In a recent development surrounding Kathryn Bigelow's nuclear-missile thriller House of Dynamite, writer Noah Oppenheim has addressed concerns raised by the Pentagon regarding the film's portrayal of the United States' defense systems. In an internal memo dated October 16, which was obtained by Bloomberg, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) expressed its dissatisfaction, stating, “The fictional interceptors in the movie miss their target, and we understand this is intended to be a compelling part of the drama intended for the entertainment of the audience.” The MDA emphasized that results from real-world testing “tell a vastly different story,” claiming that the US’s missile interceptors have maintained a 100% accuracy rate in tests for over a decade.
Former president of NBC News, Oppenheim, responded to the Pentagon's assertions by stating that he “respectfully disagrees” with their evaluation. He highlighted that he consulted with numerous missile defense experts, all of whom were on the record, reinforcing his argument that “our missile defense system is highly imperfect.” Oppenheim confidently asserted, “What we show in the movie is accurate,” challenging the Pentagon's portrayal of missile defense reliability.
In House of Dynamite, the plot revolves around ground-based interceptor missiles launched from Alaska, which fail to prevent a nuclear strike on Chicago. This dramatic scenario raises questions about the effectiveness of the US's missile defense systems. Nuclear physicist Laura Grego, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, weighed in on the film's depiction of threats, noting that the situation represented in the movie is among the most straightforward that the US might face. She stated, “A robust defense should anticipate facing multiple incoming ICBMs and credible decoys, and direct attacks on missile defense elements, but none of those were part of the story in this film. The fictional threat is arguably about as easy as they come.”
In an interview with the Guardian, director Kathryn Bigelow emphasized that the film did not seek the Pentagon's endorsement or cooperation, aiming instead for artistic independence. She remarked, “Our nuclear armory is a fallible structure. Within it are men and women working thanklessly behind the scenes, whose competence means you and I can sit and have this conversation. But competence doesn’t mean they’re infallible.” Bigelow's commentary reflects a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding national defense and the portrayal of such themes in cinema.
As the debate over the accuracy of missile defense systems continues, House of Dynamite stands as a provocative exploration of nuclear threats and the integrity of national defense. With Oppenheim's defense of the film and insights from experts like Grego, audiences are encouraged to reflect on the realities of missile defense in the face of dramatic storytelling.
