On October 9, 2025, the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood, Los Angeles, buzzed with anticipation as filmmakers, actors, and activists gathered for a special screening of Netflix’s newest political thriller, A House of Dynamite. The film, directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written by Noah Oppenheim, plunges viewers into the heart of a fictional—yet chillingly plausible—nuclear crisis. With a limited theatrical run before its streaming debut on October 24, the film is already igniting heated debates about the very real dangers of nuclear weapons policy and the precarious systems that underpin global security.
According to Common Dreams, the film’s scenario is as harrowing as it is timely: the U.S. president, portrayed with raw vulnerability by Idris Elba, is given just 20 minutes to decide whether to launch a nuclear strike in response to a fast-unfolding threat. The ticking clock, the fog of incomplete information, and the crushing weight of potential omnicide all come together to paint a portrait of leadership under unimaginable pressure. "None of this makes any sense, making all these bombs and all these plans," Elba’s character laments, echoing real-life anxieties about the sanity of nuclear brinkmanship.
What makes A House of Dynamite stand out, critics argue, is its unflinching critique of nuclear deterrence—the doctrine that asserts peace is maintained by the threat of mutual destruction. The film doesn’t just question the wisdom of this gamble; it dramatizes the extreme risks and human fallibility at its core. In a particularly memorable scene, the secretary of defense explodes in frustration over the odds of intercepting an incoming missile: "So it’s a f******* coin toss? That’s what $50 billion buys us?" The line, according to Common Dreams, rings disturbingly true to those familiar with the real limitations of missile defense technology.
The film’s resonance is heightened by current events. Just days after the screening, on October 16, Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, delivered a stark warning: the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which manages America’s nuclear arsenal, was running out of funds due to the ongoing government shutdown. As AFP NEWS reported, Rogers told reporters, “They will have to lay off 80 percent of their employees.” Energy Secretary Chris Wright echoed these concerns in USA Today, stating, “Starting next week, we’re going to have to let go tens of thousands … of workers that are critical to our national security.”
The NNSA is responsible for the safety, maintenance, and security of the United States’ 5,177 nuclear warheads, of which about 1,770 are deployed. The agency’s workforce is relatively small—fewer than 2,000 federal employees oversee some 60,000 contractors—but their role is vital. The prospect of mass furloughs has alarmed policymakers and experts alike, underscoring the fragility of systems that are supposed to safeguard the world from nuclear catastrophe.
Meanwhile, the international nuclear landscape is growing more complex and perilous. On October 17, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was set to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump to press for the delivery of long-range Tomahawk missiles, weapons that could strike deep into Russian territory. According to AFP NEWS, Trump, who has oscillated in his stance on Ukraine and Russia, was also preparing for a new summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Budapest. The Kremlin cautioned that “many questions” remained before the summit could take place, and tensions over arms transfers threatened to upend already-stalled peace talks.
The risks of nuclear escalation are not limited to the U.S. and Russia. India’s nuclear program, as detailed in a recent analysis published on October 17, 2025, is the fastest growing in South Asia. India maintains a doctrine of credible minimum deterrence and a no-first-use policy, but its history tells a more complicated story. As recounted by David Albright in a 1998 article for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, India covertly diverted fissile material from civilian reactors in the 1960s to develop its first nuclear device, detonated in 1974. This act of subterfuge helped trigger the creation of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 1975, intended to tighten global controls on nuclear materials.
Despite its non-signatory status to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), India has benefited from preferential treatment in international nuclear trade, notably receiving a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2008. This has enabled India to engage in civilian nuclear cooperation while keeping several reactors outside international safeguards. According to the International Panel on Fissile Materials, these unsafeguarded reactors give India the technical flexibility to expand its nuclear arsenal—estimated at 180 warheads in 2025 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute—beyond what many observers believe is necessary for minimum deterrence.
There are also serious concerns about the safety and security of India’s nuclear facilities. The Nuclear Threat Initiative’s Nuclear Security Index for 2024 ranked India near the bottom globally, recording over 20 incidents of theft, loss, or attempted illicit sale of nuclear and radioactive material since 1994. Notably, in August 2024, authorities in Bihar seized californium worth an estimated $100 million, and multiple uranium thefts have been reported over the years from major research facilities. Such incidents raise alarms about the potential for nuclear materials to fall into the wrong hands, threatening regional and international security.
Back in the United States, the film A House of Dynamite forces viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about the concentration of nuclear authority. As Common Dreams highlights, all nine nuclear-armed states—including the U.S., Russia, China, the U.K., France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea—invest the power to launch nuclear weapons in a single executive, with no requirement for legislative or cabinet approval. Harvard professor Elaine Scarry, in her book Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom, argues that this arrangement makes a mockery of democratic principles.
The real-world implications are staggering. Beyond the theoretical risk of accidental or intentional nuclear war, the human and environmental costs are immense. Millions have suffered from the health effects of nuclear weapons production, testing, and storage, and the opportunity costs—trillions of dollars that could be spent on pressing human needs—are incalculable. As Common Dreams laments, “We are squandering trillions of dollars, instead of addressing the Common Good, while fattening the bottom lines of weapons contractors.”
With so much at stake, the calls for reform are growing louder. A House of Dynamite does not offer easy answers, but it does pose the questions that matter: Why do we entrust the fate of the world to a handful of fallible leaders? Why are so many willing to accept the unacceptable risks of nuclear deterrence? As the film and recent world events make clear, the time to wrestle with these dilemmas is now—before the next crisis gives us only minutes to decide.
In an era marked by escalating nuclear dangers, institutional fragility, and shifting geopolitical alliances, the world’s nuclear future remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: the debate over who holds the power to end civilization—and how that power is managed—has never been more urgent, or more necessary.
