@albettatrue That's because it would have been the worst disaster in history - and for those of us who live in Sheffield, it hits harder. I'm in student halls just a stone's throw away from The Moor and that street is shown with a mushroom cloud going above Ecclesfield or Brightside. The eerie thing is such a horror occurring in an area of such familiarity.
I remember when this first aired in the UK. It's interesting how it compared to the US drama 'The Day After', made around the same time, which made world war 3 look unpleasant but survivable. This one is much more gritty and realistic. I'm a little concerned however with the OP's 'new world order' obsession. All this conspiracy theory bullshit is getting old.
@cameraguy38 - agreed! The day after was BS...and most of us here in the states knew it. My mom made me watch this on public broadcasting when it came out here. I was 12, and it scared the shit out of me.
@cameraguy38 - Agreed, The Day After was BS, and most here in the states knew it. My mom made me watch Threads when it came out on public broadcasting here in the states. I was 12, it scared the shit out of me, and left an indelible impression.
this is not drama this is fact and the same has been happened to Japan in WWII when nazi air force of america nuked the japan causing million of kids in school, boys in play grounds and women in homes died in such attack
Feel better after your rant? As in, do you know your history? Don't be such a tool, think to yourself what would have happened if America had actually invaded Japan... how many people would have died. 66, 000 people died at Hiroshima. All for a war that America did not start. Thank god they were in it though.
@groovecow Yes. WW2 would have dragged on until 1946, the Soviet Union would have invaded Japan as well and then stayed for good, hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, many of them children, would have died of starvation from the Allied blockade, thousands more Allied POWs would have died, the whole of Japan would have been in ruins, there would have been tens o thousands more Allied troop losses and Britain would have ended up even more financially bankrupt than she already was in 1945
The excuse that using the atomic bomb was justified because ended the war is a poor excuse for the mass murder of civilians. What if Germany had been first to build and use the bomb ? Their targets would almost certainly have been London and Moscow, effectively ending the war and forcing an allied surrender. Germany would be using the same justification that America uses today, that it was okay to use the bomb because it ended the war.
@cameraguy38 No, it was justified, because Japan was in a very strong state of defence and intended to fight every step of the way, the US was outnumbered in Japan and every Japanese was part of the fortress; they held 100's of 1000s hostages US, Brit, Aus, Canada, to be killed on invasion, plus, God knows, their atrocities were supported by the population. Eg, 2 Jap soldiers hold friendly contest to behead 100 Chinese, reported Jap papers. Bomb saved lives.
David Cameron's Defense policy, a seat for himself, his family and other Conservative and Lib Dem big wigs and their families on a requisitioned British Airways Boeing 777 departing London Heathrow destination Bermuda, before the first Iranian ten kiloton yield range nuke detonates over London. Put the Nimrod MRA4 in to service, keep the Harrier GR9 in service, maintain RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss as operational military airbases and kick Mr Cameron out of 10 Downing Street.
So, your response to Iran launching a nuclear weapon at the UK, would be to maintain expensive and outdated equipment that would be completely crippled in the event of a nuclear attack as there would be numerous missile launches and EMP's? As Iran wouldn't launch 1 missile at us, it would launch lots, and EMP us.
@Angusismyhero They were on buildings etc mainly left over over from ww2 i used to hear them howling over from the high rise flats when i was a kid. They tested them every so often
There pretty much all gone but if you look on here people have manged to rescue them from scrap yards and get them working. And places like essex use them for flood warnings
@kyanzes: Unfortunately, we can't forget that there is also a majorly negative side to the deterrence...........the possibility of the near-total destruction of worldwide civilization.
lol I'm sorry...the scene where they jump under the car...it seems so silly, but I honestly don't know what else they could do...the crappy thing would be the whole time you'd have to know that's going to be about as effective as holding up some plywood in defense...
@kyanzes Luckily...the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the whole cuban missile crisis was touch and go at points. Much too close for comfort. I don't know, nuclear weapons scare me actually a lot less than biological ones. At least with a nuclear weapon you know what's happening, you're either flat out ripped apart on an atomic level right away or you know what the hell's going on. In a biological thing everyone gets horrifically sick...your best friend could be your "killer" in a sense.
nukes ruin civilisation and they are pointless why make such weapons of mass destruction :( we were fine with wars with swords now its with science and radiation oh well america can save us cant they?:)
nukes ruin civilisation and they are pointless why make such weapons of mass destruction :( we were fine with wars with swords now its with science and radiation
that filthy beggar didn't even wipe his bum..i bet his bum was a filthy sore mess after a while in his shelter...he should have wiped and wiped again...
J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb and former director of the Las Alamos National Laboratory, quoted the Bhagavad Gita after the 1945 Trinity nuclear test: “If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one,” “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
The ONLY thing that didn't work for me in this movie was the use of so much stock footage (granted, they did the same thing with "The Day After"). It really sticks out compared to the rest of the effects, which are actually pretty good quality considering the budget, production values, etc.
@Mikeymcguy Guess you didn't read my comment carefully enough. I said the effects were pretty good in this movie - it was the use of stock footage that I found distracting.
A civilisation basing its survival on living on the edge of the abyss is a sign of reverse evolution. From 1956 to 1995 there have been 20 incidents which could have started WW3. MAD worked by chance and for a finite period. Give the majority of countries in the workd nukes and it would not work. You contradict yourself as an exponent of MAD by saying that Israel, a state founded on the back of terrorism should be the only country in the Mid East with nukes. Why is it better to arm Zionists?
@22reTOYOTA The Korean war was a definite step towards WW3, there was talk of using nukes in Vietnam too. The super-powers constantly fought their battles via the 3rd world during the cold war which was also mighty good for business. You also ignore the number of times we came to accidental nuclear war. The USA also funds and gave Israel of all countries nukes. If deterence really works then we shouldn't worry about anybody developing nukes. The solution would be to give them to everybody.
best chance you would haveto survive nueks would be to go to a rural area, or go to a country that wouldnt get nuked like canada or south amercia or africa.
love this film!.. i think what setsit apart from the likes of the day after is the way it sails so close to what we know as real life!, a pint in the local, a crash on the M6, tomorrows world on tv .... this could happen!, and there will be no heros!...
i agree unless you could manage away to have them underground but thats highly unlikely but this film truly did its homework i like the day after but this film is much more indepth
The EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) will literally blow out anything electronic, or tied into the power grids. What this means is: A, you can turn the key and pump the pedal till the cows come home! -- to no avail; and B, your computer, TV, stereo, etc., will be rendered inoperable -- even if the power ever were to come back on (HA! -- fat chance!).
Agreed. Unfortunately, you won't have much luck finding a battery operated radio that utilizes vacuum tubes instead of transistors. You're really better off getting vaporized in the initial blast. This would spare you the unimaginable horror and unfathomable suffering that would constitute a post large scale global nuclear exchange. There are no winners in nuclear war (except maybe cockroaches, as they would inherit the earth if humans were rendered extinct in a nuclear holocaust). NO NUKES!
How many of us wouldn't shit our pants when we heard that Attack Warning: Red buzzer go off? Knowing that in maybe 5-10 minutes around 75-80% of your entire country's people would be dead or dying.
You got it right. That's why the movie was called Threads. In the begnning it talks about how our society is intricately woven by thin threads which bind us together and make us interdependent, yet strong and fufilled as a society. YET those threads also make society vulnerable. Tug on one strand, it all comes tumbling down??
I wouldn't want to be caught in a nuclear war! What if the Rapture occured when the bombs were set off? The believers would escape the holocaust; those left behind would be burned up!
Here's the thing about a full nuclear holocaust: chances are at least 90% that you are going to survive it! -- only a small handful are going to be lucky enough to die right there and then, on the spot!
But here's another thing: even though you will, in all probability, be a survivor -- eventually -- someday, somehow -- you are going to die. Make no mistake about that; YOU WILL DIE. Indeed, we're ALL going to die (at some point or other), for such is the very nature of this world. The question is not whether or not you might possibly die someday -- but how long you are going to live; and, what life is going to be like during that time.
@pizzaman147 According to Wikipedia, she was out shopping when the attack happened, and you see a brief glimpse of her later when there's a food riot post-holocaust.
I think I saw her (Alison Kemp) in the detention camp, four weeks after the attack (formerly the Dore and Totley Tennis Club). Jimmy is missing altogether, presumed dead.
"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one. Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
-Robert Oppenheimer, The father of the atomic bomb
We probably have no idea on the effect of massive urban firestorms following a nuke on a major center. Suburbs contain extensive amounts of flammable materials and so, most houses outside the central "bast range" would be left to burn totally, with fires sucking oxygen and extreme air temperatures over these areas. People would suffocate and burn. The closest we have to this effect are the Dresden and Tokyo firebombings in WW2.
I think this documentary overestimates the survival rate.
So 210 megatons hitting the UK, with single warhead yields in the 150-250 kt range (which would make sense with 1980s-era ICBMs and shorter range missiles), means roughly 1000 nukes on the UK.
Since most industrial targets are around major urban centers, and most energy sites and military targets outside major cities, you can probably consider that the top 100 urban centers were hit in the UK, most of them multiple times.
I've posted here before, but I cannot get over how realistic the attack scene is portrayed. Utterly frightening and depressing. I can remember this movie when it was shown here in the States (mid 80's on PBS?). I could not sleep for a night or two.
Threads was the most realistic study I ever saw - coupled with James Thomsons book it was so realistic - and still makes me watch it . Oh and I have Ba in Peace Studies and this was one of my source materials.
Being as objective and agreeable the most REALISTIC scenario of a full scale nuclear holocaust I would say 'Threads' gives more of an scenic result!!!!
Stupid Yank question here... What is a PSU? A cop? (Oh, sorry... A 'Bobby'?) Also... As far as the on-going debate over which is 'better'; Threads OR The Day After! For content I Think they are both equal! But, for their ability to convey the true sense of hoplessness that would most certainly follow total-war, I have to give it to Threads!
This gave me nightmares for weeks, I am terrified of nuclear war, there is no escape from it, think fallout 3, I mean holy shit, imagine seeing a mushroom cloud on the horizon, It scares the fuck out of me!
This film was completely and utterly fucking terrifying when it was first shown. The setting, the "normalness" of the families shown, the bird loft, the pub scene ....all being played out against a constant chirping of tv and radio broadcasts, relentlessly commenting on a terrible and inevitable doom. Powerful, provocative film-making ....now..where's my old CND badge ...!
limited nuclear exchange is impossible with A). Soviet SSBN's off of the US coast B). Missle Silos in the Eastern USSR which, even if attacked, are geographically isolated enough to launch ICBM's before destruction.
It depends on how large teh bomb was, how far away it was, rather it was an air biurst or ground burst, the shielding of the shelter.... a lot of variables but, chances are that they'd still buy it pretty quick on.
finally some action in this bloody dull movie. Red Dawn was released in the same year and had 134 acts of violence per hour, which yes I do count as action and entertainment. No wonder the yanks think Brits are dull if our movies are anything to go by.
If you search the words nuclear war on google video you will find a 90 minute doc on able archer, we were very close to war on nov 8th 1983 and did not know it.
Must have known them pretty good. His actions during the eight years he was in office brought the Soviets to the talks tables and in the end, led to the downfall of the USSR. Looks to me like he knew just what to do and how to do it too.
04:21 - Only the Soviets would start a nuke fight while someone is in the loo!
The Leftists thought that these kinds of movies would scare folks off of the Reagan Deterent but, in fact, it had the opposite effect. They knew that strength would prevent this. Infact, many of us that were around back then are still anti-communist/anti-leftists because of it. We saw first hand just how wrong that philosophy really was and know that peace through strength works. Sorry Left! It's the truth.
Not so much. All military powers conduct war games. This one was conducted by NATO and was no different that what the Warsaw Pact nations had done before and afterwards. To blame Reagan for Moscows nervousnous is blame misplaced.
