Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Night Flight)   In 1982, at the height of the Cold War, three filmmakers spliced together old propaganda films to create "the nuclear Reefer Madness." 35 years later, its message is still relevant   ( nightflight.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Atomic Café, Nuclear weapon, nuclear war, Nuclear warfare, World War II, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Cold War, Atomic Café project  
•       •       •

1661 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Apr 2017 at 11:58 PM (26 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-04-19 08:13:20 PM  
Saw it in the theater while sober.  That was an error I never repeated.
 
2017-04-19 08:19:38 PM  
I think I had it on VHS. I might or might not have recorded it off cable TV when we still had it. The horses with gas masks was...weird.

And yes, I was thinking about it the other day when Best Korea was parading military stuff.
 
2017-04-19 09:11:50 PM  
This movie brings back great memories from college.

In the Peace, War, and Defense program at UNC, there were four required movies spread out over the three core courses.  You had to watch Dr. Strangelove for Ethics of Peace and War (and in History of Air Power), Fail Safe in History of National and International Security, and The Russians Are Coming and Atomic Cafe in How and Why Nations Go to War (or Peace).

/somewhere I still have my Atomic BVD T-shirt we made
//and the "PWAD Majors Do It By...Other Means" Clausewitz shirt
 
2017-04-19 10:46:16 PM  
Reagan's Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Thomas K. Jones publicly and stupidly claimed at the time that nuclear war would not be nearly as devastating as everyone assumed.

"If there are enough shovels to go around," he said, "everybody's going to make it. With enough shovels, everyone could dig a hole in the ground and cover themselves with two or three feet of dirt, and survive the nuclear holocaust."


The sad part:  It's actually true for pretty much everyone outside of a primary blast area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_shelter#Shielding

It's pretty simple physics.  Every 3.6 inches of dirt halves the radiation.  With 36 inches of dirt (3 feet), the radiation level falls to just 1/1000th that outside the shelter.   After about 2 weeks, the majority of the fallout is gone.  The idea is that you'll have some warning that war is a possibility and thus you'll have time build a shelter ahead of time.

It's kind of like "Duck and Cover" being derided, when in fact it's very valuable tactic for anyone who isn't in the immediately fatal blast zone.  It was developed based upon not only nuclear testing, but also on the experiences of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  There are two main dangers:  Thermal pulse, and the actual blast.  Thermal pulse hits mere seconds after the initial flash so immediately ducking behind or underneath something to shield yourself from that will prevent burns.  Even covering yourself with a coat or newspaper helps.  Then, keeping down and covered will help prevent injury when the blast hits.  For people indoors, the big danger is flying glass.  Getting under a table will keep you from being injured.  And it's not just for nuclear blasts:  Anytime you see a very bright flash, ducking and covering is a good way to prevent injuries.  See: Chelyabinsk Meteor.
 
2017-04-19 10:48:30 PM  
 "The Day After" should be on this list.
 
2017-04-19 11:18:54 PM  
I don't want to deal with preppers now.  Why on Earth would I want to deal with them after the big one hits?
 
2017-04-19 11:22:47 PM  
Sons of the Pioneers - Old Man Atom
Youtube AB-oJLq5rWo
 
2017-04-19 11:26:05 PM  
Nuclear weapons are of very little concern.

I worry about an insane grad student with CRISPR/Cas9 and a smallpox virus blueprint.
 
2017-04-19 11:41:50 PM  
Y'all remember this one, right?

(untitled YouTube clip)
Youtube 9ZhjpHYjZpc
 
2017-04-20 12:11:11 AM  
THREADS should be on this list.

I have watched it precisely twice in my life.

I am not planning to watch it again.
 
2017-04-20 12:48:24 AM  
All that hate is going to burn you up kid.
l.yimg.com

It keeps me warm.
 
2017-04-20 12:55:15 AM  

Kittypie070: THREADS should be on this list.

I have watched it precisely twice in my life.

I am not planning to watch it again.


I wonder if "The Day After" was produced simply to dilute the audience for "Threads".
 
2017-04-20 12:59:32 AM  
This is all I could find for Threads on YouTube.

Looks poorly encoded, but it's the whole movie.
 
2017-04-20 01:01:14 AM  
Here's the attack scene anyway.

Sweet dreams.
 
2017-04-20 01:18:39 AM  

studebaker hoch: Kittypie070: THREADS should be on this list.

