Key Highlights
- The Pentagon issued a statement criticizing the film “A House of Dynamite” over its depiction of U.S. missile defenses.
- Kathryn Bigelow’s thriller follows a nuclear attack on the United States after anti-missile defense systems fail.
- Defense Secretary character in the film claims current interceptors have a 50 percent chance of success, contrary to actual testing results.
- The Missile Defense Agency states that real-world tests show an accuracy rate of over 90% for today’s interceptors.
A House of Dynamite: Netflix Film Sparks Pentagon Controversy Over Missile Defense Claims
Entertainment giant Netflix has faced criticism from the United States Department of Defense following the release of its latest thriller, “A House of Dynamite.” The film, directed by acclaimed filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow and streaming on Netflix since October 2025, portrays a scenario where anti-missile defense systems fail, leading to a nuclear attack on the United States.
The Controversial Claims
In one of the film’s key plot points, the character played by actor Jared Harris as the Defense Secretary expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of current missile defenses. He states that they have only a 50% chance of intercepting an incoming missile, despite their significant cost of $50 billion.
Real-World Testing Results Disprove Fictional Claims
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) responded to the film’s inaccuracies by releasing a memorandum dated October 16, 2025. The memo emphasizes that while the movie highlights the risks of missile defense failure and underscores the necessity for an active homeland missile defense system, it also downplays U.S. capabilities.
According to the MDA, real-world testing results tell a different story: today’s interceptors have displayed a 100% accuracy rate in testing for more than a decade. This contradicts the film’s portrayal of an unreliable defense system with only a 50% success rate.
Screenwriter’s Perspective
The screenwriter, Noah Oppenheim, has defended the film’s fictional depiction by stating that it is based on data from controlled tests, which he claims are optimistic under ideal conditions. He also noted that there are fewer than 50 interceptors in the U.S. arsenal, making even a 61% success rate less convincing.
Oppenheim added: “That’s based on data from controlled tests,” he told The Atlantic. “So, you can imagine, those are under the best of circumstances. A lot of the folks we talked to felt that 61 percent was being very generous when it comes to the system that we have.”
Pentagon’s Response and Bigelow’s Defense
In a statement released to Bloomberg News, the Pentagon declared that they were not consulted for the film and emphasized that it does not reflect the views or priorities of their administration. Colonel John Smith, spokesperson for the Missile Defense Agency, said: “The system remains a critical component of our national defense strategy, ensuring the safety and security of the American people and our allies.”
Director Kathryn Bigelow defended her film in an interview with CBS’s Sunday Morning, stating that she felt it was essential to be more independent from government consultation. However, she added: “We had multiple tech advisers who have worked in the Pentagon. They were with me every day we shot.” This suggests a degree of technical accuracy despite the lack of formal consultation.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding “A House of Dynamite” highlights the tension between artistic license and factual accuracy, particularly in films dealing with critical national security issues. While the film’s depiction may serve dramatic purposes, it raises concerns about its potential impact on public perception of missile defense capabilities.
