Promoted by Chris
There were many influential figures in the history of nuclear weapons, but perhaps the most important didn’t actually exist: his name was Doctor Strangelove.
Strangelove came to symbolize the essential madness of nuclear war. This was one of the psychological aspects of the Cold War nuclear stand-off–probably the healthiest, in that it was a factor in preventing nuclear war.
This is relevant today not only in considering the consequences if the U.S. launched nuclear weapons on Iran, but in the unrelenting Iraq war and the madness of Guantanamo, the Bush government in general, the Climate Crisis and other catastrophes of our time. They are promoted by those who try to sound rational and sane, but whose actions both indicate insanity, and cause people to become unhinged in view of what they are doing.
In a previous essay, I wrote about how nuclear war was averted through a common global sense that it was suicidal and immoral. But there was another element to the consensus: that nuclear war was evidence of insanity. Not just madness in the loose sense, but in the sense of mental derangement. The view that came to prevail was that only a species that had gone mad would engage in a war that would destroy itself.
But there were other psychological aspects that were less amusing or healthy, like helpless fear and anxiety, and dangerous projections and denial that threatened to provoke rather than restrain nuclear war. Now, in facing the prospect of a different kind of nuclear war or even the other potential catastrophes of our time, we are still haunted by these psychological spectres.
Origins of Strangelove
Invented for a 1964 movie of that title, Dr. Strangelove was likely based on several men, including Nazi-turned-U.S. rocket scientist Werner von Braun and geopolitical strategist Henry Kissinger, but probably primarily on nuclear scientist Edward Teller and nuclear war futurist Herman Kahn. Teller zealously promoted the H-Bomb and the arms race, as well as grandiose schemes such as using atomic bomb explosions as excavation tools. Kahn…well, Kahn is another story.
Once it became likely that the next war could be an atomic one, the U.S. military wanted to know what to expect. A project within the Douglas Aircraft Company which soon spun off to become the Rand Corporation, and one of its guiding lights was Herman Kahn.
Kahn and Rand made some lasting contributions to how we think about the future. Together with scientists at M.I.T. and elsewhere, they were among the pioneers of systems dynamics. Kahn developed and popularized the idea of developing “scenarios” to project a combination of chosen factors into a story of future happenings. Out of this emerged a technique common to all kinds of “futurists,” and computer “war games,” the basis for a lot of electronic gaming today. And we talk about “scenarios” all the time now, though before Kahn it was specialized theatrical term.
But in “Thinking the Unthinkable” and other works on nuclear war, Kahn was also the inventor or at least the popularizer of such terms as “deterrence” and “throw-weight” or the ghastly jargon of “megatons,” and “megadeaths.” Kahn insisted on the “rationality of irrationality” in studying nuclear war, and he advocated the Cold War situation which came to pass: two sides armed with the “overkill” capacity to destroy each other and humankind several times over, and with the technology to respond to an attack (or a presumed attack) with enough nuclear weapons to destroy its destroyers. This would be the basis of deterrence. He called this doctrine Mutually Assured Destruction. He used its acronym: MAD.
Doctor Strangelove was demonstrably mad in a characteristic nuclear age way. He spoke very rationally and intelligently about mass murder and global suicide. As played brilliantly by Peter Sellers, he was confused in his allegiances–was he serving democracy, or Hitler? Even his body was split, with a “paralyzed” arm that when he was about to commit the ultimate insanity, tried to choke him.
He was not the only crazy character. There was George C. Scott as a combination of several military leaders, who talked of millions of deaths as “getting our hair mussed,” and carried around a folder that said “the world in megadeaths.”
But the moviemakers had trouble making the movie crazier than reality. General Jack D. Ripper (who started nuclear war to protect his “precious bodily fluids”) was based on a general whose real name was General Powers. He once said that if there are three people left alive after a nuclear war and two are American, it means we won.
