World War 3 never happened.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — World War III
lorenzb-2 — 14 years ago(February 05, 2012 07:12 PM)
Great movie! The reason nothing like this ever happened, is because there were reasonable men on both sides, they kept the lines of communication open and everyone knew there could be no winners in a nuclear war. And the leaders on both sides also had a good life and wanted to save their own necks. McKenna was a good man, compassionate, smart and strong, and so was his counterpart Gorney. Had Gorney lived, war would have been avoided. I see their point in wanting the grain embargo ended, but their ham fisted tactics were stupid and doomed to failure. McKenna was right in saying America would never be blackmailed into cooperation, but the KGB didn't belive that. Bad move. When Gorney and McKenna met face to face, OK, you may call this weak, but I would have made a deal with him then. To avoid what happened, I would have told him if he would withdraw the paratroopers at once, and stand down their forces, we would too and they will get the grain. Just to defuse the situation. In the beginning of the movie he said he was willing to do this anyway. Both sides needed to give some ground. Like in the Cuban Missle Crisis both sides gave in to a degree, compromised, and it worked!! The Russians removed their missles from Cuba, and we removed ours from Turkey. And war was avoided. You could make up any story later for both sides to save face. Perhaps that could have been a basis for a new trust too. What they did do didn't work.
-
euro4569 — 14 years ago(February 12, 2012 12:54 PM)
Well, true but
I also agree with what Hudson's character said and that they "were on our block" and that was true. Also, he mentioned something else that the Soviet's economic problems were not our fault anyway. They chose the path and this was the consequence. Who do they think they are thinking and demanding we feed them and keep them going for their mistakes.
No,Hudson should have bombed the area when the Soviets were first detected. Even if there were 700, that isn't a lot and would not even have to think about using tactical nukes. The press could make up a story that a military test went out of control. -
lorenzb-2 — 14 years ago(February 12, 2012 01:25 PM)
Your points are all well-taken. It was an extreamly bad situation all the way around. It was true that is wasn't the fault of the U.S. that they couldn't produce enough food to feed themselves. And yes they did invade us. Using the tactial nuclear weapons was an option, but not a good one. In fact there were no good options. I too would have hesatated to nuke our own people, but in the end it might have worked. However, I still would have made a deal with them for the grain, on the contingent that if they ever tried anything like this again, the embargo would be reinstated, permanently. That would give them to motavation to stay in line and would have been a good PR move for the U.S. to the rest of the world. Hey, we did it out of humanitarian reasons. Or at least we could spin it that way. I just think the situation needed to be defused fast, and by any means. But again, I also think your idea has merit. How's that for being diplomatic? Peace!!!
-
euro4569 — 14 years ago(February 14, 2012 04:48 AM)
Hey thanks for your response. I think this film and the BBC production "Threads" scared me more than any horror film did. In fact, I think the same theme was used in Threads, where the UK and US stopped supporting the USSR in some way and therefore, the USSR retaliated by invading Iran. Something like that. Both films stayed with me for days. It also made you think that something like what was portrayed in film could happen (and may have). Do you really think our government is going to tell us everything. Everyone would be raiding the super markets and going out of their mind if they did.
-
lorenzb-2 — 14 years ago(February 14, 2012 03:59 PM)
I remember "Threads" and "The Day After", all around the same time in the early 80s. In addition to The Cuba Missle Crisis, we came within a hair's breath of nuclear war twice that I know of. Once when a natural missle (comet? meteor?) was missidentified by the Russians as an incoming attack. Then During the Clinton/Yelson era. Again they missidentified a Swedish test rocket as an American incoming missle. Yelson even had his launch codes ready, when someone finally realized the error. Later Clinton upgraded the Russian's radar free of charge to prevent it from happening in the future. In the early 80s, the Russians were CONVINCED America was going to launch a nuclear 1st strike against them. They just didn't know when and where. Of course it wasn't even close to being true, but thier belief made the situation just as dangerous as if it were. We should all be thankful for our lives and the world, as screwed up as it presently is, for still existing! Thanks for your insight and opinions. You are a knowledgable and thoughtful man.
-
euro4569 — 14 years ago(February 15, 2012 04:02 AM)
Well thanks. I think we both know the danger the world was in then (and really now). It seems like these times are more like the 60s and 70s because we still don't know from day to day what mood Russia is in. You've still got those old style people in the government who would turn Russiba back to what it was. In fact, a lot of citizens want that. From what I've heard, the up and coming generation of people would prefer the old Soviet style. This is scary.
Also, don't forget about the Yom Kipper war of October 1973. Now that was a close call as well. Probably even closer than the Cuban Missile Crisis. The only difference was, it wasn't broadcasted as heavily as the 1962 crises. It only lasted maybe a day or two so not a lot of panic buying and so forth. My grandfather remembers it. -
lorenzb-2 — 14 years ago(February 19, 2012 04:08 PM)
I suppose lots of Russians long for the good old days when they were a superpower and even the mighty U.S. feared them. They have certianly lost a lot of prestige. And I don't think things have gotten better for the adverage Russian citizen. Sort of a nostalga. But no matter what, a return to communism would be a disaster. It simple dosen't work.
-
tgs333 — 14 years ago(April 03, 2012 08:08 AM)
Wow this is a great thread for this movie!
I have the film on DVD and read the book. I love the come back to Brian Keith's statment: I am only concerned with American Leaders. Rock Hudson: A classical but Fatal mistake. The American people are their own leaders!
Suffice to say, Threads would make a good sequal to WWIII. The tenions would have built up in Alasaka rather than Iran.
