APEC Korea 2025 drew to a close with a grand finale. The Korean press reported that the event turned out to be a success, especially for this country. For example, Korea and the US finally agreed on the details of their trade deal at the summit in Gyeongju. Korea also secured approval from US President Donald Trump to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. These two fruitful outcomes will undoubtedly stabilize our economy and national security, at least for now.
In the long run, however, we are still uneasy and uncomfortable. In the spirit of the popular 2025 Netflix apocalyptic film “A House of Dynamite,” we might wonder: Are we really safe and sound now? Are we not living in a house full of dynamite? We tend to think that our economy and national security are rock-solid, and so we're as snug as a bug in a rug. But in fact, we may be living in a fragile, precariously balanced house of cards that could be toppled with a single blow. The "Dynamite" movie reminds us of the harshness of our present reality.
“A House of Dynamite,” directed by Kathryn Bigelow, begins with the following written narration: “At the end of the Cold War, global powers reached the consensus that the world would be better off with fewer nuclear weapons. That era is now over.” Indeed, those good old days of nuclear disarmament are over, and now we are surrounded by hostile countries that threaten us with nuclear weapons.
After the solemn narration, the movie depicts a nuclear crisis in the US at breathless speed. The White House situation room is informed that the Pacific-based early warning radar has detected an unidentified intercontinental ballistic missile flying over the North Pacific. At first, the White House presumes it is a routine North Korea test missile. Soon, however, it turns out that the nuclear missile is targeting Chicago and will make impact within the next 19 minutes. If it hits the city, the casualties will total more than 10 million people.
The 49th Missile Defense Battalion in Alaska immediately launches two ground-based interceptors. Alarmingly, however, the first one fails to deploy, and the second one fails to shoot down the incoming ICBM. The US deputy national security adviser admits that the chance of intercepting an inbound nuclear missile is as slim as “hitting a bullet with a bullet.” As the ICBM approaches Chicago, the military alert is raised to Defcon 1.
Meanwhile, it turns out that neither Russia nor China has launched the ICBM, and North Korea cannot be reached. Now the US president is sitting with the so-called nuclear football, a device to launch nuclear missiles in an emergency. Between his top security adviser's recommendation against nuclear retaliation and a general’s advice supporting it, the president is torn.
At the end of the movie, the president is urgently airlifted to safety by Marine One, but his secretary of state chooses not to evacuate and takes his own life, presumably out of a strong sense of responsibility for those who will be killed by the ICBM. “A House of Dynamite” ends, showing neither the president’s final decision nor the nuclear explosion in Chicago. It only shows people hurriedly evacuating to an underground facility.
Viewers have complained about the movie's abrupt ending. But the ending is appropriate because it would be risky and problematic under the circumstances to specify a particular nation as the launcher of the nuclear missile. Besides, the theme of the movie is our grim situation, not blaming particular countries for a fictional disaster.
Still, “A House of Dynamite” does not exclude the possibility that the ICBM is launched by North Korea. Thus, the crisis portrayed in the movie also becomes a pressing problem for South Korea because such a crisis could also confront us at any time. Moreover, North Korea could one day try to force the US to choose between South Korea and an American city by threatening it with an ICBM. Then, South Korea would inevitably become collateral damage, caught in the crossfire.
While watching “A House of Dynamite,” we also cannot help but wonder: Are our politicians ready to deal with such a crisis? Currently, our politicians seem to be too busy with domestic power politics to prepare for such an eventuality. We also wonder if our military can detect incoming nuclear missiles and neutralize them before they reach our territory.
In the movie, even the US finds it hard to defend its territory safely from an incoming nuclear missile. Compared with the US, South Korea is far less organized and prepared, and thus it will not be easy to respond calmly if we face such a crisis.
Watching this captivating film, we can only hope that we are not living in a house of dynamite.
Kim Seong-kon
Kim Seong-kon is a professor emeritus of English at Seoul National University and a visiting scholar at Dartmouth College. The views expressed here are the writer‘s own. -- Ed.
khnews@heraldcorp.com
