Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + +
who says liberal claptrap can't be entertaining?
Even more far-fetched is the idea that a remote terminal would be unmonitored by any security personnel and allow a user to impersonate a dead man with a closed user account.
Even more far-fetched is the idea that a remote terminal would be unmonitored by any security personnel and allow a user to impersonate a dead man with a closed user account.
But the biggest farce of all is that a war games program would be connected with a live missile launch facility in such a way that any scenario entered would be interpreted as the real thing. The boy and his sidekick, thinking they are simply playing on a game publisher's computer, simulate Soviet launches against Las Vegas and Seattle.
But the biggest farce of all is that a war games program would be connected with a live missile launch facility in such a way that any scenario entered would be interpreted as the real thing. The boy and his sidekick, thinking they are simply playing on a game publisher's computer, simulate Soviet launches against Las Vegas and Seattle.
What makes it entertaining (and not just an exercise in left-wing propaganda) is that the movie does indeed have a plot. The kid cracks security with "Joshua" (both the login code, and what he starts calling the AI program he's chatting with). He and the girl have fun playing a war game, but are scared of getting caught when they hear on the evening news that the game was taken seriously. Then the FBI arrest the kid and take him, of all places, directly to NORAD headquarters, where he's left alone with an unguarded computer terminal and logs in again! At this point, the kid is still trying to prove his innocence and tell the men what the program is doing. But they refuse to listen, and lock him up again - unguarded - in an infirmary room.
The movie ends with a "convincing" rationale, that the only way to deal with the risks of international nuclear war is to "refuse to play", presumably meaning that the US should have adopted a pacifist approach such as [[unilateral disarmament]]. Fortunately, [[Ronald Reagan]] did exactly the opposite and outspent the Soviets to win the [[Cold War]].
The movie ends with a "convincing" rationale, that the only way to deal with the risks of international nuclear war is to "refuse to play", presumably meaning that the US should have adopted a pacifist approach such as [[unilateral disarmament]]. Fortunately, [[Ronald Reagan]] did exactly the opposite and outspent the Soviets to win the [[Cold War]].