A House of Dynamite “exposes a brutal truth,” as per U.S. Senator Edward J. Markey, who recently published an op-ed. Starring Rebecca Ferguson and Idris Elba, the Netflix political thriller follows the US government, which finds itself in a harrowing situation after an unknown enemy launches a single nuclear missile at the country. Accordingly, there’s growing curiosity surrounding Markey’s comments.
Edward J. Markey on how A House of Dynamite ‘dispels comforting illusions’
In an opinion piece, Senator Edward J. Markey shares that Idris Elba and Rebecca Ferguson’s A House of Dynamite was not only a “gripping film” but also a “wake-up call.” He points out in an MSNBC article the film’s dramatization of the 30-minute real-time window between a nuclear missile’s launch at the U.S. and its impact.
Moreover, Markey stresses that the film’s core plot point “exposes a brutal truth” decision makers and policy experts didn’t want to admit — long-range missile defense is incapable of providing protection. He argues that the reduction of global arsenals is the only solution to nuclear catastrophe.
The senator notes that director Kathryn Bigelow “dispels the comforting illusion that technology can shield us from a nuclear attack” in the film’s first few minutes. He highlights how, in the film, U.S. ground-based interceptors launch and fail to stop the incoming missile. He confirms Jared Harris’ U.S. Secretary of Defense Reid Baker’s sentiment that technology’s chances of protecting the country from a nuclear threat were a “coin toss.”
Markey then explains that U.S. missile defenses against intercontinental weapons work only 55 percent of the time in scripted tests. He adds that missile defenses work if they meet the following prerequisites:
- Ideal conditions
- Known targets
- No decoys
- Perfectly timed launches
“Real war introduces deception, saturation attacks and human failures,” Markey stresses. “The system is brittle. A “silver bullet” defense is a fantasy.”
Markey points out how the U.S. invests billions in long-range missile defense systems, even though none offer reliable protection. “The bloated contracts persist, the well-connected lobbyists benefit and the public clings to hope,” he further states. He stresses that long-range missile defense systems not only don’t work but also contribute to the overall problem by making it harder to reduce nuclear threats. “As our adversaries know, the best way to defeat our defenses is to build more offensive missiles,” he emphasizes.
Markey shares that the government instead needs to focus on arms reduction, as that solution works. He highlights the U.S.-Russian nuclear arms reduction treaty, New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), as an example. Since its inception, New START — expiring on February 5, 2026 — has reduced nuclear arsenals by 90 percent.
Furthermore, Markey reveals he had been lobbying for “deep and verifiable reductions in nuclear arsenals.”
Originally reported by Abdul Azim Naushad on Comingsoon.