War games were done frequently...yes. Rarely in the the political climate surrounding able archer. Us invaded grenada...the soviets just shot down a korean Airliner. Looked to the soviets Nato was gearing up for war. Reagan failing to piece together that was his failing. Granted, hindsight always has 20 20 vision.
True, it probably did look a lot like something big was in the offing what with the increace in coded communications beteween the U.K. and the U.S. but, that wasn't done exclusively to push the Soviets over the edge. All that stuff was just an unfortunate compounding of coincidences. It could have gone really, really bad but, that wasn't part of the plan.
Apparently Reagan was rattled when he found out how close we came to Armageddon. He was also surprised the soviets thought the U.S would actually strike first. He was under the impression that it would always be the Soviets who struck first. Just goes to show one can never be sure of your opponents motives.
That's true. You never know what the other guy is thinking. I saw on the Military Channel a while back that the Soviets thought that we were trying to resurect the Ottoman Empire so that we'd ahve them surrounded on the southern border. They were terrified that we were going to do that too! LOL! Supposedly, that was the reason they decided to assist the Arabs in their wars with Israel. Trying to score brownie points I guess! LOL! Still though, all told, it was a pretty scary time to be around.
I remember the whole grenada and korean airline thing. I was 14 or 15 and it was always on the news. The rhetoric between both sides was creepy. The soviets were paranoid enough to think a stray airliner was spying. People hype the early 60s as the closest we came to war. In fact it was the early 80s
I wa a little younger than that but, I still remember it pretty well. It was on so much and for so long and all. KAL 007 was even mentioned in a kids magazine my class had to get. In all honesty, we could have done it to test theyir air defences but, more likely that they were just paranoid and trigger happy.I sw a show on the History Channel once about all the times that we almost went nuclear. There were a lot but, yeah, most were in the 70's & 80's. Once even because of a bear at base fences!
In some respects, its a bit more "nuclear" dangerous today albiet limited. With Iran and North Korea comming on board and all. Isreal with its nukes isn't all that comforting as well. People also put to much faith in what was Bushe's missle defense deal which leads to a false sense of security. Placing them near russias frontier is provocative as well. Another misreading of Russia may not work out well.
I can see that. We probably are more at risk of a nuke fight somewhere in teh world now than we were then but, it is less likely to be a planet wide killer like a US/USSR war would have been. The Russians sell SunBurn anti-ship missles to Iran and the like so, I don't have a problem with our anti-ballistic missles being sold to our allies. It could be seen as provacative to the Russians though... unil it saves one of their cities from an rogue arab state attack! LOL!
At the time, the Left was claiming that the Reagans military build-up wasn't a deterent and was instead going to lead to an all out war. In the end, like usual, they were wrong and Ronnie was dead on right. The Soviets went out of business and Bush Sr. had the stongest military in history at his disposal during Gulf War One.
@PaulUmbarger If the USSR was close to going out of business as you put it, then why spend billions comfronting them? An aid package would have been a better idea. The cold was was good for business and after 1989-90 the USA could pursue neo-imperialism by trying to steal all the oil in the world. Not really been progress as such.
No, because they would have used that money for economic purposes while diverting everything they could toward their military.
Reagan was right to force the Soviet Union into an arms race it could not win, in particularly with the Pershing-2 missiles and bluff of SDI - Strategic Defense iniative, a.k.a., "Star Wars".
The big kicker for Gorbachev was when he toured America and saw its grocery stores with every imaginable consumer item. Yet the USA produced higher tech weapons.
@ChristophDollis The Reagan arms race and the confrontational language he used was a highly dangerous tactic. It worked mainly because the Russians did not want war at all and would never have started a war. They would have out-reached their supply lines within 2-3 weeks and after that a nuclear war would have been inevitable. After WW2 they knew all about total war. The arms race was good for business, nothing more than that.
And eventually the USA DID give aid to Russia -- once Russia had turned away from the path of expansion and committed to reduce its arsenal alongside NATO. The Americans provided aid to help decommission warheads safely as well as economic aid for the Russian people.
@ChristophDollis The USA has had a policy of imperialism and interference all around the world since 1945. It has supported atrocious regimes. The USSR reduced its nuclear arsenal in agreement with NATO twice in the 1970s in the SALT agreements, it did not require a change of philosophy to do this, because it was always interested in peace after losing 20 mil in WW2. The warheads still exist by & large. The USA is not some benevolent superior force in the world.
If you think America was imperialistic in the contrast to the benevolent peace-loving Soviet Union (with its 10s of millions killed under communism) ... "since 1945" ...
...
... well then, you must REALLY have hated American policy circa 1941-1945 ... when it, along with my country, Canada, was liberating your country's ass: Sadly, that did nothing to raise the common sense of Dutch leftist fools -- or is it 'tools'? -- like you.
@ChristophDollis I am British & Canada during WW2 was still part of the British Empire. I doubt you would ever try that 'liberating your ass' line with a Dutch person to their face. I was talking about the USSR & it's wish not have a WW3, borne out by the fact that they never instigated a world war & had no wish to. True it was a very repressive one party system, with ideological designs on the world but the USA has supported many many despots over the years so they can't really wag a finger.
No, Russia didn't want to start a world war. They were paranoid about their security.
The fact remains, they swallowed up hundreds of millions of people in surrounding nations and used them as buffer states for their own security, while indoctrinating and imprisoning their people.
America? Not so much.
And no, I probably wouldn't argue with the average Dutch person about cold war history in person so much as their awful infanticide/euthanasia policies.
@ChristophDollis Looks like we are pretty much agreed. I don't think there is a euthanasia 'policy' in NL as it isn't legal, physician-assisted suicide is not prosecuted due to an old loophole. If you mean legal abortion, it's legal in most of Europe, I don't agree with it myself but it is better than having even one back-street abortionist. It only became legal in Holland in 1984, so they weren't all that 'progessive', was legal in the UK in 1967. The stigma of unwanted children is universal.
Well that's the whole point of the bleeding bombs, isnt it? to scare the living souls out of the civilians make them suffer and keep them from supporting the war effort.
at around 4:20
"Bloody hell..."
