Ethics on Film: Discussion of "Dr. Strangelove"

Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is 60 years old in 2024, but really the only aspect of it that feels dated is the ubiquity of cigarettes. Humans, collectively, probably feel mostly the same about nuclear weapons in 2024 as they did in 1964. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 by the U.S. military remain the only times humans have seen the true level of destruction of these weapons, and we are still living with the consequences of the race to stockpile these bombs in the ensuing decades.

And today, unfortunately, we are in a similarly fraught geopolitical place as we were 60 years ago, if not more so. Just like in the mid-1960s, the two biggest nuclear powers are not quite at war but are definitely not at peace. There are no treaties constraining the use or development of nuclear weapons, and even scarier, no real plans to change this fact. Adding to this tension, there are now multiple other nuclear powers, with some always right at the edge of conflict with their neighbors. Perhaps most frighteningly (and to say the very least) there are legitimate questions looming about the psychological, physical, and moral fitness of the people in control, or soon to be in control, of these weapons in the U.S. and abroad. Kubrick’s Cold War masterpiece has endless lessons for the mid-2020s if you’re looking for them.

The Plot

It is a normal day during the Cold War when an American B-52 bomber, not far from Soviet airspace, receives its daily orders, this time a code commanding the aircraft, and dozens of others, to commence a nuclear attack. The airmen, led by the unflappable Major T. J. “King” Kong (Slim Pickens), follow the orders and a worldwide catastrophe is set in motion.

It turns out that the commands are coming from just one man, U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), bunkered in his office at Burpelson Air Force Base, far from Washington, DC, with an exchange Royal Air Force officer, Colonel Lionel Mandrake (one of the three roles played by legendary British comedic actor Peter Sellers and something of an increasingly concerned Greek chorus). Ripper has become completely untethered from reality, convinced that the Soviets are poisoning U.S. drinking water in a sneak attack. General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott), chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is soon alerted and brought to the War Room in Washington. There, U.S. President Merkin Muffley (Sellers) and his cabinet and advisors, the other joint chiefs, and, before long, the Soviet ambassador (Peter Bull) are watching a countdown to the destruction of the Soviet Union on a giant digital map in this underground lair, showing U.S. planes creeping closer and closer to their targets.

As Turgidson manically explains to the president, there is little that can be done to stop these attacks. The protocols that were started by Ripper and agreed to years earlier at the highest levels of the government were put in place to counter a sneak attack with minimal human oversight—it was assumed for this type of scenario to be set in motion the president would be incapacitated or unreachable. Ripper has clearly abused this system, but with the B-52s out of radio contact and Burpelson on lockdown, it is too late to call the bombers back. Even worse, when the president reaches his Soviet counterpart, the communist leader informs him of the “doomsday machine,” basically a series of remote controlled underground atomic bombs that will be triggered when the Soviet Union is attacked. This will unleash a nuclear catastrophe, killing most humans and animals on the planet. The enigmatic U.S. government scientist Dr. Strangelove (also Sellers), seemingly a former Nazi, confirms this dark reality. Eventually, several counter-measures are employed, and the threat seems to be neutralized. But Major Kong’s B-52 is unaccounted for—the other aircraft were either able to be called back or shot down, but one explosion is all it takes to set off the doomsday machine. Strangelove cackles and “sieg heils” as the airman iconically rides his bomb to the end of the world.

Politicians vs. the Military Industrial Complex

Early in the film, General Ripper famously says: “War is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.” The point might be worth debating, but it is, of course, completely counter to the structure of the United States, where the commander-in-chief is always a civilian and Congress controls the flow of money to the military. The fact that Ripper is dead set on starting a nuclear war based on nothing other than what’s going on in his head perfectly illustrates why this oversight is necessary.

It is also important to remember that when the film was released, political violence and world-altering interstate war were not some abstract thoughts; the U.S. was closer to the end of World War II in 1964, than it is today, in 2024, to 9/11. For more context, the film came out months after President John Kennedy was assassinated, less than two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and just three years after President Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech warning about the influence of the “military-industrial complex.”

As Eisenhower told it, by the early 1960s, the U.S. had reached a level of militarization never seen in world history, with the private sector now taking a huge role in this pursuit. He advised that Americans “. . . must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” This gets to one of the main points of proponents of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons: As long as these weapons exist, there is potential for them to be misused. Whether it’s due to a “legal” order from the president, some kind of accident, or “misplaced power,” it’s irrelevant. The outcome is the same.

A scene towards the end of the film perfectly illustrates the danger of having imperfect and, at times, “non-rational” people in charge of these weapons. As nuclear destruction is almost certain, we see the true faces of those in power. Strangelove fantasizes about building a master race in underground bunkers, where women outnumber men ten to one; Turgidson is fascinated by the sexual politics of a world where non-monogamy has to be the norm; the Russian ambassador sneaks away to steal military secrets, even though his home country and host country are both about to be destroyed; and the president acts almost like a child, albeit one grimly sipping whiskey, still not quite believing the scenario about to unfold. To the end, these men, the most powerful in the world, are selfish, petty, and unwilling to take accountability.

