New movie 'A house of dynamite': Required viewing about nuclear X-risk

If you're an EA concerned about global catastrophic risks from nuclear war, I'd highly recommend the new Netflix movie 'A house of dynamite' (2025). 

[Spoiler alert: I'll try to focus on overall themes rather than outcomes, but there are some spoilers]

The movie is compelling, gripping, horrifying thriller that ratchets up the tension relentlessly. It covers the first 18 minutes of a nuclear geopolitical crisis 1that unfolds after a mysterious rogue ICBM launch is detected from the Pacific, heading towards the US. But its 112-minute runtime covers the same events told from 3 different viewpoints, by various decision-makers in the White House Situation Room, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, Offut Air Force base in Nebraska, Fort Greely in Alaska, etc. Much of the movie unfolds through the various video conferences among these decision-makers -- basically, Zoom calls that will decide the fate of the world.

'A house of dynamite' was released theatrically Oct 3 (UK) and Oct 10 (US), and streaming on Netflix Oct 24, just a few days ago. It was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who previously directed Point Break (1991), The Hurt Locker (2008), Zero Dark Thirty (2012), and many other notable films.  It was written by Noah Oppenheim, former president of NBC News. The strong cast include Idris Elba (as the US President), Rebecca Ferguson (as Captain Olivia Walker), Gabriel Basso (as Deputy National Security Advisor Jake Baerington), Jared Harris as Secretary of Defense Reid Baker), and Tracy Letts (as General Anthony Brady, Commander of STRATCOM). 

The movie's dramatic tension arises from different views about how to respond to a single ICBM of unknown origin that's about to wipe out about 10 million people in an American city. Is is from North Korea, China, Russia, or someone else? As multiple nuclear powers track the ICBM headed to the US, they all prepare for possible US retaliation against their own nuclear weapons and delivery systems. 

To me, the most compelling and distinctive thing about the movie is its depiction of the urgency, chaos, and emotionality of US strategic decision-making under extreme time pressure. ICBMs travel at about 15,000 mph, so they can reach from North-East Asia to the middle of the US within 30 minutes. Many of the key decision-makers don't seem to have thought through exactly how they would handle such a threat, under conditions of high uncertainty. (How plausible this is, I do not know.) Even the US President seems to be making up his ethical stance as he goes along -- and is only barely aware of the range of responses available through the 'nuclear football' carried by the Presidential Military Aide (the key component of which is a binder called the 'Presidential Decision Handbook', offering a couple of dozen pre-planned retaliation options, from 'proportional and limited ' to 'all-out counterattack'). 

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the 'rogue ICBM attack' is that the whole thing might have been an enemy cyberattack faking a missile attack to provoke a US response. In the near future, it may be possible for military AIs to spoof a missile attack of that sort -- such that this movie could be viewed as a cautionary tale not just about nuclear X-risk, but about AI X-risk. 

To avoid giving away the ending, I won't say more about the movie's plot, characters, outcome, or real-world accuracy (which is somewhat controversial with regard to a few key military details). The movie's reviews and ratings have been hurt by its rather frustrating ending, but I think that's unfair to its overall dramatic excellence. So far, it's getting 6.6 out of 10 on IMDB, 79% on Rotten Tomatoes, and 75/100 on Metacritic, plus a Golden Lion nomination at the Venice International Film Festival.

Anyway, I'm curious what you all will think of it -- and what kinds of issues it raises for EAs concerned about the reducing the risk of global thermonuclear war.