Countdown to Zero: A Compelling Film with a Critical Message
by: Guest on July 29th, 2010 | 4 Comments »
Original to Tikkun:
by Jonathan Granoff and Rhianna Tyson Kreger
A few years ago, Lawrence Bender and Jeffrey Skoll set out to make a new documentary about nuclear weapons, a film which would act as a wake up call to the imperative of nuclear abolition, just as their last project, An Inconvenient Truth, galvanized public discourse – and action – surrounding climate change. Teamed up with policy expert Bruce Blair and Writer-Director Lucy Walker (Devil’s Playground, Blindsight) they created the newly released Countdown to Zero, which unequivocally argues that, whether by accident, malicious intent of “terrorists” or as a result of failed diplomacy, nuclear weapons pose an unacceptable risk and must be eliminated.
While scores of arms control and disarmament civil society groups are deeply inspired by the mass consciousness-raising and mobilization opportunity the film presents, many disarmament activists are vocally disappointed with the film. They are concerned that the film overemphasizes the hazard of sub-state actors acquiring these weapons of terror and places insufficient responsibility upon countries like the US and Russia for their continued reliance on– and dangerous posture of– nuclear weapons.
Countdown to Zero makes the case for abolition without employing the moral arguments eloquently posited by luminaries such as Albert Schweitzer, or Cold Warrior George Kennan, who once stated:
The readiness to use nuclear weapons against other human beings – against people we do not know, whom we have never seen, and whose guilt or innocence is not for us to establish – and, in doing so, to place in jeopardy the natural structure upon which all civilization rests, as though the safety and perceived interests of our own generation were more important than everything that has taken place or could take place in civilization: this is nothing less than a presumption, a blasphemy, an indignity- an indignity of monstrous dimensions – offered to God!
Indeed the film omits many valid arguments highly relevant to advancing to the security of a world without nuclear weapons:
- The continued possession of nuclear weapons – which by itself entails a threat to use them – instigates others to acquire them. As UN High Representative Sergio Duarte said, “One cannot worship at the altar of nuclear weapons and raise heresy charges against those who want to join the sect.”
- It is necessary to uphold the rule of law by fulfilling the unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice wherein the Court held ” …there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”
- Because nuclear weapons, in the words of the late Senator Alan Cranston, are “unworthy of civilization,” it is imperative as a matter of conscience to address their moral impropriety.
- We should not overlook the injustice and destabilizing impact of the extraordinary economic expenditures wasted on nuclear weapons and outrageous allocations within nuclear weapons-states to modernize their arsenals – a burlesque expression of improved means to unimproved ends.
- This is the moment to utilize the political high ground opened by the Five Point Plan set forth by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon which includes, inter alia, a “call for the (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) NPT parties to pursue negotiations in good faith – as required by the treaty – on nuclear disarmament, either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.”
- Every citizen has a right to demand compliance with the commitments stated as “The reaffirmation by the nuclear-weapon States of their unequivocal undertaking to accomplish, in accordance with the principle of irreversibility, the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties are committed under Article VI of the Treaty,” as stipulated in the 2010 Final Document of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, agreed to by 189 countries that are parties to the NPT, and the important diplomatic processes that are necessary to achieve that goal.
Do such omissions weaken the core argument of the film? Do they dilute the film’s efficacy as a public outreach and engagement tool? Hardly. Rather, it is the responsibility of civil society groups and concerned citizens to seize the opportunity of this powerful, mass-distributed major motion film arguing for abolition and supplement the film’s message by drawing attention to these various initiatives and remonstrations.
Of course nuclear proponents could try to use the film for their own nefarious ends by focusing singularly on the dangers of terrorists or unfriendly states getting a hold of the weapons, arguing that military force can prevent such proliferation. Such people brought the US into a war in Iraq by simply telling lies. Will they try to distort the message of this film? Possibly. However, this possibility should only motivate abolition-minded civil society members to redouble our efforts and help amplify the movie’s unambiguous concluding message: that abolition is the only way, and we will achieve it with engaged, public support.
The film’s core message is compelling, effectively presented and unambiguous: the only way to address the nuclear threat of nuclear weapons is through their elimination. Towards this end, it calls for incremental threat-reducing steps, such as bringing the new US-Russia Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty into force, taking the weapons off of high alert status, lowering the numbers of existing warheads and obtaining a universal, legal, intrusive, and enforceable agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Russia, the United States and China already have pronounced modernization programs in place, to say nothing of the more shrouded programs by the “unofficial” nuclear weapon states of Israel, India and Pakistan. The politics of turning these programs around will require a shift in the characterization of nuclear weapons: that they are a greater problem than any problem they seek to solve. This is the message of Countdown to Zero. This shift will require all of us to speak up, mobilize public opinion and, as captioned in the last frame of the movie “Demand Zero”!
