The Golden Age of Science Fiction:

America's Response to Nuclear Weaponry

By: Rose Marie Wong

Mentor: Jones DeRitter, Ph.D.

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of

the Honors Program at

The University of Scranton

27 April 2012

1

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 2 Development of Atomic Theory ...... 8 Creation of the Atomic Bomb ...... 16 The Birth of Postwar Optimism ...... 26 Fear of Nuclear Annihilation ...... 33 Belief in Inevitable War ...... 41 Apocalyptic Nature of Nuclear War ...... 55 Conclusion ...... 66 Bibliography ...... 70

2

Introduction

According to Paul Boyer, in By the Bomb's Early Light: American thought and culture at

the dawn of the atomic age, "For all its exotic trappings, science fiction is best understood as a

commentary on contemporary issues."1 While entertaining their audience, science fiction authors

also commentate on social issues through their works; in this manner, the genre provides insight

into the social climate in which the author lived. Particularly, this thesis concerns American's

reaction to nuclear weaponry and the science fiction of the 1940s and 1950s that commentates on

this issue. Science fiction authors recognized the atomic bomb's drastic impact on American

society. In the 1940s, the atomic bomb affected international relations and brought the possibility

of unparalleled danger to warfare. As the Cold War intensified in the 1950s, Americans began to

fear nuclear weapons.2 Their terror derived from the possibility of total annihilation from a full-

fledged nuclear war with the Soviet Union. 3 This evolution of American's attitude towards

nuclear weaponry, specifically the atomic bomb, remains evident within the science fiction

published at the time.

These literary works of the 1940s and 1950s serve as the golden age of science fiction.

John W. Campbell, Jr. caused the emergence of this golden age. In 1937, Campbell began his

editorship of the magazine he renamed Astounding Science Fiction. The position allowed him to

change the genre by influencing how his authors wrote their fiction.4 Campbell employed writers

who understood science, and prompted these writers to integrate this knowledge within their

1 Paul Boyer, By the Bomb's Early Light: American thought and culture at the dawn of the atomic age (New York: Pantheon, 1985) cited by Rob Latham, "Fiction, 1950-1963" in The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, ed. by Mark Bould et al. (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009), 80-8. 2 Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (New York: Routledge, 2007), 205. 3 Paul Williams, "Nuclear Criticism," in The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, ed. by Mark Bould et al. (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009), 252. 4 Brian Attebery, "The magazine era: 1926-1960" in The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction, ed. by Edward James and Farah Mendleson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 37. 3

works. According to Isaac Asimov, Campbell’s magazine became a place where science fiction

authors "dealt with reasonable advances in technology and concerned themselves with just what such advances might mean to society." 5 This served as a drastic change from the science fiction

written in prior decades; earlier works often depicted fantastical situations, such as interplanetary

and time travel, without any consideration about how such feats might occur. By dealing with

plausible scientific events, the writers Campbell hired — such as Robert A. Heinlein and Asimov

— subsequently served as masters of the genre for decades afterwards.6 This focus on credible facts, based on verisimilitude to science and technology, serves as the defining characteristic in science fiction's golden age.

However, while most scholars agree that the birth of Astounding Science Fiction in 1937 serves as the beginning of the golden age, a division of opinion emerges on the issue of its conclusion. The older generation of science fiction enthusiasts often define the golden age of science fiction as one that ends in 1950.7 However, their definition creates a minor problem for

literary historians: the next trend in the genre, called the New Wave, emerged in the 1960s. This

leaves a decade of science fiction works without a proper classification.8 Yet, the 1950s serves as an important time for the genre. Within that decade, science fiction brought forth what Robert

Silverberg has called "a torrent of new magazines and new writers bringing new themes and fresh techniques that laid the foundation for the work of the four decades that followed."9

Therefore, a logical definition of the golden age should include the 1950s to encapsulate a

decade's worth of important fiction. Since the golden age of science fiction began when

5 Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science Fiction (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981), 116. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., 130. 8 Damien Broderick, "New Wave and backwash: 1960-1980" in The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction, ed. by Edward James and Farah Mendleson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 49-50. 9 Robert Silverberg, "Introduction" in A Century of Science Fiction 1950-1959 The Greatest Stories of the Decade, ed. by Robert Silverberg (New York: MJF Books, 1996), 1. 4

Campbell assumed editorship of Astounding Science Fiction, it should conclude when the magazine ends; in 1960, Astounding Science Fiction finished a twenty-three year reign over the genre when its name changed to Analog. Therefore, the golden age of science fiction can be thought of as extending beyond the 1940s and into the following decade. For the purposes of this

essay, I will refer to this period as "the Golden Age of the 1940s and 1950s."10

The works of this golden age of science fiction also portray American sentiment during the nuclear age, which also began in the 1940s. The nuclear age started when the American scientific community initiated the development of nuclear technology. From 1938-1942, the general American public remained uninterested in this new science; only science fiction fans, writers and the scientific community concerned themselves with nuclear technology.11 These people remained torn about such advances in science. On one hand, nuclear energy provided the potential for beneficial advances in science, such as limitless energy. On the other hand, scientists acknowledged that the same technology could create powerful weapons with great destructive power. Science fiction about nuclear power in the early 1940s reflected these concerns. For example, Lester Del Rey depicts the conflicting emotions about the possibilities of nuclear technology in "Nerves" by juxtaposing the benefits of a nuclear power plant with the dangers of the plant's possible meltdown. Throughout the novella, Del Rey's protagonist struggles to prevent a nuclear disaster, while also defending the plant against criticism. This tension mirrors the inner conflict scientists faced about the development of nuclear technology.

As the threat of Germany grew during World War II, government concern over nuclear

technology and its role in war widened the pool of Americans interested in nuclear technology to

10 Farah Mendleson, "Religion and science fiction" in The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction, ed. by Edward James and Farah Mendleson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 266. 11 Albert I. Berger, "Nuclear Energy: Science Fiction's Metaphor of Power (L'énergie nucléaire comme métaphore du pouvoir en science-fiction)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (July 1979), 121, and Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (New York: Routledge, 2007), 207. 5

include government and military officials.12 The literary works of the science fiction genre

reflected this change through their shift towards political stories. For instance, Robert A.

Heinlein's "Solution Unsatisfactory" specifically explores the political ramifications of atomic

weaponry on international relations. After bombing Berlin in a manner predicative of the United

States' actual attack on Hiroshima, Heinlein's protagonist realizes that he must become the world's dictator to maintain peace. Cleve Cartmill's "Deadline" also explores the impact of atomic weapons on politics. Cartmill shows his fear of a nuclear weapon so powerful that it will exterminate all of humanity through warring alien races that represent the United States and the

Soviet Union. Most of the science fiction stories before the end of World War II concerned the same themes as Heinlein and Cartmill's works; particularly, writers depicted attempts to prevent the use of an atomic weapon, like Cartmill in "Deadline," and the horrible consequences of an atomic attack should such preventative measures fail. The American public, though, did not grow concerned over the possible consequences of nuclear weaponry during the early years of World

War II. Only after the United States government employed the atomic bomb against Japan did

Americans as a whole avidly gain interest in nuclear technology.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki drastically affected American society, and thus the science fiction genre, by dramatically showing everyone the destructive power of nuclear weaponry. Albert Berger has argued that in the wake of World War II science fiction writers

"were acknowledged as prophets proven right by the course of events…mass-circulation magazines like Collier's and The Saturday Evening Post began to publish stories by writers like

Ray Bradbury and Robert A. Heinlein, previously confined to the genre pulps."13 People placed

12 Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (New York: Routledge, 2007), 207. 13 Albert I. Berger, "The Triumph of Prophecy: Science Fiction and Nuclear Power in the Post-Hiroshima Period," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 3, No. 2 (July 1976), 143. 6 their hopes for a better future on nuclear technology, and science fiction reflected this optimism.

The new works that quickly became popular had an optimistic attitude towards nuclear technology. They depicted the atomic bomb as a step towards greater technological feats, which might transform American society into a utopia. Lewis Padgett, for instance, portrayed the atomic bomb as a weapon with far more benefits than drawbacks. In Padgett's "Tomorrow and

Tomorrow," the protagonist actually vies to detonate an atomic weapon because the resulting war will create a world-wide utopia.

