peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (11/24/83)
Comments on The Day After and the ABC panel discussion immediately thereafter:
- It didn't depict things as being as bad as I had thought they'd be, but it
was certainly powerful enough to demand the attention it did. I think anyone
would be hard-pressed to call it a cinematic masterpiece, but it didn't have
to be great, or even that good, to get the point across.
- When I saw the missiles going off, I had the strange feeling that those
missiles were *enjoying* fulfilling their reason for existence. Quite
irrational, yes, but it gave me a rare feel for the anti-technology feelings
of some people (I'm a technophile at heart). If I were to survive, I don't
think I'd tell many people that I had been a computer scientist.
- I was disappointed at the panel discussion. No-one brought up the massive
cost of these missiles to any great degree, or made a point out of the
myth of superiority. The contention that the Soviets need to see massively
numerically superior forces to be deterred from war was stated a few times
without any real sort of evidence or argument. It *was* nice to see
Kissinger making a plea for more talking. The characterization of the freeze
as making the situation worse by freezing certain destabilizing weapons into
the picture was interesting. The contention by the head of the MX committee
that reducing the number of MIRV'd missiles could only be achieved by
introducing the MIRV'd MX was amazing. The humanist did not speak well,
which was a shame, because it really is a very emotional issue, and I
don't think the film has to apologize for being emotional.
Sadly, I don't think much will change, except for the worse, until possibly
the next US election.
p. rowley, U. Toronto