest isn't about some platonic ideal of "fit" it's a tautology, the ones at the top of the food chain are the fittest and vice versa.
>>64454088>whereas there is no evidence war existed more than 10,000 years ago.There's very little to no evidence for many things that occured 10,000+ years ago anon. Nevermind the fact that a lack of evidence iof something sn't evidence of a lack of something.
>>64454180Well we can speculate about the state of the pre-historic world all day, but it would just be creative writing if it's not backed up by anything material.
>>64454141I don't think we evolved from chimps at all, I understand the common ancestor theory. I think chimps and humans evolved along remarkably similar paths, as did gorillas, baboons, and orangutans. All of these demonstrate the characteristics I mentioned, which we share. I think we differ on what we think that means, which is a more than fair point of departure. I think it points to the fact that whichever pressures drove our species seem to have hammered a fairly "rigid" (obviously not totally rigid) behavioral tendencies. I think those are going to be hard pressed out of the species any time soon, and unfortunately that means many of those tendencies might as well be treated as constants pending our evolution.Warfare, unfortunately, being one of the big one.>>64454154You'd think as a godless heathen I'd ree at this but I'm not necessarily discounting this as something of a possibility. Whether one makes the leap of faith or not, there has been a steadily growing resurgence among Christian faith in the West. Cultural polarity is a real thing, and when the West's polarity is Christian, the world generally benefits.
>>64454195>All of these demonstrate the characteristics I mentioned, which we share.No, they don't. Orangutans do not. Bonobos do not. Also, I don't like this new globalist definition of "The West" to mean something other than the Western United States.
>>64454165>Survival of the fittest isn't about some platonic ideal of "fit" it's a tautology,I know, and I'm realizing people don't always know how you mean something when you type it.What I evidently typed poorly is the notion that the very presence of nukes has created a food chain that's fundamentally retardedly untenable and fundamentally unsustainable. All Real Politik-ing aside, having thirdie despotic shitheads print nukes and wield the Sword of Damocles over our heads as blackmail for freedom to run shenanigans is a very, very, very stupid feature of this food pyramid, one that actively undermines key elements of itself ("muh non-proliferation lmao").It's less about any concept of physical strength, and more about the fact that non-sensical geopolitical realities are allowed to hold, even after they start to cause far more trouble than they ought to be, all with the added risk of nuclear exchange if you handle it poorly.I say this as someone who autistically read encyclopedia entries on fission, fusion, tritium, and has a poster of Castle Union hanging in his study back at home. I luv nooks. I also just really hate that they exist.
>>64454238The biggest nonsensical geopolitical reality is that we're ruled over by psychotic criminals who hate us, but that'll all be over soon.
>>64453898Someone /tv/ said the writers admitted up front that they intentionally contrived a scenario that would accommodate the story/characters they wanted and acknowledged how unlikely it was. I can see the logic; there's a limited amount of drama from a "Russia/China just launched a full-on first strike" scenario since people who know about this stuff could easily tell you exactly how that would play out because it's what they were trained for.
>>64454208>Orangutans do not.Orangutans have definitely demonstrated the capacity to violent behavior similarly to humans, but you're right that bonobos definitely do not (I love those fuckers like you wouldn't believe). I specifically choose close primates to list that do demonstrate human-like violence and omitted ones that don't.>Also, I don't like this new globalist definition of "The West"Anon you betray your youth. "The West" as a term for specifically NATO and NATO-aligned countries is a Cold War term, incidentally just like First World, Second World, and Third World.
>>64454248>The biggest nonsensical geopolitical reality is that we're ruled over by psychotic criminals who hate usThat's the longest running one we've got anon.>but that'll all be over soon.That I can pray for.
>>64454267I'm 32 years old, and it's still a new definition compared to one I prefer (Utah, Wyoming, etc).