I have watched it precisely twice in my life.

I am not planning to watch it again.

I wonder if "The Day After" was produced simply to dilute the audience for "Threads".


It had its own separate reasons for being produced. I think there was a....some kind of attached show after it with a panel of speakers.
 
2017-04-20 01:22:15 AM  

studebaker hoch: This is all I could find for Threads on YouTube.

Looks poorly encoded, but it's the whole movie.


That is terrible.

I picked up an earlier and somewhat better copy from YT about.......maybe somewhere around 2007 or so. It definitely was still within the Bush Administration.

That's the PROBLEM with YouTube. Some things you know are there just vanish for no reason at all.
 
2017-04-20 01:36:08 AM  
https://vimeo.com/18781528

There.

People should watch it, if only a single time.
 
2017-04-20 01:39:57 AM  
img.fark.net

War.  War never changes.

Hey, I shooped that picture a few years ago:

img.fark.net
 
2017-04-20 02:34:27 AM  
Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt | Official Trailer [HD] | Netflix
Youtube mNKEKlXY3Z4

Apocalypse, Apocalypse, we caused it with our dumbness.
 
2017-04-20 02:39:59 AM  
I'd say the mid 50s to the mid 60s was the height of Cold War bull sh*t.
 
2017-04-20 03:00:49 AM  

Kittypie070: THREADS should be on this list.

I have watched it precisely twice in my life.

I am not planning to watch it again.


Right here. As I've mentioned before, I saw it when I was twelve and have no need to see it again. The part that traumatised me the most was a brief, quiet scene in which one of the characters slumps over and dies of radiation poisoning while playing a handheld game.

I played those. I loved those games. If I had one after an actual war I'd have been playing it to distract from the horror. That was like seeing my own sad, lonely post-atomic death.
 
2017-04-20 03:06:14 AM  
I could do with some nuclear reefer right now.
 
2017-04-20 03:15:48 AM  

wejash: Saw it in the theater while sober.  That was an error I never repeated.


I saw it in a theater on 'shrooms.  I was thinking the same thing...
 
2017-04-20 03:26:08 AM  
OMG I remember how I miss Nightflight on cable. Also Turkey TV. Good times, good times.
 
2017-04-20 03:37:52 AM  

Freschel: OMG I remember how I miss Nightflight on cable. Also Turkey TV. Good times, good times.


Ah, Turkey Television, AKA Night Flight for kids... They fed what became the ADD generation.
 
2017-04-20 04:23:37 AM  

revrendjim: "The Day After" should be on this list.


I had forgotten that this was set in/around Kansas City.

And that there were so many big names in it.
 
2017-04-20 05:05:23 AM  
I always thought the difference between how Threads came out vs The Day After was due to US tv being commercial. So they could only go so far in depicting the horror with The Day After. So we got the watered down version, but I suppose it's a wonder we even got that much.
 
2017-04-20 05:59:55 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Nuclear weapons are of very little concern.

I worry about an insane grad student with CRISPR/Cas9 and a smallpox virus blueprint.


Well at least we won't leave everything horribly irradiated.
 
2017-04-20 06:39:57 AM  

fusillade762: I could do with some nuclear reefer right now.


img.fark.net
 
2017-04-20 08:14:11 AM  

Kittypie070: studebaker hoch: Kittypie070: THREADS should be on this list.

I have watched it precisely twice in my life.

I am not planning to watch it again.

I wonder if "The Day After" was produced simply to dilute the audience for "Threads".

It had its own separate reasons for being produced. I think there was a....some kind of attached show after it with a panel of speakers.


Both films were made as anti-nuclear propaganda.  That's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but something to keep in the back of your mind as you watch them.
 
2017-04-20 08:46:56 AM  

dittybopper: Kittypie070: studebaker hoch: Kittypie070: THREADS should be on this list.

I have watched it precisely twice in my life.

I am not planning to watch it again.

I wonder if "The Day After" was produced simply to dilute the audience for "Threads".

It had its own separate reasons for being produced. I think there was a....some kind of attached show after it with a panel of speakers.

Both films were made as anti-nuclear propaganda.  That's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but something to keep in the back of your mind as you watch them.


If I could unsee some things..Those movies would be two things I would unsee..They scared the
hell out me as a kid..
 
2017-04-20 09:07:42 AM  

dittybopper: Kittypie070: studebaker hoch: Kittypie070: THREADS should be on this list.

