It seemed a fateful coincidence that the very month I began a PhD in nuclear energy, a new stage adaptation of Dr Strangelove premiered in London. Despite having worked for three years in the nuclear industry, I had yet to see Stanley Kubrick’s iconic original 1964 film that is, according to colleagues, a ‘favourite film of nuclear scientists’ and also, ‘very funny’. This seemed the perfect excuse to combine my academic and theatre-writing interests by watching both film and play, to see the thoughts that might arise given my nuclear background. Just to be clear, my interest is in civil nuclear energy and Strangelove is about the (distinctly un-civil) hydrogen bomb, but the history of atomic weapons is a fascinating topic for any technologist – and indeed, anyone interested in human nature.

First, I tackled the film – given its comic reputation, I was intrigued to discover that there is a gripping, ticking-clock thriller at the heart of Dr Strangelove – it’s the 1960’s and the US president has just 30 minutes to prevent an all-out nuclear war with Russia. Although we follow the fascinating strategic responses of major players, the film’s real interest is in using parody and caricature to highlight the inherent absurdity of the situation, such as when a character needs to make a phone call to save the world but has no loose change.

“It is Strangelove’s fascist views that we are really meant to find outrageous”

I have to confess that initially, I was probably more disconcerted than charmed by the over-the-top humour. It was only two months later whilst watching the streamed-to-cinema theatrical version, adapted by Armando Iannucci and starring Steve Coogan, that I felt able to fully enjoy the black comedy - partly because I now knew what to expect. However, crucially, I suspect that it’s also because the longer stage runtime (an additional 45 minutes compared to the film) was smartly exploited to fill in some of the characters’ motives – the bomber plane crew gets more development and Dr Strangelove’s sinister nature unfolds more gradually. Whilst with the film I’d felt occasionally uneasy as to what exactly about the character I was meant to be laughing at – the film Strangelove is introduced with a strange accent and using a wheelchair, and this ‘weirdness’ initially seemed to be the joke in itself – Coogan’s more restrained, but still hilarious, performance makes it clear that it is Strangelove’s fascist views that we are really meant to find outrageous.

Perhaps I simply required more context to understand the craziness than a contemporary Cold War audience, who would have been familiar with the real personalities inspiring these onscreen archetypes, such as the real-life Nazi scientist turned American rocket scientist, Wernher von Braun. Indeed, having seen the play, I probably appreciate the film even more, since lines I’d thought ridiculous (‘On no account will a commie ever drink water,’) now seem like precise satirical strikes against the fanaticism and short-sightedness of Cold War decision-makers.

Speaking of context, the question that is asked whenever a classic is dusted down for modern times is – why now? Does our generation really care about outdated political games in the ’60s? Fortunately, and unfortunately, Dr Strangelove’s most timeless lesson is that human stupidity will never run out, even in the face of the apocalypse. More overtly, I enjoyed the fact that Iannucci manages to smuggle in some new lines that feel bracingly current, referencing Russian misinformation (‘words are bombs! ’), America’s attachment to guns, and even a tiny dig at our reliance on AI. But it’s the story’s fundamental warning about military incompetence and nationalism gone haywire which feels dangerously relevant, at a moment when real-world military attacks are apparently communicated via emoji and diplomacy is discarded for economic brinkmanship.

“The world becomes uninhabitable 72 minutes after the inciting launch”

Even putting aside similarities of political climate, the play happens to tie into a live discussion about the possibility of actual nuclear war today. In ’Nuclear War: A Scenario’ by investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen, based on dozens of interviews with experts, Jacobsen describes a hypothetical – but apparently realistic – scenario where North Korea launches a surprise nuclear missile attack on the US. Within minutes of detection, the US president orders immediate retaliatory action – however, the missiles aimed at North Korea have to cross Russian airspace, and, just as in Strangelove, the Russian president is hard to get hold of. As a result, Russia’s glitchy early-warning system misinterprets the US missiles as an incoming attack, leading the Russian president to respond in kind towards the USA. The world becomes uninhabitable 72 minutes after the inciting launch.

A major turning point in Dr Strangelove is the discovery that Russia has secretly developed a ‘Doomsday machine’. This is a fully automated system which destroys all life on earth if any attack is detected, even if accidental, representing the logical endpoint of Mutual Assured Destruction. Jacobsen’s scenario suggests that 60 years after this warning, we finally did it – we made a Doomsday machine of our own. Together, Jacobsen’s modern detail and Dr Strangelove’s ruthless psychological insight make for a pretty convincing case that we may all be living on borrowed time.

Ianucci’s new production is a timely reminder that Dr Strangelove is not a quirky historical artefact but a fable we should find alarming right now. Nuclear engineer or not, that’s a sobering thought to leave the theatre with.

Want to share your thoughts on this article? Send us a letter to letters@varsity.co.uk or by using this form