mcal@ihuxb.UUCP (Mike Clifford) (11/14/83)
I was able to watch parts of last night's 60 Minutes broadcast. I was especially interested in the part on the ABC production of The Day After ( I believe that's the correct title) which will be aired next Sunday? nite. First off, I should admit that I have not given nuclear freeze or unilateral disarmament or the escalation of nuclear arms production alot of thought. This might explain why I didn't understand the 60 Minutes piece. The question is: why are nuclear freeze opponents unhappy abougt the airing of this show? I wish I could have paid more attention to the broadcast last nite. If anyone out there can clue me in as to why the 'conservatives' are upset and the 'liberals' are pleased over the broadcast of this show, I would really appreciate it. The time and date of the showing of The Day After should be verified. I think it's a show that NO ONE should miss! Mike Clifford ihuxb!mcal
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (11/15/83)
The conservatives are upset because they see any depiction of the the possible result of their policies as dangerous. They're right. You get too many people upset about the end of the world, and next thing you know, they're trying to do something about it, rather than leaving it to calm experts who can think reasonably about these things. One person quoted by the 60 Minutes story said that he was mad the program didn't mention anything about deterrence. Seems to me that by the time Lawrence, Kansas is blown up, the failure of deterrence is a foregone conclusion. What he really means is, deterrence can't fail. If it fails, we're all dead so it can't. It can't. It can't. It can't. It can't. The annoying thing about this whole debate is the labels. Those in favor of continuing the path are pragmatic realists. Those who want to change things because they think that just maybe deterrence CAN fail are idealistic dreamers. Now my Oxford American Dictionary defines "idealize" as "to regard or represent as perfect". In order for current policies NOT to result in the destruction of Lawrence, Kansas (and maybe the whole world), they must function perfectly. Seems clear to me who's idealistic and who's being coldly rational about this whole thing. What could be more rational than the statement: "If we don't turn around, pretty soon we're going to get where we're heading." Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (11/15/83)
I haven't seen "The Day After" and I certainly can't speak for freeze
opponents, but some freeze proponents say that the opponents' disconcertion
at the airing of the show reveals their true colors: if those who believe
in a buildup of nuclear weapons really did so because they thought that it
was the best way to insure peace and because their overriding concern was
a fear of war, they would be quite happy to see a show which made clear the
horrors of the war they intend to avoid. If instead they suffer from the
old Cold War mentality which unites the ostrich and the hawk, they would
prefer to go on ignoring just what their weapons can really be used for.
----
Prentiss Riddle
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
riddle@ut-sally.UUCPjohnc@dartvax.UUCP (11/15/83)
The Day After ( Yes, that is the correct title ) will be shown on Sunday, November 20 on ABC. From what I have heard, and I may be wrong on some of this, it is a very controversial show that ABC has had trouble getting ready. First of all, They have had trouble getting sponsors to ad- vertise on the show. Afterall, who can blame them? When the world has just blown up, who wants to go and get some bathroom freshener? Secondley, and this is the part I'm not too sure about, ABC has had some flak from both 'conservatists' and 'liberals' and every other group of people around the world. They have said to everyone that this show is not supposed to be propaganda for nuclear disarmament, it is supposed to be a 'What if...' kind of movie. I welcome any remarks, facts, updates, and ( if I have to put up with them ) flames posted to the net. From the Deep, Dark caverns of Cantel, Theodrick, alias Johnc ...!decvax!dartvax!johnc :->
ocoin@pwa-b.UUCP (Terry O'Coin) (11/15/83)
The basic concern, as I understood it, was that the movie to be
aired is unfair in its assumption that there is a continuation of life after
a nuclear attack(war).
To answer your question, I believe(my opinion) that conservatives are
concerned that some people will come to believe, after viewing the movie,
that there is not as great a need as we thought to freeze the nuclear
build-up, while liberals may feel that this is to the advantage of the
nuclear program.
To quote a t-shirt I saw in Virginia last year, "Once you've seen
one nuclear war, you've seen them all."
