A House of Dynamite’s ending was about the POTUS deciding whether or not he should launch a retaliatory attack over the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) hurtling towards Chicago. The whole narrative unfolded largely through three different perspectives. The first one was that of Captain Olivia Parker, who was a member of the WHSR (White House Situation Room). The second one was that of General Anthony Brady, a senior USAF (United States Air Force) officer at STRATCOM (United States Strategic Command). And the final one was that of the President of the United States. Once it was confirmed that the ICBM was in fact headed towards Chicago, the main objective was to deploy a couple of anti-ballistic missiles in order to intercept the ICBM. The second EKV (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle) failed to deploy at all, and while the first EKV managed to hit the ICBM, it failed to destroy it, which meant that impact was imminent. Hence, everybody rushed to execute the safety protocols, where the most important assets of the USA would be moved to a secure bunker designed to shield against a nuclear attack, while the POTUS was left with a couple of options. He could either retaliate immediately at the suspects, or he could wait and watch, find out who had launched the ICBM, and then retaliate. What did the POTUS do? Which country had attacked the USA? What was the point of the film? Let’s find out.
Spoiler Alert
The POTUS Was Of Two Minds
To be honest, there’s no way to ascertain what the result of the ICBM strike on Chicago was because A House of Dynamite ended right before the impact. All I can do is speculate. So, here goes nothing. The only way Chicago could have survived was if the ICBM was a dud. Maybe the second EKV had caused some damage to its system, thereby rendering it inert. Therefore, even if it was certain that the missile was going to hit Chicago, there was that slim chance that it would only do some material damage and not, you know, incinerate everything. Which was why Deputy National Security Advisor Jake Baerington said that they should wait, because if the USA retaliated with a nuke while the ICBM did no harm to their country, then the USA would be seen as the aggressors. The USA would be blamed for staging a false flag attack on their own country to commence a nuclear war, and they’d become international enemy number one. If the ICBM was not a dud, then Chicago was a goner, and as mentioned before, the POTUS was left with 2 options: retaliating immediately against countries like China, North Korea, and Russia—because on the list of enemies, they were at the top—or waiting it out. Launching an immediate retaliatory attack would trigger another set of retaliatory attacks from every other country that had nukes in their arsenal, and that’d cause humans to go essentially extinct. However, sacrificing Chicago and then launching an international investigation into the attacker would compel other countries to be sympathetic towards the USA, and they’d help America look into this matter instead of treating them like reactionary mass murderers who flatten countries for no real reason.
There’s no way to know what decision the POTUS arrived at. Yeah, he gave the nuclear launch codes to Brady, which were conveyed to the people who would carry out the retaliatory attack. But he didn’t give the order. And the fact that he was hesitating was the whole point of that segment: that we need leaders who hesitate. We live in an era where we trust strongmen who are incredibly trigger-happy instead of those who can think. As evident from the conversation between Brady and the NSA officer for North Korea, Ana Park, this was a well-coordinated attack. Whoever was the aggressor wanted the USA to attack and destroy the world. It was a well-executed trap that the POTUS had walked into. If the POTUS didn’t retaliate, he’d probably be perceived as a weak leader, but at least his eventual retaliation would be measured and sensible. If the POTUS did retaliate, well, nobody would be left alive to judge him, and if anybody did survive the nuclear holocaust, their judgement wouldn’t matter. Episode 7 of Paradise tackled this same conundrum, and I highly recommend everyone give it a watch.
North Korea Probably Attacked The USA
The 2 names that were on the top of the list of countries that might have launched the attack on the USA were North Korea and Russia. Russia assured Baerington that they weren’t behind the attack, and at the same time, they refused to lower their defenses even after Baerington assured them they wouldn’t be attacked. From the USA’s perspective, that seemed like an aggressive move, because why wouldn’t Russia trust America after they had assured them that they wouldn’t be attacked? But if you see it through a sensible point of view, refusing to simply accept the USA’s promise of not attacking Russia made sense. It actually reminded me of a scene from Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning where Grace tried to convince Captain Koltsov to simply step aside and let the Americans complete the task of defeating the Entity because the Americans saw themselves as the only country that was worthy of being trusted. Kolstov obviously refused to do so and then asked Grace that if he told her to trust the Russians and let them complete the task of capturing the Entity, would she do it? And Grace honestly said that she wouldn’t trust Russia at their word.
As for North Korea, Park explained that they might have struck America in order to trigger a retaliatory attack, which they knew they’d survive. Then they’d ask for aid in exchange for putting a stop to their plans to attack anyone. I am guessing that they’d deny their involvement in the attack on Chicago because the “malfunctioning” of the DSP satellites had made it impossible to specify the origin of the ICBM. And they’d pretend that America was the aggressor and they attacked North Korea based on the assumption that they were the ones who had launched the ICBM on the USA. That way, the North Koreans would seem like the victims, and they’d be able to replenish their resources by hoarding the aid. Also, it’d dent the USA’s image, as they’d be seen as a country that would launch missiles based on assumptions. To be clear, the movie didn’t provide any proof of the fact that the North Koreans were actually the ones who had launched the ICBM. I am merely explaining the protagonists’ assumptions. The subtext of this whole paranoia is that we humans have divided ourselves so much that we refuse to trust each other, and we threaten the lives of innocent people in order to preserve our status on the international forum. Until and unless we change this mentality, we’ll always struggle to progress as a species.
An Anti-Nuclear Weapons Message
A House of Dynamite opened with the text crawl that at the end of the Cold War, it was decided by global powers that the world would be better off with “fewer” nuclear weapons. Instead of doing anything like that, every country has not only ramped their defense budget to insane levels, but they have also begun attacking other countries in the name of expansion, religious differences, or just plain old villainy. What are we getting out of that? Nothing. We are doing irreparable damage to our ecosystem. We are destroying the future of our children. We are wasting this one-in-a-billion chance to exist as a sentient species in this vast, scary universe. We are not even a blip in the grand scheme of things, and yet, we have divided ourselves to such an extent that we want to turn this one world into a nuclear hellscape. And at this stage, the only way to stop this nonsense is by identifying the instigators and economically boycotting them. By omitting the reason why the USA is being attacked, writer Noah Oppenheim and director Kathryn Bigelow present the country as a victim of an attack that they couldn’t have provoked. In doing so, they refuse to have a discussion about America’s role in the never-ending cycle of war and genocide.
The only line that sort of underscores the weight of America’s military-industrial complex is when Secretary of Defense Reid Baker said that they have spent $50 billion dollars on making the USA safe from external attacks. Even that amount is the tip of the iceberg that’s the USA’s defense budget. And all that for what? To create this constant sense of paranoia over who will attack whom? If the countries with the biggest economies come together and decide that they’ll not wage any more wars and spend the taxpayers’ money on scientific research, education, healthcare, and affordable living, what’s going to stop other countries from following suit? But I suppose we live in a time when peace is seen as a boring concept. As long as we are in a perpetual state of aggression for one reason or another, and our governments are showing their strength by building the best defense technology, it’s all fine. And the thing about living life is that we will face the consequences of our actions, either through something like the Nuremberg trials or the wrath of Mother Earth. Until then, keep grinding. Anyway, those are just my thoughts on the film. If you have any opinions on the same, feel free to share them in the comments section below.
