Latest news with #TheDayAfter
Boston Globe
18-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Boston Globe
Beuford Smith, photographer who chronicled Black life, dies at 89
He was also a founding editor of 'The Black Photographers Annual,' a four-volume anthology that was published irregularly between 1973 and 1980 as a showcase for Black photographers. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We had abstract, glamour, civil rights, everything in it,' Mr. Smith told The New York Times' Lens blog in 2017. 'We did not want to ghettoize, that Black photographers just photographed jazz musicians or poverty scenes.' Advertisement On April 5, 1968, the day after King was killed in Memphis, Smith brought his camera to Harlem. One photo he took that day was of a Black man enveloped in darkness, weeping as a white delivery man was being beaten on 125th Street. In an interview with the Cincinnati Art Museum in 2022, Mr. Smith said that the anguished man in Harlem was saying, 'Please don't attack him, leave him alone.' Advertisement Mr. Smith's picture of the crying man -- which he called one of his favorites -- was part of a series taken that day. Among the others were images of a white police officer grabbing a Black man's shoulder as he pushes him forward during the violence that erupted after the assassination; an officer, in silhouette, watching a fire burn on the street; a branch of the Black-owned Freedom National Bank, with a portrait of King resting on a funeral wreath behind the front window; and a Black man, shown from behind, holding a bag of groceries and leaning on a mailbox, possibly staggered by the news. Mr. Smith's "The Day After MLK was Assassinated, NYC, 1968." Keith de Lellis Gallery Most of Mr. Smith's photos were in black and white. But not all of them were mournful. 'Two Bass Hit,' taken in 1972, shows two bass players, standing next to each other, in silhouette, performing at a jazz club, with parachutes hanging from the ceiling. (His photos of musicians often depicted them in shadows or, as in this one, blurred by movement.) 'I couldn't have staged this any better than this, a profile of a Black musician,' Mr. Smith told the Cincinnati Art Museum. Other notable images from the 1960s and '70s include a little girl, her face in shadows, posing defiantly against a wall; a little boy holding an umbrella that has lost its canopy and that is only a handle, shaft and ribs; and an eager-looking man clutching a small bouquet of roses, perhaps looking to present it to his lover. 'His work is eloquent and moving and captured Black people with great intimacy,' Kinshasha Holman Conwill, a former deputy director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African History and Culture, said in an interview. 'There's something about a photographer who has that kind of rapport with and love for Black people.' Advertisement Reviewing an exhibition of Mr. Smith's photos at the Studio Museum in Harlem for the Times in 1972, A.D. Coleman said the photos showed an 'adherence to a head‐on, gimmick-free, documentary style, a concentration on urban Black life as the central theme and a consistent confrontation of human emotion.' Beuford Smith was born April 12, 1936, in Cincinnati, the only child of Theodore Smith, a porter, and Beulah (Conner) Smith, who took care of the home. A self-taught photographer, he was inspired to pursue his craft seriously in New York City when he saw the pictures taken by pioneering Black photographer Roy DeCarava in 'The Sweet Flypaper of Life,' a book about life in Harlem with fictional text by poet Langston Hughes. Mr. Smith, taken by Anthony Barboza. Keith de Lellis Gallery After Mr. Smith met DeCarava in 1965, DeCarava invited him to his loft to look at his portfolio. He later introduced Mr. Smith to Kamoinge, where he was the first director. Mr. Smith held jobs at small printing companies until he started working as a freelance photographer in about 1966. He also worked for photo agencies and, in 1977, started his own, Cesaire Photo Agency. His clients included AT&T, Emory University, Merrill Lynch, and General Electric. His photos appeared over the years in Camera, Candid Photography and other publications, and in books including 'The Sweet Breath of Life: A Poetic Narrative of the African-American Family' (2004), whose cover used his photo of the man holding roses. Mr. Smith remembered an instance in which he believed racism had played a role in the rejection of his photographs by mainstream magazines. He had tried to persuade Life, Look, and other publications to buy the pictures he took after King's death, particularly the one of the crying man. Advertisement 'They said, 'Oh no, if that had been in color we would get it, we would buy it,'' he told the Cincinnati Art Museum. 'But if it had been color they would have said, 'Oh, if it was black and white we would buy it.' But if a white photographer had taken it, it would have been there.' Mr. Smith and his Kamoinge colleagues -- among them Anthony Barboza, Louis Draper, Ming Smith, Adger Cowans, and Daniel Dawson -- were celebrated in the traveling exhibition 'Working Together: The Photographers of the Kamoinge Workshop,' which originated at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in 2020. 'They were showing what could be done as individuals, but also as a collectivity,' John Edwin Mason, a historian at the University of Virginia, told the Times at the time. 'They came of age in the age of Black nationalism, Black self-assertion and self-determination.' Mr. Smith's photographs are in the collections of several museums, including the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney, and the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. In addition to his wife, he leaves a son, Cesaire, from a previous relationship, as well as two grandsons and one great-granddaughter. Mr. Smith's "Milt Jackson, c. 1960s." Keith de Lellis Gallery When the Keith de Lellis Gallery in Manhattan mounted the exhibition 'Black Lives: Photographs of Beuford Smith' in 2017, art critic John Yau, writing in the online arts magazine Hyperallergic, praised the composition of the photos, including one of a boy crouching on a sidewalk in Manhattan, wrapped in fabric that reveals only his eyes and the top of his head. A few feet away, in the street, a doll, which is missing its arms and a leg, lies amid pieces of refuse. Advertisement 'It is almost as if the doll is on the orchestra pit with her head turned toward us, while the boy is onstage, about to deliver his soliloquy,' Yau wrote. 'What will he say?' Mr. Smith's "Man Behind Wall, MoMA, 1965." Keith de Lellis Gallery This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Jewish Story Partners Nonprofit Selects 26 Documentary Grantees to Receive $545,000
Jewish Story Partners (JSP), which works to 'stimulate and support the highest caliber of independent films that expand the Jewish story,' has selected 26 documentaries to receive $545,000 in a major new round of grants, TheWrap can exclusively reveal. The new grantees for JSP, which was launched in 2021 with the support of Kate Upshaw and Steven Spielberg's Righteous Persons Foundation, have crafted narratives that explore the current state of U.S. democracy, antisemitism, the mission to help build a more peaceful society and the conversations that are taking place following the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel. Among the titles are 'The Day After,' 'Hannah Arendt: Facing Tyranny,' 'The Paradox' and 'White Rose.' There were more than 220 applications submitted by filmmakers. The funding round was curated by filmmaker Amy Berg, Impact Partners' Geralyn Dreyfous and Michael Renov, a USC professor of critical studies and Vice Dean for Academic Affairs. 'With its capacity to humanize the 'other' through storytelling, cinema is unparalleled in its ability to build empathy and understanding across divides and counteract ignorance and hate,' JSP Executive Director Roberta Grossman and Head of Granting and Programs Caroline Libresco said in a statement. 'With public funding for the arts and humanities under threat, we are proud to support such an extraordinary group of new documentary films that will stimulate crucial conversations and allow complex truths to emerge.' In addition, JSP shares that it is collaborating with the Jewish Film Institute (JFI) to choose one participant in the JFI Filmmaker in Residence program to receive additional support for documentary film as part of the annual JFI-JSP Momentum Award. 