'The Day After' Nuclear War/Deterrence Discussion Panel - ABC News 'Viewpoint' (November 20 1983)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лис 2013
- My blog: marcdriley.wordpress.com
My twitter: @Marc_Riley1987
CREDIT: This video file has been created from files found and acquired from the Museum of Classic Chicago Television (fuzzymemories.tv/), an organization dedicated to the preservation of Chicago television broadcasts from years gone by. My thanks go out to them. Posted with permission.
INFO: This video is a discussion panel from the ABC News panel discussion program 'Viewpoint', moderated by Ted Koppel, from November 20 1983. This episode focuses, narrowly speaking, on the then-recently aired nuclear war television movie 'The Day After' (information on it can be found on Wikipedia). However, I don't feel one needs to see the TV Movie to follow/understand this discussion. More broadly speaking, though, the discussion focuses on topics such as nuclear war, nuclear deterrence, and the then-present tensions between the East and West in the midst of what was a very tense and dangerous part of the Cold War. I found this to be an insightful and intriguing look into an era gone by that, I feel, can never really be truly and totally understood (in terms of what living in it was like) by those who were born after it had passed - myself included.
The panel, moderated by Ted Koppel, consists of (in no particular order):
- Carl Sagan (notable and distinguished scientist and an authority on the topic of Nuclear Winter)
- William F. Buckley Jr. (noted conservative political commentator, publisher of the National Review)
- Robert S. McNamara (United States Secretary of Defense to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson)
- Henry Kissinger (National Security Adviser and later Secretary of State for President Richard Nixon)
- Brent Scowcroft (National Security Adviser for President Gerald Ford, and later National Security Adviser for President George H.W. Bush)
- Elie Wiesel (Nobel Peace Prize recipient and Holocaust survivor)
and a brief interview with George Shultz (then-Secretary of State to President Ronald Reagan at the time of the broadcast)
Again, this panel is extremely intriguing into the subject of nuclear war, the effects of it, the danger of it, nuclear deterrence and how it connects to the former subjects, tensions between the East and West, and various other things - all within the context of a time where all of these things were very present, very real realities that everyone living in that time had to live with and accept. I hope it's as intriguing to you all as it was to me.
Imagine seeing a panel like this today... it would NEVER happen. Our world has devolved so far that there can no longer be honest debate. So sad...
Yeah hopefully the multiple war criminals on that panel would be held accountable
@@josephthemann1174 naive idiot
How wonderful was Carl Sagan? A gift to the entire world. And how we miss him.
He was
Great guy, but a disinformation slinger
He gave the best description of nuclear war. So intelligent!
Why is the journalist letting people finish their points? Why does he reiterate their points for others, including what those on the right say? Why aren't the guests constantly talking over each other? Why aren't there constant interruptions for ads? Why do they stay on topic for more than five minutes, indeed for over an hour? Were people insane back then?
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
Man I miss real news and thoughtful discussion.
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.
I remember that ABC was warning everyone for weeks not to watch it alone. I watched it alone. I can't tell you how badly needed what Ted Koppel said at the beginning was. I did exactly what he said. I looked out the window at my street my town, seeing it as I do every day and was so relieved to see my street and town was as normal as the day before!
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 ❓❓
When a movie is SO _Insanely_ Scary, they had to conduct a national Town Hall afterwards to discuss it.....
There are no words for how awesome you are for posting this.
Much thanks.
This is more poignant than ever. People need to watch this now. Those calling for no fligh zones, nuclear war , need to hear this.
We can't just let countries invade other countries because they have nuclear weapons.
Boy, do I miss this kind of civil discussion.........
Watched the Blu Ray TV version of The Day After and followed it up with this program to recreate my Nov 20th, 1983 experience I had as a teen. I will NEVER forget that Monday at School.
I really miss Carl Sagan: "Imagine a room awash in gasoline, and there are two implacable enemies in that room. One of them has nine thousand matches, the other seven thousand matches. Each of them is concerned about who's ahead, who's stronger."
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
you should never cut off Dr Sagan, its all gold to be treasured
"Deterrence is a very ambiguous notion. It cannot be demonstrated unless it fails, in which case you knew it was not there."
I was 11 in 5th grade when the teacher gave us permission slips for our parents to sign to watch The Day After in school.
I'm almost 51 now.
I'm forever grateful my late parents declined the school.
I watched it at home with my late parents.
I had extreme nightmares long after.
After the tv movie, my parents talked about just how close we came to nukes with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I found TDA on YT earlier this year and it STILL scares the absolute FUCK out of me!!!!!!!!!!