Talk about getting caught with your pants down...
WestVirginiaRebel 1 week ago
So, there's nothing to worry about, right?
philosofaux 6 months ago in playlist Threads (1984 BBC Documentary/Film)
.....look just get down hear ....and dont forget the rizla and black ops ...oh yeah and get us some monster munch i think its gonna be a long one
killme96 6 months ago in playlist Threads (1984 BBC Documentary/Film)
where's superman?
lewenheart 9 months ago
@lewenheart Epic post dude! Land of Confusion!
Alfred645 8 months ago
ET NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! (RIP) @ 7:10
JuggalocodeChile1988 10 months ago
@JuggalocodeChile1988 It actually is ET aswell haha
WhovianWaterlooRoad 5 months ago
By all means....get that last bite of granola in! :D China & Russia have NEVER stopped the NUCLEAR ARMS RACE.
USAsoldier1955 10 months ago
hope everyone was stocked up with ciggies
littleniyah 11 months ago
wtf this is part 1 and 2.
SheptonyutezTV 1 year ago
God, I'm glad the world's governments were never stupid enough to actually launch a nuke
dominsu 1 year ago
Im a little surprised at how disturbing this movie actually is. For such a low budget production it hits hard.
albettatrue 1 year ago
@albettatrue That's because it would have been the worst disaster in history - and for those of us who live in Sheffield, it hits harder. I'm in student halls just a stone's throw away from The Moor and that street is shown with a mushroom cloud going above Ecclesfield or Brightside. The eerie thing is such a horror occurring in an area of such familiarity.
bwhugul 10 months ago
I remember when this first aired in the UK. It's interesting how it compared to the US drama 'The Day After', made around the same time, which made world war 3 look unpleasant but survivable. This one is much more gritty and realistic. I'm a little concerned however with the OP's 'new world order' obsession. All this conspiracy theory bullshit is getting old.
cameraguy38 1 year ago
@cameraguy38 - agreed! The day after was BS...and most of us here in the states knew it. My mom made me watch this on public broadcasting when it came out here. I was 12, and it scared the shit out of me.
supernaut342 11 months ago
@cameraguy38 - Agreed, The Day After was BS, and most here in the states knew it. My mom made me watch Threads when it came out on public broadcasting here in the states. I was 12, it scared the shit out of me, and left an indelible impression.
supernaut342 11 months ago
Shitty special effects
moleman9000 1 year ago
@moleman9000 cmon its made in 1984 on a preetey low budget, what did you expect?
ugaboj 1 year ago
Stupid people go outside while serious threat 0,0
PlRATEBAY 1 year ago
this is not drama this is fact and the same has been happened to Japan in WWII when nazi air force of america nuked the japan causing million of kids in school, boys in play grounds and women in homes died in such attack
pk13285 1 year ago
@pk13285
Feel better now?
groovecow 1 year ago
@groovecow
WTF?????????
pk13285 1 year ago
@pk13285
Feel better after your rant? As in, do you know your history? Don't be such a tool, think to yourself what would have happened if America had actually invaded Japan... how many people would have died. 66, 000 people died at Hiroshima. All for a war that America did not start. Thank god they were in it though.
groovecow 1 year ago
@groovecow Yes. WW2 would have dragged on until 1946, the Soviet Union would have invaded Japan as well and then stayed for good, hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, many of them children, would have died of starvation from the Allied blockade, thousands more Allied POWs would have died, the whole of Japan would have been in ruins, there would have been tens o thousands more Allied troop losses and Britain would have ended up even more financially bankrupt than she already was in 1945
hill9868 1 year ago
The excuse that using the atomic bomb was justified because ended the war is a poor excuse for the mass murder of civilians. What if Germany had been first to build and use the bomb ? Their targets would almost certainly have been London and Moscow, effectively ending the war and forcing an allied surrender. Germany would be using the same justification that America uses today, that it was okay to use the bomb because it ended the war.
cameraguy38 1 year ago
@cameraguy38 No, it was justified, because Japan was in a very strong state of defence and intended to fight every step of the way, the US was outnumbered in Japan and every Japanese was part of the fortress; they held 100's of 1000s hostages US, Brit, Aus, Canada, to be killed on invasion, plus, God knows, their atrocities were supported by the population. Eg, 2 Jap soldiers hold friendly contest to behead 100 Chinese, reported Jap papers. Bomb saved lives.
littleniyah 11 months ago
Why bother? We are gonna all burn in hell anyway.
155qwerty155 1 year ago
David Cameron's Defense policy, a seat for himself, his family and other Conservative and Lib Dem big wigs and their families on a requisitioned British Airways Boeing 777 departing London Heathrow destination Bermuda, before the first Iranian ten kiloton yield range nuke detonates over London. Put the Nimrod MRA4 in to service, keep the Harrier GR9 in service, maintain RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss as operational military airbases and kick Mr Cameron out of 10 Downing Street.
adrianwainer 1 year ago 34
@adrianwainer XD
So, your response to Iran launching a nuclear weapon at the UK, would be to maintain expensive and outdated equipment that would be completely crippled in the event of a nuclear attack as there would be numerous missile launches and EMP's? As Iran wouldn't launch 1 missile at us, it would launch lots, and EMP us.
Do you read The Sun by any chance?
killgill0 1 year ago
@adrianwainer Iran nuke London?.... No, why would they want to bomb a moslem city.
5thcenturyad 4 months ago in playlist Threads (1984 BBC Documentary/Film)
i think an atomic bomb would hav worse effects than that :S and OMG they nuked woolworths D: 7:23
Dinobot2468 1 year ago
Where exactly would the siren noises come from? I'm just imagining random speakers on the street...
Angusismyhero 1 year ago
@Angusismyhero They were on buildings etc mainly left over over from ww2 i used to hear them howling over from the high rise flats when i was a kid. They tested them every so often
robuk1981 1 year ago
@robuk1981 Thanks. So I'm guessing some still exist, in big cities maybe?