'It was meaningful for us to delve into this powerful slate of documentaries that strike at the core of discussions most relevant to Jewish life and culture today,' the jury said in a statement. 'These artful and moving films weave strong threads of reconciliation, unpacking the past— whether within families or collective history—and wrestling with the complex present so we can envision a brighter, more just future.' JSP currently accepts submissions via one open call per year, with applications opening in November and juried decisions made in May. The Fall 2025 Reprise Grant cycle is now open to current JSP grantees only, with a deadline on Aug. 8. Here's a complete list of the 2025 grantees: 'All That We Are' — Directed by Ondi Timoner. Produced by Morgan Doctor, Sigrid Dyekjær and Lauren Heimer. 'Alpha and Omega' — Directed and produced by Ron Frank. Produced by Glenn Kirschbaum. 'The Day After' — Directed and produced by Yuval Orr, and directed by Aziz Abu Sarah. Produced by Liel Maghen, Margaux Missika and Chris Patterson. 'Dust Bowls and Jewish Souls: Another Side of Woody Guthrie' — Directed and produced by Steven Pressman. 'The Grandfather Puzzle' — Directed by Ora DeKornfeld. Produced by Noémi Veronika Szakonyi and Máté Artur Vincze. 'Hannah Arendt: Facing Tyranny' — Directed and produced by Jeff Bieber and Chana Gazit. Produced by Salme M. López Sabina. 'Leonard Cohen: Behind the Iron Curtain' — Directed by Eric Bednarski. Produced by Birgit Gernböck, Christine Guenther, Amanda Handy, Mark Johnston and Stanisław Zaborowski. 'The Lonely Child' — Directed and produced by Marc Smolowitz. Produced by Alix Wall. 'Offcuts' — Directed and produced by Jacob Fertig. Produced by Jaydn Ray Gosselin. 'The Paradox' — Directed and produced by Shimon Dotan. Produced by Dikla Barkai. 'The Sandman' — Directed by Esti Almo Wexler. Produced by Dr. Elad Wexler. 'Sapiro v. Ford' — Directed and produced by Gaylen Ross. Produced by Carol King. 'Shirley Clarke Film Untitled' — Directed and produced by Immy Humes. 'Walking Under Palms' — Directed by Adam Weingrod. Produced by Alexis Bloom and Kobi Mizrahi. 'White Rose' — Directed and produced by Julie Cohen. 'Wilder' — Directed by Kate Novack. Produced by Joanne Nerenberg. The post Jewish Story Partners Nonprofit Selects 26 Documentary Grantees to Receive $545,000 | Exclusive appeared first on TheWrap.
The Advertiser
06-06-2025
- Entertainment
- The Advertiser
Stories should do more than scare us. They should wake us up
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ordinary Sunday evening in November 1983 when more than 100 million Americans and many others around the world sat in the comfort of their living rooms watching the end of the world. For the next few hours they looked on in horror as humanity's worst nightmare unfolded. Children were turned to ash, cities to dust and vast regions of the planet destroyed as a series of nuclear strikes plunged civilisation into a barbaric new Stone Age. The Day After was a television movie unlike any other; its primetime depiction of the savage aftermath of nuclear warfare traumatised so many that counselling helplines were inundated. Ronald Reagan, the US president at the time, scribbled in his diary that the film left him depressed. The movie was credited with nudging him toward arms control negotiations that, a few years later, culminated in an historic nuclear reduction treaty with the USSR that helped end the Cold War. The Day After's lesson? Never underestimate the power of storytelling. We have always clung to fables, myths and parables to help us make sense of the world. It's why sober charts and statistics never quite stir the soul like the visceral emotion of believable characters trapped in unimaginable scenarios. But despite the existence of so many more existential threats now facing us - the world's nuclear stockpile is rising again, climate change grows more extreme and scientists increasingly warn of the menace of artificial intelligence and future pandemics - it's difficult to imagine any film packing the same punch these days as The Day After. We're suffering doomsday fatigue. Our nights are saturated with the end of days. Apocalyptic movies and TV series depicting dystopian futures fill our screens, social media algorithms feed us worst-case scenarios to keep us scrolling and an unrelenting 24-hour news cycle amplifies catastrophes and threats. Studies show that relentless warnings about melting ice caps, mutant viruses, economic collapse and Terminator-style machines creates society-wide emotional burnout, making us less likely to stand in the street and demand change, even when many threats are real and, like climate devastation, imminent or already with us. Let me be the first to plead guilty. After three weeks in the Arctic last year crossing melting glaciers and discovering polar bears were foraging in rubbish bins for food as their ecosystem collapses, I returned home eager to prosecute the case for change. A succession of glazed eyes and patient yawns quickly blunted that enthusiasm. Surely, though, there must be a way to reignite the same global sense of urgency that sprang out of The Day After. It's why you should watch Television Event - a brilliant documentary now streaming on SBS that revisits that Sunday evening of collective dread in 1983 when a fictional drama with lousy special effects by modern standards crawled inside the world's psyche, triggering worldwide demonstrations that piled on the pressure for nuclear disarmament. The infamous Doomsday Clock is now at its closest point ever to midnight - just 89 seconds away, according to the latest update by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Yet our sense of alarm has never felt more muted. We can blame it on doomsday fatigue. But that's the easy way out. If charts, statistics and endless warnings of Armageddon alone won't shift us, it's time to reimagine the way we talk about these threats. Instead of more apocalyptic tales of destruction and despair, we need human stories that refuse to let us off the hook; tales that show us the lives of those on the front lines of rising seas or within reach of ballistic missiles; stories to remind us that no one is immune and that the consequences won't be confined to someone else's time zone. We need more solution-focused journalism highlighting what's working, not just what's going wrong. The social media giants need to show greater responsibility with algorithms (try not to laugh too loudly) that would help amplify a sense of progress, not just panic. And instead of focusing on the potential devastation we face, we need to relentlessly ask one basic question: what are you prepared to do about it? That Doomsday Clock is ticking. Apathy is no longer a refuge but a death sentence. If we shouldn't underestimate the power of storytelling, nor should we underestimate the power of collective action. Now, more than ever, we need stories that do more than scare us. We need stories that wake us up. HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you suffer from Doomsday Fatigue or have you found an antidote? What other solutions could jolt our current apathy toward climate change and other existential threats? Do you remember when The Day After first screened in Australia and, if so, what was your reaction? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Ocean temperatures in the south-west Pacific reached fresh highs in 2024 as heatwaves struck more than 10 per cent of the world's marine waters. - Federal police should take over the investigation into the death in custody of a young Aboriginal man as a "step towards healing and justice", an Indigenous MP says. - People who want to learn more about their family's service in the Australia military will have easier access to priceless records at a new research centre at the Australian War Memorial. THEY SAID IT: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein YOU SAID IT: When he noticed a hole in his cargo pants, John realised they had lasted longer than World War II. It was a reminder of the false economy of fast fashion. Mike owns a rarely worn 1970s suit bought in Hong Kong: "Still can't throw it out. It's not clothing anymore; more of an heirloom. Meanwhile, a velvet dress from the same era, my wife retains, still gets invited to events and still turns heads. Her dress is living its best life. My suit's still waiting for a '70s revival tour." John gets 20 years' wear out of a T-shirt by observing four cycles: "1: Only wear out socially. When I get home, I immediately take off and replace with; 2: home clothes which are good enough to go out shopping with; 3: When these clothes are no longer fit to even go to the local Bunnings store, I just wear them for yard and handyman jobs around the house; 4: When totally threadbare they are ripped up for rags." Chris, who's become a dab hand at mending so his clothes last longer, writes: "I applaud your article here on saving clothing costs while working from home because that's exactly what happens. I've worked out of home for more than 30 years and there's nothing more comfortable than having nice, clean but older and well worn clothes to wear while working." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ordinary Sunday evening in November 1983 when more than 100 million Americans and many others around the world sat in the comfort of their living rooms watching the end of the world. For the next few hours they looked on in horror as humanity's worst nightmare unfolded. Children were turned to ash, cities to dust and vast regions of the planet destroyed as a series of nuclear strikes plunged civilisation into a barbaric new Stone Age. The Day After was a television movie unlike any other; its primetime depiction of the savage aftermath of nuclear warfare traumatised so many that counselling helplines were inundated. Ronald Reagan, the US president at the time, scribbled in his diary that the film left him depressed. The movie was credited with nudging him toward arms control negotiations that, a few years later, culminated in an historic nuclear reduction treaty with the USSR that helped end the Cold War. The Day After's lesson? Never underestimate the power of storytelling. We have always clung to fables, myths and parables to help us make sense of the world. It's why sober charts and statistics never quite stir the soul like the visceral emotion of believable characters trapped in unimaginable scenarios. But despite the existence of so many more existential threats now facing us - the world's nuclear stockpile is rising again, climate change grows more extreme and scientists increasingly warn of the menace of artificial intelligence and future pandemics - it's difficult to imagine any film packing the same punch these days as The Day After. We're suffering doomsday fatigue. Our nights are saturated with the end of days. Apocalyptic movies and TV series depicting dystopian futures fill our screens, social media algorithms feed us worst-case scenarios to keep us scrolling and an unrelenting 24-hour news cycle amplifies catastrophes and threats. Studies show that relentless warnings about melting ice caps, mutant viruses, economic collapse and Terminator-style machines creates society-wide emotional burnout, making us less likely to stand in the street and demand change, even when many threats are real and, like climate devastation, imminent or already with us. Let me be the first to plead guilty. After three weeks in the Arctic last year crossing melting glaciers and discovering polar bears were foraging in rubbish bins for food as their ecosystem collapses, I returned home eager to prosecute the case for change. A succession of glazed eyes and patient yawns quickly blunted that enthusiasm. Surely, though, there must be a way to reignite the same global sense of urgency that sprang out of The Day After. It's why you should watch Television Event - a brilliant documentary now streaming on SBS that revisits that Sunday evening of collective dread in 1983 when a fictional drama with lousy special effects by modern standards crawled inside the world's psyche, triggering worldwide demonstrations that piled on the pressure for nuclear disarmament. The infamous Doomsday Clock is now at its closest point ever to midnight - just 89 seconds away, according to the latest update by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Yet our sense of alarm has never felt more muted. We can blame it on doomsday fatigue. But that's the easy way out. If charts, statistics and endless warnings of Armageddon alone won't shift us, it's time to reimagine the way we talk about these threats. Instead of more apocalyptic tales of destruction and despair, we need human stories that refuse to let us off the hook; tales that show us the lives of those on the front lines of rising seas or within reach of ballistic missiles; stories to remind us that no one is immune and that the consequences won't be confined to someone else's time zone. We need more solution-focused journalism highlighting what's working, not just what's going wrong. The social media giants need to show greater responsibility with algorithms (try not to laugh too loudly) that would help amplify a sense of progress, not just panic. And instead of focusing on the potential devastation we face, we need to relentlessly ask one basic question: what are you prepared to do about it? That Doomsday Clock is ticking. Apathy is no longer a refuge but a death sentence. If we shouldn't underestimate the power of storytelling, nor should we underestimate the power of collective action. Now, more than ever, we need stories that do more than scare us. We need stories that wake us up. HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you suffer from Doomsday Fatigue or have you found an antidote? What other solutions could jolt our current apathy toward climate change and other existential threats? Do you remember when The Day After first screened in Australia and, if so, what was your reaction? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Ocean temperatures in the south-west Pacific reached fresh highs in 2024 as heatwaves struck more than 10 per cent of the world's marine waters. - Federal police should take over the investigation into the death in custody of a young Aboriginal man as a "step towards healing and justice", an Indigenous MP says. - People who want to learn more about their family's service in the Australia military will have easier access to priceless records at a new research centre at the Australian War Memorial. THEY SAID IT: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein YOU SAID IT: When he noticed a hole in his cargo pants, John realised they had lasted longer than World War II. It was a reminder of the false economy of fast fashion. Mike owns a rarely worn 1970s suit bought in Hong Kong: "Still can't throw it out. It's not clothing anymore; more of an heirloom. Meanwhile, a velvet dress from the same era, my wife retains, still gets invited to events and still turns heads. Her dress is living its best life. My suit's still waiting for a '70s revival tour." John gets 20 years' wear out of a T-shirt by observing four cycles: "1: Only wear out socially. When I get home, I immediately take off and replace with; 2: home clothes which are good enough to go out shopping with; 3: When these clothes are no longer fit to even go to the local Bunnings store, I just wear them for yard and handyman jobs around the house; 4: When totally threadbare they are ripped up for rags." Chris, who's become a dab hand at mending so his clothes last longer, writes: "I applaud your article here on saving clothing costs while working from home because that's exactly what happens. I've worked out of home for more than 30 years and there's nothing more comfortable than having nice, clean but older and well worn clothes to wear while working." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ordinary Sunday evening in November 1983 when more than 100 million Americans and many others around the world sat in the comfort of their living rooms watching the end of the world. For the next few hours they looked on in horror as humanity's worst nightmare unfolded. Children were turned to ash, cities to dust and vast regions of the planet destroyed as a series of nuclear strikes plunged civilisation into a barbaric new Stone Age. The Day After was a television movie unlike any other; its primetime depiction of the savage aftermath of nuclear warfare traumatised so many that counselling helplines were inundated. Ronald Reagan, the US president at the time, scribbled in his diary that the film left him depressed. The movie was credited with nudging him toward arms control negotiations that, a few years later, culminated in an historic nuclear reduction treaty with the USSR that helped end the Cold War. The Day After's lesson? Never underestimate the power of storytelling. We have always clung to fables, myths and parables to help us make sense of the world. It's why sober charts and statistics never quite stir the soul like the visceral emotion of believable characters trapped in unimaginable scenarios. But despite the existence of so many more existential threats now facing us - the world's nuclear stockpile is rising again, climate change grows more extreme and scientists increasingly warn of the menace of artificial intelligence and future pandemics - it's difficult to imagine any film packing the same punch these days as The Day After. We're suffering doomsday fatigue. Our nights are saturated with the end of days. Apocalyptic movies and TV series depicting dystopian futures fill our screens, social media algorithms feed us worst-case scenarios to keep us scrolling and an unrelenting 24-hour news cycle amplifies catastrophes and threats. Studies show that relentless warnings about melting ice caps, mutant viruses, economic collapse and Terminator-style machines creates society-wide emotional burnout, making us less likely to stand in the street and demand change, even when many threats are real and, like climate devastation, imminent or already with us. Let me be the first to plead guilty. After three weeks in the Arctic last year crossing melting glaciers and discovering polar bears were foraging in rubbish bins for food as their ecosystem collapses, I returned home eager to prosecute the case for change. A succession of glazed eyes and patient yawns quickly blunted that enthusiasm. Surely, though, there must be a way to reignite the same global sense of urgency that sprang out of The Day After. It's why you should watch Television Event - a brilliant documentary now streaming on SBS that revisits that Sunday evening of collective dread in 1983 when a fictional drama with lousy special effects by modern standards crawled inside the world's psyche, triggering worldwide demonstrations that piled on the pressure for nuclear disarmament. The infamous Doomsday Clock is now at its closest point ever to midnight - just 89 seconds away, according to the latest update by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Yet our sense of alarm has never felt more muted. We can blame it on doomsday fatigue. But that's the easy way out. If charts, statistics and endless warnings of Armageddon alone won't shift us, it's time to reimagine the way we talk about these threats. Instead of more apocalyptic tales of destruction and despair, we need human stories that refuse to let us off the hook; tales that show us the lives of those on the front lines of rising seas or within reach of ballistic missiles; stories to remind us that no one is immune and that the consequences won't be confined to someone else's time zone. We need more solution-focused journalism highlighting what's working, not just what's going wrong. The social media giants need to show greater responsibility with algorithms (try not to laugh too loudly) that would help amplify a sense of progress, not just panic. And instead of focusing on the potential devastation we face, we need to relentlessly ask one basic question: what are you prepared to do about it? That Doomsday Clock is ticking. Apathy is no longer a refuge but a death sentence. If we shouldn't underestimate the power of storytelling, nor should we underestimate the power of collective action. Now, more than ever, we need stories that do more than scare us. We need stories that wake us up. HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you suffer from Doomsday Fatigue or have you found an antidote? What other solutions could jolt our current apathy toward climate change and other existential threats? Do you remember when The Day After first screened in Australia and, if so, what was your reaction? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Ocean temperatures in the south-west Pacific reached fresh highs in 2024 as heatwaves struck more than 10 per cent of the world's marine waters. - Federal police should take over the investigation into the death in custody of a young Aboriginal man as a "step towards healing and justice", an Indigenous MP says. - People who want to learn more about their family's service in the Australia military will have easier access to priceless records at a new research centre at the Australian War Memorial. THEY SAID IT: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein YOU SAID IT: When he noticed a hole in his cargo pants, John realised they had lasted longer than World War II. It was a reminder of the false economy of fast fashion. Mike owns a rarely worn 1970s suit bought in Hong Kong: "Still can't throw it out. It's not clothing anymore; more of an heirloom. Meanwhile, a velvet dress from the same era, my wife retains, still gets invited to events and still turns heads. Her dress is living its best life. My suit's still waiting for a '70s revival tour." John gets 20 years' wear out of a T-shirt by observing four cycles: "1: Only wear out socially. When I get home, I immediately take off and replace with; 2: home clothes which are good enough to go out shopping with; 3: When these clothes are no longer fit to even go to the local Bunnings store, I just wear them for yard and handyman jobs around the house; 4: When totally threadbare they are ripped up for rags." Chris, who's become a dab hand at mending so his clothes last longer, writes: "I applaud your article here on saving clothing costs while working from home because that's exactly what happens. I've worked out of home for more than 30 years and there's nothing more comfortable than having nice, clean but older and well worn clothes to wear while working." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ordinary Sunday evening in November 1983 when more than 100 million Americans and many others around the world sat in the comfort of their living rooms watching the end of the world. For the next few hours they looked on in horror as humanity's worst nightmare unfolded. Children were turned to ash, cities to dust and vast regions of the planet destroyed as a series of nuclear strikes plunged civilisation into a barbaric new Stone Age. The Day After was a television movie unlike any other; its primetime depiction of the savage aftermath of nuclear warfare traumatised so many that counselling helplines were inundated. Ronald Reagan, the US president at the time, scribbled in his diary that the film left him depressed. The movie was credited with nudging him toward arms control negotiations that, a few years later, culminated in an historic nuclear reduction treaty with the USSR that helped end the Cold War. The Day After's lesson? Never underestimate the power of storytelling. We have always clung to fables, myths and parables to help us make sense of the world. It's why sober charts and statistics never quite stir the soul like the visceral emotion of believable characters trapped in unimaginable scenarios. But despite the existence of so many more existential threats now facing us - the world's nuclear stockpile is rising again, climate change grows more extreme and scientists increasingly warn of the menace of artificial intelligence and future pandemics - it's difficult to imagine any film packing the same punch these days as The Day After. We're suffering doomsday fatigue. Our nights are saturated with the end of days. Apocalyptic movies and TV series depicting dystopian futures fill our screens, social media algorithms feed us worst-case scenarios to keep us scrolling and an unrelenting 24-hour news cycle amplifies catastrophes and threats. Studies show that relentless warnings about melting ice caps, mutant viruses, economic collapse and Terminator-style machines creates society-wide emotional burnout, making us less likely to stand in the street and demand change, even when many threats are real and, like climate devastation, imminent or already with us. Let me be the first to plead guilty. After three weeks in the Arctic last year crossing melting glaciers and discovering polar bears were foraging in rubbish bins for food as their ecosystem collapses, I returned home eager to prosecute the case for change. A succession of glazed eyes and patient yawns quickly blunted that enthusiasm. Surely, though, there must be a way to reignite the same global sense of urgency that sprang out of The Day After. It's why you should watch Television Event - a brilliant documentary now streaming on SBS that revisits that Sunday evening of collective dread in 1983 when a fictional drama with lousy special effects by modern standards crawled inside the world's psyche, triggering worldwide demonstrations that piled on the pressure for nuclear disarmament. The infamous Doomsday Clock is now at its closest point ever to midnight - just 89 seconds away, according to the latest update by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Yet our sense of alarm has never felt more muted. We can blame it on doomsday fatigue. But that's the easy way out. If charts, statistics and endless warnings of Armageddon alone won't shift us, it's time to reimagine the way we talk about these threats. Instead of more apocalyptic tales of destruction and despair, we need human stories that refuse to let us off the hook; tales that show us the lives of those on the front lines of rising seas or within reach of ballistic missiles; stories to remind us that no one is immune and that the consequences won't be confined to someone else's time zone. We need more solution-focused journalism highlighting what's working, not just what's going wrong. The social media giants need to show greater responsibility with algorithms (try not to laugh too loudly) that would help amplify a sense of progress, not just panic. And instead of focusing on the potential devastation we face, we need to relentlessly ask one basic question: what are you prepared to do about it? That Doomsday Clock is ticking. Apathy is no longer a refuge but a death sentence. If we shouldn't underestimate the power of storytelling, nor should we underestimate the power of collective action. Now, more than ever, we need stories that do more than scare us. We need stories that wake us up. HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you suffer from Doomsday Fatigue or have you found an antidote? What other solutions could jolt our current apathy toward climate change and other existential threats? Do you remember when The Day After first screened in Australia and, if so, what was your reaction? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Ocean temperatures in the south-west Pacific reached fresh highs in 2024 as heatwaves struck more than 10 per cent of the world's marine waters. - Federal police should take over the investigation into the death in custody of a young Aboriginal man as a "step towards healing and justice", an Indigenous MP says. - People who want to learn more about their family's service in the Australia military will have easier access to priceless records at a new research centre at the Australian War Memorial. THEY SAID IT: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein YOU SAID IT: When he noticed a hole in his cargo pants, John realised they had lasted longer than World War II. It was a reminder of the false economy of fast fashion. Mike owns a rarely worn 1970s suit bought in Hong Kong: "Still can't throw it out. It's not clothing anymore; more of an heirloom. Meanwhile, a velvet dress from the same era, my wife retains, still gets invited to events and still turns heads. Her dress is living its best life. My suit's still waiting for a '70s revival tour." John gets 20 years' wear out of a T-shirt by observing four cycles: "1: Only wear out socially. When I get home, I immediately take off and replace with; 2: home clothes which are good enough to go out shopping with; 3: When these clothes are no longer fit to even go to the local Bunnings store, I just wear them for yard and handyman jobs around the house; 4: When totally threadbare they are ripped up for rags." Chris, who's become a dab hand at mending so his clothes last longer, writes: "I applaud your article here on saving clothing costs while working from home because that's exactly what happens. I've worked out of home for more than 30 years and there's nothing more comfortable than having nice, clean but older and well worn clothes to wear while working."
Washington Post
04-06-2025
- General
- Washington Post
Why we should worry about nuclear weapons again
Over the past 30 years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the prospect of nuclear war has faded from the American consciousness. With the end of the Cold War, films depicting the last days of humanity, such as 1959's 'On the Beach,' or the 1983 TV drama 'The Day After,' largely disappeared from the Hollywood playbook. Schoolchildren no longer hid under their desks during practice drills to survive nuclear war. But the weapons never went away. While thousands were scrapped and nuclear inventories were significantly reduced, many other weapons were put into storage and still thousands more remain deployed, ready for use. Now, they and the dangers they pose are making a comeback. The last nuclear age was defined by two superpowers — the United States and the Soviet Union — poised to destroy one another in less than an hour. They both kept nuclear weapons locked and loaded to deter the other by threatening retaliation and certain destruction. Today's global nuclear landscape is far more complicated and, in many ways, more precarious. More countries and more advanced technologies are involved. Weapons can fly farther, faster, from more places. Information, accurate or false, can move even more quickly. Autocrats and extremists hold positions of power in nuclear-armed countries. Nuclear threats, once taboo, are now increasingly common. And the last nuclear arms control treaty still in force between Russia and the United States expires in February. The next nuclear age This article is the first in a series by experts from the Federation of American Scientists examining why today's global nuclear landscape is far more complicated and, in many ways, more precarious than during the Cold War. Previous Next Many of the most dangerous ideas from the Cold War are being resurrected: lower-yield weapons to fight 'limited' nuclear wars; blockbuster missiles that could destroy multiple targets at once; the redeploying of a whole class of missiles once banned and destroyed by treaty. On top of this, countries are testing new ways to deliver these weapons, including nuclear-powered cruise missiles that can fly for days before hitting their targets; underwater unmanned nuclear torpedoes; fast-flying, maneuverable glide vehicles that can evade defenses; and nuclear weapons in space that can attack satellites or targets on Earth without warning. Our organization, the Federation of American Scientists, was created by the same people who invented the atomic bomb at Los Alamos to ensure that when policy was made, it was informed by science and technical facts. For 80 years, we have sought to promote public accountability and transparency about nuclear arsenals. Relying only on unclassified information, including satellite imagery and government data, we maintain the world's most accurate publicly available estimates of the world's nuclear arsenals. Now that the nuclear threat has roared back to life, we believe it is our responsibility to provide accurate, nonpartisan information to help reduce the risk of nuclear disaster. We underestimate that risk at our collective peril. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement 'At this moment in human history,' the Nobel Committee said in announcing last year's Peace Prize, 'it is worth reminding ourselves what nuclear weapons are: the most destructive weapons the world has ever seen.' The prize went to Nihon Hidankyo, an association of survivors of the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 — the only time nuclear weapons have ever been used in wartime. The numbers Nine nations now have nuclear weapons: Russia, the United States, Britain, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Together, they possess more than 12,200 nuclear warheads, located at approximately 120 sites in 14 countries. More than 9,500 are militarily active or deployed, ready for use. Roughly 2,100 of those are on high alert and can be launched in minutes and reach any point on the planet in less than half an hour. United States United States 3,700 warheads (2024) Russia Russia 4,309 warheads (2024) China China 600 warheads (2024) France France 290 warheads (2024) Britain Britain 225 warheads (2024) India India 180 warheads (2024) Pakistan Pakistan 170 warheads (2024) Israel Israel 90 warheads (2024) N. Korea North Korea 50 warheads (2024) 1945 1965 1985 2005 2025 2024 1995 2015 Color bands represent the estimated nuclear arsenal of each country. 