However, this optimism began to wane in the wake of further atomic tests that highlighted the weapon's destructive capabilities. Chan Davis' "The Nightmare" reflects

American's newfound trepidation about the atomic bomb through his protagonist's realization that nothing can truly prevent an atomic attack on the United States. Any remaining optimism about the atomic bomb quickly disappeared after the Soviet Union obtained nuclear capabilities in 1949. This even caused Americans to grow fearful of nuclear weapons through their loss of the nuclear monopoly. Kris Neville's "Cold War" depicts this fearful atmosphere between

Americans and Soviets via his fictional American president's struggle over enforcing world peace by threatening to use nuclear weapons. His short story shows how Americans felt fear about the increasingly strained relationship between two nuclear-capable superpowers: the

United States and the Soviet Union.

Science fiction authors began using horror elements within their works in the early 1950s, displaying American's concerns of upholding a tense peace with the Soviet Union via the terror prevalent in each literary piece. People soon moved from fearing the possibility of warfare to believing in an inevitable war — one whose apocalyptic nature no government could prevent.

Writing during this culture of growing terror of atomic bombs, authors such as Bernard Wolfe 7 and L. Sprague de Camp soon adopted this theme in their works. Wolfe's Limbo '90 illustrates the believed inevitability of nuclear war; the novel's fictional representation of the Cold War eventually results in the breakdown of peace. In addition, the scientist in de Camp's "Judgment

Day" argues that creating more powerful nuclear weapons will simply ensure their use on humanity. In this manner, science fiction writers portrayed American's reaction to the atomic bomb's possible deployment during the Cold War in their works.

As the Cold War continued, Americans not only realized that nuclear war remained unpreventable, but that humanity could not survive the aftereffects of such a conflict. Science fiction mirrors this sentiment within the pieces written at the time. Philip K. Dick's "Second

Variety" portrays the extinction of humanity after a nuclear apocalypse because of ongoing war, and Mordecai Roshwald's Level 7 depicts the annihilation of mankind because of a nuclear war.

Therefore, science fiction and Americans concurrently agreed that humanity could not survive the aftereffects of nuclear war. In light of such parallels between American sentiment and science fiction, this thesis argues that literary works of science fiction's golden age depicting nuclear technology illustrate American's reactions to the emergence and growth of nuclear weaponry.

8

Development of Atomic Theory

The development of nuclear technology emerged from a long history of scientific

progress. Such a history traces back over a hundred years of progress in physics, chemistry and

mathematics by an international scientific community. In a recent essay included in The

Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, Rob Latham argues that Campbell recognized the

importance of maintaining a connection between these developing sciences and science fiction,

"since one of the genre's key themes has always been the inescapable reality of technosocial

change."14 Campbell's desire for a "purer hard-sf aesthetic"15 led to his study of science — he

took courses in atomic physics during 1933 — and to his hiring of writers with scientific

backgrounds.16 His writers included the future kings of the science fiction genre. They had the scholastic or military background to maintain some form of scientific integrity in their works, and even communicated with each other about the science behind their stories. Some well-known examples of these authors consist of Robert A Heinlein, who served as a United States Navy

Reserve, L. Sprague de Camp, who worked at the United States Navy Yard, and Isaac Asimov, who Columbia University employed and eventually awarded a Ph.D. in chemistry. 17 Other such

writers employed by Campbell include Arthur C. Clarke, Theodore Sturgeon, Hal Clement,

Lester Del Rey and A.E. Van Vogt.18 These authors employed nuclear power in their stories long before the formation of the Manhattan Project and the atomic bomb's detonation at Hiroshima

14 Rob Latham, "Fiction, 1950-1963," in The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, ed. by Mark Bould et al. (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009), 85. 15 Ibid., 81. 16 Robert Silverberg,, "Reflections: The Cleve Cartmill Affair: One," Asimov's Science Fiction, http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0310/ref.shtml 17 Ibid. and "Frequently Asked Questions About Isaac Asimov," ed. by Edward Seiler and John H. Jenkins. Asimov Online. http://www.asimovonline.com/asimov_FAQ.html 18 Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science Fiction (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981), 116. 9

and Nagasaki. Their awareness of the new research into nuclear technology, completed in the

1930s, answered Campbell's call for science fiction based on actual technology.19

Through tales concerning nuclear technology, these science fiction writers introduced

their readers to a new branch of science — one that the general American public barely dealt

with prior to World War II. At the beginning of the golden age in 1937, scientists had studied

nuclear physics for years: Colin S. Grey asserts that the "neutron was discovered in 1932, while in 1933 that discovery sparked realization that the neutron could be employed to trigger an explosive chain reaction."20 At first, the only Americans familiar with these newfound scientific discoveries served as members of the scientific community. However, this group also included

laypeople who read technical journals that published articles on nuclear physics, like John W.

Campbell, Jr. and other science fiction writers.21 These men understood the significance of Otto

Van Han and Fritz Strassmann's successful attempt to split uranium in 1939, which proved the

possibility of a nuclear chain reaction. 22 Furthermore, in December 1942, an American team led

by Enrico Fermi at the University of Chicago created the first self-sustaining nuclear chain

reaction. Even with these discoveries, though, the benefits and disadvantages of nuclear

technology remained mainly hypothetical during the late 1930s and first two years of the 1940s.

Americans knowledgeable about the new advances in technology could only theorize about

possible applications of nuclear power both as a weapon and as a source of power. Undoubtedly,

American members of the science and science fiction communities maintained an interest in the

19 Albert I. Berger, "Nuclear Energy: Science Fiction's Metaphor of Power (L'énergie nucléaire comme métaphore du pouvoir en science-fiction)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (July 1979), 121. 20 Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (New York: Routledge, 2007), 208. 21 Robert Silverberg,, "Reflections: The Cleve Cartmill Affair: One," Asimov's Science Fiction, http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0310/ref.shtml 22 Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (New York: Routledge, 2007), 208. 10

developing in nuclear technology, a subject that did not yet capture the interest of the United

States' general populace.

The science fiction works that dealt with the possibilities of new nuclear technology

reflected the opinions of this small group of people interested in nuclear physics during the early

1940s — mainly scientists. As a result, many of the pieces concerning nuclear energy portrayed

scientists as the tale's protagonists; Heinlein's Sixth Column depicts an atomic scientist fighting

invading PanAsians, while the protagonist of Alfred Bester's "Adam and No Eve" warns actual

scientists against the destructive potential of nuclear fission by having his nuclear-powered rocket inadvertently destroy the earth. Stories composed in the early 1940s rarely dealt with atomic bombs. Rather, writers focused on other aspects of atomic technology, particularly the notion of nuclear reactors — at the time, a more practical scientific possibility than the atomic bomb, given Enrico Fermi's sustained chain reaction.23 Lester Del Rey's "Nerves" (1942) serves

as a prime example of this nuclear-themed science fiction. Del Rey's novelette concerns Doctor

Ferrel, the chief medical examiner at a nuclear reactor, and his efforts to prevent a nuclear

meltdown triggered by Engineer Jorgenson's implementation of an untested method for

generating nuclear power. Through Ferrel and his attempts to prevent a nuclear disaster in

"Nerves," Del Rey reflects the concerns of those deeply involved in the new nuclear science. As

defined by Albert Berger in "Nuclear Energy: Science Fiction's Metaphor of Power," these

people felt concern over the potentially dangerous consequence of nuclear power and hope that

their research might lead to technological innovation. 24

In "Nerves," Del Rey acknowledges the possible dangers of nuclear technology. Doctor

Ferrel's race to prevent a plant meltdown certainly demonstrates the hazardous potential of

23 Albert I. Berger, "Nuclear Energy: Science Fiction's Metaphor of Power (L'énergie nucléaire comme métaphore du pouvoir en science-fiction)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (July 1979), 123. 24 Ibid., 124. 11

nuclear technology. Particularly, a proposed solution for the nuclear meltdown displays the

uncertainty scientists felt about nuclear technology's possible destructive capabilities. In the

novella, the United States' military proposes a controlled detonation of the plant, triggered by

explosives, in order to prevent the greater damage caused by a meltdown. However, Jenkins,

Ferrel's science-minded medical assistant, identifies a problem with the solution due to nuclear scientists' inability to gauge the danger of the radioactive material: "Figure it one way, with this

[the explosives and, subsequently, the reactor] all going off together, and the stuff could drill a hole that'd split open the whole continent from Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico, and leave a lovely sea where the Middle West is now. Figure it another, and it might only kill off everything

within fifty miles of here."25 Both options pose a danger to people; however, Del Rey portrays

real scientists' concerns by deliberately leaving the question unanswered. Even after Ferrel and

his compatriots prevent the meltdown, they do not know the severity of the damage this accident

could have caused to the surrounding populace. Albert Berger affirms the notion that the

uncertainty depicted in "Nerves" reflects the qualms held by nuclear scientists in the early 1940s,

as neither the actual scientists nor their fictional counterparts could predict the true danger of

nuclear technology.26

Furthermore, American scientists knowledgeable about nuclear power felt increasing

concern about whether to continue researching nuclear power because of its possible dangers;

"Nerves" depicts this tension through its scientists' conflict with the United States government.