Kissenger wrote a dreadful examination of nuclear war during the 1950's. He blithely expounded on even tactical nuclear shells fired by tanks, artillery, even recoiless rifles (the Davy Crockett) being used to stop a conventional Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. He really did think a limited nuclear war could be fought in Europe in the 1950's. The detachment he demonstrated is illustrated by the fact that tactical nuclear shells would consume most of those firing them as well as being fired on.
Henry Kissenger is a wanted war criminal and cannot travel to certain countries, due to his espousal of the secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War as well as the invasion of Cambodia in Operation Lam Son 719 in early 1971 - an American/S Vietnamese disaster BTW.
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.
"Nobody I have ever talked to knows how to stop a nuclear war once it has started." McNamara had been thinking about nuclear war and talking about nuclear war for over twenty years when he made this statement. It holds some weight.
+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.
Why did they bring all these intellectuals, Phd's, statisticians, and tacticians, to debate this topic? Shouldn't they have brought in celebrities from Hollywood? Nowadays Angelina Jolie, Bono, Mike Douglas, and Susan Sarandon are considered experts on nuclear power, foreign policy, global poverty, war and defense, etc.
***** 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.
Koppel did a great job mediating. Overall a strong yet courteous discussion among heavyweights of the time.
Panels like this are LONG gone on network news stations.
Watching this NOW!
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.
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.
The 1980’s was a scary time. The Soviets and Americans were engaged in an arms race and things got really icy when Russia shot down a Korean Air lines flight.
Dumb ass
It didn't help that the plane was numbered Flight 007.
Read this today once again
Thats quite a panel. Its hard to explain to younger people now how shocking the movie was to people back then, and how futile it would be to destroy each other.
What a great conversation, I remember it in 1983, but it could never happen today!
1983: This panel discussion
Today: Flat earthers conference
What a intelligent thoughtful discussion from a collection of great minds expertly moderated by a great journalist. You wouldn't see anything like this today in today's media climate, which is tragic considering the lack of any serious examination of the issues confronting the nation over the years since.
+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.
Came here after seeing this mentioned in a book called "The Bomb" Did not realize how brilliant Coppell was at running this discussion. Some sharp people who were in charge of the country here too.
Thanx for posting this, Marc. Sagan was admirable as always. And I think Koppel does a phenomenal job moderating, given the participants.
Great debate. We need people like William F. Buckley and Carl Sagan today
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.
Thank you for posting this
I remember this scaring the hell out of me as a 12 year old , almost as much as The Day After
Sobering
What an incredible group of panellists, whatever one might think of their politics - don’t make them like they used to!
I found it interesting that the broadcast was on November 20, 1983 just 10 days after an extremely close call to nuclear war that was unknown by President Reagan and the public. (see Able Archer 1983 the Brink of Apocalypse)
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
incredible how this debate is MORE RELEVANT TODAY than it was in 1983
Notice how the journalist let the experts speak their mind fully and first after that interrupts.
Thank you for posting. Thoughtful discussion. Well done ted Koppel.
Thanks for uploading this Mark
Wow this panel is packed with top people..
I was in my senior year in college when this movie was screened for us on that night... There was great hub-bub prior to its showing. And, there was much advertising prior almost to the saturation point. My wife and I had guests over to watch; however, I suffered a major panic attack at the time of the showing so much so that I had to go outside of my apartment with my best buddy at my side consoling me for the entire time of the movie. I started smoking again. I was a train wreck. Sagan brought comfort and sanity to us. I have never seen "The Day After" to this very day. The movie really shook the world up.
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
Intelligent adults of opposing political views respectfully discussing a deadly serious topic vital to the future of the nation in a cogent, relevant and thoughtful way without ad hominen attacks, hyperbole or yelling and screaming and respecting the moderator and the venue. What a concept.
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
Thank you for posting this
Thanks for this. Sobering analysis as ever nearly 40 years on.
I wish there were more Sagan vs. Buckley debates.
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.
Thank you. I enjoyed the conversation.
I totally agree with Jason. Being a child from the 80's, I was sure that we were not going to make it to the 2000s. You could feel the tension even during pacific events like sports.
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?
I was 20 when this made for television movie and this discussion was broadcast. We certainly would not have such a civil and respectful discussion on a deadly serious subject such as this occuring now in 2023.
Politicians back in the 80s were smarter than in 2022. Look at the world today 😱 it's one fucked up planet.
Dr. Strangelove was,unfortunately, not available for this session.
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
This is my birth date, this is crazy I can watch what news was on that day. And even stranger I have always had this terrible fear of experiencing a nuclear bomb attack I wonder if this was some of the first things I've heard after being born...this is totally tripping me out.