In fact, the moviemakers had intended to make a serious drama, but the more they researched the subject the more they became convinced that it was all so crazy that the appropriate tone was as a “nightmare comedy.” The mood of the movie is reminiscent of the Marx Brothers, articularly their satire on war, “Duck Soup.” In another movie, Groucho and Chico negotiate a contract. Chico rejects every clause including the last one, the sanity clause. He says he won’t be fooled, because “there is no sanity clause.” That pretty much is the message of “Doctor Strangelove.”
Excavating the Madness
The madness of nuclear war was not always apparent to the public as a whole, or at least not articulated in that way. The first reactions to Hiroshima were of horror, and the need to control nuclear weapons. But once the arms race began, there was considerable pressure to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program.
The U.S. government worried about how the public was dealing psychologically with the atomic age. They waited for psychological studies, but none emerged, because the public didn’t seem to be feeling anything. Eventually, the government quietly sponsored research into why the public wasn’t reacting. The theories ranged from “cognitive dissonance” to a kind of apathy later identified as “learned helplessness,” to the simple but powerful psychological defense mechanism known as denial.
Denial was undeniably the national pastime of the 1950s, encouraged by the surface sunniness of suburbia and the patriotic repression of McCarthyism. But what ordinary people faced was that their ordinary life could be transformed in a split second into hellfire. No one could ever know how much the Bomb contributed to neuroses and psychoses, alcoholism and drug addiction, infidelity, domestic violence, and divorce, or to depressions that could be a crippling sense of pointlessness, or a lower-intensity, underlying sense of futility. But eventually there was public evidence of how the Bomb changed the psychological state of the times.
The pressure of MADness fueled an age of black humor and absurdism. Satire blossomed in the 1960s, with “Beyond the Fringe,” “That Was the Week That Was,” Firesign Theatre and edgier standup comedy by Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, Shelley Berman and others.
There were also serious explorations of just how insane this society might be, by Eric Fromm (“The Sane Society”), Lewis Mumford (“In the Name of Sanity”) and others. Beat poets, absurdist playwrights and novelists explored similar themes.
By the early 60s, the madness of nuclear war was being expressed and reinforced in popular culture by jokes and cartoons which emphasized the absurdity, and by novels, movies and television dramas which emphasized the horror. Though the horror and absurdity blended even in daily life (ask a Boomer about “Duck & Cover”), the two weren’t brought together and expressed until Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove.”
Though it was controversial at the time, “Dr. Strangelove” became at least as important as John Hershey’s book, “Hiroshima,” the Stanley Kramer film, “On the Beach,” and much later, Nicholas Meyer’s TV film, “The Day After,” in both forming and expressing common responses and beliefs about nuclear war. “Dr. Strangelove” expressed the sane view that nuclear war was insane. That deep psychological consensus, in my view, was a major factor in preventing anyone from starting a nuclear war.
Since the Berlin Wall fell, the constant psychological as well as moral presence of nuclear war has faded. New generations didn’t live through that time, even though the threat of accidental nuclear war is as real today as it was then, and we have plenty of evidence that the potential for that kind of madness exists in our government and military.
My previous essays on nuclear war, especially relating to the possible nuclear attack on Iraq, sought to bring into light some of the lessons of those years: that nuclear weapons are not just bigger bombs, but unleash destruction that is different in kind as well as scale, especially through the long-term and potentially widespread effects of radiation. That because of the Bomb’s history, and the sense of immorality attached to their use, nuclear weapons are considered in a special category around the world, and the next use of them in war will likely bring immense geopolitical consequences.
To these I add the assertion that nuclear war was averted without either a coercive or cooperative world government or authority, largely because of a shared sense that however rational scientists, political and military leaders pretend it is, nuclear war is insane. We know they are all Dr. Strangelove. We need to remind ourselves of that. It requires a step back from the chain of logic employed by policymakers to see this.
There is another pertinent psychological implication–the danger that, from the power-mad leaders to the fear and despair of ordinary people, the use of nuclear weapons can itself drive a society or perhaps all of humankind insane.