The battle between them represents scientists' inner conflict about developing nuclear power.

Ferrel describes the struggle between scientists and the United States government as one over the

25 Lester Del Rey, "Nerves" (http://www.univeros.com/usenet/cache/alt.binaries.ebooks/10.000.SciFi.and.Fantasy. Ebooks/Lester Del Rey/Lester Del Rey - Nerves.pdf), 60. 26 Albert I. Berger, "Nuclear Energy: Science Fiction's Metaphor of Power (L'énergie nucléaire comme métaphore du pouvoir en science-fiction)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (July 1979), 123. 12 probable dangers of nuclear technology: "The situation at the [nuclear power] plant kept gnawing at his [Ferrel's] mind. He'd neglected it though aware of the growing tension, this sudden revival of the fear of atomic plants after so many years...Bills submitted to Congress – bills that would force most atomic plants to move far from inhabited territory."27 In "Nerves," the government begins contemplating the safety of nuclear power plants after decades of employing these facilities to provide energy to the American populace. The scientists, engineers and employees of these plants feel betrayed as a result, and actively attempt to convince the inspecting government officials that the nuclear facilities contain enough safeguards to render them harmless to nearby citizens. This conflict causes both sides to engage in a debate over the safety of using nuclear power. Their argument over safety parallels many nuclear scientists' inner debate over the merits of developing nuclear technology.

Through Ferrel, Del Rey identifies the main cause of this underlying tension via the discussion on possible dangers of nuclear power plants in "Nerves." The problem concerns scientists' inability to prove the safety of nuclear power, which causes a catch-22 dilemma. Ferrel illustrates this situation: "One little accident that happens – or that might happen – is enough to prove danger. But there's no way to prove the absence of danger in a spectacular fashion that will hit the press."28 In essence, Ferrel asserts that scientists cannot prove the safety of using nuclear power for energy. However, as a result, people will never stop searching for a way to prove that nuclear power plants serve as a danger to Americans. In fact, the politicians in "Nerves" inadvertently cause the nuclear meltdown because the engineer's desperate attempt to meet their safety and power requirements for the plant causes Jorgenson to try an experimental process that quickly grows out of control. In "Nerves," the nuclear plant workers resent the politicians for

27 Lester Del Rey, "Nerves" (http://www.univeros.com/usenet/cache/alt.binaries.ebooks/10.000.SciFi.and.Fantasy. Ebooks/Lester Del Rey/Lester Del Rey - Nerves.pdf), 2. 28 Ibid., 7. 13

threatening their livelihood, and politicians remain frustrated with the researchers’ inability to

reassure their fears about nuclear technology. Real scientists faced the same dilemma; stopping

their research on nuclear technology might have cost them their livelihoods, but continuing this

work might have endangered people's lives.29 Thus, the conflict between the scientists and the

government officials reflects real practical and ethical concerns faced by nuclear scientists in

America.

Moreover, the tension depicted in "Nerves" anticipates actual problems faced by future

scientists developing nuclear power in the 1970s and 1980s. Americans living thirty years after

the publication of "Nerves" contended with the same issues concerning nuclear power plants.

Their trepidations came to fruition during the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. This nuclear

meltdown increased American's concern about the dangers of nuclear power plants, just as the

"minor mishap…[that] had resulted in a mild radiation contamination over a hundred square

miles or more" in "Nerves."30 Del Rey thus not only predicts such a mishap, but also American's

reactions to the meltdown. After the Three Mile Island disaster, the American government put

new restrictions on nuclear energy, similar to Del Rey's fictional government's attempt to exert control over the reactors. However, while the American public in the 1970s wanted to halt the production of nuclear power, Del Rey argues for the need to continue employing nuclear reactors through his protagonist. Even though Ferrel recognizes the possible dangers of operating a nuclear power plant, he continues to support using nuclear plants even after surviving a near-

catastrophic meltdown. For Ferrel, the benefits of a nuclear plant outweigh its detractions. His

hometown depends on National Atomics Products, the nuclear energy company, for "its

prosperity almost entirely…even those who didn't depend on artificial isotopes still needed the

29 Maureen Paton, "The Accidental Atomicist," HistoryToday Vol. 60, No. 8 (Aug. 2010), 55. 30 Lester Del Rey, "Nerves" (http://www.univeros.com/usenet/cache/alt.binaries.ebooks/10.000.SciFi.and.Fantasy. Ebooks/Lester Del Rey/Lester Del Rey - Nerves.pdf), 2. 14

cheap power that came almost as a byproduct."31 Because of these benefits, Ferrel remains

willing to risk a possible meltdown. Therefore, through "Nerves," Del Rey not only predicts

future responses to nuclear technology, but also tries to convince his readers to vie for further

research in nuclear power because nuclear energy can benefit humanity.

American scientists in the early 1940s developing such technology also remained hopeful

that their work will benefit humanity. According to Albert Berger, scientists discarded the notion

of profiting from their advances and remained optimistic about the technological possibilities

nuclear power might bring to the United States.32 Del Rey infused "Nerves" with this hope for

the future. In the novella, the isotope R causes the near-meltdown and therefore served as the inanimate antagonist of the story. Yet, after Ferrel and the others prevent the meltdown, Del Rey shows how this isotope also provides hope. From the beginning of "Nerves," Palmer, the plant's manager, "hoped some day to see Hokusai [an atomic scientist] create the fuel that would take men to the moon and back."33 The dangerous isotope R provides a chance for Palmer and

Hokusai to achieve their goal; when properly controlled, the isotope creates enough raw power to

make rocket fuel. At the conclusion of the novella, with Palmer's enthusiastic permission, "Hoke

[Hokusai] wants him [Jenkins] to work on R – he's got a starting point now for digging into that

rocket fuel he wants."34 In doing so, Del Rey not only provides Palmer and Hokusai with hope

for achieving their dreams, but he also lets the medical assistant Jenkins fulfill his ambition to work with nuclear technology. All three men experience rejuvenated optimism at the end of

"Nerves." Thus, they reflect the actual hope of nuclear scientists working on the initial stages of

31 Ibid., 3. 32 Albert I. Berger, "Nuclear Energy: Science Fiction's Metaphor of Power (L'énergie nucléaire comme métaphore du pouvoir en science-fiction)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (July 1979), 124. 33 Lester Del Rey, "Nerves" (http://www.univeros.com/usenet/cache/alt.binaries.ebooks/10.000.SciFi.and.Fantasy. Ebooks/Lester Del Rey/Lester Del Rey - Nerves.pdf), 13. 34 Ibid., 76. 15

atomic technology that nuclear technology may benefit humanity. However, the hopes of scientists interested in the hypothetical possibilities of nuclear technology changed into trepidation when Americans developed a new use for nuclear power: the atomic bomb.

16

Creation of the Atomic Bomb

As World War II raged in Europe, the United States government grew increasingly

concerned about the possibility that Germany would develop an atomic bomb. In March 1940,

Otto Frish and Rudolf Peierls, two physicists, proved the theoretical possibility of an atomic

bomb by calculating the amount of material needed to sustain a fission chain reaction. Frish and

Peierls' discovery provided every world power with the opportunity to develop its own atomic

weapon — including Germany.35 Politicians in Washington feared the possibility of Germany

acquiring a working atomic bomb before the Allied Powers, thus potentially allowing Germany

to win the war. As the possibility of the United States' involvement in World War II grew due to

the government's trepidation about a German victory, many science fiction writers considered the

same concerns as government officials over the impact of atomic war on civilian society.36

According to Albert Berger, "there can be no defense"37 against these new atomic weapons.