Ironically, Neil Postman declared that this panel discussion/debate was a failure as an intellectual exercise, and that it showed the TV format's fundamental unsuitability for serious, thoughtful dialog.
'And so those who are
interested in philosophies of discourse had an excellent opportunity to
observe what serious television means by the word "discussion." Here is
what it means: Each of six men was given approximately five minutes to
say something about the subject. There was, however, no agreement on
exactly what the subject was, and no one felt obliged to respond to
anything anyone else said. In fact, it would have been difficult to do
so, since the participants were called upon seriatim, as if they were
finalists in a beauty contest, each being given his share of minutes in
front of the camera. Thus, if Mr. Wiesel, who was called upon last,
had a response to Mr. Buckley, who was called upon first, there would
have been four commentaries in between, occupying about twenty minutes,
so that the audience (if not Mr. Wiesel himself) would have had
difficulty remembering the argument which prompted his response. In
fact, the participants--most of whom were no strangers to
television--largely avoided addressing each other's points. They used
their initial minutes and then their subsequent ones to intimate their
position or give an impression. Dr. Kissinger, for example, seemed
intent on making viewers feel sorry that he was no longer their
Secretary of State by reminding everyone of books he had once written,
proposals he had once made, and negotiations he had once conducted. Mr.
McNamara informed the audience that he had eaten lunch in Germany that
very afternoon, and went on to say that he had at least fifteen
proposals to reduce nuclear arms. One would have thought that the
discussion would turn on this
issue, but the others seemed about as interested in it as they were in
what he had for lunch in Germany. (Later, he took the initiative to
mention three of his proposals but they were not discussed.) Elie
Wiesel, in a series of quasi-parables and paradoxes, stressed the tragic
nature of the human condition, but because he did not have the time to
provide a context for his remarks, he seemed quixotic and confused,
conveying an impression of an itinerant rabbi who has wandered into a
coven of Gentiles.
In other words, this was no discussion as we normally use the word. Even
when the "discussion" period began, there were no arguments or
counterarguments, no scrutiny of assumptions, no explanations, no
elaborations, no definitions. Carl Sagan made, in my opinion, the most
coherent statement--a four-minute rationale for a nuclear freeze--but it
contained at least two questionable assumptions and was not carefully
examined. Apparently, no one wanted to take time from his own few
minutes to call attention to someone else's. Mr. Koppel, for his part,
felt obliged to keep the "show" moving, and though he occasionally
pursued what he discerned as a line of thought, he was more concerned to
give each man his fair allotment of time. '
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…
thanks for uploading
At 15:26 Kissinger said that he wrote a book on the subject thirty years ago; back from 1983 (published in 1957, Harper & Brothers New York), and I actually have a copy of that Book. Dad(Major Wallace Zimmerman of beloved memory) was a US Air Force officer; among many, who kept watch to make sure the world didn't get blown up. The book is called Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy. It's certainly dry reading but the cool clinical dissection of the scenarios of those times is scary as hell in any era.
I wish they aired this in the Indian subcontinent at this time. Much needed. Thank you for posting.
Great movie, and Threads is arguably even more effective (and inarguably more harrowing) but there was something about Dawn's Early Light that was a tad more realistic; war kicks off in error, escalation, both sides trying to turn it off and being unable to. Plus an awesome cast; James Earl Jones and Powers Boothe aviating manfully.
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.
WOW This is amazing! Thank you Marc.
What an achievement this was to get people of such prominence and importance having such a major discussion. Could such a gathering of equally important people be possible today?
Don't know who Ted Koppel was but he was clearly the right choice for the role of 'peacekeeper' - cool and in control!
The movie - The Day After - could be the most important movie ever made. It should be shown in all countries annually. It is the greatest deterrent mankind has against total Armageddon.
KAN 8.19 UK
As good and alarming as the movie was at the time and even today, “Threads” was twice as good and outright terrifying.
@@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.
This should be shown in schools . Especially in how to run a debate/panel
I remember watching this for Social Studies so we could discuss world issues in the classroom. It was a wonderful experience, though the topic was terrifying.
This was uploaded 9 years ago yet only has 1.5K likes?! Not only is it an important discussion on an important subject even more so today some 40 years later, but look at how respectful they all are towards each other. Liberals & Conservatives having a discussion. The one thing that unites them all is the preservation of democracy. It seems some things haven't changed at all and some things have changed beyond all recognition.
24:20 Elie Wiesel 100% honesty
12 days after the Able Archer crisis peaked, 55 days after Russia's launch on warning crisis, they agreed it's safest to avoid unilateral disarmament and keep deterrence stably balanced.