Some of the responses to my previous essays expressed fears and anxieties that are very similar to those experienced earlier in the atomic age. The sense of helplessness feeds these fears. In my next commentary, I want to suggest strategies for dealing with the psychological impact of nuclear weapons and other manifestations of political madness.
Sanity is conspicuously absent among the lunatics running the Bush regime.
Sometimes I think BushCo. is about “cleansing” the earth so that it is prepared for the Rapture. At such times, sleep becomes more elusive than normal.
Though it was controversial at the time, “Dr. Strangelove” became at least as important as John Hershey’s book, “Hiroshima,” the Stanley Kramer film, “On the Beach,” and much later, Nicholas Meyer’s TV film, “The Day After,” in both forming and expressing common responses and beliefs about nuclear war.
You might add “Fail-Safe” to that list; I think it had a pretty strong impact at the time and still holds up well.
I was thinking of this because I just the other day saw, on DVD, the 2000 made-for-tv remake that was executive-produced by George Clooney (among others). This is hard to find, but I strongly recommend it: it may be the only remake I’ve seen that was as good as, or better than, its original. (Although made for tv, and even broadcast live, it has all the directorial sophistication — the director was Stephen Frears — one would expect from a very polished theater release.)
I know you didn’t mean to make this a film appreciation thread, but there’s a point to my mentioning this remake. Making the film in 2000, the powers behind it seemed to be trying to remind us that this is not a thing of the past. (At the end of the film, before the credits, they flash up a list of the countries possessing nuclear arsenals in 2000.) The fact that they kept the original story and its dating intact, and even were so self-consciously “retro” as to do it live, in black-and-white, with a brief introduction by Walter Cronkite, only seemed to bolster the point: what you think of as past is here, happening, right now.
Anyway, I hope this doesn’t divert your very important thread too much. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
On the contrary, this is very much to the point and I had no idea this movie even existed. Does anyone know if it’s available on Netflix? If so I can have my daughter put in her list for me.
First, excellent piece!
The threat of mutual destruction (MAD) — getting hit yourself — seems to have been the primary fuel for the perception of nuclear war as insanity. Certainly among the hawks. Which is why as we have edged towards first-strike capabilities, with fantasies of “shields,” and as they talk/dream about ‘precision, low-yield’ weapons, that the thought if using them on some horrific demonized Other becomes more possible.
The horrors of the Hiroshima & Nagasaki took time to sink into the American consciousness (& I’d argue it has never adequately settled) due in no small part to the Pentagon’s man at the NY Times, William L. Laurence, the Judy Miller of the early Atomic Age. Laurence led the charge in labeling reports of radiation poisoning symptoms as nothing but Japanese propaganda. It was due to the brave efforts of a few journalists who defied McCarthur’s orders that word (& photos) of what happened leaked out. Before you knew it, they went fill-court-press on the atoms for peace PR campaign.
On the Beach was first a book by Nevil Shute; it was on my parents’ shelf as a kid.
Cool. It was my rec that pushed this to the rec list, and I’m pleased to see it hit the front page.
Very good writing founded on good research. I’m looking forward to further excerpts in what must be a long essay or book in progress.
Miscellaneous question: so how exactly does one pronounce “Strangelove.” I’ve always (since early childhood) pronounced it as Strangle-Off, which I STILL maintain MUST be the correct pronunciation. And the most appropriate. How do the rest of you pronounce it? (No points for Strange-Love)
Huh?
Cheney
Thanks.
I thought it was St. Rangle, OVE (Order of the Vulcan Empire.)
Nuts–that’s St. Rangel, OVE.
Jokes just don’t work if you don’t tell them right.
I’m disappointed to see from these replies that apparently almost everybody DOES pronounce it Strange-Love.
Oh well. I always pronouce misled as my-zled.
Personally, I pronounce it “How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb.” 🙂
A discussion of Dr. Strangelove must include the some of the satiric elements. The Freudian psycho-sexual motifs in the film are truly hilarious.
