Yeah hopefully the multiple war criminals on that panel would be held accountable

@@josephthemann1174 naive idiot

He was

Great guy, but a disinformation slinger

He gave the best description of nuclear war. So intelligent!

Lkkllkklkkk Klk K Ķkhkķklkkkklkl Lkķlllklklkķķkklhklhkkllllkkk Ķķķ Hlljlkklķķkkk Ķlķķkkklhkjllķklkllķkklkkjlkklkkkkķkķkllhklķkķkķķklklkjkklkkljķķkkkjkkkkk hllkkjlkklhkkjlķkķjlkkjljkkjkjkjjkkjjllķkķkklkjlkkjjkklll hh H H H H h h hh Hh h. H h hh Hj H h H. H Hhh H j H h. H H h H hhhh j. H H H Hj H hh H. J hH h hhh j h. H. H h h H H. J h h H h. H J h H H. H H. H J H H H H H H H h h H h jh hh Hh H. H. J h H. H H J H h Hh H hh h H h. J H H. H h j j H. H. H h H H. H H. H j. H h H H Hj H H J h h J h h. J H H H H h H H h hh Hj hj H H H H H H H h. J H H H H. H. H H H H H H. H hhHH H h H hh. H H H jH h hhh h h h H HHjJ H. H. HhH h. H MMB h j H h H H Hh h H h H Hh Hh H h. H hh J. H h. H h j j J. H H H. H H H h H j H h. H h h h H Hh h H j H h H. H hh H. H h H. H. H H h H H. H. H H H HH h H. J Hh H h h j H H h H H h H H h H. H H H h H Hj J h. J h H H H H J h H H. H H H H h. Hh H. J H H H H H H j H NH H Hh H. H H h. H H H H. H H h H. J H h h H Hj. HH h hh H H. H h J H H H H H. H J j J J H h h H H J H hhh H h Hh h H H h H H H H H H. J j H H H H H. H h H. J H H H H H b H H H hh H H H H J H h H H. H H H H H H H h. H H J H h H H H. H h H H H H j H H. H H H h H H. HH. H. H H H H h H Hh h h H H h H h H H j H H H H. J. H. H h Hh. H H. H. H H H J j H. H. H j H H hjh H. H H h H. H. H H H Hh H H j h H H H H H H. H H h h. h H H H H j H j H H H H H j H H h H H. H j H h. H H j j H H H h H h j H H H h J H J h H. H H. H H H H h H. H H H H H H h. H. H H H H h Hj H h. H. H H H h h H H H hj H H H H H J h H. H h. H h H h H h H H H. H H. H H h H hh H H H H h H j H h H H H. H. H h H H H H H j h H H H H h. H h Hh h H. J. H. H H H H H J H H H jhh H H H H H H. H. Jh j H HH. J. H H H h H H H J. H H H H H h h H h h hH H H H. Hh H h H H j H H H H H H H H H H h H H H h Hh J. H B j j. H H H h H J H H H j H jh H H. H H H J. H. Hh. J. H H H H H h H H . H h. Hh H J. H H j J. Hh H j H H h H H H. H H jh H H H h. HH H H. H. j h. J j hj. H. j hj H h H H. H Hj H H j h H H. H H h h H J H H. H. H H HH j h J H j Hh H H. Jh J. H H H H J H j. H h hh. H H H H. H. Hj H H H Hj H h j hH H H. H H H Hj h. H H H. H HH H h j H hj H H H H h H H H j H. Hh. H H H H H H HH H. H H H H. HH h H h H H Hh H hh J H H h h H H J. J H h. H. H H. H h H Hm H h H. J hj j. Jh Hh j H H h. H. H. J H H. H. H h H H H H. H H H H H H H H hH h H J j h. H H. H h H HHh Hh h. Hhj h H H H j H h. Jj. J H Hj H H J H H j j J. Jh h. Hhh. J jhh. H j M h H h H H j j Hhhj hj h h j. Jj. H h h. Hh H J. H H h H h hj. H. Hhhj h hh. J H hj h h Hhh H h H jkjjķlkķjkkkljkkķķjlkjlkƙlkklkjlkljkklklklkklkjljhlkjlkljl​@@Mkdaluc

Bul u. J j j H H H j. H.j j h . H

As it always was going to be.

