Threads – the horrific film made by the BBC in 1984 depicting the impact of a nuclear war on a city in the north of England – was recently made available to stream. It’s a brutal and grim tour of the aftermath of nuclear war, which anyone who viewed it when originally aired may struggle to watch again. But, 40 years on, the film is probably regarded more as an unpleasant artefact from a more dangerous time.
These days we consume many types of apocalyptic entertainment in film and video games, exploring all types of societal collapse: ecological disaster, manufactured pandemics, alien invasions, cyber-attacks and dangerous AI. But Threads is particularly chilling in its attempt to give a realistic account of what could happen if cold war tensions escalated. I remember watching it as a teenager in a lesson at school and once was enough for me.
But in the winter of 2024, it is difficult to escape the regular warnings about the escalating tensions around the world. There are widespread fears that a catastrophic series of diplomatic breakdowns and strategic miscalculations could result in a 2024 version of the events depicted in the 1984 film.
Since the end of the cold war, much of international conflict has played out below the threshold of open war, in the realms of cyberwarfare, espionage and subversion. Or in other attempts at economic and political tactics intended to influence and manipulate. But there is clearly something very alarming about the situation since the invasion of Ukraine and the escalation of events in the Middle East since October 7.
What makes the current situation so alarming is the sense that “great powers” or states with nuclear weapons could be pulled into conflicts that might quickly escalate beyond any diplomatic or political control. It’s hoped that leaders on all sides are determined to deter or contain conflict. But wars are shaped by accidents, miscalculations and errors of strategic judgement.
Would Vladimir Putin have sent his troops into Ukraine if he could see how the Ukrainians and the international community would react? Now he has turned to making regular threats about Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
So, there is a sense of unease about the current possibility of events getting out of control – of events escalating from brutal and horrific local or regional conflicts into a full blown global conflict. To be sure, there will (hopefully) be a continual diplomatic effort focused in ensuring that events in Ukraine or the Middle East do not escalate to the point where there the world is drawn into a wider war involving weapons of mass destruction.
Rational v irrational actors
But one of the concerns is that the situation in the 2020s is markedly difficult to geopolitical tensions during the cold war. The influential “realists” of international relations – academics like John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt – argued that one of the reasons that the US should not invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was a “rational actor” whose behaviour could be contained and controlled. Iraq could be controlled through what they saw as “vigilant surveillance” and containment.
But the fear in 2024 is that the world isn’t populated by rational actors as it was during the cold war, with its doctrine of mutually assured destruction.
Putin is viewed as a leader increasingly detached from reality – surrounded by advisers too afraid to give him advice that he might not want to hear. In strategic terms, the fear he is that he might escalate to de-escalate. He might attempt a nuclear strike to deter events escalating further – an horrific warning signal that will end any attempts to challenge him.
Some would question whether Iran may be led by men who are also detached from reality and might actually be looking for an apocalyptic showdown with Israel and the west. This depiction of irrational leaders might be more a reflection of our panic and paranoia than a credible assessment of leadership in these states. And of course, some would argue that the liberal world has its fair share of irrational actors.
An interconnected world
So, are we in a time or dangerous irrational actors where deterrence will not prevent a potentially apocalyptic escalation in global events? Security analysts and policymakers often refer to what is known as “deterrence by entanglement”. There are various types of deterrence but one of the geopolitical differences between now and the cold war is the level of interconnection between states that might have diplomatic, economic and political tensions.
How many Chinese students study in UK universities? How much property in London is owned by Russian citizens? Societies are entangled to such a degree that a launching a nuclear strike on London would not only destroy investments, it might also kill your own citizens. Then there is the question of geographical location and nuclear strikes: would you risk the ecological blowback from nuclear strikes in a way that might endanger your territory, ecology and citizens – for generations?
Leaders make mistakes and situations escalate in dangerous and unpredictable ways. But one of the lessons of international relations – going back to the works of Sun Tzu and Machiavelli – is that deception is a vital part of statecraft and warfare. And the “performance” of statecraft often requires cultivating an image of irrationality as a form of rational statecraft and deterrence. Some have argued that Donald Trump’s actions and pronouncements on international affairs produce a sense of uncertainty that works as a one-man strategy of deterrence.
But as this performance plays out, it can be terrifying to watch and experience. Let’s not forget, the history of international relations is a history of tragic and mainly avoidable accidents.
Mark Lacy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