Angusismyhero 1 year ago
@Angusismyhero
There pretty much all gone but if you look on here people have manged to rescue them from scrap yards and get them working. And places like essex use them for flood warnings
robuk1981 1 year ago
@kyanzes: Unfortunately, we can't forget that there is also a majorly negative side to the deterrence...........the possibility of the near-total destruction of worldwide civilization.
JDart1776 1 year ago
"Jesus Christ they've done it!!" - Bob
quentinnor 1 year ago
Should have painted the windows white to deflect the blast as it says in Protect and Survive (LOL)
robuk1981 1 year ago
@robuk1981 'Bomb'? :P
Angusismyhero 1 year ago
lol I'm sorry...the scene where they jump under the car...it seems so silly, but I honestly don't know what else they could do...the crappy thing would be the whole time you'd have to know that's going to be about as effective as holding up some plywood in defense...
ZarathustrasCrown 1 year ago
@kyanzes Luckily...the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the whole cuban missile crisis was touch and go at points. Much too close for comfort. I don't know, nuclear weapons scare me actually a lot less than biological ones. At least with a nuclear weapon you know what's happening, you're either flat out ripped apart on an atomic level right away or you know what the hell's going on. In a biological thing everyone gets horrifically sick...your best friend could be your "killer" in a sense.
ZarathustrasCrown 1 year ago
nukes ruin civilisation and they are pointless why make such weapons of mass destruction :( we were fine with wars with swords now its with science and radiation oh well america can save us cant they?:)
johnam55 1 year ago
nukes ruin civilisation and they are pointless why make such weapons of mass destruction :( we were fine with wars with swords now its with science and radiation
johnam55 1 year ago
Rather sobering isn't it. Just look at the effects we still have from Chernobyl and consider how much worse a single nuclear detonation would be.
therealMrMackem 1 year ago
Just noticed what that was at 7:11, bloody hell!
Kevster1993 1 year ago
@Kevster1993 It's an E.T. doll
jjobie 1 year ago
@jjobie oh, and on closer inspection, it is, I thought it was a child!
Kevster1993 1 year ago
that filthy beggar didn't even wipe his bum..i bet his bum was a filthy sore mess after a while in his shelter...he should have wiped and wiped again...
noclass33 1 year ago
Boy looking through these posts, can't you tell those who remember this era and those who weren't even a twinkle in daddies eye?!!
planejunky 1 year ago 11
4:21 "bloody 'ell" yes, that's a nuclear weapon detonating
fritzthedog007 1 year ago
4:32 ajhaahhahahahahahh
jordanmeltzer1 1 year ago
J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb and former director of the Las Alamos National Laboratory, quoted the Bhagavad Gita after the 1945 Trinity nuclear test: “If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one,” “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
ddd1953 1 year ago
The ONLY thing that didn't work for me in this movie was the use of so much stock footage (granted, they did the same thing with "The Day After"). It really sticks out compared to the rest of the effects, which are actually pretty good quality considering the budget, production values, etc.
jjobie 1 year ago
@jjobie Effects effects effects . . . I am so tired of people judging practically any movie on the budget and effects. Crashing bores.
Mikeymcguy 1 year ago
@Mikeymcguy Guess you didn't read my comment carefully enough. I said the effects were pretty good in this movie - it was the use of stock footage that I found distracting.
jjobie 1 year ago
@happysack1 i found circa 4:30 a lot more amusing, the woman
afro10k 1 year ago
4.23 ... Bloody Hell! Not visting that curry house again .....
petesstuff 1 year ago
A civilisation basing its survival on living on the edge of the abyss is a sign of reverse evolution. From 1956 to 1995 there have been 20 incidents which could have started WW3. MAD worked by chance and for a finite period. Give the majority of countries in the workd nukes and it would not work. You contradict yourself as an exponent of MAD by saying that Israel, a state founded on the back of terrorism should be the only country in the Mid East with nukes. Why is it better to arm Zionists?
2replybiz 1 year ago
I'm so glad we can all enjoy a nice cup of tea in crisis, still upper lip and all that.... l o l
2replybiz 1 year ago
@22reTOYOTA The Korean war was a definite step towards WW3, there was talk of using nukes in Vietnam too. The super-powers constantly fought their battles via the 3rd world during the cold war which was also mighty good for business. You also ignore the number of times we came to accidental nuclear war. The USA also funds and gave Israel of all countries nukes. If deterence really works then we shouldn't worry about anybody developing nukes. The solution would be to give them to everybody.
2replybiz 1 year ago
@22reTOYOTA You got a D because you missed the point of the film completely, a 'strong military' resulted in the end of civilisation.
2replybiz 1 year ago
03:57...nopower to equips. but the ligths are on.
controledamissao 1 year ago
@AlchemicGnosis: Match fixtures were called off due to an irradiated pitch.
Pheonixfromtheshale 1 year ago
EMP!!! LOL
stevengood12 1 year ago
This is scary though I am wary of fear mongering. Who is next?
ministig 1 year ago
Is that E.T. burning at 7:11????
stuh1975 1 year ago
@AlchemicGnosis:
Yep. May 26th, 1983, would always be remembered as 'Doomsday' in the U.K...............LOL{Hint: I'm only joking, folks.}.
MiracleMile90 1 year ago
4:33 you piss yourself? hmm
Guynumber7 2 years ago
if you look at the undeveloped parts of the UK you would be reasonable in thinking this had happened already;
badmofker 2 years ago
best chance you would haveto survive nueks would be to go to a rural area, or go to a country that wouldnt get nuked like canada or south amercia or africa.
Guynumber7 2 years ago
love this film!.. i think what setsit apart from the likes of the day after is the way it sails so close to what we know as real life!, a pint in the local, a crash on the M6, tomorrows world on tv .... this could happen!, and there will be no heros!...
petesstuff 2 years ago
i agree unless you could manage away to have them underground but thats highly unlikely but this film truly did its homework i like the day after but this film is much more indepth
pizzaman147 2 years ago
The EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) will literally blow out anything electronic, or tied into the power grids. What this means is: A, you can turn the key and pump the pedal till the cows come home! -- to no avail; and B, your computer, TV, stereo, etc., will be rendered inoperable -- even if the power ever were to come back on (HA! -- fat chance!).
rayandreina 2 years ago
Agreed. Unfortunately, you won't have much luck finding a battery operated radio that utilizes vacuum tubes instead of transistors. You're really better off getting vaporized in the initial blast. This would spare you the unimaginable horror and unfathomable suffering that would constitute a post large scale global nuclear exchange. There are no winners in nuclear war (except maybe cockroaches, as they would inherit the earth if humans were rendered extinct in a nuclear holocaust). NO NUKES!