@@andyrob3259 I found The Day After funny AF.

Really? It was bad propaganda aimed at something? It didn't end nuclear weapons. Perhaps it was a distraction.

I remember doing the same.

@@raygordonteacheschess5501 ❓❓

I was shocked at the difference between the vocabulary used then and now

@@VaughnDJs So true, it is a thing I miss, real news, before it was an advertising engine.

Ditto

Thoughtful discussion? 500k viewers. Reality TV about people who spend their time being vapid? 5 million viewers. The problem is we ended up with 90% the latter, when at least 40% of us want the former. But the 60% are also much easier to advertise to.

@@letsburn00 then nuclear war is the only option.

Indeed. A grown up debate/discussion? .... Todays interviewers/journalists are more concerned about how there *own image* is portrayed rather than how important the guest is?...

this is BCN: Before Cable News.

Because it was filmed in Hollywood like the moon landing...

Seriously, I'm probably one of the younger people who's interested in issues like this, so its odd to see how well this went despite the guests having greatly differing views.

welcome to idiocracy

We can't just let countries invade other countries because they have nuclear weapons.

Notice no "common people" on that "discussion panel." The leftist "fake" media has shown that level of arrogant superiority, even outright dismissal, towards the American people for decades. We're not even part of the discussion, any discussion.

Dwight Stewart,just shut up.

@@venturamichael50 .. Yes, that ("just shut up") is their message to us. When are you going to stand up and demand a right to have a say about what happens in this country? You're a wimp, Michael, sitting back and passively letting others speak for you, instead of you. You don't matter.

Just shut up

@@venturamichael50 .. Lol. Guy, you don't matter to me either, so don't hold your breath waiting for me to obey you.

+Dennis McIntyre Especially if Donald Trump was on the panel.

+JustAPerson was about to post essentially these two comments combined but I see others have been thinking the same thing

NO. DUMB shit Obama and Killery the liar.

Doesnt bill maher do these sorts of things still?n With Hitchens and whatnot? And of course there's online stuff.

I couldn't imagine this now. It would just be comedians.

+James Kelly Would any side absorb a strike to save humanity? I have doubts.

Even if one side was the only one to launch Nukes, and the other launched NONE, if the Strike was large enough, the Radiation would circulate around the Globe and contaminate the other side. In 1986, the Radiation from Chernobyl spread into Europe and that was NOT a Bomb, but just ONE Nuclear Reactor!

Pretty much, yeah. A limited first strike by either side, even using only 25% of their arsenals, would be enough to create long-term climate issues. There's no absorbing a strike to save humanity, per se, not unless it was a mere handful of warheads. And if you were a large nuclear power, what would you only spend about 10 warheads on, and guarantee there wouldn't be an escalation?

@@eddievhfan1984 you could surrender before a launch happens.

True, although one would argue that the point of having a nuclear arsenal (or at least its biggest point) is to not be forced into the position of capitulating to another nation's whims on the basis that they have nukes and you don't. And once one nation starts launching nukes, it tends to open the floodgates.

As smart as Sagan was with science, that's how stupid he was when it came to politics. The guy should have stuck to his lane.

Sagan was brilliant. He would be very dismayed at society in 2019 and the state of the world.

@@jasoncamp483 The guy was a partisan left-wing jackass, nothing more than that.

W/all due respect to Carl Sagan, it's probably a good thing he's no longer with us because unquestionably would have had to publicly reverse himself about Extra-Terrestrial (intelligent) Life - vis a vis UFO's - And that is fate worse than death to attention hounds like Sagan. He wasn't always wrong with this issue, for example I think what he said about the Nazca Lines is absolutely spot on. But he comes across as an Ivory Tower elitist...and that turns people off...Seth Shostack is not quite as bad but unfortunately he's just as two dimensional as Sagan was....

@@1bridge11 cry me a river

Yes we definitely needed a panel like this. But we don't now. More's the pity.

All these people are legends just talking about a very powerful television movie. I remember this movie very well. I was a senior in high school. I really thought there was going to be a nuclear war by the time I was 30. Recall a great relief when the Cold War ended in 1991. The U.S. did not help Russia enough to recover which led to Putin.