( No offense to those all for nuclear war, melting, radioactivity)
Terry O'Coin
eric@aplvax.UUCP (11/15/83)
One thing that quite a few people are upset about (not the Jerry Falwell types, but those more moderate) is not that the show was made, or that it is being shown, but rather the timing. Things are very touchy in Europe right now about the missle deployment, scheduled for a couple months from now. As the 60 Minute report stated, the movie will be releases in European theaters just weeks before deployment. Those responsible were quoted as stating that they were doing this to try and influence their leaders' decisions. All in all, I don't consider the television and movie industry as qualified to run foreign policy. Why, next we'll have an actor as president! Any more discussion of this should probably move to net.politics -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (11/16/83)
I would like to take issue with some of Mike Kelly's comments. First off, I am certainly against a uni-lateral nuclear freeze. I am certainly for the destruction of ALL nuclear weapons. But, this will never happen, in my opinion. I am undecided on a bi-lateral nuclear freeze as I think this issue is not clear cut. I think that Mike, in his haste to denigrate the opponents of the uni-lateral nuclear freeze, has overlooked many valid objections raised by the anti-uni-lateral nuclear freeze movement. E.g. - Copies of "The Day After" have been made available to nuclear freeze groups for their political use. - TDA clearly espouses the view that current US nuclear policy is wrong and will inevitable lead to nuclear war. - TDA has not been made available to anti-nuclear-freeze groups in advance of the network showing. - Since TDA espouses a particular political viewpoint, then it should be labeled as a political message. - Many of the anti-nuclear freeze groups feel that they should be entitled to equal time to rebut the viewpoint TDA. I certainly do not support the efforts of groups which are trying to suppress the showing of TDA. I personally would not miss this movie for anything. But, I will be watching the movie with the knowledge that it has a biased viewpoint and that the producers of the movie were certainly supportive of the nuclear freeze movement. Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (11/16/83)
Not having seen the film as of yet, I can't say whether or not it espouses a political message. Frankly, I hope it does, in the sense that Allen England uses the word "political". Allen says, "[The Day After] clearly espouses the view that current US nuclear policy is wrong and will inevitably lead to nuclear war." To many people, that is not political, but simply common sense. As I said at the end of my previous submission to net.politics, "If we don't turn around soon, we're going to end up where we're headed." No one -- absolutely no one -- has every offered a plausible scenario for an indefinite nuclear arms race. Do you really believe -- CAN you really believe -- that the world can continue to build weapons, and yet NEVER use them? Do you really believe -- CAN you really believe -- that if Lawrence, Kansas, or Leningrad were destroyed in a "limited" nuclear war, the life expectancy of the rest of the world could be longer than a few hours? Jonathan Schell, in an excellent book on the topic, "The Fate of the Earth", wrote of deterrence: "The doctrine is diagrammatic of the world's failure to come to terms with the nuclear predicament. In it, two irreconcilable purposes clash ... We cannot both threaten ourselves with something and hope to avoid that same thing by making the threat -- both intend to do something and intend not to do it ... For if we try to guarantee our safety by threatening ourselves with doom, then we have to mean the threat; but if we mean it, then we are actually planning to do, in some circumstance or another, that which we categorically must never do and are supposedly trying to prevent -- namely, extinguish ourselves. This is the circularity at the core of the nuclear deterrence doctrine; we seek to avoid our self-extinction by threatening to perform the act." Is there really a political argument over deterrence? Or are there simply those who refuse to consider the incredible, glaring illogic of the doctrine and those to whom the illogic is manifest? Should the opponents have equal time? Certainly -- they can only spout the irrelevancies to which we are all quite accustomed: that the Soviet Union is really evil, you know, and we need all those nuclear bombs so that if they try anything, like blowing up the world 36 times, boy, will they be surprised when we blow it up 37 times. So bring on Falwell. We can handle him easily. It's the "cold, rational" types who worry me. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
lmg@houxb.UUCP (L.M.Geary) (11/16/83)