MichoRizzo44 2 years ago 2
How many of us wouldn't shit our pants when we heard that Attack Warning: Red buzzer go off? Knowing that in maybe 5-10 minutes around 75-80% of your entire country's people would be dead or dying.
kurisutokaochan 2 years ago
@kurisutokaochan: Or at least a sub launch, yeah. As for actual ICBMs it would depend on where the missile was launched from..............
MiracleMile90 1 year ago
you know my dads brother built a fall out shelter during the 60's and now its used by his grandson as a apt lol
pizzaman147 2 years ago
This was the only movie that got the cause of the nuclear war correct.
The two biggest bullies on the block wabnting control over the global oil reserves and bringing everyone in it with them.
mongoose704 2 years ago 3
i agree 100% on this movie it was more accurate on how society breaks down
pizzaman147 2 years ago
You got it right. That's why the movie was called Threads. In the begnning it talks about how our society is intricately woven by thin threads which bind us together and make us interdependent, yet strong and fufilled as a society. YET those threads also make society vulnerable. Tug on one strand, it all comes tumbling down??
mongoose704 2 years ago
This is the moment when Muslims are like "whoah wait a minute! wasn't us this time!!"XDXDXD
SvalbardJanMayen1976 2 years ago
I wouldn't want to be caught in a nuclear war! What if the Rapture occured when the bombs were set off? The believers would escape the holocaust; those left behind would be burned up!
pookerville 2 years ago
And the Tooth Fairy would leave a quarter under your pillow for when you woke up!
SvalbardJanMayen1976 2 years ago
@pookerville
lol - the rapture!
What a load of rubbish!
jazzx251 1 year ago
Threads
Hauntedman1 2 years ago
I want to die during the bombing !! Don't want to suffer until my horrible death because of high radiation level !!
1970vlad 2 years ago 10
@1970vlad It's obvious you don't have a penis. Don't worry if you get nuked and survive, you might grow one.
ValiantVendetta 1 year ago
ty lemi i saw tthe wikipedia info thanks again
pizzaman147 2 years ago
threads
is the name
pizzaman147 2 years ago
Even in a crisis, there's still time for a cup of tea!
markoj34 2 years ago 3
Tea is important. :)
jimmywrangles 2 years ago
Here's the thing about a full nuclear holocaust: chances are at least 90% that you are going to survive it! -- only a small handful are going to be lucky enough to die right there and then, on the spot!
rayandreina 2 years ago
But here's another thing: even though you will, in all probability, be a survivor -- eventually -- someday, somehow -- you are going to die. Make no mistake about that; YOU WILL DIE. Indeed, we're ALL going to die (at some point or other), for such is the very nature of this world. The question is not whether or not you might possibly die someday -- but how long you are going to live; and, what life is going to be like during that time.
rayandreina 2 years ago
i just wonder what happened to jimmy's sister didnt say much about it
pizzaman147 2 years ago
It was implied that she simply died in the blast.
DTanza 2 years ago
@pizzaman147 According to Wikipedia, she was out shopping when the attack happened, and you see a brief glimpse of her later when there's a food riot post-holocaust.
lemignonha 2 years ago
I think I saw her (Alison Kemp) in the detention camp, four weeks after the attack (formerly the Dore and Totley Tennis Club). Jimmy is missing altogether, presumed dead.
rayandreina 2 years ago
oh my god! ET got nuked at 7:11!!
Rhiannon0423 2 years ago 15
@Rhiannon0423 ET called home
ITILII 2 years ago
omg ur right
jordanmeltzer1 1 year ago
@Rhiannon0423 I chuckled pretty hard at that one!!!
motocarnage615 1 year ago
How fitting to see Woolworths being destroyed, poor old Woolies.
spandaumole 2 years ago 4
"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one. Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
-Robert Oppenheimer, The father of the atomic bomb
BlizBob 2 years ago 7
@BlizBob Actually he was quoting the Bhagavad Gita, holy book of the Hindus and Hare Krishnas, there is a section which describes what god is like.
2replybiz 1 year ago
What a horrific way to die!!! Incidentally was that Michael @7:11 being incinerated to a crisp? YIKES!!!!
farwayout 2 years ago
No...it was not Michael. It was an ET doll. Remember this is 84 and ET came out in 82.
ThoughtTraveler 2 years ago
4:20 :D
tomonetruth 2 years ago 3
We probably have no idea on the effect of massive urban firestorms following a nuke on a major center. Suburbs contain extensive amounts of flammable materials and so, most houses outside the central "bast range" would be left to burn totally, with fires sucking oxygen and extreme air temperatures over these areas. People would suffocate and burn. The closest we have to this effect are the Dresden and Tokyo firebombings in WW2.
I think this documentary overestimates the survival rate.
hdufort 2 years ago 3
line came from the war game documentary released from bbc once again in 1965
patmix 2 years ago
So 210 megatons hitting the UK, with single warhead yields in the 150-250 kt range (which would make sense with 1980s-era ICBMs and shorter range missiles), means roughly 1000 nukes on the UK.
Since most industrial targets are around major urban centers, and most energy sites and military targets outside major cities, you can probably consider that the top 100 urban centers were hit in the UK, most of them multiple times.
hdufort 2 years ago
I've posted here before, but I cannot get over how realistic the attack scene is portrayed. Utterly frightening and depressing. I can remember this movie when it was shown here in the States (mid 80's on PBS?). I could not sleep for a night or two.
rbkersey 2 years ago 6
Yes. When I saw it in 86 on USA TV it was rather scary.