Dumb ass

It didn't help that the plane was numbered Flight 007.

Read this today once again

Buckley was an asshat, and I despised him back them. What I would've give to have him resurrected now, and kick some common sense into people. Funny how things change as you get older.

All theater. Don't be so gullible.

Notice no "common people" on that "discussion panel." The leftist "fake" media has shown that level of arrogant superiority, even outright dismissal, towards the American people for decades. We're not even part of the discussion, any discussion.

are you joking, even if the "debate" was respectful the whole thing was rigged and the public question were probably written by reagan advisors

***** Yes, I'm joking. Nowadays it's all about celebrities discussing these things. I would love to see one of these nowadays, with some of today's smartest people.

MondoBeno Next time, put (sarcasm) at the end of your message. That way, people won't get the wrong idea.

MondoBeno a lot of celebrities are highly educated. Some are complete dummies though.

MondoBeno and of course Gordon Ramsey.

***** If it wasn't for President Reagan, this country would NOT have the military firepower it has today. The so called President of 2015 is benefiting from the military buildup of the 80s!!!! President Reagan was PROUD of our military and PROUD to be an AMERICAN. Obama is proud to be an APPEASER and a WIMP.

He was sacked as a consultant by LBJ for being anti war regarding Vietnam. You have no clue . You are just regurgitating that sewer pipe sucker ,Hitchens.

@@roughhabit9085 THat's got ZERO to do with what I wrote. Kissenger is the (regrettably, still) living embodiment of the ivory tower hoodlum). Hitchins, (depends which one you're referring to, Peter or Christopher, but it's probably Christopher - please be precise, as well as try to pay attention) was the last thing on my mind. I met Christopher Hitchins in London, read enough of his articles and found him a literally sneering, self regarding Libturd. I am referring to Kissenger's theorising about nuclear war in the 1950's - which I stated. Have you read them? I have, when studying for my BA in War Studies at KCL. I got a distinction. Yes, I do have a clue. My strongest subject was Strategic Theory. Nuclear strategy, per se, is actually very simple, as its about pure calculations. Political brinkmanship is where it gets more involved, but its not as taxing as Jomini, Saxe, Joly de Maizeroi, de Feuquieres and de Folard. Since you're so lacking in attention and get emotional, you have to be a Yank. PS: Kissenger was an evil man in the 1950's and still is now. WEF cheerleader.

I don’t know anyone by the name of Hitchins . I thought you were another C Hitchens sycophant. I would read Kissinger’s speculative book on a winnable nuclear war in the 50’s except someone recently told me I only have one life. Did you know that only ten years earlier they executed their belief that nuclear weapons could help win a war ! Actually Johnson was secretly bombing Cambodia four years before Kissinger came into office. McNamara was probably ten times more culpable than Kissinger because he was there from the beginning, and guess what? He’s on this panel too . Why don’t you at least work up an even sweat about him?

And btw what is the crime in espousing? Is that the word you meant ? I suppose he might be guilty of your accusations if you had said sanctioned , but then again he wasn’t even Commander and Chief was he?

@@roughhabit9085 If the hugely increased secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia, of which Kissenger was deeply involved (as National Security Advisor to the Commander IN Chief), which went completely against public opinion, (which was already very sharply divided), is not a crime according to you, then you are amoral at best. There are many countries that will arrest Kissenger for war crimes, hence he can't enter them. What you've written is completely irrelevant. Thank Heavens Rough Habit's around to defend the little sweetheart. You must have such a dazzling legal brain on International Law and statesmanship. Coiled up with arguing semantics.

