Pentagon frets over Kathryn Bigelow’s A House Of Dynamite nuclear doomsday film

WASHINGTON – The plot of A House Of Dynamite, the new thriller from Oscar-winning American director Kathryn Bigelow, hinges on US missile defences failing to knock down a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) headed for Chicago.

The Pentagon agency responsible for the more than US$50 billion (S$65 million) system of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California designed to avoid just such a scenario is not happy about it. The movie, starring Idris Elba, Rebecca Ferguson, Gabriel Basso and Anthony Ramos, is available on Netflix.

A Missile Defense Agency (MDA) internal memorandum argues that the doomsday scenario depicted in the film is inaccurate. The Oct 16 memo, a copy of which was obtained by Bloomberg News, is meant to make sure agency leadership “has situational awareness and is not ‘surprised’ by the topic, which may come up in conversations or meetings”.

The object of the MDA’s angst is depiction of US missile defence as ineffective. This is especially in the light of the fact that US President Donald Trump wants to spend tens of billions of dollars on missile defence, including with his bid for a Golden Dome defensive umbrella.

The document, labelled “Only for internal MDA and Department of War use and is not public releasable”, is dated a day after almost every member of the Pentagon press corps, including Bloomberg News, vacated the building rather than agree to rules that could restrict news-gathering of documents such as the MDA assessment.

It was prepared to “address false assumptions, provide correct facts and a better understanding” of the US’ currently deployed system, it says.

While A House Of Dynamite “highlights that deterrence can fail, which reinforces the need for an active homeland missile defence system”, its fictional portrayal also underestimates US capabilities, according to the memo. 

“The fictional interceptors in the movie miss their target, and we understand this is intended to be a compelling part of the drama intended for the entertainment of the audience”, but results from real-world testing “tell a vastly different story”, the Pentagon says in the memo.

As guidance for questions about the system’s cost, the memo avoids a dollar amount, saying “the cost is high, but not nearly as high as the cost of allowing a nuclear missile to strike our nation”.

A Government Accountability Office report in 2020 said the Pentagon had spent about US$53 billion on the ground-based system and planned to spend about US$10 billion through 2025 to continue developing, producing and sustaining it. The system is managed by Boeing Co and operated by personnel under the US Northern Command.

One focus of the memo is a line in the movie in which the defence secretary (played by Jared Harris) laments that current missile defences have a 50 per cent chance of knocking down a missile despite their US$50 billion price tag. 

The MDA says that is based on earlier prototypes, and that today’s interceptors “have displayed a 100 per cent accuracy rate in testing for more than a decade”.

Experts dispute that. Dr Laura Grego, a long-time missile defence critic with the Union of Concerned Scientists who has seen the film, says the scenario it depicts is the least threatening possible – a single missile on a known trajectory. Military tests have been similarly limited, she adds.

“A robust defence should anticipate facing multiple incoming ICBMs and credible decoys, and direct attacks on missile defence elements, but none of those were part of the story in this film,” Dr Grego says. “The fictional threat is arguably about as easy as they come.”

In a statement to Bloomberg News, the Pentagon says it was not consulted for the film, which “does not reflect the views or priorities of this administration”.

The system “remains a critical component of our national defence strategy, ensuring the safety and security of the American people and our allies”.

Netflix did not respond to a request for comment. 

A representative for Bigelow, 73, points to her remarks on US TV programme CBS News Sunday Morning arguing that she did not seek cooperation from the Pentagon.

“I felt that we needed to be more independent,” she had told CBS. “But that being said, we had multiple tech advisers who have worked in the Pentagon. They were with me every day we shot.”

The Trump administration has not disclosed substantive details of its still ill-defined Golden Dome land, sea and space-based defensive shield.

Space Force General Michael Guetlein, the four-star general leading the effort, in September completed a blueprint for the programme. The Pentagon declined to provide details about its scope or cost. BLOOMBERG