Fiction from Astounding Science Fiction reflected this belief that atomic bombs served as the

ultimate war weapon against Germany. In particular, Robert A. Heinlein explores how such a

powerful nuclear weapon might impact a war with Germany in "Solution Unsatisfactory"

(1941).38

Heinlein's short story displays how United States leaders felt about the atomic bomb

during the early years of World War II: they viewed the theoretical weapon as a harbinger of

destruction. "Solution Unsatisfactory" depicts John DeFries' observation of Clyde C. Manning,

35 Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (New York: Routledge, 2007), 208. 36 Martha A. Bartter, "Nuclear Holocaust as Urban Renewal (La guerre nucléaire et la renouveau urbain)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 150. 37 Albert I. Berger, "Nuclear Energy: Science Fiction's Metaphor of Power (L'énergie nucléaire comme métaphore du pouvoir en science-fiction)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (July 1979), 126. 38 Farah Mendlesohn, "Fiction, 1926-1949," in The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, ed. by Mark Bould et al. (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009), 56. 17

the man in charge of the United States' nuclear weapon development program. Under Manning's

direction, the United States gains a monopoly over "atomic dust," a nuclear weapon that defeats

Germany and ends World War II. Manning uses the atomic dust to become a kind of benign

dictator and therefore maintain world peace. In the short story, Heinlein directly addresses the fear of scientists and government officials over an indefensible atomic weapon that may threaten

America.39 When scientists first create atomic dust, Manning realizes that the United States now

has "the first weapon the world has ever seen against which there is no defense, none

whatsoever…it amounts to a loaded gun held at the head of every man, woman, and child on the

globe!"40 Manning recognizes the destructive capabilities of the fictional atomic weapon, just as

actual United States politicians feared the devastating possibilities of an atomic bomb. According

to Martha Bartter in "Nuclear Holocaust as Urban Renewal," these government officials and

science fiction writers believed that atomic warfare would result in the "destruction of civilian

society."41 Heinlein illustrates the devastation these people feared when he describes Berlin,

Germany after an atomic attack by the United States: "The city was dead; there was not a man, a

woman, a child—not cats, nor dogs, not even a pigeon. Bodies were all around, but they were

safe from rats. There were no rats."42 The atomic dust leaves nothing left alive, resulting in the

total destruction of an urban center. In describing this destructive capability of his fictional

atomic weapon, Heinlein reflects the real fears of American politicians, scientists and science

fiction writers.

39 Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (New York: Routledge, 2007), 208. 40 Robert A. Heinlein, The Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein (New York: Ace Books, 1966), 235-6. 41 Martha A. Bartter, "Nuclear Holocaust as Urban Renewal (La guerre nucléaire et la renouveau urbain)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 150. 42 Robert A. Heinlein, The Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein (New York: Ace Books, 1966), 254. 18

In addition to depicting the trepidation over nuclear weaponry's physically destructive

power, Heinlein also suggests that this weapon may do irreparable damage to American society.

In Heinlein’s story, Manning outlines his vision of the United States' future:

It is just a matter of time until some other nation develops a technique to

produce it [atomic dust]…once the secret is out—and it will be out if we

ever use the stuff!—the whole world will be comparable to a room full of

men, each armed with a loaded .45. They can't get out of the room and

each one is dependent on the good will of every other one to stay alive. All

offense and no defense.43

Heinlein views this image of the United States as one filled with what Merritt Abrash has called

"continual (and expensive) readiness and fear,"44 without a true solution to the problem of atomic

weaponry. Heinlein's vision of the United States' future remains eerily reminiscent of the idea

that permeated politics a decade after the story's publication: mutually assured destruction.

Heinlein, though, argues against creating such a political climate. Instead, he uses the story to

outline an alternative, unsatisfactory solution that may serve as a better response to the problem

of nuclear weapons. Yet, even Heinlein's solution contains problems; his solution goes against

the very notion of democracy, which American society holds dear. According to Merritt Abrash,

Heinlein argues that a benevolent dictatorship will prevent a terror-filled atmosphere predictive

of the Cold War.45 Even though DeFries acknowledges that Manning’s position as "undisputed

dictator of the world"46 derives purely from what Abrash calls "the logic of his [Manning's]

43 Ibid., 237. 44 Merritt Abrash, "Through Logic to Apocalypse: Science-Fiction Scenarios of Nuclear Deterrence Breakdown (De la logique vers l'apocalypse: quelques scenarios de SF sue la faillite de la dissuasion nucléaire)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 136. 45 Ibid., 135. 46 Robert A. Heinlein, The Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein (New York: Ace Books, 1966), 284. 19

benevolent intentions,"47 the majority of the world's population despises him for his power and

authority. Furthermore, this solution poses another problem: Manning will eventually die and

cause a worldwide power vacuum. Therefore, Manning's resolution of the nuclear problem not

only destroys American society by betraying its core value, democracy, but remains an

unsatisfactory solution. Through this solution, though, Heinlein reflects the fear and anxiety that

many American scientists and government officials felt when faced with a theoretical atomic

bomb.

Farah Mendleson asserts in The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction that Heinlein

portrays the government's acceptance of nuclear war's destructive consequences.48 He illustrates

how the American government, when faced with the German threat, dealt with the decision

between building a theoretical weapon that could result in unimaginable destructive

consequences or taking a chance and hoping that no other superpower developed such an

armament: officials chose the former option. Through such a decision, Heinlein's fictional tale

predicts the United States government's actual decision to make an atomic bomb in order to

achieve nuclear capabilities before Germany. Heinlein subsequently uses "Solution

Unsatisfactory" to explore the consequences of this option. He proposes that American's desire

for self-preservation, which caused the construction of atomic dust, quickly grows out of control.

The United States government uses the atomic dust to assert control over the world population,

violating American civil rights in the process, and therefore preserve the government's monopoly

over atomic dust. As Manning explains, "We can be dead men, with everything in due order

constitutional, and technically correct; or we can do what has to be done, stay alive, and try to

47 Merritt Abrash, "Through Logic to Apocalypse: Science-Fiction Scenarios of Nuclear Deterrence Breakdown (De la logique vers l'apocalypse: quelques scenarios de SF sue la faillite de la dissuasion nucléaire)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 135. 48 Farah Mendlesohn, "Fiction, 1926-1949," in The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, ed. by Mark Bould et al. (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009), 56. 20

straighten out the legal aspects later."49 The United States government's agreement with Manning

affirms its self-preserving ideology when posed with the dilemma of whether to build an atomic

bomb.

Heinlein asserts that the United States' decision to focus on self-preservation by

producing and monopolizing atomic dust remains inevitable. If Manning realized the terrible

consequences of developing atomic dust at the beginning of the story, he still would have

developed the technology because of his desire for self-preservation. DeFries outwardly states

that "Manning could not have thought out that early the inescapable consequences…otherwise he

would never had ordered the research. No, I don’t really believe that. He would have gone right

ahead, knowing that if he did not do it, someone else would."50 In "Solution Unsatisfactory,"

Manning realizes that the United States needed to develop atomic dust before any other nation in

order to prevent other countries from threatening the United States with such power. In this

manner, Heinlein openly acknowledges making the actual weapon remains unavoidable once

scientists realized technology could create atomic dust. This admission essentially legitimized

the United States' effort to create an atomic bomb, the non-fiction equivalent of atomic dust, during World War II.

The United States government's decision to research nuclear weaponry in 1942 began a process that culminated in the atomic bomb, a weapon that revolutionized society and science fiction. The government created the Manhattan Engineering District, known as the Manhattan

Project, to develop an atomic bomb. This top-secret group formed in mid-1942 with the approval of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although scientists served as the main participants of the

Manhattan Project, it was supervised by the United States military under General Leslie R.

49 Robert A. Heinlein, The Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein (New York: Ace Books, 1966), 259. 50 Ibid., 231-2. 21

Groves.51 Groves appointed J. Robert Oppenheimer as the head the project's laboratory. Thus,

Oppenheimer served as the scientist in charge of creating the atomic bomb.52 The Anglo-

American program developed under Groves and Oppenheimer involved an excess of personnel

and funds.53 The complex program, which consisted of sites across the United States and lasted

three years, cost the American government over $2 billion. Few government officials knew of

this project due to the security precautions taken by those involved; Harry S. Truman learned

about the endeavor only after his ascension to the presidency in 1945.54 However, even

government officials and members of the scientific community who did not know about the

Manhattan Project still knew about the atomic bomb as a theoretical possibility. Meanwhile, the

general American public knew very little about nuclear technology in general, and even less

about nuclear weapons.

Science fiction served as one way for some Americans to encounter nuclear weapons and

their destructive potential before the bombing of Hiroshima. Particularly, Cleve Cartmill's

"Deadline" depicted the bomb with such accuracy that the American government believed in the

existence of a leak in the Manhattan Project's security. Cartmill's description of the atomic bomb

in "Deadline," published in Astounding Science Fiction's October 1944 issue, so closely mirrored

the actual one in development at Los Alamos that intelligence officers investigated both Cartmill

and Campbell.55 The investigators had reason to be suspicious, because Campbell himself had

kept up-to-date on the latest technology by reading technical journals, which published

51 Alison Kraft, "Atomic Medicine." HistoryToday Vol. 59, No. 11 (Nov. 2009), 27. 52 Stanley Goldberg, "Groves and Oppenheimer: The Story of a Partnership," The Antioch Review Vol. 53 (Fall 1995). 53 Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (New York: Routledge, 2007), 207. 54 Alison Kraft, "Atomic Medicine." HistoryToday Vol. 59, No. 11 (Nov. 2009), 27. 55 Albert I. Berger, "Nuclear Energy: Science Fiction's Metaphor of Power (L'énergie nucléaire comme métaphore du pouvoir en science-fiction)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (July 1979), 125. 22

information on nuclear fission and chain reactions since 1940. Campbell had used what he

learned from these journals to aid Cartmill in creating an accurate image of an atomic weapon.

In particular, Campbell and Cartmill included two specific illustrations of an atomic

weapon that arose the American government's suspicions about the text.56 The first instance

simply referred to the large amount of U-235 needed to create a working atomic bomb.57 In

"Deadline," Cartmill states that "U-235 has been separated in quantity easily sufficient for

preliminary atomic-power research."58 More importantly, the second section of text in

"Deadline" describes the atomic bomb in more detail:

Two cast-iron hemispheres, clamped over the orange segments of cadmium

alloy. And the fuse...a tiny can of cadmium in a beryllium holder and a small

explosive powerful enough to shatter the cadmium walls. Then...the powdered

uranium oxide runs together in the central cavity. The radium shoots neutrons into

this mass–and the U-235 takes over from there.59

The actual atomic bomb that the Manhattan Project developed mirrors Cartmill's depiction. The

mass of U-235 remains separated in two different containers, like Cartmill's two "cast-iron hemispheres."60 The bomb's detonation forces the two pieces together through an explosion from

which "the U-235 takes over from there"61 by entering into a chain reaction that essentially

creates the weapon's explosive force.

56 Robert Silverberg,, "Reflections: The Cleve Cartmill Affair: One," Asimov's Science Fiction, http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0310/ref.shtml 57 Carl R. Nave, "Nuclear Weapons," HyperPhysics, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/bomb.html 58 Cleve Cartmill, Deadline (Science Fiction's Most Controversial Story) & Other Classics, ed. Jean Marie Stine (San Francisco: Futures-Past Editions, 2011), 103. 59 Ibid., 113. 60 Ibid. 61 Carl R. Nave, "Nuclear Weapons," HyperPhysics, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/bomb.html 23

"Deadline" further displays the concerns of scientists and science fiction writers about the

terrible potential of the atomic bomb. According to Asimov, Campbell desired his writers to deal

with what technological "advances might mean to society."62 Those aware of nuclear power

remained, as Albert Berger describes, "aware of the terrible potentialities of nuclear energy...They were afraid for humanity." 63 Campbell reflects this fear in "Deadline." The story,

which occurs on an alien planet, concerns an undercover agent sent to destroy the nuclear

weapon built by his people's enemy. Ybor, the agent, wishes to prevent the horrible future use of

the bomb may entail, one that real scientists and writers believed could exist in actuality:

"Imagine space travelers of the future sighting this planet empty of life, overgrown with jungles.

It wouldn't even have a name…not a bird in the sky, not a pig in the sty. Perhaps no insects,

even."64 To Ybor, and many actual Americans aware of the atomic bomb, the utter destruction of

humanity remained a real possibility in the early stages of the bomb's development.

According to Albert Berger, Cleve Cartmill further dealt with such fears about the atomic bomb and war with Germany in his work.65 Cartmill created a story that closely mirrored the wartime situation facing Americans. As Robert Silverberg notes, Cartmill made the two powerful alien nations at war in "Deadline" comparable to the Axis and the Allied Powers in World War

II.66 In the story, Ybor serves under a "Craven Democracy"67 comparable to the United States,

worried about their opponent's creation of an atomic weapon. Just like the United States

62 Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science Fiction (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981), 116. 63 Albert I. Berger, "The Triumph of Prophecy: Science Fiction and Nuclear Power in the Post-Hiroshima Period," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 3, No. 2 (July 1976), 143. 64 Cleve Cartmill, Deadline (Science Fiction's Most Controversial Story) & Other Classics, ed. Jean Marie Stine (San Francisco: Futures-Past Editions, 2011), 93. 65 Albert I. Berger, "The Triumph of Prophecy: Science Fiction and Nuclear Power in the Post-Hiroshima Period," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 3, No. 2 (July 1976), 143. 66 Robert Silverberg,, "Reflections: The Cleve Cartmill Affair: One," Asimov's Science Fiction, http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0310/ref.shtml 67 Cleve Cartmill, Deadline (Science Fiction's Most Controversial Story) & Other Classics, ed. Jean Marie Stine (San Francisco: Futures-Past Editions, 2011), 108. 24

government's reasoning for developing the Manhattan Project, Ybor and his government created

an atomic bomb to prevent their opponents from obtaining a monopoly on the destructive

weapon. As a last resort, they can end the war through the bomb's use: "The Seilla [Ybor's

enemy] have a bomb almost completed. They'll use it to destroy Ynamre [the world]. But if we

can use ours first, we'll destroy them."68 This attitude towards the bomb reinforces the danger of

using it in war; regardless of which side detonates the bomb, only mass death results from the

deployment of such a weapon. Although the bomb in "Deadline" seemed fantastical to most

Americans readers at the time, because they remained unfamiliar with nuclear technology,

"Deadline" did introduce them to the idea that a war could decimate humanity. In this manner,

Cartmill attempts to convince his readers to oppose the creation of such a weapon, even to win a

war, because of its potentially horrible consequences. He also predicts a new trend in the science

fiction genre by depicting an atomic bomb. In the years after "Deadline," science fiction writers

began illustrating the possible failure to maintain peace during the Cold War and the devastating

use of nuclear weapons in a subsequent war against the Soviet Union.

The first indication that the bomb's true destructive potential remained a problem for the

current American scientific community occurred July 16, 1945. On that day, the Manhattan

Project conducted the Trinity test, the first explosion of an atomic bomb in human history.69

Stanley Goldberg describes the explosion as a "rolling fireball, a quarter-mile in diameter"70 in the sky. The conflicting accounts of Oppenheimer's reaction to the Trinity test reflect how scientists remained aware of the terrible potential of the atomic bomb. Goldberg divulges that

68 Cleve Cartmill, Deadline (Science Fiction's Most Controversial Story) & Other Classics, ed. Jean Marie Stine (San Francisco: Futures-Past Editions, 2011), 108. 69 Peter N. Kirstein, "Hiroshima and Spinning the Atom: America, Britain, and Canada Proclaim the Nuclear Age, 6 August 1945," Historian Vol. 71, No. 4 (Winter 2009), 807. 70 Stanley Goldberg, "Groves and Oppenheimer: The Story of a Partnership," The Antioch Review Vol. 53 (Fall 1995). 25

"Oppenheimer may indeed have thought, as he later claimed, of the line from the Bhagavad-Gita:

'I am become death, shatterer of worlds.' What those around him actually heard him say was, 'It

worked.'"71 Oppenheimer's supposed words recognize the destructive potential of the atomic

bomb, while other scientists' account of his reaction show his disbelief that their experiment

worked on such an astounding scale. The success of this test changed the nature of international

politics and science fiction forever, as it allowed for the use of this destructive weapon on Japan

less than a month later. 72 The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki signified a significant shift in the science fiction genre and American sentiment towards nuclear weaponry.