# I've seen some of the previews of "The Day After" and I definitely intend to watch the movie this Sunday. The scenes with the startled people watching the ICBMs lifting off from the prairie are especially gripping to me. All I can think of is that line from the Karl Maldin American Express commercial: "Now what will you do. What *will* you do!" Larry Geary AT&T Information Systems Holmdel, NJ ...houxb!lmg
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (11/16/83)
Judging from the mail that I have gotten about 'nuclear winter,' it seems there is a certain flavor of conservative in this country who views any attempt at portraying the results of nuclear warfare in human terms as a form of leftist propaganda. I presume this is the same crowd that labelled the Oscar-winning Canadian documentary 'propa- ganda' as they tend to believe liberals tend toward the hysterical on ecological issues as well. I assume those who dislike the scenario in "The Day After" feel that any attendant upswell in anti-nuclear sentiment generated by the film will reduce the political commitment to nuclear weapons the U.S. needs to stave off the Godless Soviet Menace, never mind the fact that there may be nothing to stave it of *from* in a post-nuclear U.S. For my own part, I tend to think the more information disseminated about the consequences of nuclear war, the better. If this requires trans- lation from hard data into more readily assimilated pictures, so be it. Unlike Europe, the U.S. has never had a technologically advanced war fought on its soil or over its head. If some sense of that can be con- veyed to the people who may have to live with its consequences, perhaps a more reasonable approach to living on this poor tired planet can be developed. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!bch
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) (11/16/83)
The entire defense budget of the U.S. has been called the biggest educational program in history: it serves to educate the criminals inside the Kremlin that they cannot do to us what they have done to Eastern Europe, to Afghanistan, and to various other places. It should be the hope of all who are aware of the true nature of the Soviets that the tremendous expense and risk we have accepted in building and maintaining nuclear weapons will pay off one day. I hasten to add there are more ways of using nuclear weapons than exploding them, and it should be our hope that they will be quietly yet effectively used to help defeat the Soviet empire. At that point we may unilaterally disarm.
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (11/16/83)
Mike Kelly says that he hopes that "The Day After" has a political message in the sense that "It espouses the view that US nuclear policy is wrong and will lead inevitably to nuclear war." Mike, you are hopeful about this because you agree with the message the movie is purporting. How would you feel about the movie if you totally disagreed with its message?? I am certain you would be up in arms (like the far right conservatives). Can't you see the double standard?? Also, it may be common sense to you that the US is leading the world to nuclear war, but to many of the rest of us, that is simply your opinion. The point I was trying to make was that a TV network has no business supporting a particular political movement. I think you would feel different if CBS came out with a movie promoting the idea that we have to invade Nicaraugua for the good of the US. Try to think rationally about this for a change. Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
debenedi@yale-com.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis) (11/17/83)
Poster rlgvax!plunkett (Wed Nov 16 08:33) said:
It should be the hope of all who are aware of the true nature of the
Soviets that the tremendous expense and risk we have accepted in
building and maintaining nuclear weapons will pay off one day.
How many people out there "are aware of the true nature of the Soviets?"
Another Message In The Bottle from
Robert DeBenedictis1516ehl@houxm.UUCP (11/17/83)
a
Isnt Sunday night depressing enough without watching the world
being incinerated? Cancer,too, is awful but I dont want to
spend my time watching someone suffering terrible pain from it.
If you think we have any more control over the liklihood
of a nuclear war than the liklihood of getting cancer,think again!
And while all of you very moral people are thinking about it
recall that this is the century of Auchwitz,and this is the
century of Biafra,and this is the century of genocide in
Cambodia and this is the century of the Gulag and this is the
century of theArmenian massacares, and this is the century of
(fill in your favorite additional moral outrage).Perhaps a bit
more of our moral energy ought to have been put into preventing
some of these "conventional" tragedies and preventing or stopping
current ones ("elimination" of Bahais in Iran,for example). AS long
as these outrages continue unabated and without, I might add, much
protest from the gathered moralists, lets not worry too much about
hypothesized future tragedies. The "conventional" problems are much
more likly to get us first. So I'll just have a glass of wine Sunday
night, listen to some Mozart and go on living as if there was hope.
