"War Games"

What we can learn from a 40-year old movie

Photo by UX Gun on Unsplash

Unless you have sworn off all forms of media, you probably know that yesterday, former President Donald Trump was indicted on multiple felonies. If you’re not a Trump supporter, how you respond to this news matters. Did you have a feeling of giddy joy? Did you tent your fingers, thrilled at the prospect of him finally getting his comeuppance? Or was your response one of concern for what it could mean for our country? And unease about what it could do to the level of political polarization.

I worry that the righteous indignation this may trigger moves us closer to a place we just don’t want to be. So much so that I’m reminded of a movie from 40 years ago. And, more specifically, of the importance of understanding mutually assured destruction.

I was ten years old when “War Games” came out in 1983. Matthew Broderick played the role of David Lightman. He was a young, slackeresque computer hacker who, at the beginning of the film, breaks into his school district’s computer system to change his grades.

Then, while looking for information on a gaming company, he encounters a computer system that doesn’t identify itself. But it presents him with a selection of possible games to play. One of those is called “Global Thermonuclear War.”

Assuming that it’s just a game like any other, David engages. He plays as the Soviet Union. In 1983, we were still in the middle of the Cold War, so this choice ratchets things up considerably.

And, of course, it wouldn’t have been much of a movie if it turned out to actually only be a game.  

Earlier in the timeline, during a surprise nuclear attack drill at NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), the controllers had demonstrated an unwillingness to launch a missile strike. As a result, the decision by higher-ups was made to turn that control over to a supercomputer, called WOPR. WOPR was designed to continuously run war simulations, all while learning from the outcomes. This is the system David was now interacting with.

The movie is a solid 114 minutes of will they or won’t they stop an actual nuclear war from starting (spoiler alert: they do). But the way they do it holds an interesting lesson.

Lightman and WOPR’s creator ultimately avert catastrophe by instructing the computer to play tic-tac-toe against itself. When this challenge leads to a series of draws (where there are no plays left to make, but there’s also no victor), the computer learns about games where no one wins. It quickly applies that knowledge to “Global Thermonuclear War.” When WOPR makes the connection that playing leads to mutually assured destruction, it says, of nuclear war “the only winning move is not to play.” The movie closes with the computer’s voice playfully asking a room full of panicked military officials if they’d like to play a “nice game of chess.”

How does this relate to the news of the indictment? There’s a world where the righteous indignation of non-Trump supporters makes our political climate significantly worse and more divided than it already is. Bear with me for a second.

In an op-ed in the New York Times, Damon Linker wrote, “Public-spirited and law-abiding Americans believe the appropriate response of voters to news that their favored candidate faces indictment is to turn on him and run the other way.” I think we all know at this point that this won’t happen.

Linker continues, “[Knowing that no one is above the law] doesn’t mean we should deny the gravity of the potential consequences.” How non-Trump supporters respond to the indictment can affect those same consequences.

Non-Trump supporters have a choice to make. The more glee found in his comeuppance and the more schadenfreude that’s felt, the more he will be transformed into a martyr, a hero, and the victim of a witch hunt.

As Linker concludes, “How politically radical could the base of the Republican Party become over the 17 months between now and the 2024 presidential election? There’s really no way to know. We are heading into uncharted and turbulent waters.” As WOPR learned, so should we—righteous indignation just might lead us to mutually assured destruction.