Bulwark Takes – Tom Nichols: America Lost Its Nuclear Anxiety. That Was a Mistake.

Date: November 8, 2025
Host: Sonny Bunch (Culture Editor, The Bulwark)
Guest: Tom Nichols (Staff Writer at The Atlantic; Professor Emeritus, Naval War College)
Topic: How America lost its cultural and strategic anxiety about nuclear weapons, what that means for contemporary security, and how the new Netflix film "A House of Dynamite" reawakens those existential worries.

Overview: Nuclear Anxiety Lost… and Its Perils

Sonny Bunch sits down with Tom Nichols to explore why America’s once-ubiquitous dread of nuclear apocalypse has faded, why that’s a dangerous societal shift, and how the new Kathryn Bigelow film "A House of Dynamite" attempts to re-stoke those anxieties. Drawing on Nichols's career in national security and teaching, the conversation tracks changing attitudes across generations, the difficulties in grasping the scale of nuclear destruction, and what Hollywood gets right (and wrong) about The Bomb.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. State of Nuclear Affairs: Then vs. Now

• Cold War Era: Known for a constant and pervasive fear of full-scale nuclear war.
• Present Day: Multipolar world with nine nuclear powers ("It's really like the ending of Reservoir Dogs, everyone just pointing a gun at each other and the first guy to pull the trigger gets everyone killed." — Tom Nichols, 02:19).
• Danger Shift: Thermonuclear holocaust between superpowers is arguably less likely, but a nuclear incident somewhere in the world is perhaps more likely than before (02:04).

2. The Vanishing of Nuclear Dread in Culture

• Nichols uses 1980s “nuclear panic” movies ("The Day After," "Threads") in teaching. Students are shocked by the graphic depictions and cultural fear.

  • "Students would ask, almost with wonder, 'What were you so scared of?'... This is a generation who worry a lot more about climate change than they do about nuclear war" (Tom Nichols, 04:45).
  • On the impact of Threads: "It would be, in its time, kind of NC17...that one really just knocked them on their heels," (05:55).

• Pop Culture Shift: Nuclear war as a theme is now considered kitsch or outdated by many young people.

• Comparisons to sci-fi (e.g., "Planet of the Apes") show generational disconnect to the metaphorical nuclear anxieties these works once evoked (07:54).

3. Hollywood, Realism, and "A House of Dynamite"

• Nichols praises "A House of Dynamite" for its realism, especially in its depiction of professionals handling crisis.

  • "Everybody in that movie talks the way people really talk in the policy world... They’re doing the right thing and acting like people really do" (Tom Nichols, 17:25).

• The film’s core scenario: An incoming ICBM, uncertainty over its origin, and professional (sometimes conflicting) deliberation over response.

  • "For the next 20 minutes, this missile is incoming... And this has happened. In 1979 and ‘80 a microchip popped... and suddenly, on the screen, there’s 2,000 incoming Soviet missiles" (Tom Nichols, 19:36; 20:19).

• The ambiguity and chaos depicted—deliberately no cartoon villains—mirrors 21st-century multipolar nuclear tension (24:01–28:10).

4. Generational Response to Nuclear Fiction & Reality

• Nichols notes younger viewers/readers lack frame of reference for the devastation, e.g., critiquing "Oppenheimer" for not visualizing nuked Japan ("I actually am glad they didn’t [show it], because those bombs were quite small by modern standards... as horrible as what happened in Japan was, a nuclear exchange now would be magnitudes worse" — Tom Nichols, 09:42).
• Classics like Fail Safe, Dr. Strangelove, Godzilla, are teaching tools but only partially bridge the empathy gap for post-Cold War generations (13:03–15:18).

5. Missile Defense: Pentagon Optimism vs. Reality

• "A House of Dynamite" depicts US missile defense as about a coin flip (61% success); Pentagon disputes this.
  • "The Missile Defense Agency has since said, no, no, our accuracy is 100%. First of all, nothing is 100%... I just think 61% was being generous" (Tom Nichols, 35:33).
  • Real-world tests are limited and highly controlled (“staked chicken tests”); in battle conditions, actual effectiveness is deeply uncertain (36:30–39:53).