Man....that's quite a story. TY for sharing. Lol...I was actually fr Kansas City. I was born in 1977. Never seen the movie till 1987. (Yes I've asked my Mom since? She said "she tried hide that movie existed fr me." But like "A Clockwork Orange?" I seen both movies at a Slumber parties in late 80s. The Day After had such an affect on me. Yes fear of course....even worse for me cuz 95% of film locations that were blown up? Lolololol. ...I visted frequently as a kid. Just went to the Nelson's Art Gallery a week b4 on a school field trip when 1st seeing this movie at 10yrs old in 1987. The same Art Gallery Jason Robards & daughter visit early in the movie. Then they show Loose Park & Royals Stadium & The Plaza & KC Train Station at beginning? Places I been to alot. But basically this movie gave me fear....but definitely more FASCINATION about Nuclear War my entire life. To this very day! As here I am.. So clearly it had psychological effects on me seeing it so young & on top of it being filmed in the "world I only knew" as a kid in Kansas City & Lawrence. I mean yes my parents growing up late 50s and 60s had Nuclear Threat. But I don't think kids or adults TRULY understood the true FEAR of a Nuclear War? The DAY AFTER & after & after & after & ect....If one lives. It's beyond frightening. Only "winners" are the ones who die on initial impact/flash white light. Losers are ones who survive the initial blast.

@@bellahoughton84 Until the very last weapon, there will be no deterrance to nuclear war. Every creature is held captive by the crazy humans of planet Earth. The real deterrance lies with the destruction of military madness throughout the world. But, I hold out no promise for the human race. We will be the first species to commit suicide.

exactly the movies intent, to use the movie to educate, and get people thinking .... before a real panic situation that in that time period was very possible

@@bellahoughton84 yes, a clock work orange was a disturbing movie .... just more about a sick twisted mindset applied to a secret society

He was chillin' at the bottom of one of our deeper mineshafts.

bill If there ever was a Dr. Strangelove then it would be Edward Teller.

He was based on kissinger

I can walk

No, but they got the second best thing,Henry Kissinger

agree

The lack of shouting and unconvincing laughter is stunning by today's standards.

Yes!

Bob Connally amazing how things change in 30 years.

Not too much because we still have overwhelming annihilation hanging over us to this day.

There were several of those, including one as late as 1995 when the Russians saw a rocket heading for them. Nuclear war was only averted because Yeltsin was sober for once, trusted Bill Clinton, and figured that the US wouldn't attack with just one missile. It turned out that the Russians had misidentified a Norwegian rocket as an incoming ICBM.

Able Archer would have made a great movie , bettet than this one I think

No one knew of this close call until 1993

And this was less than 2 months after Stanislav Petrov - a Lieutenant Colonel in the Soviet Air Defense Forces - used his common sense to diffuse a nuclear false alarm that could have easily started WW3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Milton Braga scary times.. watching CHERNOBYL recently brought all those feelings back for me.

Why it was tension in the 80's?

I grew up in the 60s with fallout shelters and "duck and cover". By the time the 80s came around, the Cold War was old hat, and actually seemed less dangerous than the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but the danger was still there. I can't imagine being a kid in the 80s seeing that movie.

@@baitman2368 Reagan wanted to act tough to the USSR.

@Ricky Mills What?

Could you imagine this with Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper and Sean Hannity? SNL News is more professional.

​@@timfronimos459 you can rent it on Amazon prime or you can have a look on dailymotion and find it there...

totally

@@timfronimos459 you can at the moment see it on You Tube .Watch it and compare. It's based around the fourth largest city in the UK, Sheffield. Sheffield at the time this was televised in 84 was the centre of the British steel industry and in the surrounding areas NATO bases .The story is a three month lead up to a strike against the uk the aftermath and 13 years after the attack. It was painstakingly researched and is grim .As a drama documentary the viewer will also get hard facts displayed throughout this BBC production. I would recommend it, don't expect a happy ending it makes "The Day After " like a walk in the park

@@chrisholland7367 I saw "Testament" (Jane Alexander) probably 30 years ago and it left a deep impression on me. I remembered scenes from it better than I remembered The Day After. I won't give it away but there was a scene where she is sewing something and it cuts to a wide shot & you see what's she's sewing. That image and her narration just burned into my brain. There's another one where blood soaks through a towel, another where the kids are fighting over a banana and she yells that there will be no fighting in this house. I remember the priest/pastor who was in such shock & looked & sounded like a zombie from officiating at so many burials. I remember children being buried in dresser drawers, and the mom relishing in a spoon of peanut butter. It didn't have the special effects of The Day After, but it was unforgettable.