I have watched it precisely twice in my life.

I am not planning to watch it again.

I wonder if "The Day After" was produced simply to dilute the audience for "Threads".

It had its own separate reasons for being produced. I think there was a....some kind of attached show after it with a panel of speakers.

Both films were made as anti-nuclear propaganda.  That's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but something to keep in the back of your mind as you watch them.


Who the hell wants to see Pro-Nuclear propaganda?  Well, besides me, I mean.
 
2017-04-20 09:18:43 AM  
::: Fallout song ::: Atomic Cocktail - The Slim Gaillard Quartette
Youtube LzBysft2d6c
 
2017-04-20 10:13:24 AM  
I used to have a four star General in my family. He once described "The Day After" and "Threads" as a best case scenario following a limited nuclear exchange. He said that a full nuclear exchange would be unimaginable.

But hey, some farkers sitting at a desk said it wouldn't be that bad. Hmm, who to believe...
 
2017-04-20 10:15:14 AM  

dittybopper: Reagan's Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Thomas K. Jones publicly and stupidly claimed at the time that nuclear war would not be nearly as devastating as everyone assumed.

"If there are enough shovels to go around," he said, "everybody's going to make it. With enough shovels, everyone could dig a hole in the ground and cover themselves with two or three feet of dirt, and survive the nuclear holocaust."

The sad part:  It's actually true for pretty much everyone outside of a primary blast area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_shelter#Shielding

It's pretty simple physics.  Every 3.6 inches of dirt halves the radiation.  With 36 inches of dirt (3 feet), the radiation level falls to just 1/1000th that outside the shelter.   After about 2 weeks, the majority of the fallout is gone.  The idea is that you'll have some warning that war is a possibility and thus you'll have time build a shelter ahead of time.

It's kind of like "Duck and Cover" being derided, when in fact it's very valuable tactic for anyone who isn't in the immediately fatal blast zone.  It was developed based upon not only nuclear testing, but also on the experiences of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  There are two main dangers:  Thermal pulse, and the actual blast.  Thermal pulse hits mere seconds after the initial flash so immediately ducking behind or underneath something to shield yourself from that will prevent burns.  Even covering yourself with a coat or newspaper helps.  Then, keeping down and covered will help prevent injury when the blast hits.  For people indoors, the big danger is flying glass.  Getting under a table will keep you from being injured.  And it's not just for nuclear blasts:  Anytime you see a very bright flash, ducking and covering is a good way to prevent injuries.  See: Chelyabinsk Meteor.


Except to feed everybody you needed the oil and fertilizers from a supply chain that would no longer exist.  That and the panic and riots (see "dirty bomb", they do practically nothing, but the panic would be devastating).  Nuclear war would basically throw the entire planet back to roughly the 1500s if we were lucky.  And there wouldn't be any good fuels for a second industrial revolution (the oil is too low for anything but 21st century tech now, similarly requiring 20th century tech in Reagan's time).

/megadeath when the bombs dropped (the band's name is from a congressional quote)
//even more death due to panic
///most death do to starvation
 
2017-04-20 10:20:47 AM  

Atomic Jonb: dittybopper: Kittypie070: studebaker hoch: Kittypie070: THREADS should be on this list.

I have watched it precisely twice in my life.

I am not planning to watch it again.

I wonder if "The Day After" was produced simply to dilute the audience for "Threads".

It had its own separate reasons for being produced. I think there was a....some kind of attached show after it with a panel of speakers.

Both films were made as anti-nuclear propaganda.  That's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but something to keep in the back of your mind as you watch them.

Who the hell wants to see Pro-Nuclear propaganda?  Well, besides me, I mean.


I enjoyed them both. The only difference I remember is that Threads had the polite British considerately helping the elderly and young down the shelter stairs, while Day After had those folks being trampled underfoot by the panicked crowd.

/always liked panicked crowd scenes
 
2017-04-20 10:23:11 AM  
Testament should definitely be added to this list. Unlike Theads or The Day After, the actual nuclear war happens offscreen.  The film is about the struggle for survival in a small California town after the bombs have fallen, and it is heart-wrenching.
 
2017-04-20 12:50:05 PM  

Spaceballer: I used to have a four star General in my family. He once described "The Day After" and "Threads" as a best case scenario following a limited nuclear exchange. He said that a full nuclear exchange would be unimaginable.

