FlyBackTransformer Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 I just don't buy it. Okay, moscow is nuked and millions are dead so a u.s. president is calmly going to order the nuking of a major american city to avoid an all-out thermonuclear war? First off, after telling the american people of the unfortunate events leading up to the president feeling that he could do nothing else to placate the russians would cause the immediate impeachment and arrest of President Fonda and General Bogen and all complicit parties and the immediate establishment of the pentagon joint chiefs of staff as a temporary government. The conclusion of fail-safe is therefore lunacy. ] In the real world, President Fonda would have said to the russians tough schlitz! YOU jammed our communications with our bomber group and that's what sent them careening torwards moscow. I asked Col. Grady to forget his orders but it was too late for that. The truth is that if not for the jamming none of this would ever have happened. You want me to now nuke NYC? My own people would have me in a straight-jacket! Moscow's gone. Let the insanity stop there. Sorry that you guys come out on the short end but that's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 FlyBack...AGAIN?! I mean isn't this now the second thread you've started about the unlikelihood of this ending to "Fail-Safe" that you've started in a week's time? Look my friend, the story is an Allegory, and yes, very often allegorical tales are not totally based in reality, but are in fact very often "enhanced" to make their point. And of course, the point of "Fail-Safe" was a warning to its audience that NOTHING in life is infallible. I think what might be confusin' ya here is that so much of film DOES admittedly seem to be a super-realistic presentation of the 1960s era Strategic Air Command..."The Big Board" and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMadness Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Sadly I think there have been a couple of Presidents since the 60's that would have done what Fonda proposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Lemme guess MM...you're thinkin' some o' those "Weak Sister" types like Fredric March says Burt Lancaster thinks his President is in a certain OTHER movie set in the month of May, RIGHT??? LOL (...no need to answer this, BTW...in fact it's probably better if ya didn't) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownGoesFrazier Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 "You are not only a weak sister, but a criminally weak sister". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamradio Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 "Fail Safe" is mostly an anti-war movie. Could an accidental bombing occur.....how close we have came. http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm http://www.cracked.com/article_19790_6-tiny-mistakes-that-almost-ended-world.html So far fail safe system seems to be working, whew. There is a discussion forum about "Fail Safe", a member - Riboflavin seems to have a logical view of why we wouldn't nuke one of our own cites. Question is, how logical would our government be. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=111550 The only solution is to get rid of nukes but now we have the threat of rogue nations like North Korea to worry about. The genie will never be put back in the bottle. Nice thing is cooler heads have prevailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sepiatone Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 The president could have saved NYC by telling the Soviets that by law, he'd have to put the proposal to nuke the city before congress. In real life, THEY'D still be debating it! Sepiatone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 LOL And of course IF it ever DID come to a vote, it would be voted down...though NOT because of any "human factor", but because all the NYC-based corporations would've had their lobbyists "contribute" enough to the re-election campaigns of all the congressmen in order to assure a vote for the city's continual existence!!! (...and I'll betcha I'm RIGHT, too!!!) LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Yeah, or maybe Newark?!!! (...nah, on second thought, the Ruskies would've probably just thought that that was part of an overall "urban renewal project" already slated for fiscal year 1965, huh) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2Bad Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Not Newark. Too close to my old home town, though it could have been sold as part of LBJ's War on Poverty. I was wondering who that actress was. I didn't catch the name in the closing credits. Quite the D.C. party girl. She was a little slutty and Matthau turned out to be a little nutty. I bet Wilbur Mill wouldn't have slapped her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Ooooh, you're good, John! I had completely forgotten about that whole Wilbur Mills/Fannie Foxe incident. (...good analogy!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyBackTransformer Posted August 12, 2013 Author Share Posted August 12, 2013 Of course! My personal conundrum concerning fail-safe is solved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownGoesFrazier Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Analogous to George C. Scott's secretary in DR. STRANGELOVE. The two films had something else in common---one sultry babe scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts