Kubrick’s 1964 film “Dr. Strangelove” presented what seemed an absurdist critique of automation and control systems. While most bombers in the film could be recalled when unauthorized launches occurred, a single damaged bomber’s “CRM 114 discriminator” prevented any override of its automated systems – even in the face of an end-of-world mistake. This selective communication failure, where one critical component could doom humanity while the rest of the system functioned normally, highlighted the kind of dangerous fragility that necessitates tight regulation of automated control systems.

The film’s “discrimination” device, preventing override and sealing the world’s fate, was comical because it was the invention of a character portrayed as a paranoid conspiracy theorist (e.g. a fictional Elon Musk). The idea that a single point of failure in communications could trigger apocalyptic consequences was considered so far-fetched as to be unrealistic in the 1960s. Yet here we are, with Tesla rapidly normalizing paranoid delusional automated override blocks as a valid architectural pattern without any serious security analysis or public scrutiny.

Traditional automakers since the Ford Pinto catastrophe understand design risks intuitively — they build mechanical overrides that can not be software-disabled, showing a fundamental grasp of safety principles that Tesla has glowingly abandoned. In fact, other manufacturers specifically avoid building centralized control capabilities, not because difficulty, but because engineers should always recognize and avoid inherent risks — following the same precautionary principle that guided early nuclear power plant designers to build in physical fail-safes. However, the infamous low-quality high-noise car parts assembly company known as Tesla has apparently willfully recreated the worst architectural vulnerabilities at massive scale that threaten civilian infrastructure.

Most disturbing is how Tesla masks a willful destruction of societal value systems using toddler-level entertainment. The “Light Show” is presented as frivolous and harmless, much like how early computer viruses were dismissed as fun pranks rather than serious security threats that would come to define devastating global harms. But engineers know the show is not just plugging trivial LED audio response code into a car. What it actually demonstrates is a fleet-wide command and control system without sensible circuit breakers. It promotes highly-explosive chemical cluster bombs mindlessly following centrally planned orders without any independent relation to context or consequences. It turns a fleet of 1,000 Tesla into automation warfare concepts reminiscent not just of the Gatling gun or the Chivers machine gun of African colonialism, but the Nazi V-1 rocket program of WWII — a clear case of automated explosives meant to operate in urban environments that couldn’t be recalled once launched.

Finland 1940:

Finland 2024:

The timing of propaganda is no accident. Tesla strategically launches these demonstrations during holidays like Christmas, using celebratory moments to normalize dangerous capabilities. It’s reminiscent of the “Peace is our Profession” signs decorating scenes in Dr. Strangelove, using festive imagery to mask dangerous architectural realities.

Tesla’s synchronized light shows, while appearing harmless, demonstrate a concerning architectural pattern: the ability to push synchronized commands to large fleets of connected vehicles with potentially limited or blocked owner override capabilities. What makes this particularly noteworthy is not the feature itself, but what it reveals about the underlying command and control objectives of the controversial political activists leading Tesla. The fact that Tesla owners enthusiastically participate in these demonstrations shows how effectively the security risk has been obscured — it’s a masterclass in introducing dangerous capabilities under the guise of consumer features.

More historical parallels? I’m glad you asked. Let’s examine how the Cuban Missile Crisis highlights the modern risks of automated systems under erratic control.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, one of humanity’s closest brushes with global nuclear catastrophe, resolution came through human leaders’ ability to identify and contain critical failure points before they cascaded into disaster. Khrushchev had to manage not just thorny U.S. relations but also prevent independent actors like Castro from triggering automated response systems that could have doomed humanity. While Castro controlled a small number of weapons in a limited geography, today’s Tesla CEO commands a vastly larger fleet of connected vehicles across every major city – with demonstrably less stability and even more concerning disregard for fail-safe systems than Cold War actors showed.

As Group Captain Mandrake illustrated so brilliantly to audiences watching Dr. Strangelove, having physical override capabilities doesn’t help if the system can fail-unsafe and ignore them. Are you familiar with how many people were burned alive in Q4 2024 by their Tesla door handles failing to operate? More dead in a couple months than the entire production run of the Ford Pinto, from essentially the same design failure — a case study in how localized technical failures can become systemic catastrophes when basic safety principles are ignored.

Tesla’s ignorant approach to connected vehicle fleets presents a repeat of these long-known and understood risks at an unprecedented scale:

• Centralized Control: A single company led by a political extremist maintains the ability to push synchronized commands to hundreds of thousands of vehicles or more
• Limited Override: Once certain automated sequences begin, individual owner control may have no bearing regardless of what they see or hear
• Network Effects: The interconnected nature of modern vehicles means system-wide vulnerabilities can cascade rapidly
• Scale of Impact: The sheer number of connected vehicles creates potential for widespread disruption

As General Ripper in Dr. Strangelove would say, “We must protect our precious vehicular fluids from contamination.” More seriously…

Here are some obvious recommendations that seem to be lacking from every single article I have ever seen written about the Tesla “light discriminator” flashy demonstrations:

1. Mandate state-level architectural reviews of over-the-air update systems in critical transportation infrastructure. Ensure federal agencies allow state-wide bans of vehicles with design flaws. Look to aviation and nuclear power plant standards, where mandatory human-in-the-loop controls are the norm.
2. Require demonstrable owner override capabilities (disable, reset) for all automated vehicle functions — mechanical, not just software overrides
3. Develop frameworks for assessing systemic risk in connected vehicle networks, drawing on decades of safety-critical systems experience
4. Create standards for fail-safe mechanisms in autonomous vehicle systems that prioritize human control in critical situations

What Kubrick portrayed as satire — how a single failed override in an otherwise functioning system could trigger apocalyptic consequences — has quietly become architectural reality with Tesla’s rising threats to civilian infrastructure. The security community watches light shows while missing their Dr. Strangelove moment: engineers happily building systems where even partial failures can’t be stopped once initiated, proving yet again that norms alone won’t prevent the creation of doomsday architectures. The only difference? In 1964, we recognized this potential for cascading disaster as horrifying. In 2024, we’re watching people ignorant of history filming it to pump their social media clicks.

60 years of intelligence thrown out? It’s as if dumb mistakes that end humanity are meant to please wall street, all of us be damned. Observe Tesla propaganda as celebrating the wrong things in the wrong rooms — again.