A perfectly executed satire, “Dr. Strangelove” offers an all too necessary reflection in political modes and thoughts of countries and generations. By following three separate stories before the mutual destruction of the world’s greatest superpowers, and as a consequence the destruction of the world, we see how political correctness of the president coupled with the war-crazed nature of the generals allow the world to come to an end. Every party seems so determined to fulfilling their role, even down to the Russian who continues spying as bombs are dropping, that we begin to see how nonsensical the nature of our actions in real life can be when we too adhere more to a role than common sense.
It might be overdone and a little too easy a target to relate Kubrick’s political satire to current events, but I believe it is necessary for change even if futile. From the Red Scare of the 50’s to today’s fear of Russian electoral sabotage, it seems people crave conflict despite the consequences. “Dr. Strangelove” showed a more extreme consequence of distrust, but a very possible reality for that time. In our times, the fear of destruction has subsided, but still existent is an opposition to working with possible allies. It seems both political parties are too busy again filling their roles instead of objectively looking at facts and acting on them. When it comes to cyber infiltration, Democrats may be correct and if they are then Republicans and any supporters of democratic systems should oppose Russian meddling. Similarly, a large body of proof is needed to support their claims before we begin blaming a possible ally and again putting ourselves in a position of political distrust just so one can appease their constituents. For the most parts these fears are nonsensical, no crazier than the idea that people are trying to steal “our precious bodily fluids.”
Our world is so filled with violent interactions between people and countries, that it becomes hard to imagine what we could achieve if we all worked towards common goals we can agree upon. Certain universal goals that all people could strive for like a cleaner planet or pushing space exploration. Instead we’re stuck dumping money into defense in fear that people with different ideas are trying to kill us when at the base level people just want to live and let live.
I think your ideas are cogent, but I slightly disagree with your last statement. Granted, some people might be willing to let things slide, but when someone loses his phone or wallet, many would start by saying “I lost my phone/wallet,” followed by “someone stole my phone/wallet!! AAARRGH!!”
(Alright, maybe not the last part)
It’s natural to harbor distrust towards strangers (and the Russians are, in the international scheme, most definitely strangers) especially when it comes to things of great importance. And, though this is unfortunate, it will likely stay this way until humanity can universally adopt some higher form of empathy and compassion, which, in my cynical view, is not possible without the use of very advanced technology.
Fascinating. I did not initially pay much attention to the concept of distrust when I was watching the movie, but you do bring up some interesting points. The scene in which the leaders of the USSR and the United States converse over the telephone has an added dimension when you take your thoughts into account. The US president claims that the Soviet Premier is his “friend”, despite numerous attempts by each nation to undermine the other. The Soviet Premier’s distrust of the President’s statements about the bomb causes precious time to be wasted over rhetoric. The Air Force General’s distrust of the USSR causes him to react irrationally and deploy a bomb unnecessarily.