ThoughtTraveler 2 years ago
U.S.A happy thanksgiving
MrMegafan09 2 years ago
Threads was the most realistic study I ever saw - coupled with James Thomsons book it was so realistic - and still makes me watch it . Oh and I have Ba in Peace Studies and this was one of my source materials.
Steviearmitage007 2 years ago 5
Funny how they still have a woman handing out cups of Tea in their Bunker. Got to have the Tea lady.....lol.
starquant 2 years ago 4
They're British aren't they?
mahound9 2 years ago
lol. Don't have anything else or more worth while for a woman to do. Did you see how useless the males were. What a joke.
starquant 2 years ago
Being as objective and agreeable the most REALISTIC scenario of a full scale nuclear holocaust I would say 'Threads' gives more of an scenic result!!!!
farwayout 2 years ago
Stupid Yank question here... What is a PSU? A cop? (Oh, sorry... A 'Bobby'?) Also... As far as the on-going debate over which is 'better'; Threads OR The Day After! For content I Think they are both equal! But, for their ability to convey the true sense of hoplessness that would most certainly follow total-war, I have to give it to Threads!
dukes0916 2 years ago
PSU = Power Supply Unit
RPFS2008 2 years ago
damn right
arnolddisco 2 years ago
@dukes0916 Im from the UK and I remember this when it was first aired.
PSU means police support unit.
5000433 2 years ago 2
they blew up sheffield whatever will we do now? lol
thimpthons 2 years ago
disturbed while shitting....i would hate that.
TheAufeinneues 2 years ago
2:02 Lloyd's Bank doesn't exist in its 1980's form, either.
Nicecatholicgirl 2 years ago
This gave me nightmares for weeks, I am terrified of nuclear war, there is no escape from it, think fallout 3, I mean holy shit, imagine seeing a mushroom cloud on the horizon, It scares the fuck out of me!
SD171 2 years ago 2
This film was completely and utterly fucking terrifying when it was first shown. The setting, the "normalness" of the families shown, the bird loft, the pub scene ....all being played out against a constant chirping of tv and radio broadcasts, relentlessly commenting on a terrible and inevitable doom. Powerful, provocative film-making ....now..where's my old CND badge ...!
weecoby3 2 years ago 6
Aaaaaaaggghhh!!! Isn't there some Firefox plug-in to block all the fuckwitted American comments on YouTube?
beastatlay 2 years ago
Ha Ha I lolled so much at your comment, and sadly I don't think there is a plugin for that, shame, :P
SD171 2 years ago
Finally we get to some explosions.
OniLunchbox 2 years ago
ORSOME COD!"
AVRILSBEAN 2 years ago
limited nuclear exchange is impossible with A). Soviet SSBN's off of the US coast B). Missle Silos in the Eastern USSR which, even if attacked, are geographically isolated enough to launch ICBM's before destruction.
Bassmaster86 2 years ago
Not to be picky but would these people die right away?
Doppelganger399 2 years ago
It depends on how large teh bomb was, how far away it was, rather it was an air biurst or ground burst, the shielding of the shelter.... a lot of variables but, chances are that they'd still buy it pretty quick on.
PaulUmbarger 2 years ago
finally some action in this bloody dull movie. Red Dawn was released in the same year and had 134 acts of violence per hour, which yes I do count as action and entertainment. No wonder the yanks think Brits are dull if our movies are anything to go by.
K1ll3R4LYF3 2 years ago
cool
USAsoldier1955 2 years ago
Able Archer...look it up. This almost happened.
MrSistermaryelephant 2 years ago
If you search the words nuclear war on google video you will find a 90 minute doc on able archer, we were very close to war on nov 8th 1983 and did not know it.
Doppelganger399 2 years ago
Yeah, seen it. Reagan failed in one respect for sure. Know you're enemy like you know your self. Must have been a humbling experience for him.
MrSistermaryelephant 2 years ago
Must have known them pretty good. His actions during the eight years he was in office brought the Soviets to the talks tables and in the end, led to the downfall of the USSR. Looks to me like he knew just what to do and how to do it too.
PaulUmbarger 2 years ago
04:21 - Only the Soviets would start a nuke fight while someone is in the loo!
The Leftists thought that these kinds of movies would scare folks off of the Reagan Deterent but, in fact, it had the opposite effect. They knew that strength would prevent this. Infact, many of us that were around back then are still anti-communist/anti-leftists because of it. We saw first hand just how wrong that philosophy really was and know that peace through strength works. Sorry Left! It's the truth.
PaulUmbarger 2 years ago
Reagan almost made this happen. Look up able archer83
MrSistermaryelephant 2 years ago 4
Not so much. All military powers conduct war games. This one was conducted by NATO and was no different that what the Warsaw Pact nations had done before and afterwards. To blame Reagan for Moscows nervousnous is blame misplaced.
PaulUmbarger 2 years ago 2
War games were done frequently...yes. Rarely in the the political climate surrounding able archer. Us invaded grenada...the soviets just shot down a korean Airliner. Looked to the soviets Nato was gearing up for war. Reagan failing to piece together that was his failing. Granted, hindsight always has 20 20 vision.
MrSistermaryelephant 2 years ago
True, it probably did look a lot like something big was in the offing what with the increace in coded communications beteween the U.K. and the U.S. but, that wasn't done exclusively to push the Soviets over the edge. All that stuff was just an unfortunate compounding of coincidences. It could have gone really, really bad but, that wasn't part of the plan.
PaulUmbarger 2 years ago
Apparently Reagan was rattled when he found out how close we came to Armageddon. He was also surprised the soviets thought the U.S would actually strike first. He was under the impression that it would always be the Soviets who struck first. Just goes to show one can never be sure of your opponents motives.
MrSistermaryelephant 2 years ago 5
That's true. You never know what the other guy is thinking. I saw on the Military Channel a while back that the Soviets thought that we were trying to resurect the Ottoman Empire so that we'd ahve them surrounded on the southern border. They were terrified that we were going to do that too! LOL! Supposedly, that was the reason they decided to assist the Arabs in their wars with Israel. Trying to score brownie points I guess! LOL! Still though, all told, it was a pretty scary time to be around.