6. The “Professionalism” of Modern Military & Policy Leaders

• Nichols: The film avoids caricatures; everyone is a pro, echoing his own experience briefing generals (“They are as cold as ice. They do their jobs. They train for it every day. And I thought the movie captured that really well.” — 43:17).

7. Policy Lessons & The Present Administration

• Nichols calls for seriousness in leadership regarding nuclear policy, critiquing both the Trump administration's style and broader US political complacency ("People don't seem to think that anything in the world has consequences," 47:14).
• Presidential statements equal policy; rash or unserious comments have nuclear consequences (47:14–48:53).

8. Hopefulness—and Limits to Optimism

• Nichols points out US and Russian warhead counts are far lower than during the Cold War (~1,500 now vs. 20,000+ in the 1980s)—proof that progress is possible with "skill, diplomacy, seriousness of purpose" (49:12).
• Yet, warns that ongoing public indifference, and unserious or unengaged leaders, could lead us directly back to an era of existential danger (50:00–51:30).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On generational fear:
  "You worry about the planet getting 2 degrees warmer in 30 years. I worry about the planet getting 10 million degrees warmer in the next 20 minutes." – Tom Nichols (05:35)
• On nuclear war movies:
  "I call them nuclear porn because they are so graphic... not just about showing you what a nuclear war would look like, but the culture we lived in, marinated in these images." – Tom Nichols (04:45)
• On missile defense reliability:
  "First of all, nothing is 100%. I'm sorry. A kid's slingshot does not operate with 100% efficiency or aim." – Tom Nichols (36:08) "Just because you've hit four out of four under controlled conditions, doesn't mean you hit one under pressure." – Paraphrased, 36:30–39:53
• On US military professionalism:
  "When push comes to shove, they [military leaders] are as cold as ice. They do their jobs. They train for it every day. And I thought the movie captured that really well." – Tom Nichols (43:17)
• On acting responsibly:
  "Existential dread is exhausting, but closing your eyes—we can’t be like little kids, right? Closing our eyes does not make things go away just because we can’t see them." – Tom Nichols (53:39)
• On wish for political leadership:
  "The most important thing I can do as a voter is to put sane, responsible, sober-minded people in office and not be satisfied with, you know, government by shitposting." (48:53)

Important Timestamps

• [02:04] — The shift from a two-player to a multipolar nuclear world
• [04:45] — Nichols reflects on teaching “nuclear panic” films and student reactions
• [09:42] — Critiquing demands for graphic realism in "Oppenheimer"
• [13:03] — The value of Fail Safe, Dr. Strangelove, and Godzilla as teaching tools
• [17:25] — Nichols breaks down the realism in "A House of Dynamite"
• [19:36] — Real historical nuclear false alarms and their lessons
• [24:01] — Realistic depiction of ambiguity and decision-making under crisis
• [35:33] — In-depth on defense missile system realities vs. mythmaking
• [43:17] — Portrayal of military professionalism, drawing from Nichols's personal experience
• [47:14] — Consequences of political irresponsibility, and why presidential words matter
• [49:12] — Nuclear reductions since the Cold War: a hopeful note
• [53:06] — The necessity of facing existential anxiety, not fleeing it

Closing Reflection

Nichols and Bunch agree: "A House of Dynamite" doesn’t simply entertain—it revives forgotten existential anxieties about nuclear war, forces viewers to face current realities, and argues (implicitly and explicitly) for a return to seriousness in leadership and public consciousness. The episode stresses that nuclear dread wasn’t irrational—it was, and remains, a vital safeguard against sleepwalking into catastrophe.

For listeners who missed the episode:
This is a dense, sharp, and at times sobering conversation by two experts who know their material. It’s a must-listen (or a must-read summary) if you want to understand the perils of complacency in a nuclear-armed, multipolar world—and why rekindling some of that old fear might be a civic virtue, not just paranoid nostalgia.