But hey, some farkers sitting at a desk said it wouldn't be that bad. Hmm, who to believe...


EMPs alone would have us in a post apocalyptic nightmare within days even if the physical infrastructure was left standing and radiation was not killing us all.
We can't handle the switch to Amish lifestyle as well as we once could.
 
2017-04-20 01:06:14 PM  

Spaceballer: I used to have a four star General in my family. He once described "The Day After" and "Threads" as a best case scenario following a limited nuclear exchange. He said that a full nuclear exchange would be unimaginable.

But hey, some farkers sitting at a desk said it wouldn't be that bad. Hmm, who to believe...


In a world with anti-vaxxers, homeopathic practitioners, and climate change deniers, why not nuclear impact naivete?
 
2017-04-20 01:44:27 PM  

dittybopper: Kittypie070: studebaker hoch: Kittypie070: THREADS should be on this list.

I have watched it precisely twice in my life.

I am not planning to watch it again.

I wonder if "The Day After" was produced simply to dilute the audience for "Threads".

It had its own separate reasons for being produced. I think there was a....some kind of attached show after it with a panel of speakers.

Both films were made as anti-nuclear propaganda.  That's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but something to keep in the back of your mind as you watch them.


Nuclear war by itself is its own anti-nuke propaganda
 
2017-04-20 02:08:35 PM  

dittybopper: Kittypie070: studebaker hoch: Kittypie070: THREADS should be on this list.

I have watched it precisely twice in my life.

I am not planning to watch it again.

I wonder if "The Day After" was produced simply to dilute the audience for "Threads".

It had its own separate reasons for being produced. I think there was a....some kind of attached show after it with a panel of speakers.

Both films were made as anti-nuclear propaganda.  That's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but something to keep in the back of your mind as you watch them.


Oh jesus christ.

Look ditty, go put on a human mask and worship a Bomb, okay?

Yes, I noticed that you qualified your statement with gosh, anti nuke propaganda isn't always bad! but you know what?

You could have KEPT what tiny shred of respect I still had for you by just...passing up the opportunity to say anything at all.
 
2017-04-20 02:20:35 PM  
Yeah you've got to watch this movie high.

You'll be all like "Is that WARD CLEAVER??" and not be sure at all.
 
2017-04-20 03:21:48 PM  

Needless2say: Spaceballer: I used to have a four star General in my family. He once described "The Day After" and "Threads" as a best case scenario following a limited nuclear exchange. He said that a full nuclear exchange would be unimaginable.

But hey, some farkers sitting at a desk said it wouldn't be that bad. Hmm, who to believe...

EMPs alone would have us in a post apocalyptic nightmare within days even if the physical infrastructure was left standing and radiation was not killing us all.
We can't handle the switch to Amish lifestyle as well as we once could.


But the Fark EMP thread taught me that EMPs are no big deal, a minor inconvenience at most. A Farker even used lightning as a comparison. Cause lightning and EMPs are the same thing.

Now I'm really on the fence about this nuclear war and EMP thing.
 
2017-04-20 04:22:11 PM  

Atomic Jonb: Who the hell wants to see Pro-Nuclear propaganda?  Well, besides me, I mean.


Some of us have a weird nostalgia for Nuke Porn. We got a steady diet of this kinda thing:
img.fark.net
 
2017-04-20 04:24:31 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: Except to feed everybody you needed the oil and fertilizers from a supply chain that would no longer exist.  That and the panic and riots (see "dirty bomb", they do practically nothing, but the panic would be devastating).  Nuclear war would basically throw the entire planet back to roughly the 1500s if we were lucky.  And there wouldn't be any good fuels for a second industrial revolution (the oil is too low for anything but 21st century tech now, similarly requiring 20th century tech in Reagan's time).


It's actually not as bad as you're making it out to be.  Maybe 1900 levels of technology.  In 1900, almost no cars existed.  The majority of agriculture was still done with draft animals, and the well-to-do farmers had steam tractors (which would be a viable technology).  Only the cities were electrified, the majority made do with things like lanterns for light.

But most importantly, the survivors would know what is possible to make, and would have the basic references (ie., books) necessary to reconstruct a bunch of technology.  It wouldn't take as long as you might think, especially given that there would be surviving examples of that technology, and we have the knowledge, *AND* there would still be people around who know how shiat works.  For example, I could "find" stuff at the local Home Depot and Lowes and build a decent water-powered electrical generator.