PaulUmbarger 2 years ago
I remember the whole grenada and korean airline thing. I was 14 or 15 and it was always on the news. The rhetoric between both sides was creepy. The soviets were paranoid enough to think a stray airliner was spying. People hype the early 60s as the closest we came to war. In fact it was the early 80s
MrSistermaryelephant 2 years ago
I wa a little younger than that but, I still remember it pretty well. It was on so much and for so long and all. KAL 007 was even mentioned in a kids magazine my class had to get. In all honesty, we could have done it to test theyir air defences but, more likely that they were just paranoid and trigger happy.I sw a show on the History Channel once about all the times that we almost went nuclear. There were a lot but, yeah, most were in the 70's & 80's. Once even because of a bear at base fences!
PaulUmbarger 2 years ago
In some respects, its a bit more "nuclear" dangerous today albiet limited. With Iran and North Korea comming on board and all. Isreal with its nukes isn't all that comforting as well. People also put to much faith in what was Bushe's missle defense deal which leads to a false sense of security. Placing them near russias frontier is provocative as well. Another misreading of Russia may not work out well.
MrSistermaryelephant 2 years ago
I can see that. We probably are more at risk of a nuke fight somewhere in teh world now than we were then but, it is less likely to be a planet wide killer like a US/USSR war would have been. The Russians sell SunBurn anti-ship missles to Iran and the like so, I don't have a problem with our anti-ballistic missles being sold to our allies. It could be seen as provacative to the Russians though... unil it saves one of their cities from an rogue arab state attack! LOL!
PaulUmbarger 2 years ago
it was far worse then with soviet paranoia
rocksoliddude1 2 years ago
At the time, the Left was claiming that the Reagans military build-up wasn't a deterent and was instead going to lead to an all out war. In the end, like usual, they were wrong and Ronnie was dead on right. The Soviets went out of business and Bush Sr. had the stongest military in history at his disposal during Gulf War One.
PaulUmbarger 2 years ago
@PaulUmbarger If the USSR was close to going out of business as you put it, then why spend billions comfronting them? An aid package would have been a better idea. The cold was was good for business and after 1989-90 the USA could pursue neo-imperialism by trying to steal all the oil in the world. Not really been progress as such.
2replybiz 1 year ago
@2replybiz
No, because they would have used that money for economic purposes while diverting everything they could toward their military.
Reagan was right to force the Soviet Union into an arms race it could not win, in particularly with the Pershing-2 missiles and bluff of SDI - Strategic Defense iniative, a.k.a., "Star Wars".
The big kicker for Gorbachev was when he toured America and saw its grocery stores with every imaginable consumer item. Yet the USA produced higher tech weapons.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
@ChristophDollis The Reagan arms race and the confrontational language he used was a highly dangerous tactic. It worked mainly because the Russians did not want war at all and would never have started a war. They would have out-reached their supply lines within 2-3 weeks and after that a nuclear war would have been inevitable. After WW2 they knew all about total war. The arms race was good for business, nothing more than that.
2replybiz 1 year ago
@2replybiz
And eventually the USA DID give aid to Russia -- once Russia had turned away from the path of expansion and committed to reduce its arsenal alongside NATO. The Americans provided aid to help decommission warheads safely as well as economic aid for the Russian people.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
@ChristophDollis The USA has had a policy of imperialism and interference all around the world since 1945. It has supported atrocious regimes. The USSR reduced its nuclear arsenal in agreement with NATO twice in the 1970s in the SALT agreements, it did not require a change of philosophy to do this, because it was always interested in peace after losing 20 mil in WW2. The warheads still exist by & large. The USA is not some benevolent superior force in the world.
2replybiz 1 year ago
@2replybiz
If you think America was imperialistic in the contrast to the benevolent peace-loving Soviet Union (with its 10s of millions killed under communism) ... "since 1945" ...
...
... well then, you must REALLY have hated American policy circa 1941-1945 ... when it, along with my country, Canada, was liberating your country's ass: Sadly, that did nothing to raise the common sense of Dutch leftist fools -- or is it 'tools'? -- like you.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
@ChristophDollis I am British & Canada during WW2 was still part of the British Empire. I doubt you would ever try that 'liberating your ass' line with a Dutch person to their face. I was talking about the USSR & it's wish not have a WW3, borne out by the fact that they never instigated a world war & had no wish to. True it was a very repressive one party system, with ideological designs on the world but the USA has supported many many despots over the years so they can't really wag a finger.
2replybiz 1 year ago
@2replybiz
"Neither did America"
No, Russia didn't want to start a world war. They were paranoid about their security.
The fact remains, they swallowed up hundreds of millions of people in surrounding nations and used them as buffer states for their own security, while indoctrinating and imprisoning their people.
America? Not so much.
And no, I probably wouldn't argue with the average Dutch person about cold war history in person so much as their awful infanticide/euthanasia policies.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
@ChristophDollis Looks like we are pretty much agreed. I don't think there is a euthanasia 'policy' in NL as it isn't legal, physician-assisted suicide is not prosecuted due to an old loophole. If you mean legal abortion, it's legal in most of Europe, I don't agree with it myself but it is better than having even one back-street abortionist. It only became legal in Holland in 1984, so they weren't all that 'progessive', was legal in the UK in 1967. The stigma of unwanted children is universal.
2replybiz 1 year ago
Kinda stupid how nuclear war targets are cities.They should punish the government, not the people.Throw the leaders into a boxing ring :D
doomer66 2 years ago 4
Well that's the whole point of the bleeding bombs, isnt it? to scare the living souls out of the civilians make them suffer and keep them from supporting the war effort.
HuasoPodrido 2 years ago 2
at 3:32, is that lightning?
mierium 2 years ago
everyones skin would be burning
DidntKnowWhatToPut1 2 years ago
Pause at 7:11 to see E.T. on fire...for.....some reason.
chulk607 2 years ago
5:03 "Jesus Christ, they've done it"
Where is your god now?
MrSistermaryelephant 2 years ago 4
I think this film is also a bitter criticism of British