On October 24, 2025, Netflix debuted Kathryn Bigelow’s much-anticipated nuclear thriller, A House of Dynamite, reigniting public debate about America’s nuclear defense posture, the ethics of nuclear policy, and the global arms race. The film, the first major anti-nuclear movie to hit mainstream screens since Oppenheimer, thrusts viewers into the heart of a hypothetical nuclear attack on the United States, dramatizing the nation’s nuclear launch procedures and the fraught politics of deterrence. But as the movie’s shockwaves ripple through popular culture and policy circles alike, it’s clear that the issues it raises are anything but cinematic fiction.
At the core of A House of Dynamite is a chilling scenario: the US ground-based anti-missile system fails to intercept an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile, leaving the President to make a split-second decision with global consequences. According to reporting from Science News, the film’s depiction of America’s nuclear launch process is largely accurate. The President, and the President alone, holds the final authority to launch nuclear weapons—though consultation with advisors is possible, it isn’t required. The infamous nuclear “football,” always at the President’s side, contains the Presidential Decision Handbook, a menu of strike options, emergency broadcast protocols, and relocation plans. The President must verify his identity using a laminated card known as the “biscuit,” before any order proceeds down the chain of command to missile crews, bomber pilots, and submariners.
Yet, as Science News points out, the movie takes some dramatic liberties. In reality, a crisis would likely involve more time for diplomatic outreach and intelligence gathering, especially if the source of an attack was unclear. The frenzied “use or lose” pressure that dominates the film would only apply if US nuclear forces themselves were under massive, imminent threat. And while the handbook’s pictographic “menu” of war plans is grounded in fact, the film’s breakneck pace leaves little room for the measured deliberation that would almost certainly occur in a real-world scenario.
Still, the sense of urgency is no exaggeration. As the film’s scenario unfolds, viewers are left to grapple with the terrifying reality that, in a matter of minutes, a handful of people could decide the fate of millions. It’s a drama that feels both cinematic and alarmingly plausible.
But A House of Dynamite doesn’t just dramatize the mechanics of nuclear command—it also spotlights the limitations of America’s missile defense. The film’s plot hinges on the failure of the US ground-based midcourse defense system, a real-world program that, as Arms Control Today reports, has cost US taxpayers $63 billion as of fiscal year 2024. Despite two decades of funding, the system only succeeds about half the time in controlled tests. In total, US anti-missile programs have consumed around $400 billion, yet experts say they remain “more aspirational than operational.” A group of physicists recently concluded that the ability to reliably stop even a single incoming missile “has not been demonstrated.”
This lackluster track record hasn’t stopped politicians from proposing ever-more ambitious (and expensive) solutions. President Donald Trump, for example, has touted the so-called “Golden Dome”—a missile defense shield he claims could make America nearly impervious to attack, at a cost of $175 billion over three years. Independent analyses cited by Arms Control Today estimate that a truly comprehensive missile defense would require $3.6 trillion over two decades—roughly a quarter of the US defense budget each year. Even then, adversaries could counter by building more missiles or deploying decoys, fueling the very arms race such systems are meant to deter.
The timing of A House of Dynamite could hardly be more fraught. The last major arms control treaty between the US and Russia, New START, is set to expire in February 2026. With Russia’s arsenal modernizing and China rapidly expanding its own stockpile, experts warn the world is closer to a new nuclear arms race than at any point since the Cold War. Meanwhile, there are growing calls in Washington to expand America’s own nuclear arsenal—moves that risk unraveling decades of arms control progress.
Against this backdrop, the film’s implicit message is clear: throwing more money at missile defense is not the answer. In fact, as Arms Control Today notes, the pursuit of absolute security through ever-larger shields can actually stoke insecurity, prompting rivals to build more weapons and undermining global stability. The real solutions, experts argue, lie in diplomacy, arms reduction, and reforms to nuclear command authority—steps as bipartisan as they are urgent.
Yet, as AhlulBayt News Agency highlights, America’s nuclear policies are shaped by more than just technology and strategy—they are also deeply political, marked by stark double standards. Allied nations like Australia are granted access to cutting-edge nuclear technology, including US-built nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact. The October 2025 meeting between President Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese saw the two leaders ink an $8.5 billion deal for Australian minerals and announce $2.2 billion in new mining investments, all while advancing a $239 billion agreement for Australia to acquire US nuclear submarines by 2032. The pact, which also involves Britain, is touted as a bulwark against China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific.
But while Washington strengthens its allies, it imposes harsh restrictions—and, critics say, bullying—on independent nations like Iran. Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei recently declared, “What business is it of America whether Iran has nuclear capabilities and technology or not? This interference is wrong and bullying, and it will not affect the Iranian nation.” The US has long demanded that Iran halt its nuclear activities, even when those efforts are peaceful and compliant with international law. At the same time, Washington has quietly supported Saudi Arabia’s and Turkey’s peaceful nuclear programs, and maintains a studied silence about Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
This double standard has not gone unnoticed. Iran’s insistence on its right to peaceful nuclear development is gaining traction on the world stage, inspiring other nations to pursue nuclear technology free from outside interference. As AhlulBayt News Agency observes, “Iran’s policy rests on the principle that nuclear energy development is a certain right of all countries and no others have the right to limit the path of advances in this technology using pressure or threat.”
Ultimately, A House of Dynamite serves as a potent reminder that nuclear policy is more than just a matter of hardware and budgets—it is a mirror of global power dynamics, national anxieties, and the ever-present risk of catastrophe. The film’s message, echoed by scientists and diplomats alike, is that the path to true security lies not in building bigger shields, but in dismantling the foundations of mistrust and fear. In a world bristling with nuclear arms and simmering rivalries, that may be the hardest lesson of all.