@@chrisholland7367 Wow, I'll have to look for that and watch it! I've never heard of it. Sounds like the kind of film that will give you nightmares. I listened to an audiobook years ago of one account of Hiroshima and a fellow described the river being filled w/ bodies, and trying to help burn victims who survived the blast, and I remember him talking about reaching to help some woman and her skin just slipped right off her hand like a lose mitten. It was pretty horrible.

It's not the TV medium, but the size of the panel that causes most of those problems. 6 talking heads is at least 2 too many and probably 4 too many.

He couldn’t imagine what will happen in the future and level of discussions now…

The original cut of this movie was much more graphic...right up there with Threads for shock factor. However, network censors made the producers tone it down in order to be broadcast on national TV. Without these changes, this movie would not have been simultaneously watched by millions of people and would not have sparked all of the positive discussions that it did. In that respect, I would say that The Day After was much more effective than Threads

@@bamagrad99 i liked threads better, as the bombs detonated were real, from file footage, while the bombs detonating in The Day After were CGI.

Threads is scariest movie ever made

World War Three is also pretty good. Though I'm a tad biased, since it kicks off in Germany and that's where I was born (after reunification) - the last line of that film made me cry.

@@mylovesongs2429 Threads is all shock and not really much else. It's absurdly overrated.

+conscience aginBlackadder Isn't it incredible how close we were during Able Archer?

In Russia/ USSR the military leadership had becoming completly decoupled from the political leadership and class, and the Andropov phase the last destabalised desperate phase of political leadership by those connected with the Stalanist/ Kruschev era were the hard central rule and knowledge of WW2 made the Soviet Cabinet integrate with the military. At the some time the Reagan period represented the time young officers not even flag candidates whose aim was political power not 5 star rank Lehman, Morrison and North obtained strategic influence.

Yes. And at some point, one of the two sides of the conventional forces start losing. And then they resort to nukes

@@tommym321 Depends how it plays out. If (in a invasion scenario) we drove them back into their territory conventionally and didn't cross the Elbe.....in other words: the status quo.....I doubt very seriously they would resort to nukes to get back into West Germany. If (on the other hand) we couldn't stop them from reaching the English channel (or close enough)......that's when it could fall apart.

Declassified/spy stolen papers says that usa always planned for only one scenario: first beheading strike. Nobody and never threaten usa by nukes. Otherwise, usa threats for nukes more than 27 times for different countries, including 13 times for only Vietnam. -----' "Ideonomic" included one chapter, seems it #5 or 6 ? There is about one research with modified rules for "monopoly" game players, they was hidden cam shoots during game. In case if one side got overall supremacy above the other side, the "rich" players rapidly starts badly rough talk with more loud voice, sharply moves and even tries to bully their's competitors. Same brain mechanism did that. Funny fact, isn't?

China is the greater threat today. Imagine what they would do free of consequences (i.e., no American military)?

Gen Scrowcroft simply asserted that "threshold" point twice but he did not explain how it is true. I frankly think he is wrong. It has nothing to do with a threshold of the number of weapons . Smaller countries develop nuclear arms for at least three reasons: they don't want to be intimidated by any other country that has nuclear weapons (defense), there is a national prestige motivation, some would like to actually use the weapons on their enemies (for genocide not self-defense). Some Islamic countries that hate Israel and/ or the USA would be willing to commit genocide. The Koran exhorts Muslims to destroy "infidels" who refuse to convert to Islam , for example.

that's all you got from this ??????!😄

Never underestimate the power of art, even something as minimally artistic as a TV movie, to change the world.

Just now reading your three year old comment. I have to take exception to your last sentence. The possibility of a nuclear war has never been brought to an end.

@@Bob31415 Yeah, considering current events my comment seems pretty dumb.

@@joncheskin You're not dumb.

​@joncheskin your comment is still valid. A nuclear exchange has still been possible since 1991. Yes tensions are elevated over the last five years but still IMO nothing as intense as 40 years ago.

You do.

I am Gen X...and yes...the new generation doesn't care. We were scared shitless

What do you expect? Idiot Millennial retards.

Watch Threads (BBC, 1984). Link provided here. Has to be one of the darkest docu/dramas I've yet witnessed. archive.org/details/threads_201712

Well if terrorists ever get hold a nuclear bomb, because say Iran is left alone to develop them , then we will have gone past the point of no return. Use your brain .

