Here’s How Realistic A House of Dynamite Is, According to Experts

The new Netflix film, A House of Dynamite, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, depicts the chaos that erupts when an unidentified intercontinental ballistic missile appears to be heading towards Chicago. The country’s leading experts have just 18 minutes to figure out what’s happening and how to respond. The movie shows the unfolding crisis from three different viewpoints – inside the White House, the Pentagon, and STRATCOM headquarters – with each group watching the same countdown clock. These teams communicate via video conference, desperately trying to decide how to prevent a potential nuclear war, but in this impossible situation, it’s unclear what the correct decision even is.

Noah Oppenheim’s film, Dynamite, explores how organizations prepare for and react to crises, and how easily things can fall apart even with careful planning. Oppenheim, a journalist with 25 years of experience covering politics and international events, and also the writer of Netflix’s Zero Day, has long been interested in how institutions handle pressure. He recalls being told early in his career that there’s no group of experts who always know the right thing to do. “It’s just people trying their best,” he says, “and that applies to any organization, including the White House and the Pentagon.”

To realistically portray the intense pressure of a potential global crisis, the filmmakers Kathryn Bigelow and Paul Oppenheim consulted a wide range of experts, including policy analysts, journalists, former intelligence leaders, and government insiders. They also worked closely with Dan Karbler, a retired army officer who previously served as chief of staff for the Strategic Command (STRATCOM). Karbler acted as the movie’s technical advisor – and even appeared on screen – sharing his decades of experience. He expected a minor role, but Bigelow insisted he be closely involved, valuing his input throughout the filmmaking process.

Just how realistic is the tense, fast-paced scenario depicted in Bigelow’s film? And to what extent did the filmmakers embellish the events? To find out, TIME consulted with Oppenheim and Karbler, discussing the movie’s technical details, how accurately it portrays the government’s crisis response, and the current global concerns surrounding nuclear war.

Is it possible we could not know the source of an incoming missile?

When starting to write A House of Dynamite, Oppenheim decided the source of the nuclear attack from the sea would remain a mystery to U.S. intelligence. Rather than focusing on a single villain, the story aimed to investigate the flaws within the system itself – including nuclear strategy, policies, and the global infrastructure supporting them – without simply blaming one person or group. As Oppenheim explains, this was the core idea driving that creative choice.

But is the movie’s premise realistic? Experts suggest not really. Oppenheim’s research indicates a surprise attack would most likely target satellite systems – which, while robust, are surprisingly vulnerable and potentially the weakest part of our cyber defenses. However, Karbler points out that secret missile launches are extremely rare due to our reliable space-based infrared satellites. Still, he recalls that former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter used to run simulations preparing for situations with limited information. Karbler believes a surprise attack is unlikely given our strong defenses, but emphasizes, “We still need to be prepared and practice for it.”

Is there anything the soldiers at Fort Greely could have done differently in this scenario?

As a movie lover, I was gripped by this scene: an ICBM lights up the radar, heading straight for the US. The team in Alaska launches two interceptors, but both miss. Imagine the silence in that room for the next twenty minutes – complete disbelief. The lead guy, Karbler, explained it’s a totally natural reaction. He’s actually lived through this, having experienced missile attacks in Israel, and his daughter has too. He admitted when their defense systems fail – and they sometimes do – the language gets pretty colorful, let’s just say!

Because the opportunity to respond was so brief, the soldiers only managed to fire two interceptors, and by the time they could see if they’d hit their targets, the moment had passed, Karbler explains. Usually, soldiers would immediately begin preparing for another attack, but Bigelow intentionally avoided showing that reaction. She wanted to emphasize the emotional impact – the soldiers’ frustration, helplessness, and the realization that despite extensive training and preparation, the missiles still failed. Bigelow successfully captured this feeling.

Is there really a 61 percent shot for a nuclear missile to get shot down by a ground-based interceptor?

While historical data suggests a roughly 61% success rate for intercepting ballistic missiles, that number reflects testing since the late 1940s. According to Karbler, recent performance – specifically over the last five years – has improved, with ground-based interceptors better at identifying enemy tactics and achieving higher success rates. He notes that upgrades to the missiles over the past five to seven years have been key, but acknowledges, ‘Overall, we’ve had a lot of failures throughout the program’s history.’

What other options might there be to stop a nuclear explosion in its “terminal phase”? Could you send a fighter jet on a suicide mission? Could you set up drones to collide with its trajectory?