1k 5K 10K at approx. 40,159 in 1986. at approx. 31,255 in 1967. Russia's warheads peaked The United States' warheads peaked Source: Federation of American Scientists. Note: The number of warheads charted is as precise as possible and based on open-source information. Russia and the U.S. have long been the dominant nuclear powers. Today, nearly 90 percent of all warheads belong to them. Russia's current arsenal is the largest, followed by the U.S. Both nations have thousands of warheads awaiting dismantlement. Russia and the U.S. also remain the only two countries that have capped their nuclear arsenals through negotiated treaties and agreements, beginning in 1972. The last of that long string of agreements is the New START Treaty completed in 2010. Under New START, they are each limited to 1,550 deployed strategic weapons on land, at sea, and in the air. Once New START goes away, there will be no limits on the number of weapons the U.S. or Russia can deploy. Or, for that matter, on any of the other seven nuclear states. We survived the U.S.-Soviet arms race that defined the Cold War through a combination of deterrence, determination and luck. And though other countries have nuclear weapons, the size of China's arsenal is starting to cause major global concerns. Its dramatic growth makes this a much more dangerous world. Nuclear analysts like to refer to the U.S.-Russia-China nuclear dynamic as the three-body problem. This stems from the classic physics phenomenon: the gravitational interaction between three objects is exponentially more difficult to predict than between two. Even if the U.S. and Russia could again agree to limit their nuclear forces, the growth of China's capabilities could drive them both to pursue more weapons, throwing any limits into doubt. But this is not just a three-body problem; it's a nine-body problem, and it defies simple explanation or solutions. Addressing the dangers of this new nuclear reality will take more than relearning old lessons, because the ways in which these weapons are being deployed, could be delivered and the technologies they rely on are all evolving day by day. Instead of capping or limiting national missile defenses, as was done from 1972 to 2002, the U.S., Russia and China are developing more capable defenses — including the highly ambitious 'golden dome' missile defense system President Donald Trump announced recently. At the same time, multiple nuclear-armed countries are developing highly maneuverable hypersonic weapons that can carry nuclear payloads and take unpredictable pathways to their targets to evade missile protection systems. Russia and China are also both building new long-range missiles with multiple warheads that could hit multiple targets — reversing a major effort to limit such weapons during the Cold War. Both countries are also reportedly developing options to put nuclear weapons in space to attack satellites and/or targets on the ground. And the U.S. is considering building even more ways of delivering nuclear weapons, including with sea-launched cruise missiles capable of reaching Russia, China and beyond. It is as if the lessons of the Cold War — that there is never a finish line to the arms race and that more effective nuclear weapons do not lead to stability and security — have been forgotten by the current generation of defense planners. Finally, there is growing concern that Russia, China, the U.S. and even North Korea plan to use artificial intelligence to help manage their nuclear arsenals. Statements by the U.S. and China to keep a 'human in the loop' are designed to reassure, but AI is already being used in conventional military planning and nuclear-related early warning and detection. No one knows how this new technology will ultimately affect nuclear strategy. Many of the nuclear nations hold complex, intertwining deterrence relationships with one another. The U.S.-Russia nuclear rivalry, for example, inherently involves NATO allies Britain and France, both of whom maintain limited but significant nuclear forces. China is not only worried about U.S. action in the Pacific and about Russia, but also has a simmering border conflict and rivalry with nuclear-armed India, with the two sides shooting at each other as recently as 2021. And despite appearances, neither North Korea nor China truly trusts the intentions of the other. Pyongyang's tilt toward Russia has deepened these suspicions. India, for its part, has a long-standing conflict with Pakistan, and its ability to launch a rapid conventional invasion across the India-Pakistan border is an important driver for Pakistan's nuclear program. In May, both sides launched strikes against each others' bases, prompting serious fears of regional nuclear escalation. And in 2024, the Biden Administration publicly said that Pakistan was developing an intercontinental range missile that could eventually reach the United States. Russia India Britain Pakistan France North Korea United States Israel China The U.S.-Russia nuclear rivalry, for example, inherently involves NATO allies Britain and France, both of which maintain limited but significant nuclear forces. Russia India Britain Pakistan France North Korea United States Israel China China is not only worried about U.S. action in the Pacific and about Russia, but also has a simmering border conflict and rivalry with nuclear-armed India, with the two sides shooting at each other as recently as 2021. And despite appearances, neither North Korea nor China truly trusts the intentions of the other. Pyongyang's tilt toward Russia has deepened these suspicions. Russia Britain India Pakistan France North Korea United States Israel China India, for its part, has a long-standing conflict with Pakistan, and its ability to launch a rapid conventional invasion across the India-Pakistan border is an important driver for Pakistan's nuclear program. In May, both sides launched strikes against each others' bases, prompting serious fears of regional nuclear escalation. And in 2024, the Biden Administration publicly said that Pakistan was developing an intercontinental range missile that could eventually reach the United States. Russia India Britain Pakistan France North Korea United States Israel China The U.S.-Russia nuclear rivalry, for example, inherently involves NATO allies Britain and France, both of which maintain limited but significant nuclear forces. Russia India Britain Pakistan France United States North Korea Israel China China is not only worried about U.S. action in the Pacific and about Russia, but also has a simmering border conflict and rivalry with nuclear-armed India, with the two sides shooting at each other as recently as 2021. And despite appearances, neither North Korea nor China truly trusts the intentions of the other. Pyongyang's tilt toward Russia has deepened these suspicions. Russia Britain India Pakistan France North Korea United States Israel China India, for its part, has a long-standing conflict with Pakistan, and its ability to launch a rapid conventional invasion across the India-Pakistan border is an important driver for Pakistan's nuclear program. In May, both sides launched strikes against each others' bases, prompting serious fears of regional nuclear escalation. And in 2024, the Biden Administration publicly said that Pakistan was developing an intercontinental range missile that could eventually reach the United States. Russia India Britain Pakistan France North Korea United States Israel China The U.S.