Comments on: Countdown to Zero: A Compelling Film with a Critical Message

By: Todd Boyle

Todd Boyle — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:29:05 +0000

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?

By: Caroline

Caroline — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:48:27 +0000

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.

By: Rosemarie Pace

Rosemarie Pace — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:56:58 +0000

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.

By: Lee Loe

Lee Loe — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:24:36 +0000

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