All in all,alot better for the psyche I think.lmg@houxb.UUCP (L.M.Geary) (11/18/83)
# The new issue of TV Guide has an article on "The Day After" written by the director (who also directed Star Trek II), a review of the movie and an editorial on the subject. Interesting reading. There will be a followup program broadcast immediately after the movie. BTW, "The Day After" airs AT THE SAME TIME as the first installment of the "Kennedy" miniseries. How's that for intelligent scheduling? Larry Geary AT&T Information Systems Holmdel, NJ ...houxb!lmg
johnc@dartvax.UUCP (John Cabell) (11/18/83)
A lot of fuss has been made over the movie "The Day After" with some people saying it is wrong for a TV station to show a movie like this, proporting a political idea. I would like to add that ABC has said that they are NOT taking a political stand, that they are just showing what could happed if...... A few can say that just by showing this, they are showing a pol- itical stance, but they are able to show this by one of the laws in the Constitution, that of freedom of speech. I believe that this movie will open the eyes of some people to the dangers of a Nuclear buildup. From the Deep and Dark Dungeon of Cantel, Theodrick, alias johnc. :->
notes@pur-ee.UUCP (11/18/83)
#R:dartvax:-37500:isrnix:14400004:000:1075 isrnix!akp Nov 17 19:08:00 1983 I doubt strongly that anyone takes issue with the idea that ONE nuclear warhead (or ONE multi-warhead strike) is survivable). Check out Japan -- people still live there. I believe that "the day after" is based on a single strike (within the necessary area -- around Kansas City). Rather, the conservatives object to the fact that the film dramatizes the effects of a strike very graphically - from Ground Zero to fifty (?) miles away. They feel the film will show people the true horror of "what if... the conservative plan of nuclear superiority fails to deter?" That is not the purpose of the filmmakers (that is, the politics) -- they are just out to dramatize the effects. That the conservatives are so concerned that the (potential) truth be known indicates how thoroughly their position is based on ignorance of the risk they are taking with our lives. Boy, isn't rhetoric easy? I don't feel all THAT strongly about nuclear weapons/war/conservatives, but the words just seem to flow sometimes. -- allan pratt ...decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!akp
franka@tekcad.UUCP (11/18/83)
#R:dartvax:-37500:tekcad:5300002:000:1003
tekcad!franka Nov 18 09:37:00 1983
Poster rlgvax!plunkett (Wed Nov 16 08:33) said:
It should be the hope of all who are aware of the true nature of the
Soviets that the tremendous expense and risk we have accepted in
building and maintaining nuclear weapons will pay off one day.
How many people out there "are aware of the true nature of the Soviets?"
I am!! I am!! They are pig-sucking commies who are the worst thing since tooth
decay and that want to take over the WHOLE world and take away our freedom of
the press so we won't be able to read the National Enquirer and be safe against
aliens in UFO's who are really controlling the commies in the dreaded UFO/com-
munist conspiracy. They also want to take away our TV so we can't watch Bill
Buckley every week on Firing Line and will replace it with shows like "Yuri's
Tractor!". Really!! :-).
From the truly menacing,
/- -\ but usually underestimated,
<-> Frank Adrian
(tektronix!tekcad!franka)eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/20/83)
#R:ihuxb:-43400:uiuccsb:12300010:000:1044 uiuccsb!eich Nov 15 11:29:00 1983 And who are the `we' who must turn around? How many of `us' live in the Soviet Union or the East Bloc, where disarmament buttons are illegal? Save it for net.flame, or net.politics, if you can't contain your moral superiority. As for the show, early comment (much of it of dubious authority) calls it an artistic dud. But who cares about art, `we' are talking about the FUTURE of MANKIND! THE FATE OF THE EARTH! An amazing resurgence of apocalyptic thought! No, the movie showed every sign of being an attidunizing shuck from the start. There was the recently-cut line in which a fictitious Russian general attributes holocaust to a movement of Pershing IIs toward the German border. No mention, of course, of SS-20s. And ABC insisted it was `non-political'. This is one thing conservatives are mad about (another being the timing). But politics aside, the piece sounds so patently tendentious and earnestly depressing that only the fanatics among our latest crop of peace-lovers (the ones for whom ABC pre-screened it) will like it.
eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/20/83)
#R:dartvax:-37500:uiuccsb:12300023:000:246 uiuccsb!eich Nov 19 01:25:00 1983 Easy rhetoric is easily wrong. Are Michael Kinsley, Charles Krauthammer, Martin Peretz, the late Henry Jackson, and on and on through a great many American liberals now POLITICAL CONSERVATIVES because they support deterrence? See net.politics.
eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/20/83)
#N:uiuccsb:12300020:000:1914
uiuccsb!eich Nov 16 20:37:00 1983
/***** uiuccsb:net.tv / ut-sally!riddle / 5:24 pm Nov 15, 1983 */
I haven't seen "The Day After" and I certainly can't speak for freeze
opponents, but some freeze proponents say that the opponents' disconcertion
at the airing of the show reveals their true colors: if those who believe
in a buildup of nuclear weapons really did so because they thought that it
was the best way to insure peace and because their overriding concern was
a fear of war, they would be quite happy to see a show which made clear the
horrors of the war they intend to avoid. If instead they suffer from the
old Cold War mentality which unites the ostrich and the hawk, they would
prefer to go on ignoring just what their weapons can really be used for.
----
Prentiss Riddle
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP
/* ---------- */
See the National Review of two fortnights back for just such a plug
of `The Day After' as an argument for deterrence (it was an ironic
fillip, to be sure, but a few over-earnest right-wing readers
took it as an example of creeping hegemony or something).
Who's more struthius, proponents of deterrence who dislike the
pacifists' tactic of frightening with nuclear gore pornography
those whom they can't persuade by rational argument, or the freezers
who trumpet a `mutual', `veriafiable' solution with blind faith
in easily foiled `National Technical Means' and no comment on the
Soviet refusal, from the Baruch-Lilienthal proposals onward, to
accept on-site verification?
As the date of airing approaches, more notes will doubtless be
posted. Shouldn't they either confine themselves to the artistic
merits, or else be directed to net.politics? Especially if they must
lumber us with Jonathan Schell, or can't avoid totemic utterances of
Falwell's name as a warding sign, or try to close the question of
deterrence, as Mike Kelly's note did?
Brendan Eich uiucdcs!uiuccsb!eichruffwork@ihuxn.UUCP (11/21/83)
[]
First, I wonder what public reaction was to
Dr. Strangelove was when it first came out ???
(Anybody out there who can clue us youngin' in ???)
Has anybody ever noticed that most government people
who STRONGLY back the MAD policy (Mutually Assuried Destruction)
are the same who will most likely be sitting a
a very secure underground shelter WHEN the button
is pushed ???
Need I say more ???
***
*******
***
*
*
*
......\./......
...{ihnp4}!ihuxn!ruffwork
...{ihnp4}!iham1!ruffworkrjr@mgweed.UUCP (11/21/83)
Senator Charles Percy was interviewed on WGN this morning and the topic was "The Day After". Briefly, the main points of the discussion were (as best as I remember): 1) We have been the only ones, so far, to use a nuclear device. Therefore the Soviet people are more concerned about a nuclear war than we are. 2) He had urged everyone to see the film since he feels the more "publicity" on such a disaster, the better. Even a lot of well educated people have no idea what the effects of a nuclear detonation are. 3) He estimated that at least 70 Million Americans watched the film and wished that it could be shown in the Soviet Union as well.
cas@cvl.UUCP (Cliff Shaffer) (11/21/83)
I really don't understand all the fuss being made over "The Day After".
After all, if it had been meant to be taken seriously, it would have been
shown on PBS!
Cliff Shaffer
{seismo,mcnc,we13}!rlgvax!cvl!caswaltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (11/22/83)
----------------
I watched "The Day After" last night and felt that it portrayed the
aftermath of a nuclear war very effectively to the masses (although toned
down a bit from reality to make it fit tv standards -- i.e. no dismem-
berments, no shadows burnt into the concrete, no people slashed to pieces by
150 mph shards of glass, not much mention of the lack of sanitation,
not much mention of the puking, skin peeling off, and death accompaning
radiation poisoning, etc.). The writer put more research into this movie
than most tv pablum, making it pretty much technically accurate. The
special effects were excellent, and most of the plot believable. The
defense footage that was used of an actual blast and missle launches
made it look all the more real. All in all, it was definitely worth
watching and well worth presenting. The forum afterwards served to help
put things in perspective and brought out some interesting points. The
combination of movie and forum will probably result a larger public
awareness of the nuclear proliferation problem.