Why Dr. Strangelove?

The title of the film, highlighting a mysterious former Nazi U.S. government scientist who sits among the president’s cabinet and advisers, indicates that Kubrick wants us to focus on this character. The (seemingly) wheelchair-bound Strangelove doesn’t even have a line until somewhere around the third act of the film and his character is basically inconsequential to the plot. He explains some of the intricacies of the doomsday machine, but is not responsible for either nation’s nuclear strategies nor does he have ideas to stop the impending disaster. Most notably, he’s the only one smiling and laughing and not panicking about the end of the world.

In a film full of absurdity, Strangelove’s mannerisms are perhaps the most over the top. He has “alien hand syndrome” as he is not in control of his gloved right hand, nor is he in complete control of his voice, with it eventually becoming clear that he still has loyalties to the Third Reich. Through the years, several scientists and statesmen have been suspected to have been the inspiration for Strangelove, but he is most likely a composite of many. After the fall of Nazi Germany, scientists from that nation did, indeed, move to the United States and other Western nations to work on projects, including weapons systems.

Despite the wackiness of the character, though, and his nearly obvious allegiance to Nazi Germany, Strangelove has the same status in the War Room as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president feels that he needs this scientist. Concerns about his ideology are not even acknowledged. This raises numerous questions, namely: Is it worth going all-out to fight “communism” if you have to closely ally with a fascist?

The World is Absurd

Perhaps an overlooked line in Eisenhower’s speech is: “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” This ideal can take many different forms—from something as simple as reading a variety of news sources every day to engaging in protest and civil disobedience, if that’s what is warranted. The best way that Kubrick could “compel the proper meshing” is to make one of the sharpest political satires of all time.

Just a decade removed from seeing some of his colleagues caught up in the Hollywood blacklist relating to the society-wide “red scare,” making this film had real stakes. Kubrick put Soviet communists on the same level as American politicians and generals. The Soviet ambassador is no more buffoonish than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the leaders of both countries give off the air of chatty teenagers as they converse about a nuclear emergency. To point out that “freedom-loving” Americans are just as capable of destroying the world as the sneaky communists and to create a military leader as unhinged as General Ripper—willing to start a nuclear war over fluoride in the water system—were massive political statements in 1964.

Mind-blowingly, the idea that fluoride in the water system is causing medical problems, is literally in the headlines again today. Today, though, it’s not a joke; influential people are ready to act on this conspiracy theory that Kubrick lampooned 60 years ago. These modern, well-resourced, and powerful General Rippers will be making policy in the United States over the next four years, at least, and will be in control of the world’s most powerful military. An “alert and knowledgeable citizenry” is needed today, maybe more than ever.

So, who is going to be today’s Stanley Kubrick? Who is going to artfully and slyly show the world the true nature of these powerful people? Sadly, it might be tough to find that person, at least at the scale that Kubrick was working at in the 1960s. The military-industrial complex is stronger than ever, and the entertainment-industry complex seems unwilling to take risks. This is a dangerous mix as we head into 2025.

Discussion Questions

1. Is there any purpose for nuclear weapons to exist or, in an ideal world, should they be abolished?
2. Do you agree with the idea that “war is too important to be left to politicians”? Should civilians, ultimately, be in control of their nations’ militaries, as is the case in the United States?
3. Are the checks and balances in the U.S. government sufficient in regard to use of military force? Should other nations’ systems be studied for new ideas?
4. What are some ways that the general public can be more “alert and knowledgeable” about military issues, as President Eisenhower advised?
5. Why do you think Stanley Kubrick wants the audience to focus on Dr. Strangelove?
6. Is political satire an effective method to criticize governments or those in power?
7. Is the “industry” in the “military-industrial complex” too influential in the U.S.? If so, what can be done to counter this influence?
8. Does the presence of the military-industrial complex lead to more conflict and wars?

Works Cited

"Almost Everything in 'Dr. Strangelove' Was True," Eric Schlosser, The New Yorker, January 17, 2024

"Dr Strangelove: No 6 best comedy film of all time," John Patterson, The Guardian, October 18, 2010

"Dr. Strangelove and the Banality of Evil," Ian Zuckerman, Amor Mundi, The Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities, Bard College, March 17, 2024

"President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961)," Milestone Documents, National Archives, July 15, 2024 (last reviewed)

"Walking a fraying nuclear tightrope," Joel Rosenthal, Politico, September 25, 2024

"What Happens in a Bomb Blast?," Outrider, December 10, 2024 (last accessed)

"What to know about fluoride in water amid RFK Jr.'s bid to remove it," Sarah Habeshian, Axios, November 18, 2024

Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs is an independent and nonpartisan nonprofit. The views expressed within this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Carnegie Council.