-Russia nuclear rivalry, for example, inherently involves NATO allies Britain and France, both of which maintain limited but significant nuclear forces. Russia India Britain Pakistan France North Korea United States Israel China China is not only worried about U.S. action in the Pacific and about Russia, but also has a simmering border conflict and rivalry with nuclear-armed India, with the two sides shooting at each other as recently as 2021. And despite appearances, neither North Korea nor China truly trusts the intentions of the other. Pyongyang's tilt toward Russia has deepened these suspicions. Russia Britain India Pakistan France North Korea United States Israel China India, for its part, has a long-standing conflict with Pakistan, and its ability to launch a rapid conventional invasion across the India-Pakistan border is an important driver for Pakistan's nuclear program. In May, both sides launched strikes against each others' bases, prompting serious fears of regional nuclear escalation. And in 2024, the Biden Administration publicly said that Pakistan was developing an intercontinental range missile that could eventually reach the United States. Russia India Britain The U.S.-Russia nuclear rivalry, for example, inherently involves NATO allies Britain and France, both of which maintain limited but significant nuclear forces. Pakistan France North Korea United States Israel China Russia India Britain China is not only worried about U.S. action in the Pacific and about Russia, but also has a simmering border conflict and rivalry with nuclear-armed India, with the two sides shooting at each other as recently as 2021. And despite appearances, neither North Korea nor China truly trusts the intentions of the other. Pyongyang's tilt toward Russia has deepened these suspicions. Pakistan France United States North Korea Israel China Russia India, for its part, has a long-standing conflict with Pakistan, and its ability to launch a rapid conventional invasion across the India-Pakistan border is an important driver for Pakistan's nuclear program. In May, both sides launched strikes against each others' bases, prompting serious fears of regional nuclear escalation. And in 2024, the Biden Administration publicly said that Pakistan was developing an intercontinental range missile that could eventually reach the United States. Britain India Pakistan France North Korea United States Israel China And the number of nuclear states might not stop at nine. We might be entering an age in which nuclear weapons spread rapidly to friend and foe alike. Iran is now within weeks of having enough material for its first nuclear weapon and could decide to go nuclear at any time. If so, Saudi Arabia would likely follow suit. And U.S. allies in East Asia and Europe, worried about long-term American commitment to their security, might decide to pursue their own independent nuclear arsenals. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement The total power of the warheads in the nine nuclear-armed states is an inconceivable destructive force: equivalent to more than 4.8 trillion pounds of TNT — or more than 145,000 Hiroshima bombs. A single U.S. strategic submarine can carry enough warheads to destroy any country, and detonation of a few hundred weapons could propel enough dust and soot into the air to block sunshine, cool the atmosphere and halt crops from growing — 'nuclear winter.' Such a sequence of events would lead to worldwide famine. In her 2024 bestseller, 'Nuclear War: A Scenario,' Annie Jacobsen draws on scientific research to describe a postapocalyptic world in which cities and forests burn, temperatures plunge, lakes and rivers freeze, crops and farm animals die, toxic chemicals poison the air, people succumb to radiation poisoning or disease. 'Only time will tell if we humans will survive,' she writes. Everyone makes mistakes The next nuclear age will bring severe new tests. Without restraint, nations will be building ever more nuclear weapons, and the chances of mistakes or miscalculations will grow. Each of the nine countries' leaders and the systems they use to control nuclear weapons will have to get every decision right every time. Deterrence theory relies on the assumption that decision-makers are rational actors. In recent years, we've seen leaders such as Russia's Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jong Un increasingly willing to use the manipulation of nuclear risk as a tool of coercion — an unsettling departure from the past. And in 2021, Trump's own chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, intervened to guard against any effort by Trump to use nuclear weapons in the waning days of his first term. Can we trust that leaders won't make decisions based purely on emotion or instinct? And can we trust that these leaders, many of whom operate in authoritarian contexts surrounded by yes men, are receiving accurate information that they can use to make reasoned and deliberate decisions? Aside from intentional nuclear attacks, accidents can happen. And they have. In March 2022, India accidentally launched an unarmed missile toward Pakistan — where it landed, damaging a parking lot but causing no casualties. India blamed a 'technical malfunction.' Story continues below advertisement Advertisement In 1979 and 1980, while the Cold War was in full swing, the U.S. early-warning system produced five false alarms of nuclear attack. Several showed dozens or hundreds of Soviet missiles heading toward the United States. Repeatedly, the president's 'doomsday plane' — kept at the ready as a mobile command center in case of nuclear war — was readied for takeoff. The errors were caused by a training tape wrongly inserted into a console, and by the failure of a single computer chip. At least one similar false alarm occurred on the Soviet side in the tense months of autumn 1983. In all cases, cooler heads prevailed, but will they in the future? In an undated photo, the exterior of the PAVE PAWS early-warning radar system is seen at Beale Air Force Base near Marysville, California. (Joseph Scott Murphey/Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division) At the same time, many of the 20th-century agreements to limit nuclear arms have been torn apart, and countries appear to be much more interested in blaming and shaming their rivals than engaging in good-faith negotiations. The stakes of inaction could not be higher: Once the New START treaty expires next February, Russia and the U.S. will enter an era without limits on their nuclear forces for the first time in over 50 years. Time to wake up At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. and Soviet stockpiles of nuclear warheads together reached 70,000. Arms limitation treaties as well as countries acting on their own brought that number way down. Then, when the Soviet Union collapsed, many observers thought the threat of nuclear war was history. But the nuclear threat remained. In 1994, for example, the U.S. adopted a nuclear policy of 'lead, but hedge,' meaning the U.S. would promote nonproliferation and reduce its bloated arsenal, but keep many of the modern strategic nuclear weapons intact. Russia followed suit, as did Britain, France and China. The U.S. and Russia did reduce the total overall size of the strategic arsenals, eliminating thousands of nuclear weapons. (Most of them were well past retirement age.) And to prevent weapons from the former Soviet Union from falling into the hands of other states or terrorist groups, the U.S. and Russia agreed to remove smaller, battlefield nuclear weapons away from the field, submarines and surface ships. The two countries also signed agreements every decade or so to increase the transparency over their arsenals and cap the number of longer-range weapons each could deploy. Signing ceremonies and speeches reassured their own people and the world that the threat of nuclear war was diminishing. Yet, all the while, every nuclear state planned for, exercised and prepared for the prospect of a nuclear war, the battlefield weapons destined for scrap were sometimes kept, or even replaced with newer versions. