54343gm (03/22/83)
Yes, I also thought "Special Bulletin" (NBC, 9 pm, March 20) was well
done. It was original, suspenseful, believable, and shocking. I suspect
it will wake up a lot of people to the realities of nuclear weapons.
For those of you who didn't see the broadcast, it was about a small
group of anti-nuclear war activists who threatened to decimate the city
of Charleston, S.C. with a homemade nuclear device unless the U.S.
Government disarmed 986 nuclear warheads in the Charleston area that
are maintained for strategic purposes (e.g., bombers and submarines).
To our government's credit, it had the intelligence to appreciate that
the threat was genuine. Unfortunately, the outcome of the movie was
a sad display of the government's stupidity and machismo. Rather than
turn over some easily replaced components of nuclear warheads, it chose
to risk (and lose) the lives of thousands.
The thesis of the movie isn't farfetched, since it is to some
degree an extrapolation of an event that occurred last December in
Washington, D.C. A man, as you recall, threatened to blow up the
Washington Monument with a 1000 pounds of explosives (kinda hard to
believe, ain't it?) unless the government responded to some
anti-nuclear weapon issues. Unlike "The China Syndrome" (which I
thought was anti-corporate, sensationalistic trash), this
made-for-television movie acted in the public interest by emphasizing
the seriousness of the proliferation of nuclear weapons among nations
and, perhaps someday, among individuals.
It was asserted by one of the terrorists that the real terrorists
are the superpowers -- since they hold each other's citizens as
nuclear hostages in an insane struggle for strategic supremacy.
George Maeda houxi!54343gm Holmdel, NJleei (03/23/83)
Sounds quite similar to a short story by Joe Haldeman called "To Howard Hughes: A Modest Proposal". It deals with the situation that arises when one of the richest men in the world, in order to stop the nuclear arms race, builds something like 15 nuclear warheads and plants them, armed, in some of the most important cities in the world. He then threatens to detonate them all if the nuclear powers don't immediately disarm and surrender their warheads to a UN body. It's a very nice optomistic story and is highly recommended. Lee Iverson princeton!leei
bch (03/23/83)
Despite the predictable aspects of plot and characterization, I thought the drama did a good job in portraying a situation in which familiar, institutionalized, reactions of the media and the government no longer make any sense. The straightfaced "we're in control" attitude of the White House and the network newscasters contrasted with the kind of collective, very much out-of-control, insanity aboard the terrorist ship to make a point about the nature of public events. Even the viewer is sucked in to the drama as an impotent observer of a process which seems to take place without coherency or logic. There you are, sitting in the comfort of your own home watching events taking place in some never-never land. Do you really care about them? Does it matter? I suspect Charleston was chosen precisely because it is not a generally familiar city. It is also a city with the innocence of the deep south surrounded by enough military hardware to start World War III. More important, the reporters in the area would not be used to covering large scale crises hence their emotionalism and inability to make sense of their situation.
terryl (03/25/83)
Frankly, I thought the mythical TV station (RBS in the movie) laid on the RBS just a little too much.
henry (03/30/83)
Without disputing the accuracy of George Maeda's review of Special Bulletin (I haven't seen it), or the serious nature of the subject matter, there is one part of his review that made my hackles rise: ".........................Unfortunately, the outcome of the movie was a sad display of the government's stupidity and machismo. Rather than turn over some easily replaced components of nuclear warheads, it chose to risk (and lose) the lives of thousands......" In other words, rather than give in to blackmail, the government quite properly stood firm. This is not a display of stupidity and machismo, it is a display of common sense in a very difficult situation (albeit perhaps for the wrong reasons). The worst possible thing to do in such a situation is to give in -- it's an open invitation to terrorists to do the same thing again. Next time it might be millions, not thousands, of lives. The only effective way to stop terrorism is to make it clear to everyone that it doesn't work. This means standing firm even when it hurts, because in the long run the alternative hurts worse. I hope George's view is just his own reaction; I'd be dismayed by a popular film that presented appeasement as a reasonable course of action. Henry Spencer U of Toronto
bstempleton (04/02/83)
In the case of this TV movie, one thing that was ignored is what would have really been done to the bomb - namely to smash it with conventional explosives. This could either be done by the diffusing team or by missile if the team could not get close. Any bomb (especially one built by normal people) needs precision to explode and a small amount of TNT can wreck this without spreading fisionables all over the place.
porges (04/02/83)
#R:utzoo:-289100:inmet:6500004:000:1252 inmet!porges Mar 31 13:29:00 1983 Not only would the government not be willing to give in to blackmail for abstract reasons if terrorists demanded nuclear detonators, but suppose the "anti-nuke terrorists" turned out to be, literally, Soviet agents? Remember that we had only their word that the detonators would be taken out to sea and destroyed. (For that matter, it was never made clear in "Special Bulletin" if the boat was supposed to go out some distance and blow up its muclear device, as was implied but not stated, or if they were to be sunk and the bomb defused.) On the other hand, it's true that the whole thing would have been pointless since the detonators could indeed by easily replaced. In real life, the reult would have been to discredit the anti-nuke movement! FLAME: and this is what's *pragmatically* wrong with terrorism. Terrorists seem to assume that if they can show us all HOW MUCH THEY CARE about their issue, that will convince the rest of us that they must be right. In fact this goes beyind terrorism and into wars....anybody here convinced Nazism is good because the Nazis cared so very stringly about their cause? -- Don Porges ...harpo!inmet!porges ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porges ...yale-comix!ima!inmet!porges
bernie (04/07/83)
I also have not seen "Special Bulletin", yet it does seem to me that the government did the right thing; not giving in to terrorism is the far better than giving in, regardless of the circumstances. --Bernie Roehl ...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie