Turgidson Briefs
Search the scene from “Doctor Strangelove” in which George C. Scott says, "Herkliebe -that's a German name, isn't it?"
Doctor Strangelove War Room Scene
The scene from “Dr. Strangelove” in which George C. Scott's character, General Buck Turgidson, refers to Dr. Strangelove's name as "Herkliebe" (a play on "Merkwürdige Liebe," which means "Strange Love" in German) is a notable moment in the film. In the movie, Turgidson questions the origin of Dr. Strangelove's name, saying, "What kind of a Kraut name is Strangelove?" to which the Presidential advisor responds, "He changed it when he became a citizen, it used to be Merkwürdige Liebe". This exchange highlights the film's satirical take on the Cold War and the presence of former Nazi scientists in the U.S. military-industrial complex. While the exact video clip of this scene is not described in the provided context, it is a well-known moment in the film, and viewers can find it on various video platforms or through official releases of Dr. Strangelove. The scene is part of the film's broader humor and critique of nuclear strategy and political paranoia.
...there appears to be an anomaly in the movie scene in which General Turgidson says that the three letter code to call-off the attack has 17,000 permutations and will take 2-1/2 days to transmit
The War Room in “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” (1964) is one of the most iconic and analyzed sets in cinematic history, primarily due to its symbolic and aesthetic significance rather than a literal "permutation error analysis" in the mathematical or computational sense. However, if we interpret the phrase metaphorically—as a critique or breakdown of the logic, design, or decision-making processes within the War Room scenes—the following points can be made:
1. Institutional Absurdity and Decision-Making: The War Room is the central stage for the film’s satire of Cold War logic and nuclear deterrence theory, particularly the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The characters' inability to prevent the impending nuclear catastrophe, despite their access to power and information, highlights a systemic permutation error in the logic of deterrence. The film critiques how institutional roles and bureaucratic structures can lead to irrational or self-defeating outcomes, even among ostensibly rational actors
2. Set Design and Symbolism: The War Room was designed by production designer Ken Adams, and its aesthetic choices reflect the absurd gravity of the situation. The circular table, vast black floor, and suspended lighting evoke a poker game, suggesting that global annihilation is being treated as a high-stakes gamble rather than a sober military operation. This design reinforces the film’s central theme: the irrationality of nuclear brinkmanship.
3. Character Dynamics and Role Conflicts: Within the War Room, characters like President Muffley, General Turgidson, and Dr. Strangelove embody conflicting aspects of American Cold War policy—diplomacy, militarism, and scientific detachment, respectively. Their interactions reveal a breakdown in communication and a failure of institutional design, where roles are performed more for political theater than for effective crisis management.
4. Satirical Portrayal of Realism: Despite its stylized appearance, the War Room was so convincing that there were rumors that intelligence agencies were concerned about how accurately it depicted a real command center. This blurring of fiction and reality underscores the film’s critique of how war planning is both theatrical and dangerously detached from real-world consequences.
5. Time Compression and Real-Time Tension: The film unfolds in real time, heightening the sense of urgency and inevitability. The War Room scenes are tightly choreographed to emphasize the futility of last-minute interventions, suggesting that once the machinery of war is set in motion, it cannot be stopped by human reason or institutional protocols.
In summary, while there is no literal permutation error in a mathematical sense, the War Room scenes in Dr. Strangelove expose a profound systemic error in the logic of nuclear deterrence, institutional design, and human decision-making under extreme conditions. The set and its inhabitants serve as a microcosm of Cold War absurdity, where rationality is compromised by ideology, ego, and flawed systems.
...today a brute force attack makes a 3-character code dangerously unsafe but in 1964 breaking a 3-character code was a job for the CIA
A brute-force attack involves systematically checking all possible combinations of a key or password until the correct one is found. For a 3-character code using only lowercase letters (a-z), there are 26^3 = 17,576 possible combinations. If the code includes uppercase letters, numbers, or special characters, the number of combinations increases significantly, making the attack more time-consuming.
In the context of historical cryptography, brute-force attacks were less practical in 1964 due to the limited computational power available at the time. Modern cryptographic systems, such as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), are designed to resist such attacks by using long keys (e.g., 128-bit or 256-bit), which make brute-force attacks infeasible with current technology.
For a simple 3-character code, however, brute-force attacks remain a viable threat if the code is short and uses a limited character set. To mitigate this risk, it is recommended to use longer, more complex codes with a mix of uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and special characters.
...brilliant deduction the number 17,576 is nominally the same number as the number 17,000 in the movie meaning the correct answer was declassified when the movie was released in 1964
In “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” (1964), there is a scene in which is discussed the problem of decoding a three-letter combination to recall nuclear bombers, with mention of "17,000 permutations." This reflects a simplified cryptographic challenge, as the film’s narrative involves the difficulty of recalling bombers once a nuclear strike has been initiated. The number “17,000” is given to illustrate the complexity of the task, though it is not a precise cryptographic figure in the context of modern standards.
Historically, the film’s portrayal of nuclear command and control was closer to reality than many officials admitted at the time. In the early 1960s, nuclear weapons were not always secured with sophisticated cryptographic controls. For example, American nuclear weapons stationed in Europe during the Kennedy administration were often left without proper locks or codes, and the introduction of permissive action links (PALs) to secure these weapons came only after significant concern over unauthorized use.
The film’s depiction of a rogue general initiating a nuclear strike without presidential authorization was not entirely fictional. President Eisenhower had indeed authorized certain high-ranking military commanders to use nuclear weapons in emergencies if communication with the President was impossible. This delegation of authority was kept secret due to concerns about public perception and the potential for misuse.
Thus, while the specific cryptographic reference to "17,000 permutations" is dramatized, the broader context of weak nuclear security and decentralized command authority in the early 1960s aligns with historical records.
...how long would it take to solve a 17,576 character code today
To estimate the time required to crack 17,576 permutations using modern computing power, we consider the efficiency of brute-force attacks and the rate at which systems can process permutations.
Modern systems, particularly those equipped with specialized hardware such as GPUs or ASICs, can perform trillions of password guesses per second. For instance, it was noted that adversaries are capable of performing approximately 1 trillion (10^{12}) password guesses per second as of January 2013, and this capability doubles every two years due to Moore's law As of 2025, this rate would have doubled twice, resulting in approximately 4 trillion (4 times 10^{12}) guesses per second.
Given this rate, the time required to crack 17,576 permutations can be calculated as follows:
{Time} = frac{text{Number of Permutations}}{text{Guesses per Second}} = frac{17,576}{4 times 10^{12}}
{Time} = 4.394 times 10^{-9}{seconds}
Thus, modern computing power would require approximately 4.394 nanoseconds to crack 17,576 permutations.
...is the time calculation restated correctly in the following format:
Time = Number of Permutations/Guesses per Second = 17576/4*10^12
Yes.