"I'm a vehemently anti-nuclear, paranoid mess, harbouring a strange obsession with radioactive sheep." -
artisticengineer — 13 years ago(June 18, 2012 09:15 AM)
Interesting comment and I somewhat agree with you. Please remember though that a grain embargo against another country by the United States is the basis of the conflict in this movie. Yet, that premise is somewhat ludicrous as grain is one of the items that is under no restriction! The U.S. will sell grain to most any other country; even the countries that we have very serious disagreements with. The U.S., for example, sells food (including grains) to North Korea and Cuba!
And, in the era that this film was made, the Soviets were building a pipeline expressly to sell us oil! So, the premise of their attack on our pipeline, in order to restrict our oil supply, is also pretty ludicrous; unless it was done by them in order to get rid of the competition.
I think different issues should have been used to make this film more believeable. -
lorenzb-2 — 13 years ago(June 18, 2012 09:40 AM)
Well, in fact Jimmy Carter did indeed have a grain embargo aganst the USSR in the late 70s, as "punishment" for all the s**t they were stirring up. Which was pleanty. Not that we wern't too though. However the embargo was meaningless, because Argenina, Canada and others were more than happy to take up the slack. So Reagan wisely ended it as soon as he got in. Not that he wasn't a beep up too though. As someone who lived through the entire cold war, I'm SO glad it's over!!! WW3 never happened because there were reasonable men on both sides, who also cared about their own lives and families.
-
artisticengineer — 13 years ago(June 18, 2012 04:26 PM)
Yeah, that's right; I remember now about the grain embargo. I kept thinking about the 1972 sale of grain to the Soviet Union but now that you mention it.Well, like you mentioned, other countries were not banned from selling grain to the Soviet Union unlike in the movie where all of the West participated in an embargo. Now that I remember it I think Jimmy did not want to sell grain to the Soviets ostensibly due to the Soviet actions in Afghanistan; however, his real reason seems to have been to keep the grain in the U.S. and therefore keep food prices from going up even faster.
-
murad23 — 12 years ago(January 02, 2014 09:32 AM)
You have your facts all wrong.
The US had a grain embargo against the Soviets. It is true that like everything Jimmy Carter did, it was ludicrous.
And the Soviets were NEVER building a pipeline to sell us oil. -
acecrisp-1 — 12 years ago(April 14, 2013 01:53 AM)
Actually the reason world war three never happened had nothing to do with politics.
Russia wanted war.
It wanted to take over the world
During the Cuban missile crisis they wanted war.
In Afghanistan they lost not because of the rebels but because of the same reason they didn't go to war over Cuba and since then
This is based on solid data.
Their economy was so bad that the every day costs of a major war were too mic for them to afford..
Just imagine if they had had the money -
ObscureAuteur — 11 years ago(September 01, 2014 07:17 PM)
Reagan's first term sabre-rattling evil empire nonsense from day one led us to the closest we ever came, at least since the Cuban Missile Crisis, to an actual WWIII in 1983 due to a NATO exercise, Able Archer 83, that by design looked a like preparations for a first strike. The USSR went to high alert in response. (Might be fittingly titled
The Ten Days That Almost Ended the World
.) Apparently after this close call Reagan finally realized that it is possible that everyone does not view the USA as "the good guys" that would never really do such a thing as a preemptive first strike. Also, this bellicose posture probably contributed greatly to the shooting down of KAL007 instead of forcing it to land somewhere with an entirely different kind of incident to deal with.
Setting the stage.
On June 8, 1982, Reagan, in a speech to the British House of Commons confidently declared that, " Freedom and Democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history." Viewed without ideological bias, this is at least the equivalent of Khrushchev's infamous and deliberately misrepresented "We will bury you" speech. (Which said Capitalism would be buried after its natural death, not after murder by Soviet military action.)
Regarding the nuclear weapons in Turkey. I read an article (by John Barron) in Reader's Digest (not quite as far right as, for example, American Opinion, published by the John Birch society) a few years after the Cuban Missile Crisis denouncing Kennedy for conceding anything at all, that the USA had been again bamboozled by the treacherous Soviet's tactic, taking something, then getting something to give it back. Notwithstanding that U.S. nuclear weapons already in place in Turkey, viewed fairly, were the equivalent of what the Soviets were attempting to gain in Cuba. I am certainly glad Kennedy did not listen to the hard liners, chose to ignore the more belligerent of the two messages from the USSR, and kept the missiles out of Cuba. Yet there are people who still regard this as a defeat, and a few that still think "getting it (the 'inevitable' nuclear war) over with" was a plan worthy of serious consideration, or worse, regard it as a fulfillment of religious prophecy to be desired.
CB
Good Times, Noodle Salad -
Eric-62-2 — 10 years ago(April 24, 2015 11:33 PM)
Oh please. Reagan's remoralizing of the Cold War after a decade of retreat in the dtente decade is what ultimately turned things around and led to victory in the Cold War. The "ash heap of history" speech is with hindsight a sign of his courage that the Soviet Union was not an implacable entity that would be around forever, as all the "experts" had insisted for so long, and that they could be defeated peacefully as was proved to be the case. You want to blame someone for KAL 007, try blaming the perpetrators of the act instead.
The legacy of dtente was the greatest advancements the Soviet Union made in the entire history of the Cold War, culminating with the invasion of Afghanistan and the crackdown of Solidarity in Poland. The legacy of the Reagan policy was the end of the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe, the end of the Berlin Wall and the end of the USSR.