+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.
Fantastic debate and fantastic minds... It should have 10 millions viewers in UA-cam..
I remember after this movie was over we were just shocked. Everything seemed still . Me and my dad walked outside and had a good talk . I was only 11. As bad as communism is, the idea that we might blow up the whole world was insane . It affected me greatly then and still to this day. It was a living nightmare . I was an aware kid and it frightened the hell out of me. We weren't republicans but we cant thank Ronald Reagan enough for coming to the table about this . In his diary he said the movie affected him deeply . We arent fully out of the woods today , but we are far far safer . Better technology , better communication , and the superpowers are more friendly to one another . Back then we were relying heavily on old technology and high tensions . I feel lucky we survived .
Intriguing personal story. Just curious, what did you and your father talk about? My father talked with me about it. He just told me, "Son, I can only hope these men don't want to go that far."
Try seeing it as a kid LIVING in Kansas City?
Lol. I was 6yrs old in 1983 living 18 mins fr Downtown KC.
But never saw the movie till after 1987.. Had good parents.
But it had such an effect on me at 10yrs old.
I mean I just went to that same Art Gallery Jason Robards goes to early in movie on a school field trip week b4...lol.
I already been to alot Royals games too.
So yes this movie made in my "backyard" definitely gave/given me a fear/fascination of the subject for last +35yrs.
Well, I guess my comment didn't age well. Putin had to go be a psycho..
Actually one of the things about this movie that grabbed me was: it made a case (probably without intent) for the conventional aspect of Reagan's military build-up. The situation (in the movie) degenerates into using nuclear weapons once we cannot stop Warsaw Pact forces from reaching the Rhine.
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?
Intelligent, civil, insightful. Pre-Cable news
Could you imagine this with Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper and Sean Hannity? SNL News is more professional.
I was 11yo when this show came out and it scared me more than anything even to this day. Idk why this show was so disturbing and impactful to my mind.
It was surprisingly hard to find this. The problem turns out to be that the post-show live debate was on "ViewPoint" but everyone thinks it was called "Nightline" at the time. If you added both titles, as well as names like Carl Sagan, etc., it would be far easier to find. Either in the title or in the keywords/tags.
What do you think it'd be like to live among people smart enough to watch programming like this and understand it?
We've fallen a little way
Holy hell what a lineup how have I never seen this
I think it is important to remember that 1983 represented perhaps the absolute low point of US-Soviet relations in the Cold War. The Reagan Administration had introduced Pershing II missiles to Western Europe, and the Soviets were scared to death both of the missiles and Reagan's very threatening rhetoric. In September they shot down Korean Airlines 007 and had a terrific scare when their detection systems registered a perilous false alarm. Yuri Andropov was also perhaps the most paranoid of all the Russian leaders (which is saying something).
Despite William Buckley's and Henry Kissinger's protestations, there is good evidence to indicate that the film had a beneficial effect on the Cold War. The film was screened for Ronald Reagan and the Joint Chiefs, who later claimed that it had a substantial effect on their thinking about the issue. The film was also shown on Soviet television in 1987 as part of Gorbachev's glasnost reforms. Ultimately the film seems to have had a substantial role in bringing about the end of the possibility of superpower nuclear war.
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.
Crazy...born in 77 in Kansas City.
Born & Raised as a child early-mid 80s was frightened & interested in Nuclear War.
One most important movies on it filmed my backyard.
It had have psychological effects on me cuz 97% of location shots in Kansas City & Lawrence I knew of and visited as a child. Even the art gallery Jason Robards & daughter visit early in movie. Called The Nelson Art Gallery. Went there alot.
I was just a kid in 80s in Kansas City.
Buckley’s Freudian slip at 11:35. Nearly says “ debilitate American EXPANSION/ISM”....but quickly changes to “debilitate American defence”
The most prescient remark is delivered by William F. Buckley when he says that this whole nuclear nightmare that generated the film and the discussion won't go away "unless someone does a lobotomy on the men in the Kremlin".
I love the fallacious point that if the two powers fell below a certain threshold, smaller powers would be encouraged to procure or create their own nukes. At the very movement the discussion panel was taking place various nations had already been developing nuclear programs; and, almost everyone on that panel knew or suspected that truth.
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.
I only wish that we have this type of view point of discussion now.
You do.
I was born in 1980, and between "The Day After" and another TV film about the Hiroshima attack, I clearly remember being 8 or 9, living 15 miles from the SAC base at Barksdale, and going to sleep dreadfully terrified of a sudden flash in the window.