Also, I should point out that most oil extraction and processing facilities are the the middle of no-farking-where and wouldn't be damaged in the least unless specifically targeted.

I mean, I don't want to sound like General Turgison here, but I think the your point largely boils down to "Whaaaa, I'll have to do actual *MANUAL* labor!".

The real problem is one you didn't even mention, BTW:  What happens between the time period when you've looted/found all the food (depending on your skin color), and before you and your neighbors/family/whatevers produce your first crop?  What are you supposed to eat?
 
2017-04-20 04:40:50 PM  

dittybopper: yet_another_wumpus: Except to feed everybody you needed the oil and fertilizers from a supply chain that would no longer exist.  That and the panic and riots (see "dirty bomb", they do practically nothing, but the panic would be devastating).  Nuclear war would basically throw the entire planet back to roughly the 1500s if we were lucky.  And there wouldn't be any good fuels for a second industrial revolution (the oil is too low for anything but 21st century tech now, similarly requiring 20th century tech in Reagan's time).

It's actually not as bad as you're making it out to be.  Maybe 1900 levels of technology.  In 1900, almost no cars existed.  The majority of agriculture was still done with draft animals, and the well-to-do farmers had steam tractors (which would be a viable technology).  Only the cities were electrified, the majority made do with things like lanterns for light.

But most importantly, the survivors would know what is possible to make, and would have the basic references (ie., books) necessary to reconstruct a bunch of technology.  It wouldn't take as long as you might think, especially given that there would be surviving examples of that technology, and we have the knowledge, *AND* there would still be people around who know how shiat works.  For example, I could "find" stuff at the local Home Depot and Lowes and build a decent water-powered electrical generator.

Also, I should point out that most oil extraction and processing facilities are the the middle of no-farking-where and wouldn't be damaged in the least unless specifically targeted.

I mean, I don't want to sound like General Turgison here, but I think the your point largely boils down to "Whaaaa, I'll have to do actual *MANUAL* labor!".

The real problem is one you didn't even mention, BTW:  What happens between the time period when you've looted/found all the food (depending on your skin color), and before you and your neighbors/family/whatevers produce your first crop?  What are you ...


Kind of hard to do when you can't go outside because it's a radioactive wasteland.

Just saying.
 
2017-04-20 04:52:57 PM  

dittybopper: yet_another_wumpus: Except to feed everybody you needed the oil and fertilizers from a supply chain that would no longer exist.  That and the panic and riots (see "dirty bomb", they do practically nothing, but the panic would be devastating).  Nuclear war would basically throw the entire planet back to roughly the 1500s if we were lucky.  And there wouldn't be any good fuels for a second industrial revolution (the oil is too low for anything but 21st century tech now, similarly requiring 20th century tech in Reagan's time).

It's actually not as bad as you're making it out to be.  Maybe 1900 levels of technology.  In 1900, almost no cars existed.  The majority of agriculture was still done with draft animals, and the well-to-do farmers had steam tractors (which would be a viable technology).  Only the cities were electrified, the majority made do with things like lanterns for light.

But most importantly, the survivors would know what is possible to make, and would have the basic references (ie., books) necessary to reconstruct a bunch of technology.  It wouldn't take as long as you might think, especially given that there would be surviving examples of that technology, and we have the knowledge, *AND* there would still be people around who know how shiat works.  For example, I could "find" stuff at the local Home Depot and Lowes and build a decent water-powered electrical generator.

Also, I should point out that most oil extraction and processing facilities are the the middle of no-farking-where and wouldn't be damaged in the least unless specifically targeted.

I mean, I don't want to sound like General Turgison here, but I think the your point largely boils down to "Whaaaa, I'll have to do actual *MANUAL* labor!".

The real problem is one you didn't even mention, BTW:  What happens between the time period when you've looted/found all the food (depending on your skin color), and before you and your neighbors/family/whatevers produce your first crop?  What are you ...


Read that in a Dr. Strangelove voice.
 
2017-04-20 05:23:39 PM  
he really gets off on mass death.
 
2017-04-20 05:32:59 PM  
If anyone wants to watch Atomic Cafe it's here at Top Documentary Films for free. This site is awesome for documentary lovers.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-atomic-cafe/
 
2017-04-20 05:36:06 PM  
And of course it's still relevant.

Do people actually believe that nuclear weapons have somehow become more safe since we have more and deadlier amounts of them?
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report