71 Stanley Goldberg, "Groves and Oppenheimer: The Story of a Partnership," The Antioch Review Vol. 53 (Fall 1995). 72 Alison Kraft, "Atomic Medicine." HistoryToday Vol. 59, No. 11 (Nov. 2009), 27-8. 26

The Birth of Postwar Optimism

On August 6, 1945, the United States bombed Hiroshima, shocking the American public

with this display of overwhelming power.73 Truman's initial comments about the atomic bomb exemplify American's feelings about the weapon; learning of the bomb's deployment at

Hiroshima while on the U.S.S. Augusta, he exclaimed that "this is the greatest thing in history."74

Although the atomic bomb contained tremendous destructive capabilities, Paul Brians notes that

Americans felt "a wildly exaggerated optimism"75 about the weapon. This optimism partly

resulted from the fact that in 1945 the bomb lacked the awful reputation, one based on

destruction and death, that surrounds it in the present day.76 To ensure popular support of the bomb prior to its use, the Truman Administration had organized a propaganda campaign that extolled the upcoming nuclear age. Even before the bomb dropped, they inundated the American public with positive justifications for nuclear technology, such as nuclear power plants. Through such campaigns, the United States government prepared Americans for the advent of the atomic bomb. According to Nina Tannenwald, after August 6, 1945, "the American public was not particularly bothered by atomic bombs—radiation did not become a significant issue until the

1950s—and the atomic bomb was not viewed as a decisive weapon."77 For Americans, the

bomb simply represented a bright, new future and not a powerful weapon that threatened

humanity's very existence.

73 Fred Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (New York: Touchstone, 1983) cited by Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (New York: Routledge, 2007), 205. 74 Peter N. Kirstein, "Hiroshima and Spinning the Atom: America, Britain, and Canada Proclaim the Nuclear Age, 6 August 1945," Historian Vol. 71, No. 4 (Winter 2009), 818. 75 Paul Brians, "Nuclear War in Science Fiction, 1945-59 (La guerre nucléaire en science-fiction, 1945-59)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 11, No. 3 (November 1984), 254. 76 Nina Tannenwald, "Stigmatizing the Bomb Origins of the Nuclear Taboo," International Security Vol. 29, No. 4 (Spring 2005), 14. 77 Ibid., 15. 27

This wave of optimism about the bomb and the related political and technological

advantages that it was expected to bring to the United States forever altered the science fiction

genre. According to Asimov, the atomic bomb served as the "first clear indication that it was the

people who wrote and read science fiction who lived in the real world, and everyone else who

lived in a fantasy."78 Rob Latham asserts that Americans no longer dismissed the genre as pulp

fiction, because the atomic bomb made the technology found within the tales serve as actual

possibilities in the future instead of pure speculation. 79 Suddenly, more Americans read the

genre, causing a boom in science fiction's popularity in the United States. Partly as a response to

this new popularity, several new science fiction magazines and anthologies appeared in the

months immediately following Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Respectable publishers, like Random

House, that never before considered printing science fiction began publishing such stories.

According to Paul Brians, the newfound popularity of science fiction in America caused the

genre's writers to feel "that their confidence in the world-transforming possibilities of modern

science was vindicated by the bomb, and a common first reaction was to proclaim the wonders

which awaited the public in the bright new Atomic Age."80 Albert Berger expands on Brians' statement about the genre. He asserts that, in the wake of World War II, science fiction writers

"were acknowledged as prophets proven right by the course of events [the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki]."81 Berger argues that Americans soon valued science fiction as legitimate

literature that actually educated them about their future.82 Americans essentially read about many

78 Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science Fiction (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981), 115. 79 Rob Latham, "Fiction, 1950-1963," in The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, ed. by Mark Bould et al. (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009), 86. 80 Paul Brians, "Nuclear War in Science Fiction, 1945-59 (La guerre nucléaire en science-fiction, 1945-59)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 11, No. 3 (November 1984), 253. 81 Albert I. Berger, "The Triumph of Prophecy: Science Fiction and Nuclear Power in the Post-Hiroshima Period," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 3, No. 2 (July 1976), 143. 82 Albert I. Berger, "Nuclear Energy: Science Fiction's Metaphor of Power (L'énergie nucléaire comme métaphore du pouvoir en science-fiction)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (July 1979), 125. 28

strange technological achievements in science fiction, such as space and time travel, then saw

these feats as possible accomplishments in reality. In this manner, the atomic bomb

fundamentally altered American's view of the science fiction genre.

Tales depicting a bright future caused by the atomic bomb permeated the science fiction

genre in the months after August 1945. Paul Brians suggests that, as long as only the United

States possessed the atomic bomb, Americans viewed the weapon as a "triumph of the human spirit and the American way of life," and that science fiction authors embraced this sentiment within their works.83 They began portraying nuclear power as an unparalleled achievement of

human science. For example, Frederic Brown's "Letter to a Phoenix" extols the triumph of

humanity; the nuclear fallout of an atomic bomb provides his narrator with long life, and that

man subsequently witnesses the survival of the human race over thousands of years.

Disregarding the horrors brought upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many Americans seem to have

viewed their scientists as benevolent creators of a new force of nature. They, and science fiction

writers, saw the atomic bomb as a weapon that revolutionized human civilization, and led the

way to a bright utopian future. As Brians suggests, Americans viewed the bomb as a benign

weapon; although it caused some destruction, nuclear technology served far more benevolent purposes.84 Science fiction embraced this view of the bomb. In Murray Leinster's Flight for Life,

nuclear scientists develop an atomic shield that can protect American citizens from the harmful

effects of an enemy nation's attack. John Wyndham's The Chrysalids even suggested that nuclear

radiation would give people the gift of telepathy.

Lewis Padgett's "Tomorrow and Tomorrow" (1946) is a particularly striking example of

the science fiction tales that depict American optimism about the atomic bomb and nuclear

83 Paul Brians, "Nuclear War in Science Fiction, 1945-59 (La guerre nucléaire en science-fiction, 1945-59)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 11, No. 3 (November 1984), 255. 84 Ibid., 256. 29

energy in general, while still acknowledging its destructive potential.85 Padgett, a pseudonym

used for co-authored works by Henry Kuttner and C.L. Moore, wrote a novel that occurs in a

future shaped by nuclear war, where the government went to extreme means in order to prevent

further use of the atomic bomb. The novel's main character, Joseph Brendon, lives in a society

that outlaws scientific advancement. He meets a group of rebels in contact with an alternate

reality. Discussions with people from this reality reveal that another atomic explosion will restart

research in the sciences and thus transform the world into a utopia; Paul Brians accurately

describes this possible utopian society as one where "science flourished, life is greatly prolonged,

and disease cured."86 As a result of learning this information, Brendon subsequently aims to

detonate an atomic bomb in order to instigate a new golden age for humanity. Despite the

outlandish plot, the American public positively reacted to "Tomorrow and Tomorrow" and its

premise. Groff Conklin, a leading science fiction anthologist, found Padgett's tale "sheer

enchantment to read" and "unreservedly recommended" the novel.87 The positive reaction to

"Tomorrow and Tomorrow" affirms that the novel serves as an adequate representative of the

science fiction works that display an optimistic view of the atomic bomb.

Despite the optimism in "Tomorrow and Tomorrow," Padgett also acknowledges the

atomic bomb's destructive capabilities. Padgett's Americans realize the power of atomic weapons after suffering through a war that frequently employed them against citizens: "The atomic bombs secretly planted in their vital areas and key centers had been detonated by other bombs they themselves were sending up. It was an abortive war, because no one had really counted the

85 Martha A. Bartter, "Nuclear Holocaust as Urban Renewal (La guerre nucléaire et la renouveau urbain)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 152. 86 Paul Brians, "Nuclear War in Science Fiction, 1945-59 (La guerre nucléaire en science-fiction, 1945-59)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 11, No. 3 (November 1984), 256. 87 Groff Conklin, "Galaxy's 5 Star Shelf," Galaxy Science Fiction Vol. 4, No. 1 (April 1952), 118-9. 30

cost."88 The detonation of atomic weapons in key areas caused uncountable loss of human life.

