OVERANALYZING GIANT MONSTER MOVIES: So, I saw Godzilla last night, and yes, it features all the giant monster destruction you could ever ask for, gorgeously photographed and staged, but a few plot questions (which are spoiler-y, and thus, after the break):
1. It's established early on that those "in the know" recognize that monsters feed on/are made stronger by radiation. Why ON EARTH, then, does someone have the brilliant idea of storing a monster cocoon (even one thought/believed to be dormant) in the same secure facility where the United States stores its nuclear waste? (Also, how does no one notice, for quite some time, that a GIANT MONSTER has torn a multi-story hole in the facility's containment wall?)
2. Relatedly, the military's big plan is to place a HUGE nuke 50 miles off the coast, using the radioactivity of the nuke to lure the bad MUTOs and the chaotic netural Godzilla, and then explode it. While monster experts Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins claim this plan will be ineffective, wouldn't it actually be WORSE than ineffective and actually make the monsters stronger?
3. At the end of the film, there's a nuclear bomb with a manual timer that cannot be disabled at about 5 minutes to go. That bomb is loaded onto a small tourist (whale watching) boat in San Francisco harbor, and set out on auto-pilot into the harbor for the bomb to explode. The bomb blows up in the harbor, with apparently no ill-effects to the people of the Bay area (beyond the city already having been smashed up by giant monsters fighting and having sex there). Wouldn't there at least be a substantial shock wave and risk of fallout?