What is interesting about this discussion and the modern internet comments is that in 1983, various camps obviously disagreed on some issues, but all agreed we were stuck at deterrence, and deterrence must be maintained, and a disarmament must come with balance with the enemy's reduction. Today, you see a few hawkish comments of "more missiles," but many more dangerous comments from doves who want the disarming America and praying or hoping for a benevolent Russia. THAT is the surest invitation to Sagan's nightmare scenario.
China is the greater threat today. Imagine what they would do free of consequences (i.e., no American military)?
I saw the movie and this discussion with a small group of people. The movie was unsettling, but I was somewhat reassured by a book that came out the sane year, "Living with Nuclear Weapons" by the Harvard Nuclear Study Group. Four of the six co-authors, led by Albert Carnesale, had experience dealing with nuclear weapons issues in various positions in the U.S. government. The reassuring message that I took away from the book is that there is a tradition of non-use of nuclear weapons that is likely to continue.
Such a great discussion. Whatever point of view you have on this issue (which is still with us, even if the US/Soviet rivalry is something for the history books), each of the men involved provided a thoughtful analysis on the issue, cogent arguments for their respective points of view and engaged in absolutely zero grandstanding. And Koppel was great as the moderator. It would be very difficult to see this kind of debate taking place on CNN, Fox or MSNBC these days.
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.
The question at 51:20
Is: How do you educate the next generation on this subject?
I am that generation.
I ask, how do we get the next generation to give a care?
I am Gen X...and yes...the new generation doesn't care. We were scared shitless
This is a historical gold mine
You don't see TV like this anymore.
My God, Carl Sagan, Kissinger and Mcnamara, what a panel, what an amazing group of people, makes me proud to be human knowing these people have walked amongst us.
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.
We have lost the ability to have a discussion as civil as this now.
What do you expect? Idiot Millennial retards.
“I know not what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones “
Einstein
Mcnamara attempting to cool his eventual stint in hell by a couple degrees
14:26 "if the Soviet Union knows that a first strike is going to mean the extinction of the Soviet Union, then there won't be a first strike."
When I was 11 years old I was living in NYC and saw The Day After when it first air on ABC Channel 7 and living in Manhattan knowing in my darkest fear NYC is NUMBER ONE TARGET to get hit by a nuke and my god for anyone who did not live through the 70's and 80's you have no idea how much dread we felt every day of our lives knowing all it takes is one nut job from what ever side to press the button and end it all.
So yes I also remember this Discussion Panel after watching the tv movie very well even at a young age.
That movie scared the CRAP out of me then and gave me nightmares afterward....
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
This film was incredibly powerful on public opinion for government ghouls like McNamara & Kissinger to come out to discuss nukes
We need this now. Air The Day After again and films similar to it on prime time and have panels and people discuss it again. We are in perilous times.
this film is dated . we need a new version or entirety new film on the issue!
I pray for no world war 3.
As an 11 year old in 83, this film was the first to really scare me
There's just no way any debate and discussion of this quality and length would be allowed to air on tv today. :/ No room for this sort of insight on Fox these days. :/
***** There is no real news anymore. It's all what they want you to see and what they want you to think. Scary.
Did you hear it? Exactly, no applause after every sentence, no disgusting cheering...what happened?
This is quite a collection of U.S. minds, for that time. Rare that you see something like this, these days. The nuclear winter claims are now said to have been exaggerated, but outside of that you at least had some brains in a discussion instead of exaggerated hysterics (over the subject of nuclear weapons or anything else)
I was waiting for the part when they mention Dr. Manhattan as the ultimate deterrent. Kidding.
Watching this live, when it aired, is now surreal, as the effects of a population being unintentionally irradiated since then have proven the point of of the film for which this discussion is based on.
This was serious stuff back then. People literally took time off from work, as in "vacation time" off from work, to process and digest the scope of what was being put to them.
Star Wars/SDI (and, consequently, an explosive technological growth in microprocessors) was always in that lightly active recess of the mind that few wanted to acknowledge or openly talk about without provocation.
Yes Sir, joining the Navy and getting 700' below was the answer for more than just one of us...
"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.
Nobody interrupts or shouts...
"Isn't it time to question our policies in the Middle East?"
Apparently not yet!
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...
when both sides have MIRVs (multiple warheads on a single missle) then launch on warning is a necessity because the other side has an incentive to destroy the missiles while in the silo
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. Staying up very late watching Cable TV.
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 thenTRULY understood the true FEAR of a Nuclear War? The DAY AFTER & after & after & after & ect....If one lives. It's beyond frightening. This movie really jumpstarted Nuclear War fear in young Generation X....
Only "winners" are the ones who die on initial impact/flash white light.
Losers are ones who survive the initial blast.