Because scientists constantly developed new and more destructive atomic weapons, the Global

Peace Commission (GPC) rigidly controls scientific development in order to prevent the creation

of more powerful weapons and prevent the detonation of another atomic bomb. Such caution

reflects the feelings of American atomic scientists directly after the attack on Hiroshima. P.E.

Hodgson discloses that nuclear scientists realized that atomic energy "had vast potentialities for

both good and evil...The nuclear physicists who had worked on the bomb, most of whom had

returned to their universities after the end of the war, realized that they had a serious

responsibility to inform the public about the potentialities of nuclear energy." 89 These scientists, like the GPC, remain apprehensive over possible future uses of the atomic bomb. However, this concern does not serve as the focus of "Tomorrow and Tomorrow." Rather, Padgett centers the

novel around the positive aspects of nuclear power, thus reflecting the common American's

sentiments about the atomic bomb.

Although "Tomorrow and Tomorrow" acknowledges the bomb's potential for destruction,

in the end Padgett treats the atomic bomb in the same manner as Americans in the late 1940s —

as a weapon that lacks decisive power. When "Tomorrow and Tomorrow" was written, the

American public did not understand the effects of nuclear radiation, and also did not recognize

the capacity of the atomic bomb to serve as a decisive weapon in war. Instead, as Nina

Tannenwald asserts, the novel treats the bomb like just one more American missile that simply

caused a greater explosion.90 Padgett displays this view of the bomb in "Tomorrow and

Tomorrow," with Brendon outright stating that "atomic power isn't as dangerous as we've been

88 Lewis Padgett, "Tomorrow and Tomorrow." Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 38, No. 5 (Jan. 1947), 16. 89 P.E. Hodgson, "The Politics of Nuclear Power." Modern Age Vol. 51, No. 1 (Winter 2009), 47. 90 Nina Tannenwald, "Stigmatizing the Bomb Origins of the Nuclear Taboo," International Security Vol. 29, No. 4 (Spring 2005), 15. 31 conditioned to believe. No chain reaction could destroy this planet...At worst, we’ll blow a big hole in things—but that's all."91 The problem, instead, lies in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion: war. As such, a moral problem arises in "Tomorrow and Tomorrow" when Brendon must decide whether he should cause a third World War in order to create a utopian society. As the novel explains, the war will cause "an atomic holocaust, the nations will decentralize immediately, and there'll be bacteriological warfare. Not many people will remain alive on the planet. But research will be given the greatest impetus since World War Two…Scientists, artists, farmers —the boundaries are removed for them. They are reaching out to the stars."92 Brendon's decision thus concerns whether he should support the stagnation of research to save lives or an atomic war to begin further scientific research. This debate foreshadows a similar issue that arises in the 1950s over whether scientists should continue developing nuclear technology. While the American public in the 1950s protests further atomic research and vilifies nuclear scientists,

Padgett presents a counterargument to their feelings nearly a decade before the issue becomes a pressing problem in the United States. Through Brendon's decision to cause an atomic war in

"Tomorrow and Tomorrow," Padgett attempts to convince his readers that scientific progress at the cost of human life remains the preferable option because the technological developments will better the lives of every surviving person. Since Padgett made Brendon the protagonist of the novel, he essentially asserts that Brendon's choice remains the morally correct one, despite the suffering that it will cause.

By presenting his argument for atomic warfare in "Tomorrow and Tomorrow"'s futuristic society, Padgett displays American's optimistic opinion of nuclear power immediately following

World War II. According to Martha Bartter, the novel's depiction of atomic warfare as a positive

91 Lewis Padgett, "Tomorrow and Tomorrow." Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 38, No. 6 (Feb. 1947), 147. 92 Lewis Padgett, "Tomorrow and Tomorrow." Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 38, No. 5 (Feb. 1947), 32. 32

event for the development of American society reflected a widely held belief that nuclear power

contained the potential for great achievements.93 For example, the fallout of atomic warfare mutates some humans. These people "were, however, better than humans in a number of ways.

Not that they weren't human themselves; it was semantically wrong to consider them alien. They were merely humans extended."94 Through such positive effects, Padgett's novel depicts a benign

bomb, one actual Americans believed in during the late 1940s. Furthermore, the rebels that

desire to cause an atomic explosion espouse the benefits of the atomic bomb. Ilsa, a

revolutionary, convinces Joseph to support her cause by describing the utopia prevented by the

Global Peace Commission:

'Unless your son—or daughter—is a moron, he or she will be insane, growing up

in this GPC-controlled culture. Wouldn't you rather have your child growing up in

a world where he'd have freedom from disease, mental freedom as well, and a life

expectancy of two hundred years? Brenden, if GPC hadn't choked off the Third

World War before it started, medical research would be a thousand years ahead

now. Disease would be almost unknown—'95

Through such an assertion, Ilsa argues for the detonation of an atomic bomb. Padgett, by making his protagonist agree with her, supports Ilsa's assertion that use of the bomb will benefit society.

Therefore, Padgett's "Tomorrow and Tomorrow" reflects American's optimistic view of the

bomb as the harbinger of a new, golden age of nuclear power.

93 Martha A. Bartter, "Nuclear Holocaust as Urban Renewal (La guerre nucléaire et la renouveau urbain)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 152. 94 Lewis Padgett, "Tomorrow and Tomorrow." Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 38, No. 5 (Jan. 1947), 9. 95 Ibid., 33. 33

Fear of Nuclear Annihilation

However, American's optimistic opinion of nuclear technology and the atomic bomb

did not survive the realization of the atomic bomb's destructive power and the instigation of the

Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. In July 1946, the atomic tests at

Bikini, codenamed Operation Crossroads, introduced Americans to the reality of the atomic

bomb. While the tests did not overtly decrease American's optimism about the nuclear

technology, Bikini introduced the dangerous effects of nuclear radiation into the United States'

scientific community. As such, Scott Zeman argues that the impact of Operation Crossroads

properly reflects the test's codename; after July 1946, American opinion of the bomb stood

poised between optimism and fear. 96 While many Americans embraced bright visions of an

atomic future, some began to fear the atomic bomb. In particular, Maureen Paton asserts that

nuclear scientists opposed to the idea of employing the atomic bomb in war heralded this

movement against the mainstream opinion of the nuclear energy.97 These scientists felt the deterioration of the United States and the Soviet Union's relations at the time justified their claims about what Colin Gray calls "the unprecedented menace that it [the atomic bomb] brought to international relations."98 Moreover, the United States government compounded the growing trepidation of atomic warfare when it integrated the atomic bomb into its war plans.99 In the

immediate post-World War II era, a growing number of Americans also began to fear the atomic

bomb and, consequently, nuclear technology.

96 Scott C. Zeman, "'Taking Hell's Measurements': Popular Science and Popular Mechanics Magazines and the Atomic Bomb from Hiroshima to Bikini," The Journal of Popular Culture Vol. 41, No. 4 (Aug. 2008), 705. 97 Maureen Paton, "The Accidental Atomicist," HistoryToday Vol. 60, No. 8 (Aug. 2010), 54. 98 Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (New York: Routledge, 2007), 205. 99 Lawrence Freedman, "25. The First Two Generations of Nuclear Strategists," in Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, ed. by Peter Paret (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986), 737. 34

Written in the same year as "Tomorrow and Tomorrow," "The Nightmare" (1946) by

Chandler Davis illustrates the growing fear about the atomic bomb and its destructive

capabilities. Davis and several colleagues recognized an important concern that emerged with the

creation of an atomic bomb: nuclear scientists never devised a way to defend against the bomb's

destructive force. As a result, Americans impervious to the optimistic view of nuclear power

believed that an atomic war would eventually occur. The atomic bomb remained too tempting a

weapon to use in warfare because there was no defense against its power. Davis reflects this

belief through his protagonist, Rob Ciccone. The short story revolves around New York City,

and the government's attempts to protect it from a nuclear attack through strict regulations.

Ciccone, an expert on the city's security, realizes that his successful security measures mean

nothing in the long run, as "No number of successes in preventing the importing of dangerous

radioactives can compensate for just one failure, and I feel unable to state positively that failure,

and disastrous failure, is impossible."100 This uncertainty promotes a fear-filled environment in

"The Nightmare," an environment that many actual Americans began to experience in the United

States after World War II. When Ciccone realizes that unknown agents smuggled an atomic bomb into New York City, and plan to detonate it, he rushes to prevent them. In his race against time, Ciccone cannot trust anyone because he "can't forget the possibility that the truck driver, or even one of our men, might be an agent."101 This mistrust creates a fear-filled story ripe with tension over the prospect of an atomic attack against the United States. Such a scenario remained at the forefront of the minds of Americans realizing the atomic bomb's destructive capabilities.