@@roughhabit9085 Well, that explains why we've blown up all those nuclear powers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan...

Hhhh

Hhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Hhhhhhh

Hhhhhhhhh

Hhhhhhhhhh

Notice no "common people" on that "discussion panel." The leftist "fake" media has shown that level of arrogant superiority, even outright dismissal, towards the American people for decades. We're not even part of the discussion, any discussion.

Dwight Stewart what would you consider a common person? Frankly,, a lot of common people have such a limited information base and lack of analytical skills to make their views on many issues outside of their own immediate lives meaningless.

@@dimanes2 .. And that excludes them from participation in a discussion about something so greatly impacting their lives? Even if you think their views are meaningless, they do play a part in all this. By the way, regarding your first sentence, I guess the answer is you since you weren't invited to participate in the discussion.

this film is dated . we need a new version or entirety new film on the issue!

mainmedic Dear Main, Thanks, the quote does not belong to me its a quote from Churchill when speaking about Ghandi upon his death. Clearly we have different opinions on the matter as I hold Kissinger in the highest possible regard, Allow me to express my point of view, and I look forward to hearing yours. All that is to be written below has to be seen through the perspective of the cold war, which as you know is difficult to modern generations to fully comprehend its repercussions in all levels of geopolitical thinking. I am still a believer in Wilsonism, but I understand that Wilsonism on its own will get you nowhere, it has to be matched to a clear objective oriented realpolitik. At this Nixon and Kissinger had a very good strong balance. Speak of Kissinger and one must speak of Nixon, A troubled and insecure man, driven to extremes by his internal demons and his enemies (Real or percieved (like Elsberg)), but an incredibly hard working, dedicated brillant politician with a clear vision of what the world needed at this point, and how best to get it (while improving his position in the world as he did have a bit of an ego, both had). Allow me to start with what I see as some of Kissinger's accomplishments. Started from humble origins after their family escape from Nazi Germany, put himself through school excelling in every possible way (Harvard PHD, etc) , upon being drafted he went to the military and ended up serving for military intelligence in a dangerous assignment during the battle of the bulge. Imagine that.. a German - Jewish fighting against Germany, imagine if he had been captured, would have been treated as a traitor and a Jew. What do you think would have happened to him? So at least one can say he was by no means a coward. We jump straight to his White House years. Helped end Vietnam War, negotiated with the hard as nails Le Duc Tho. How was this accomplished brings me to one of the biggest points on my list. Kissinger worked and was integral in re-establishing ties with China which up to that point was the on the fringes of civilization. From that evolved the following points: -Negotiated the SALT treaties, which were partially possible due to the new relations China-USA. These were real and tangible successes in reducing the madness of the nuclear weapons race. (although of course the weapons left are still enough to kill us many times over), -By removing the threat of China entering the Vietnam war together with Nixon and Melvin Laird, changed the disastrous modus operandi of Johnson (as good a man as Johnson was for the civil right movement he was a disaster as a military leader) and started the very successful line backer operations, which brought Vietnam back to the negotiating table. As a practitioner of realpolitik this also meant bombing Laos and Cambodia, but I need to make this point clear, from that perspective Lagos and Cambodia were unfortunate real military necessities, Its obvious that it had to be done in secret), the US did not bring Laos and Cambodia into the war, the north Vietnamese did. If the fox that is stealing your chickens runs into the neighbours field would you stop shooting? specially as its also stealing the neighbours chickens and the neighbour doesn't have a gun to shoot it, or worse doesn't know its there. No The NVA brought Laos and Cambodia into the war by using them for the Ho Chi Min trail. I truly disagree on the views expressed in the documentary (The trials of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchkens) where he places the rise of the Khemer Rouge on Kissinger. The Khemer Rouge started in Paris by Pol pot and his school mates as they were studying under sponsorship from the cambodia goverment. Nothing to do with Kissinger, true the bombing did not helped the weak cambodian govermant. this I will not argue. During the 1973 Yom Kippur war (As Nixon was physically and mentally incapacitated due to watergate) he oversaw the deployment of support for the Israel government which saved Israel in its most desperate times. Plus he is a fantastic writer, read his book, Diplomacy. its one of the best most entertaining books you will read. So, yes I find Kissinger and interesting man that came into the world and through the necessary means (not always the most kind means) left the world a better safer place that how he found it, enlightened the rest of us a bis, and made himself quite wealthy in the process. Nothing wrong with that..