Once an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is nearing its target, shooting it down with ground-based interceptors becomes difficult. With only about ten minutes left before impact, a country’s defenses have limited options. However, the U.S. successfully tested a system last year that destroyed a hypersonic target during its final descent using a missile launched from a naval ship. As for alternatives to missile interceptors, Karbler suggests unmanned fighter jets or drones could work, but only if the missile’s path can be predicted quickly. He says exploring these options is an ongoing discussion.

Chaff – small, metallic strips released into the air – can be used to protect drones or disrupt incoming missiles. These strips create a confusing cloud of false targets, making it difficult for the missile to lock onto its intended target. According to Karbler, a large deployment of chaff can damage the missile’s guidance system and even its outer shell, reducing its flight performance.

Is there really a bunker in a mountain, and who gets to go? What kind of protection does it offer?

In the final moments of the film, Bigelow shows several government officials arriving at Raven Rock Mountain Complex, also called Site R. This military installation, located near Blue Ridge, Pennsylvania, includes a nuclear-proof underground bunker. Many of these officials had previously received JEEP alerts – notifications outlining their roles and the fastest route to the bunker in case of a nuclear attack.

Raven Rock is a genuine location – one of several secure bunkers across the US built for emergencies. According to Karbler, Pentagon officials check the facility annually to ensure it’s operational. However, Oppenheim, who relied heavily on Garrett Graff’s book Raven Rock, explains that little is known about who qualifies for shelter there or what resources are available inside. He describes it as a place for leaders to survive a major conflict, though its effectiveness remains untested. “It’s what we imagine when we think about these kinds of facilities, similar to what’s often shown in movies,” he says.

Would the president ever have practice for this kind of event?

No, missile response tests haven’t been conducted since President Ronald Reagan. According to Karbler, current presidents prefer to keep their potential responses secret until a situation actually occurs. He explains that even highly confidential discussions are likely to become public, and no president wants to reveal their strategy beforehand and risk losing the element of surprise.

Oppenheim noticed similar thinking among White House staff. They frequently explained that preparing for nuclear war wasn’t a good use of the president’s time, because the possibility seemed so remote and difficult to grasp. He says the very idea of having to make such a devastating decision – like the one explored in the book Dynamite – is so challenging that most presidents avoid thinking about it unless they have to. According to Oppenheim, it’s a subject they understandably don’t want to dwell on because of how terrible it is.

According to Karbler, the government regularly practices responding to crises like this one. STRATCOM and the Pentagon conduct around 400 drills, exercises, and conferences each year, involving cabinet members to ensure they understand the procedures. This preparation allows them to effectively advise the president when a crisis occurs.

How likely is it that a country with the capacity to respond (like the U.S.) would actually do nothing?

If faced with an attack like the one described in ‘Dynamite,’ and without knowing who launched it, Karbler thinks a president would probably avoid immediate retaliation and consider the broader consequences. He explains, “Responding could lead to a situation far worse than losing 10 million people.” However, the president would also need to find ways to discourage future attacks. Currently, there are roughly 12,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, and only three of the nine countries that possess them are part of NATO. This suggests that open communication and diplomatic solutions might not be a priority for all parties involved. Karbler suggests, “Perhaps a cyberattack or another strategic move could disable the enemy without resorting to nuclear weapons.”

Oppenheim consulted numerous national security experts to determine how a president might react in such a situation, but received conflicting opinions. Some believed the president would hesitate and carefully consider options, while others thought immediate retaliation would be certain. Oppenheim admits we simply don’t know for sure, and hopes we never will. He emphasizes that the decision would ultimately depend on the president’s individual character.

How serious is the nuclear threat right now?

During the Cold War, the possibility of nuclear war often felt very real, even though only the United States and the Soviet Union had significant nuclear weapons. While nuclear war isn’t something most people think about daily now, the risk is actually greater than ever before. There are more countries with nuclear capabilities, and the world is a much more complicated place. As one expert points out, we are closer to a global catastrophe than at any other time in history.

Karbler believes people aren’t as afraid of nuclear war as they should be because it’s become something we’ve grown accustomed to. He points to recent events, like Vladimir Putin mentioning the possible use of smaller nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and the fact that many countries have launched missiles at each other in the last 15 years. Karbler is hopeful that talk of nuclear weapons will decrease. He explains, referencing the film A House of Dynamite, that the danger is always present – like dynamite built into the walls. While we can’t eliminate that danger, we must prevent it from being ignited. He believes this film can help reduce the conversations that even suggest using nuclear weapons.

He admits it might be unrealistic, but believes the conversation needs to reach decision-makers at the top to allow progress.

2025-10-27 21:08