For example, all of the characters have names that in some way refer to sex: Group Captain Mandrake (a plant the root of which is thought to be an aphrodisiac); General “Buck” Turgidson; General Jack D. Ripper (the archetype of the modern sexual serial killer); Secretary Stains; Ambassador de Sadesky; Premier Kissoff; Major “King” Kong; and the best of the bunch, President Merkin Muffley (just click the link; sure explains why he’s bald).
Another example of Freud is the motif of oral-aggressive fixation which pervades the film: Turgidson constantly pops chewing gum into his mouth; the survival kit in the B-52 contains no cigarettes but does contain “nine packs of chewing gum;” and Mandrake is holding a stick of chewing gum in his hands during the scene in which Ripper discloses his “loss of essence.”
Dr. Strangelove was a meticulously researched film. Kubrick’s research included seventy to eighty different books and technical manuals about the workings of not only the B-52, but military culture and the military industrial complex. It is dead-on accurate in its portrayal of such.
Another influence on Kubrick was Joseph Heller’s Catch-22, probably the finest American satire ever written (yes, I include Twain). Kubrick and Heller had a conversation in 1964, during which Kubrick confirms that he had read Heller’s book during the production phase of the film. This influence could be the reason why Kubrick decided against making a serious film (the word was out about Fail-Safe, another reason for the switch to satire). But the most interesting thing is that Kubrick said (to paraphrase) that he couldn’t believe some of the things that were coming out of his characters’ mouths. The dialog sounded absolutely ridiculous. And so it was a natural progression from dramatic, to comic, irony, with a little help from Heller along the way.
For those who are interested, I strongly recommend a read (or re-read) of Catch-22, a book which has grown in importance over the years.
Kubrick was going to make a film of the novel “Red Alert” by Peter George (“Fail-Safe” was also a novel originally.) But once Kubrick and associates started getting into the material, they realized they couldn’t do the nuke gamesmanship thing straight–it was just too crazy.
Eventually they brought in Terry Southern as a writer, and my guess is that the sexual stuff you mention is primarily from him.
Needless to say, they got no cooperation from the U.S. military, so they essentially made up what the B-52 cockpit looks like, and the War Room. A favorite story about the movie is that when he became President and was being shown around the White House, Ronald Reagan asked where the War Room was. They had to tell him it didn’t exist. He was disappointed. “But I saw it in Doctor Strangelove.”
Agreed. Southern is one of those writers the current generation of scholars don’t know how to treat. He will eventually earn a place in the twentieth-century canon.
Not only is Fail-Safe a book, it was written by the same team that produced The Ugly American — another book that seems to have fallen out of favor in the past 30 years, but which is still relevant as to why even in the best of times lately the US has had, shall we say, a PR problem in the developing world, and what we can do about it. Remember, The Ugly American was Kennedy’s direct inspiration for creating the Peace Corps.
even despite his statement, as a governor with no previous foreign policy experience, with no prior votes in support of the war or continuing the war and its funding, Mr. Warner has amble opportunity to evolve his position as the events there evolve, and we, as a community he is obviously courting, have ample opportunity to influence his thinking.
You make a lot of good points here.
As Kos will say however, Mark Warner was not central to Yearly Kos. His party at the Stratosphere was a separate event. And his “being allowed” to show a video and pass out T-shirts and the like is a non sequiter, for other candidates or politicians were also permitted to do so if they wished. They did not.
BooMan, I understand completely your concerns with Warner. I also understand your concerns with Warner buttering us up and with Kos’ statements that his candidacy is attractive or intriguing.
As Kos says today, he is just one man. It ain’t all about him. Daily Kos is separate from Markos. Markos is free to feel intrigued or attracted to Warner’s candidacy, just as you or I would be to other candidates.
I think you need to move away from your concentration on Yearly Kos and Kos, and concentrate instead on your very valid points about Warner.