The Watchmen's Conclusion

Don't worry, I won't spoil the film for anyone.

After the climax, the Watchmen (and the villain(s)) come to a conclusion that I did not quite understand. Or, I understood it, but I disagreed with on such a basic level that I was left wondering why none of them, including the villain(s) took possible actions X,Y or Z that I considered in my mind after the final unfolding of events. Even Rorschach who, because of his unique moral compass, decides to take a different course of action than the others, his choice and thinking is still guided and is derived from the same conclusion that everyone else came to.

I am too verbose. Here is the heart of the matter. The conclusion everyone came to only makes sense if one basic assumption is accepted. The author apparently accepted it so fully that none of his characters ever questioned it, even at the end.

It is that the nuclear capabilities of the US and USSR (and the destructive potential of Doctor Manhattan) are the cause of the Cold War. The implication at the end of the film is that had there been no nukes, nor any Dr. Manhattan, the Cold War would never be, nor would it continue if the nukes and Dr. Manhattan go away.

I find this assumption quite absurd. When the credits were rolling I was expected to believe that if nuclear power were as possible as cold fusion is today, then there would have been no standoff between Nato and the Warsaw Pact. That if only conventional arms existed, the free democracies and the communist world dominated by the Soviets would get along fine.

I can accept that nukes defined the nature of the Cold War and that they created idiosyncratic and intense situations and dynamics for it, but not that they are the cause of the "conflict" themselves.

One has to only consider that both the US and Russia have nukes today to see that this assumption is bogus. Why are we not scared of Russia now? Oh yeah, because they aren't an evil totalitarian state. Now they're just corrupt.

Change

I wrote a while back that I would not enter the argument of whether torture was moral with regards to terrorism.

There may be gradations of harshness in dealing with people. Once it has reached a certain level, it is torture. Whenever that degree is reached, it is always wrong. Always.

There, I have entered the moral argument.