THE REACTION OF “FAIL SAFE” MOVIE
Decision-making processes are of great importance for states. In the decision-making process, the presidents have the chance to make a decision by first gathering information, then discussing with their advisors and evaluating the alternatives, and then putting the decision into practice. In some cases, the decisions that will affect the whole country and even the world depend on the words of these presidents. Decision makers use a rational method to choose the most appropriate one among the options. Rational choices are made in accordance with the goals and criteria of decision makers. In order to make a rational choice, decision makers first determine their goals and criteria. It then evaluates the available options and evaluates the suitability of each option for its purposes and criteria. The most suitable option is the one that will best achieve the objectives.
One of the important films about the decision-making process is Fail Safe. Fail-Safe is a 1964 film that tells the story of a fictional accidental nuclear attack on Moscow by US military forces. The film helps us examine the theme of rationality and decision making in the face of a crisis. explores the theme of rationality and decision-making in the face of a crisis and how the decision-making process can lead to unintended consequences.
The film begins with the US military receiving a false alarm that the Soviet Union has launched a nuclear attack on the US. The army decides to launch a retaliatory attack against the Soviet Union, but before the bombs are recalled, they accidentally hit Moscow.
As mentioned in the first scenes of the movie that take place in the control room of the machines, the machines are seen as the decision makers. Technology is trusted, but machines are not rational decision makers, they contain uncertainty and do not have the qualities of a decision maker. Decision makers must have an understanding of their environment, the nature of foreign policy, national security goals, and broader national interests. When there is a problem with these control mechanisms, the President remains symbolic or ineffective as a decision maker at this stage.
The characters in the movie are portrayed as rational individuals trying to make the best possible decision in an extremely difficult and high-pressure situation. The President of the United States is portrayed as a thoughtful leader trying to find a peaceful resolution to the crisis despite calls from his military advisers to retaliate. Throughout the film, the decision-making process is depicted as logical, methodical, and data-driven. However, there is also a layer of moral and ethical dilemmas about the possibility that millions of people will die because of the events in the movie. “How much collateral damage is acceptable?”
Overall, the film raises important questions about rationality and decision-making in the face of a crisis, highlighting the need for careful consideration of all options as well as the potential human cost of different choices. As the story progresses, the President of the United States is faced with a series of difficult decisions. Should he decide to retaliate against the Soviet Union, even if the attack was fortuitous, or to find a peaceful solution to the crisis?
As tensions escalate, the President’s advisors develop various ideas and strategies, such as using a nuclear-powered reconnaissance aircraft to enter Soviet airspace and signal US peaceful intentions, and the President, with his advisors, discusses the pros and cons of each option.
Throughout the film, the decision-making process is depicted as complex and nuanced; The characters grapple with multiple competing thoughts and try to balance the need to protect the United States with the need to prevent further escalation of the crisis.
The film shows how different actors and layers of decision-making, military, civil and political, interact and how this progresses to the final result. In the end, the President’s attempt to find a peaceful solution to the crisis ultimately fails, and the film ends on a somber and serious note with the hint that the world can be destroyed by a mistake of decision.
If I were the president in this movie, I would first verify the authenticity of the false alarm, and if there really was such a thing, I would take immediate action to recall the missiles launched using every diplomatic, military and technical means possible.
If that wasn’t possible, I would weigh the possible loss of life and consequences of a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union against the possible loss of life if the bombs hit the targeted targets, as shown in the movie, and consider the possibility of retaliation and the possibility of a nuclear war. In my diplomatic efforts to prevent the strike, I would have to negotiate with the Soviet Union and reach them. Also, when the soviets were contacted in the movie, the missiles had come a long way, I didn’t expect them to go that far and I called beforehand. The number of soldiers to die is limited, but the decision made by the president caused the death of many people in America. Also, if this situation was noticed very early and reported to the soviets, the plane could have been shot down, but as I said, it was a big mistake to wait until the last moment.
In the end, to prevent a nuclear war and potentially the loss of millions of lives, I would risk knocking down our own plane to prevent the launch of bombs, even if it meant sacrificing American lives, because of the many people who died as a result of an American accidental missile, the world community and the American people. will blame us, and maybe a nuclear war is about to break out. In these cases, my own dethronement, and even worse, if nuclear war happens, most people in our country will be affected.