I dont think there's anyone alive today who has seen an atom bomb go off outside of North Korea
>>64452823Why is it that simpletons like you can't grasp that none of those films are advocating for unilateral disarmament, but instead lamenting the state of things, under which the USSR and the USA led the world during an unstable equilibrium of brinkmanship and game theory? It very well could be that a few political missteps would have plunged the world into a nuclear war. None of those pieces of media advocated you march for shit. You're just a pussy that gets defensive when anything you believe gets questioned.
>>64454285Eh, for me it's one of those things you file and seclude. It doesn't apply to you because you'r posting on /k/, but most people don't even really have a reason to need to know random Cold War geopolitical jargonese shit.It's funny because I'll only ever have these kinds of conversations where I know "West" isn't referring to a fishing trip here on /k/ or with this one other autist I know from work. Everyone else I know would only ever think about "west" as Western US.
>>64454285Only foreigners use it the way he did.
>>64454310They were propaganda pieces, and often grossly technically incorrect in just-such-a-way as to advance the Soviet narrative, while claiming a veneer of science to oppose the US.This was hammered out ad nauseaum so long ago it's not surprising many people have completely forgotten about it and thus new people don't know, but you should at least do some basic research before trying to resurrect cope for some of the shittiest propaganda in living memory.
>>64454318You're trying too hard.
>>64454368I'm not trying at all. We just don't say that here.
>>64454310>but instead lamenting the state of thingsNTA but this is kind of the problem/ isn't it? If that's the crux of these films (and I like them, they are good nuke movies), then the virtual state of things hasn't much changed, has it? So if it hasn't, then why make the same movie, again and again and again? With this movie they literally had the same plot line three fucking times in the one film, for the real irony.No one ever seems to want to say something more, and if they do, it's NO NOOKS. >what else is there to say?Probably should say invest in a serious means to negate or astronomically complicate the delivery and/or price of using nuclear weapons. >But that's prohibitively expensive and pie in the skyIt's the only other game in town and leagues more achievable than uninventing nuclear fission/fusion (as long as the principle itself exists, people *will* make weapons).If that's not good enough, then what justifies continuously lamenting the state of things with no realistic appeal to do doing so?And why do it with the same ass basic story we've seen for over 60 years at this point on movie screens? At that point they should just devolve into Emmerich-tier popcorn disaster films where the destruction is a set-piece attraction. The fact they all take themselves as seriously as they did in Fail Safe is what makes it all the more off-putting.
>>64454402>We just don't say that here.>hereAnon I'm pretty sure you don't live and work in all 50 states of the Union.
I'm going off topic more than a bit here.Praytell you think Platoon was a pro war movie? Or Apoc?What did you think Se7en was about, socially speaking not the damn movie plot?Movies are made to manipulate YOU the watcher first and foremost and you'll be hard pressed to find a movie that hasn't been touched by mind cancer. I side with the villain out of spite and to get a window into "what I don't want you to think"
>>64454435>So if it hasn't, then why make the same movie, again and again and again?Because it's a movie made for entertainment with a little bit of things that are supposed to make you think. Do you also complain about movies that have picrel as a structure?
>>64454482The vast majority of war movies are not critical of the systems that lead to war.
>>64454490>Because it's a movie made for entertainment with a little bit of things that are supposed to make you think.Look, I get that I'm weirdly spergy about this genre, but I'm not opposed to archetypal storylines. The problem I have with this very, very wildly specific niche of a genre is that it's grown stagnant, which shouldn't even be possible for something that you shouldn't have to make *too* many movies on before it's retread ground, just by virtue of the archetype.It's not to say there haven't been unique examples of these kinds of nuke drama movies>Special Bulletin>Countdown to Looking Glass>By Dawn's Early Light >TestamentShit, fucking WarGames and Manhattan Project are great examples of "muh nooks bad" movies that hold up well specifically because of how well they executed on that message and VFX, cyber hackerman, and pre-StarGate NORAD-kino novelty for WarGames, especially.Basically I just wish we had more innovative storylines around nuclear warfare, instead of what's kind of become the boilerplate "A Fail Safe House of All Fears: A Scenario" scenario.
>>64452823>Dr. Redditlovefuck you too faggot, it was a good movie
>>64454930t. demoralized gen xer