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement The brief period of cooperation between the United States and Russia began to fray at any number of key turning points, including President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, Putin's angry denunciation of the West at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Russia's violation and America's subsequent withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or Russia's seizure of Crimea in 2014. The future Chinese nuclear buildup, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and repeated nuclear threats have caused many to call for the United States to enhance and even increase its nuclear arsenal. Trump will likely speed this up. Without working treaties, legal limits or a mutual agreement to cap their forces, both the United States and Russia could double their deployed nuclear arsenals in a year or two without building a single new weapon. Each country could simply move several hundred warheads out of storage and redeploy them on missiles, bombers and submarines. Such a sprint to rebuild would be easily detectable, via both commercial satellite imagery and classified intelligence sources. The pressure on both states to upload faster than the other — and the mutual perception that the other state's uploading was designed to achieve nuclear superiority — could trigger nuclear threats or ultimatums. In a time of crisis those events could lead to nuclear conflict. President Barack Obama, left, shakes hands with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev after the two leaders signed the New START treaty in Prague in April 2010. (Dmitry Astakhov/AFP/Getty Images) While buildups proceed, nations are becoming more secretive about their nuclear weapons. During the first Trump administration, the U.S. reversed nearly a decade of transparency measures and refused to declassify the size of the American nuclear stockpile — a previously annual practice during Barack Obama's administration. Britain immediately followed suit, in a highly out-of-character move from one of the most transparent nuclear-armed states. Our organization advocated that the Biden administration declassify its arsenal numbers, which it did in 2024 — a practice Trump will undoubtedly roll back. Previous arms-control agreements, including New START, included transparency measures that required states to exchange data about their nuclear forces, as well as verification mechanisms. Those have all since been discarded or are soon to expire. This has had immediate implications for the ability of Russia and the United States to understand the sizes of each other's arsenals. With access to the New START data, for years, our team was able to calculate the size and breakdown of both countries' nuclear arsenals, in some cases down to the individual launcher types. We haven't had access to this data in more than 2½ years. The era of nuclear reductions is over. Every nuclear country is improving its weapons systems, while some are growing their arsenals. Others are doing both. This is how an arms race starts. Each state takes action it deems necessary to address a weakness, while others view those moves with suspicion or fear, triggering their own action. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Surviving this new nuclear age will require the constant and informed attention of leaders, policymakers and engaged citizens alike. Getting that attention is harder than ever, as there are now multiple global risks competing for attention and action — from climate change to global pandemics, to rising inequality and mass migration. Yet none of these threatens the sudden and complete destruction of human civilization the way nuclear weapons do. In the early 1980s, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in Europe and the United States to demand a nuclear freeze. These mass movements, coupled with the vision of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, ended the last arms race. Without renewed public pressure or political will, the world is condemned to live under the shadow of nuclear annihilation. We deserve better. Eliana Johns and Mackenzie Knight-Boyle, senior research assistants at FAS, contributed to this piece.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Child Actress from 'The Day After 'Breaks Down Sobbing While Rewatching Bombing Scenes in the 1983 Nuclear War TV Movie
The landmark 1983 TV movie The Day After showed viewers the aftermath of a fictional nuclear strike in Middle America It remains one of the highest-rated TV movies of all time The new documentary Television Event explores the making of the filmThere's an old saying that goes like this: "If there's a nuclear war, only two species will survive: the cockroaches and Cher." Thankfully, that theory has yet to be tested, although a 1983 ABC television movie called The Day After painted a vivid and terrifying what-if nuclear Armageddon scenario. The newly released documentary Television Event goes behind-the-scenes of the Cold War-era television classic, which presented an alternate (and to many at the time, seemingly inevitable) reality in which a nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union leaves two cities — Lawrence, Kans., and Kansas City, Mo. — flattened. Both real-life cities were chosen as settings for the telefilm because of their proximity to numerous missile silos. The Day After was initially intended to be a four-hour miniseries airing over two nights. It was also meant to put the fear of God into viewers... literally. Ed Hume, the film's credited writer, reveals in the documentary that "Silence in Heaven," a phrase he pulled directly from the Bible's Book of Revelation, was the original title of his screenplay. Television Event, directed by Jeff Daniels (not the Emmy-winning actor, but the maker of activism-minded documentaries like Mother with a Gun) reveals that The Day After filmmakers wanted to make a movie in which big-name performers wouldn't overshadow the message. Stars like Donald Sutherland, Blythe Danner and Roots actor George Stanford Brown were passed over in favor of two-time Oscar winner Jason Robards, John Lithgow and Steve Guttenberg. Much of the cast of extras and actors in some larger roles were handpicked from among locals in Lawrence. Ellen Anthony, who played Joleen Dahlberg, the youngest daughter in one of the featured families, was one of the chosen. She appears in the documentary and shares her memories of being cast in the movie and filming it. "We surrendered our innocence," she says. "We surrendered that to this larger goal. We were going to do something very serious." At one point, Anthony is seen watching the movie's harrowing bombing scenes and breaks down crying. 'That's really hard for me to watch. Because that's… It's really hard for me to watch," she says, as tears fall down her cheeks. "Because that's my town, that's my child..." She stops in the middle of the word and closes her eyes before trying to go on. "I'm sorry, I can't see it right now.' 'Those locations were the locations of my childhood," she continues. "The group of students that you see vaporized was my actual fifth-grade class. That's hard to watch. That's really hard to watch.' That was the case for many of those who saw the movie, which remains one of the highest-rated TV films of all time. According to the documentary, 67% of the people in the U.S. watching TV that night — some 100 million people total — watched The Day After. Following the movie, ABC aired a special edition of Viewpoint in which ABC news anchor Ted Koppel comforted viewers by reminding them The Day After was just a movie, but also warning them that what happens in the movie could happen in real life. 'It's sort of necessary to pick up a glass of water and say, 'OK, well, wake up now," Koppel, 85, says in an interview filmed for the documentary. "We're gonna talk about this, but that movie — you know it was a movie, right? It didn't happen. And everything is OK for the time being.' ' That episode of Viewpoint included an appearance by then U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, who assured viewers that the events of the movie would never happen in real life. Thought leaders of the time, including former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, William F. Buckley, Carl Sagan and former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, took part in a panel to debate the merit of the film. The Day After, which was also shown in Russia and in Hiroshima, Japan — where the U.S. dropped an atom bomb on Aug. 6, 1945, hastening the end of World War II — had a lasting effect. In his memoir, Ronald Reagan, who was president when the movie aired, wrote that it left him 'greatly depressed.' Television Event posits that the movie 'led to the biggest decline in nuclear weapons in history.' "The Day After was an important thing," Nicholas Meyer, who directed the TV movie, says near the end of the documentary. "And people realize, in retrospect, just how important it was — certainly the most valuable thing I've gotten to do with my life to date." Television Event is now playing in select theaters, including Film Forum in New York City. Read the original article on People