Jonathan Granoff is the President of the Global Security Institute (GSI). Rhianna Tyson Kreger is a Senior Officer at GSI. See: www.gsinstitute.org.
What about the fact that so many of the folks working with this film believe in nuclear weapons? And the funding by the Ploughshares Fund? Lee Loe
Thank you for this informed and balanced analysis of Countdown to Zero. I read the harsh criticisms of it from anti-nuke people whom I generally respect and wondered if I should dare to go see it. I did and had perhaps a unique reaction to it. For much of the film–I believe more than half–I struggled to stay awake. In fairness to the film, maybe I was just very tired and sitting in a cool, dark place invited sleep. Or it might have been that I thought the bulk of the film was very redundant and, with no pun intended, overkill. I think much more could and should have been said about the issue than simply to beat the viewer over the head with how horrific nuclear weapons are. I don’t think I learned anything new, but I am rather well read on the topic. Maybe the general public needs to be hit over the head with this basic message to wake them from their American Idol coma. On the side of the critics, I did feel that the film presented the nuclear threat as out there aimed at the U.S. Yes, the U.S. and Russia were named as the largest nuclear states by far, but the danger still came across as being aimed at us, as if we were vulnerable victims. Israel’s arsenal was downplayed as well. But to say that the film provided no solutions or actions is to ignore the all-too-brief end of the film, which listed what is mentioned in the article above and a website to visit. Would that they had listed several more established websites, but there was an attempt to suggest something for the viewer to do that should not be denied or ignored. Ultimately, I think all the controversy over this film is way overblown, since most people will never choose to see it. Frankly, I wish they would. It might wake them up, even though it almost put me to sleep.
The movie hasn’t been to our city, yet. As a peace organization, we are promoting it. What suggestions do you have for making the viewing more meaningful and, perhaps not seem so redundant? A discussion before and after? Something in the media about the film? It’s strengths and shortcomings?
I don’t get the implication that something is wrong with Ploughshares being involved. What is meant about folks working on the film believing in nuclear weapons.
Thank you, Granoff and Kreger for a good review. The George Kennan quote sums up my feelings exactly. I was disappointed the film didn’t break over to explicit moral examination of nuclear weapons. Every nuclear weapon is a war crime, deliberately built, and all the men with their plans and organizations to detonate them are already engaged in premeditated murder. It is not possible to use a nuclear weapon without killing large numbers of civilians, now, and for generations into the future. Genetic damage is forever. Where’s the outrage? Who are these men, who threaten to kill us all, and destroy our world?
You learn more in 15 minutes of Helen Caldicott than from this film. This film is unethical, in its cinematography and its soundtrack of sound effects and constant musical score. We, in the antiwar movement are led to believe there’s two Americas– the doltish uneducated sort, who can only be reached by emotionalism and fear, and we the intelligentsia. If this is true, we should speak clearly and rationally, and repeat endlessly. Why repeat this stuff, endlessly? This is the **exact same stuff** we’ve been getting from the Neocons since the 1990s. This is more drumbeat for war on Iran. That’s how this emotional stuff plays out.
I stood in front of the theater after this film, recording comments of viewers, and numerous people declined, saying they had too many issues with the film, that’s the truth. Here’s another issue. It’s too NewYork-WashDC centric. The pictures of cityscape with the concentric circles, the pictures of crowds included other cities, but much of the narrative was pure New York.
Another key issue–the film didn’t communicate the current status of the NPT or the START treaty. Why didn’t US/Russia agree lower than 1550 deployed warheads each? Why did Robert Gates repeatedly urge the US Senate to Ratify this treaty, by explicity telling them this treaty does not impair US planned strategic or tactical capability? Go listen to him, it’s on CSPAN.
Countdown to Zero also listed the numbers of nukes incorrectly, Russia somewhere over 30,000 (too high) and Israel 80 (too low). They also said there’s been no progress since the 1980s in reductions. The New START limits will reduce strategic nuclear warheads to a level 74 percent lower than the limits set by START and 30 percent lower than the limits set by SORT. The film also exaggerates the physical blast effects. The typical today 380 kiloton nuke will blow a big hole in the city more like 1/2 mile in diameter and even there, the skeletons and basements of many concrete buildings will remain. You don’t get a regional firestorm from a single nuke at ground level, from a terrorist. The awful truth is, this will happen, and like 911, humanity can survive such a thing just as NY could have easily absorbed the 911 attacks. The smart thing to do is actually to REDUCE fears, in order to prevent an irrational response (totalitarian dictatorship and international war) to the inevitable nuclear detonation in a City near you. So how helpful was Countdown To Zero?