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.UUCPocoin@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
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 DeBenedictislmg@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. :->
ruffwork@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!ruffworkjay@umcp-cs.UUCP (11/21/83)
Well, it's all over now for the fictitious residents of Lawrence Kansas and the world as they know it but the fallout from The Day After (TDA) has yet to run its full course. It is clear that the media has made this made-for-tv movie a much bigger deal than it deserves to be. Had not the Reagan Administration been so fearful of the backlash of U. S. citizenry, I wonder just how many people would have bothered to watch, much less venture an opinion as to the feasibility or accuracy of events portrayed on the screen. For myself, I was very disappointed. Media hype invariably builds up my expectations but I guess being a child of the 50's, I am inured to all I watch on television. It was refreshing to see a sparcity of dialog and no attempt on the part of the characters to do any substantial moralizing. Also, ABC's closing remark regarding the conservative depiction of destruction struck me as ringing true. I'm delighted that TDA got shown and hope that the hype caused a flurry of interest on the part of those not generally prone to waxing political. Dialogue is always healthy; the busier we are talking to one another, the less likely (I would like to believe, at any rate) we are to beat up on our neighbors much less blow ourselves up. It's been 20 years since there's been such a stir made by an apocalyptic film. 1964 saw three: Seven Days in May, Fail-Safe, and Dr. Strangelove. We are clearly fixated by the possibility of effecting our own destruction. On the other hand, because we can see the grisly side of things, we can attempt to correct for them. A government unwilling to support a forum for discussion is a danger to its people. -- Jay Elvove ..!seismo!umcp-cs!jay
4341mrz@houxn.UUCP (11/21/83)
Congratulations to ABC for airing the movie "THE DAY AFTER". Although I think it paints a slightly rosey view of the aftermath of a total nuclear war it did once again affirm the fact that nuclear war is unacceptable. But then who in his right mind ever thought it was? But ABC did the easy part. To show 70+ million Amecican people the effects of a nuclear war was a minor accomplishment. First, this type of information has been around for a while. Who has not seen photographs of Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Who has not read about the anguish of the survivors? But now who is going to show this film to the 10 - 20 million communist party members of the USSR? Who is going to make it frightfully clear to them that this is ridiculous? There is no need to show TDA to the entire population of the USSR. They have very little contorl over thier lives anyway. I'm afraid that ABC has put the fear into only half of the people that need to be afraid. I do not believe that a unilateral freeze on our part would motivate the USSR to do anything. We are dealing with people who have a very different perspective on the world. We are all guilty of permitting the ends justify the means but the USSR lives by it. What other country has murdered millions of its own citizens as the USSR has under the leadership of Uncle Joe? Would you trust a people who have done that to themselves with your life? I think that the best thing that could happen is for the people of the USSR to see TDA. There is a common thread between us and that is the fear of death. But trust them? No. A freeze today might work but only if the leaders of the USSR that is the members of the communist party of the USSR feel the same way as the freeze advocates do. That is we have more than enough for MAD. Lets stop now and figure out a way back. But why should I think that the leaders of the USSR think that way. ? What evidence do I have from that closed society? There is no freedom of speach/ or press. What am I to beleive? What the official news agency prints? No I'm afraid not. I do not by my automobile on what is said in the glossies. I am not going to buy a disarmament plan that way either. So ABC, when are you going to show TDA in the USSR? When are we both going to be equally afraid? I need evidence that we are both working at the same level, fear for our lives. Until then, I think we are doing what makes sense. We will continue to play this mad game until we both agree to stop. Michael R. Zboray.
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!casmmt@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!mmtnotes@ucbcad.UUCP (11/23/83)
#R:rlgvax:-140500:ucbesvax:7500054:000:1278
ucbesvax!turner Nov 16 15:30:00 1983
/***** ucbesvax:net.politics / rlgvax!plunkett / 3:40 am Nov 16, 1983*/
... It has
been reported that the producers sought the opinion of nuclear-freeze
advocates to better tailor the movie and its publicity to the politics
of the left. The method the producers have chosen for depicting the
use of nuclear weapons will merely aggravate the fear we all have
regarding nuclear war, without contributing anything at all positive
to its actual avoidance and eventual removal of the threat.
This is confusing--what would this plunkett person have as a conservative's
depiction of the "uses" of nuclear weapons? Happy families with enough
shovels? Or a two hour film consisting of pan-shots over a system of
silos as they sat and deterred?
Perhaps the producers sought the opinions of nuclear-freeze advocates
because they needed technical information that other organizations would
not honestly supply. Does plunkett-person sincerely believe, for example,
in Edward Teller's prediction that one plausible scenario for a nuclear
war involves the total defeat of the USSR, with near-complete economic
recovery in the U.S. after TWO YEARS?
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)courtney@hp-pcd.UUCP (Courtney Loomis) (11/23/83)
#R:rlgvax:-140500:hp-pcd:17400035:000:249 hp-pcd!courtney Nov 17 09:09:00 1983 If there was ever a good reason for hysteria, the threat of nuclear war is it. Your response to bury your head is the sand (ie. watch Masterpiece Theatre) is sympomatic of your unwillingness to confront the problem and take action to deal with it.
cas@cvl.UUCP (11/23/83)
> #R:rlgvax:-140500:hp-pcd:17400035:000:249 > hp-pcd!courtney Nov 17 09:09:00 1983 > > If there was ever a good reason for hysteria, the threat of nuclear war is it. > > Your response to bury your head is the sand (ie. watch Masterpiece Theatre) > is sympomatic of your unwillingness to confront the problem and take action > to deal with it. Since I mentioned Masterpiece Theatre in conjunction with that great-wonderful-all-important production "The Day After", I presume this piece of unsigned drivel is directed at me. It seems to me that implied in this message is a belief that watching the show has something to do with "confront[ing] the problem and take[ing] action to deal with it". I did actually see the first hour, and last half-hour of the show. I didn't learn anything I didn't already "know" about the results of nuclear war, and from what I read here, the missing hour wouldn't have told me any more. In fact, what I would expect to happen, and the causes, are more in line with the current "wisdom of the experts" then the movie. I think what "The Day After" best demonstrates is the ability of ABC to reap the benefits of a controversial subject (how much control you think they had over generating all the free publicity they got depends, I suppose, over how paranoid you are). There have been much more informative, scientific and/or news oriented shows on television treating this issue in the past. Those I am more interested in. I think a lot of people have swollowed what is essentially an advertising line about the importance of this movie. If ABC really thought it was so important, there would have been no commercials during the show. Cliff Shaffer {seismo,we13,mcnc}!rlgvax!cvl!cas