"Still relevant today. This is a panel we would never see in modern debate, such great minds coming together and having a fantastic discussion. Well worth a watch." Note the above comment: " ... Kissinger is evil incarnate and scum of epic proportions." This sort of attitude is why one cannot have the sort of civil discussion today. Left fascists have become adamant in vilifying their enemies in every forum, and in every possible way. To oppose the Left is tantamount to heresy. Thus a brilliant Secretary of State and our most prominent statesman becomes "evil incarnate" and "scum." Thus how President Bush becomes a "war criminal" for deposing a Left-aligned despot. Indeed, I am surprised that similar epithets were not directed against Robert McNamara due to his contributions to US policies during the Vietnam War. Once upon a time, the Bolshevik Left were satisfied to obscure their own criminality. Since at least the 1970s, Left fascists now demand also that any who oppose them are evil and deserve not even the most common of courtesies. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this attitude has become fanatical among the post-Bolshevik Left. There is no capacity for rational discussion with such people anymore, as they have learned that Big Lies and lots of smearing, screaming and street violence gets them what they want.

DrCruel I agree, it seems that nowadays Decibels are the only reasonable means to settling an argument, and regarding your statement of To oppose the Left is tantamount to heresy, It brings me to another subject that I find troubling, as you might know the boss of mozilla was forced out of his company because he supported Legislation against Gay Marriage, regardless of the merits of each position (I live in the Netherlands where is a very common thing) the simple fact is that this man did not break any rules, did not incur in legalities, simply stated his support for a given side and in the modern ultra PC non debatable media frenzy oriented cost him his job. I find this to be an outrageous development. Basically is the abolition of freedom of speech and freedom of thought by self censorship which as you know is the worst kind of censorship.

Ramiro Garcia The owners of Mozilla have the legal right to hire or fire anyone they please. Having a person who is perceived to be against gay marriage might affect their profits. I'll grant that it is a nasty thing to do (and when this sort of thing was done to communists, they called it "blacklisting" and "witch hunts"). You can choose whether or not to use Mozilla on this issue, but that's as much as can be done.

DrCruel Agreed Mozilla can decide who they want in the company, but as you say these witchhunts are a sign of a much sinister development in society, one that is not welcome I believe. It is true that buying or not mozilla is the best one can do about this, I do believe in protesting with my wallert,, when the bombings in spain I could not bear myself to buy Moroccan advocatos, or any Moroccan fruit, its all rubbish of course, not buying Moroccan produce only affects the poor farmer, not the evil terrorist, so its a bit silly actually.

As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will go down this road again and again. Every generation has its idiots that have to ask 'hey what if we used these?" and its sensible people who remember the lessons learned in programs like this one, the Day After, Threads, etc., who have to stop them. We will always have to keep it in check.

"This was serious stuff back then." Absolutely - when this came out I was in 6th Grade, at a Middle School less than 45 minutes from Washington D.C. Even as kids we were discussing these things from 1981 to 1984: The Nuclear Arms Race, Cold War Tensions, and Nuclear Disarmament - Especially after this movie came out! We were already stressed out after KAL 007 being shot down (we now know it was unintentional & I never thought it was intentional) and before that Reagan calling Russia the Evil Empire, Afghanistan, and so on and so on. It makes me laugh internally when people today try to elevate the most idiotic issues to this level of controversy - they have no idea! It was a scary, scary time! Not as bad as October 62, or May 1, 1960, or god forbid 11/22/63 nevertheless we faced a real threat in the early 80's. Not just from the Russians, but from our cowboy politicians & their dangerous saber rattling & out of ignorance making the wrong decision resulting in a nuclear confrontation. I cannot tell you how relieved and sincerely happy I was in 1986 to see Reagan & Gorbachev together in Iceland. It was real hope that didn't disappoint as Gorbachev came to our shores and Reagan went to Moscow not long after. The boys-to-mean journey through that time was as rewarding at the end of the 80's as it was scary in the beginning.