However, from a plot standpoint, the movie lacked coherence. From
articles that I read on the film, it was originally a (close to)
four hour movie that was originally going to be shown over two nights.
It was slashed to two hours 15 minutes for the single night showing.
Obviously, the plot is going to suffer in this case. Some of the things
I noticed, but could not find answers to as I watched the movie further.
Maybe someone that has seen a more uncut version can fill in the plot holes:
o Early in the movie, when the doctor is talking to his wife, the
camera pans to her wristwatch at the end of the scene. The time
is about 6:30. What's the significance?
o When the family leaves the cellar, there is a body by the door
(you only see the feet in one brief shot). Who is it? Is it
the daughter's fiance? Did they know it was there? It seems
like they just sort of brushed it aside, like they had a previous
encounter, and knew it was there.
o What ever happened to the daughter's fiance (see above)? The
last shot we see, he has left the motorcycle and is running.
Why? Where does he go? What happened to him?
o When the family came up from the cellar, where did the horses
come from? There certainly weren't any around a few days before
when the girl was up running around.
o What happened to the guys that crawled into the missle silo?
Were they hit (probably so, but it never really says)?
o Why was the farmer shot? For food (hinted at)? For fun?
For points? We never see the family react to this event.
Do they?
I'll take myself off the net now and let someone else have a turn.
-- Walt Tucker
Tektronix, Inc.mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/22/83)
I don't understand why EITHER liberals or conservatives should
object to depictions of the consequences of nuclear war. As has
often been said here, both sides of the freeze argument think
theirs is the way to prevent war. Each should therefore see the
film as supporting their stand, making it more important in the
public mind to avoid war by supporting their own position.
If the foregoing is true, it follows that those who object to
showing "The Day After" must believe deep down that their approach
IS likely to lead to war; they think that showing the film will lead
people to support the opposing approach to preventing war. Therefore, the
public would be well advised to follow those who do not object to
showing the consequences of nuclear war, rather than those who do.
Martin Taylor
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmteich@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/24/83)
#R:ihuxn:-41600:uiuccsb:12300025:000:292 uiuccsb!eich Nov 24 01:13:00 1983 "...Godless Soviet Menace...." First, this doesn't belong in net.tv. But why sarcastically ape Falwell's invective? Is not Leninism atheistic? Or does "Godless" as a pejorative grate as un-chic? It should be pejorative, just as <Particular-Religion-Adjective> applied to Government is.
jeh@ritcv.UUCP (James E Heliotis) (11/25/83)
The doctor's putting on his wife's watch is done so that you understand
what's going on at the end of the movie when he finds the watch in the
rubble of KC.
You know, I just had an awful thought. Perhaps nuclear armaments are
just slightly ahead of their time. Thinking of Star Wars and the
Death Star make me think that that nuclear weapons will become less
"unthinkable" when our population is spread among many planets.
Completely obliterating a planet will become just one strategic step
in a larger war!
Jim Heliotis
{allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!jeh
rocksvax!ritcv!jeh
ritcv!jeh@Rochesterdaver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) (12/10/83)
#R:tekecs:-325500:hp-kirk:15600008:000:1210
hp-kirk!daver Dec 7 17:46:00 1983
I have been on vacation and so haven't had a chance to put in my
$.02 worth (ASCII has no "cents" character) about The Day After,
but, having read and listened to all the hype and then seen the
film I am puzzled about all the complaints from the "right wing".
Fundamentally TDA made the statement that a nuclear war between
the US and USSR is survivable, and, in fact, not that bad! Sure
some people whom the viewers have grown to like end up dead or
dying, but it appears that a majority survive and the government
starts the rebuilding effort even before the dust settles (in fact
the whole concept of rebuilding society even looked tempting,
a desireable opportunity).
The film was much less frightening than any of many realistic
films about life in Europe or the USSR during WWII, especially
if you consider that in those cases, after the bombs stopped
falling, the troops patrolling the streets were Nazi occupation
troops, and the terror continued for years.
Carl Sagan's "nuclear winter" was just about the only anti-nuclear
segment to the whole evening.
Dave Rabinowitz
hplabs!hp-pcd!daver