I had been looking forward to Countdown to Zero for some time and finally managed to catch a screening this week at the Cornerhouse in Manchester. Documentaries are my bread and butter and this one, with its all-star cast and provocative subject matter ensured a spot in my diary. Sadly, I emerged somewhat disappointed.

Firstly, lets start with the good bits. The film did indeed provide an accurate history of weapons development and the gradual spread across the globe in a whirlwind of global geopolitical one-upmanship. I was also enthralled by the stories of incompetence in both the Soviet Union and the US, where infighting within the military resulted in fewer safeguards and greater opportunities for potentially calamitous near misses. In particular, the story of the 1995 incident, whereby the world was saved from mutually assured destruction only by Boris Yeltsin defying the suggestions of his generals was particularly chilling.

Now, onto the not so good bits.

Inevitably the film would need to focus on terrorism involving nuclear materials as a major danger to society, but here I feel the film lurched slightly into scaremongering territory. Of course the risks are all too real and it is therefore important that we know the consequences of a determined and successful attempt to detonate a device in a populated area, however some of the detail wasn’t quite up to scratch.

I was deeply disheartened to see mention of a dirty bomb during this section of the film, especially since numerous studies have shown that such a weapon would be wholly ineffective, even in comparison to a standard explosive device. One of the few studies which did link exposure to a dirty bomb with radiation poisoning and death, assumed that following the explosion, everyone in the vicinity stood still for an entire year. The only true danger posed by a dirty bomb is the extreme state of panic which would ensue, fuelled by politicians and the media, a fear that this film therefore contributes to.

Possibly the biggest single issue I had with the film was its discussion of Iran. A succession of talking heads (including Mr Tony Blair himself) consistently repeated the standard line that Iran was working towards a bomb and was determined to possess one as soon as it possibly could. Not one of these commenters provided any proof whatsoever for these claims. Instead, we were repeatedly shown this photo of Iranian President Ahmadinejad walking alongside rows of centrifuges at the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and were expected to be satisfied that Iran truly represents a dangerous threat to world stability.

Now, without wanting to defend Mr Ahmadinejad too enthusiastically given some of his deeply unpleasant domestic policies, all anyone can prove is that Iran does possess nuclear facilities which they claim are simply being used to enrich uranium to the low levels required for generating nuclear power. They may indeed be frantically building a bomb behind the scenes, yet all the available evidence says otherwise and no compelling counterargument was provided during the film itself.

The two most recent National Intelligence Estimates (N.I.E.s) on Iranian nuclear progress have stated that there is no conclusive evidence that Iran has made any effort to build the bomb since 2003. Yet Iran is heavily invested in nuclear technology. In the past four years, it has tripled the number of centrifuges in operation at its main enrichment facility at Natanz, which is buried deep underground. International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) inspectors have expressed frustration with Iran’s level of coöperation, but have been unable to find any evidence suggesting that enriched uranium has been diverted to an illicit weapons program.

A previous assessment, issued in 2007, created consternation and anger inside the Bush Administration and in Congress by concluding, “with high confidence,” that Iran had halted its nascent nuclear-weapons program in 2003.

Iran and the Bomb – Seymour M. Hersh (06/06/11)

As much as I accept the responsibility of the film-makers to discuss Iran, the absence of Israel during the film utterly astounded me. Here we have a nation who developed their weapons in secret, which were only revealed because of a whistle-blower, has never revealed exactly how many weapons they possess under a policy of deliberate ambiguity, has threatened to use them and has refused to sign up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Unfortunately, all the film could supply us with was the date of their first test, and a rough estimate of how many weapons they might have, with no further discussion provided.

That the film should therefore focus so much of its attention on a nation such as Iran which to the best of anyone’s knowledge does not posses, and is nowhere close to possessing a nuclear device strikes me as extraordinarily unusual, whilst simultaneously ignoring the recklessness of a fully armed nation such as Israel.

Similar problems exist with the film’s portrayal of Pakistan. The nation is of course dangerous territory with an unstable military who do indeed represent a threat to world peace. We were shown much footage of Pakistanis celebrating the achievement of their Islamic Bomb in 1998, with street parties and fireworks. Yet as with Israel, almost nothing was mentioned about neighbouring India, another non-signatory to the NPT treaty.

Here, another double standard emerges. In Anand Patwardhan’s fantastic 2002 film War and Peace – a documentary which Patwardhan spent many years attempting to show uncensored in India – the film-maker captures almost exactly the same levels of fierce patriotism documented by Countdown to Zero, although this time from within the towns and cities of India. The reverence shown towards the Agni missiles easily matches that given to the Pakistani nuclear programme, but we do not get a glimpse of this in Countdown to Zero.

Throughout the film I noticed a pervasive Us and Them narrative, with imperialistic undertones. Aside from a potential accident it was posited that the west is overwhelmingly worthy of our trust, yet those dangerous others should be closely watched for any signs of subversive behaviour which might spark a nuclear World War III. It is this suggestion of western moral superiority, which I feel slightly damages the film’s noble aim of ushering the ascent of nuclear disarmament policy to the top on the list of global political priorities, a position it should urgently occupy.