According to Berger, many Americans understood that "the probable consequences of

nuclear development appeared extremely gloomy—appeared, indeed, to lead directly to

100 Chan Davis, "The Nightmare," Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 37, No. 3 (May 1946), 8. 101 Ibid., 13. 35

disaster."102 "The Nightmare"'s unfulfilling conclusion depicts this depressed atmosphere.

Ciccone had to let the enemy agents escape: if he caught them, a destructive war would result

with whatever country they hailed from. Furthermore, all forms of security against a similar attack in the future remain rife with weakness. For example, Albert Berger comments that the enemy agents in "The Nightmare" had an easier time smuggling radioactives into New York because of the city's decentralization; yet, the government decentralized New York City in order to protect the greatest number of Americans from harm.103 By preventing war, Ciccone simply

delayed the inevitable; as Ciccone states, "Now we have one success—we've postponed the fatal

failure a little further."104 Through such a pessimistic conclusion, Davis informs his readers that

the advent of the nuclear age simply began a journey towards inevitable desolation in the United

States. Berger explains his belief in "The Triumph of Prophecy: Science Fiction and Nuclear

Power in the Post-Hiroshima Period:"

It was, Davis wrote in "Nightmare," like driving a truck down a winding and

increasingly narrow mountain road at too great a speed. It was clear that neither

science nor business nor government could provide the truck with brakes. As a

result of decisions Davis felt had already been made by 1946, there was no way to

prevent an eventual disaster.105

Davis thus shows his readers that no solution to the problem of atomic technology exists within

"The Nightmare" and in reality. For Davis, technology and government offer no real protection

102 Albert I. Berger, "The Triumph of Prophecy: Science Fiction and Nuclear Power in the Post-Hiroshima Period," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 3, No. 2 (July 1976), 145. 103 Ibid. 104 Chan Davis, "The Nightmare," Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 37, No. 3 (May 1946): 21. 105 Albert I. Berger, "The Triumph of Prophecy: Science Fiction and Nuclear Power in the Post-Hiroshima Period," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 3, No. 2 (July 1976), 145. 36

against nuclear weapons. 106 Over the next few years, many Americans came to share his belief

that there was no effective way to prevent an atomic attack.

As early as 1945, panic at the idea of an atomic attack brought people around the world

together in order to object to the development and use of nuclear weapons. While most

Americans felt optimistic about the atomic bomb, a portion of the population recognized the

inherent danger of nuclear weaponry. People from nations around the world expressed the

sentiments of this small American populace. In Japan, protests against use of atomic technology

began in October of 1945; citizens at Hiroshima broke the United States' regulations and

demanded that the United States stop building and deploying nuclear weapons.107 Over the next five years, this small spark ignited a vast movement around the world. Greater numbers of

Americans joined the movement for the atomic bomb's discontinued use as the initial optimism about the weapon faded in the 1950s. According to Nina Tannenwald, the international protestors "were driven by a growing fear of nuclear war and a general sense of revulsion regarding nuclear weapons." 108 The results of such protests culminated with the Stockholm

Peace Appeal in 1950. This petition demanded that world's governments prohibit use of the atomic bomb. Over 500 million people from around the world signed the Stockholm Peace

Appeal. American's participation in these protests contributed to the culture of fear surrounding

the early years of the Cold War in America by drawing attention to the terrible nature of nuclear

technology.

In 1949, all Americans felt trepidation over a possible atomic attack because the United

States lost its monopoly over the atomic bomb. Before this, the majority of Americans hailed the

106 D.H. Dowling, "The Atomic Scientist: Machine or Moralist? (Le savant atomiste: une machine ou un moraliste?)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 144. 107 Nina Tannenwald, "Stigmatizing the Bomb Origins of the Nuclear Taboo," International Security Vol. 29, No. 4 (Spring 2005), 20. 108 Ibid., 21. 37

atomic bomb as the herald of a new age; the United States' monopoly over the weapon prevented

Americans from feeling fear over use of the bomb on American citizens.109 However, in 1949,

the Soviet Union successfully tested its first atomic device, thus obtaining nuclear capabilities.

This event drastically altered American's view of nuclear technology. According to Lawrence

Freedman, the "arrival of a Soviet nuclear capability meant that decisions on the role of these

weapons was no longer solely the prerogative of the United States."110 The Soviet Union's

attainment of nuclear capabilities caused the fear of an atomic war between the Soviet Union and

the United States to spread throughout the world. Even the Soviet Union admitted to the

increased danger that permeated international diplomacy. In this dreadful climate, people in the

western nations, such as the United States, began viewing nuclear weapons as the enemy instead

of a beneficial piece of technology.

Kris Neville's "Cold War" (1949) properly depicts American's state of fear over nuclear

technology and the tense atmosphere between the United States and the Soviet Union. With the

Soviet Union's acquirement of nuclear technology, even government officials began discussing

the devastating nature of the atomic bomb, disregarding the propaganda campaign set up by the

Truman Administration. Often, these politicians used images of human extinction due to the

bomb for their own ends in debate, and Paul Brians discloses that "much of the public took it

seriously, and popular fiction reflected the public's fears."111 Neville's "Cold War" illustrates

these fears of an atomic war that causes massive devastation to the United States. The short story

concerns an unnamed president of the United States and his dilemma over the country's atomic

109 Paul Brians, "Nuclear War in Science Fiction, 1945-59 (La guerre nucléaire en science-fiction, 1945-59)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 11, No. 3 (November 1984), 255. 110 Lawrence Freedman, "25. The First Two Generations of Nuclear Strategists," in Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, ed. by Peter Paret (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986), 739. 111 Paul Brians, "Nuclear War in Science Fiction, 1945-59 (La guerre nucléaire en science-fiction, 1945-59)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 11, No. 3 (November 1984), 254. 38

power. The United States launched space satellites armed with nuclear weapons; they circle the

globe, constantly able to attack any part of the world, as a deterrent to any nation that would

consider attacking the United States. As a result, the United States places every nation in the

world in a state of perpetual fear over the possibility of nuclear annihilation. The president in

"Cold War" accurately describes the uncomfortable situation when he claims that "no such state

[of war] exists. Ostensibly we are friendly nations...the enemy [the Soviet Union] will go just so far, and no further. They are careful not to give me an excuse [to use the atomic weapons]." 112

The tension between the enforced peace and the threat of extinction accurately mirrors the real

international situation during the early stages of the Cold War, where the Soviet Union and the

United States carefully avoided physical confrontation while still remaining antagonistic towards

one another. Furthermore, the very title of Neville's work reinforces the connection between

actuality and fiction through its use of the term 'Cold War,' which describes the political situation

between the United States and the Soviet Union at this time.

Anxiety over the competition between America and other superpowers plagued

Americans; "Cold War" depicts these concerns through Neville's presentation of the tense

political situation between America and its enemies. After the Soviet Union's atomic test,

Americans felt widespread anxieties about superpower competition. This theme remained a prevalent one in science fiction during the era. The president of the United States in Neville's

short story exhibits these anxieties about superpowers pushing each other towards use of nuclear

weapons. He explains that "They—the enemy, shall I say?—know that we will never take

positive action without strong justification...[therefore] Their only consideration is this: 'Will

America use the Space Stations to stop us?', and if the answer is 'no', then they may proceed.'"113

112 Kris Neville. "Cold War," Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 44, No. 2 (Oct. 1949),123. 113 Ibid., 125. 39

In the short story, this strategy places the United States in an impossible situation. Political

leaders find themselves constantly trying to decide whether it is wiser to risk a retaliatory strike

by the Soviets or Chinese, or to tolerate bad behavior by their enemies. In essence, the United

States remains in a catch-22 situation, where "Bloodshed or subjugation"114 remained its only

viable options. Neville’s president describes this situation "as something hanging over their heads."115 His description of this circumstance mirrors the feelings of actual Americans about

nuclear war as described by Isaac Asimov, a prominent science fiction writer; Asimov asserted

that the atomic bomb "salvaged [the science fiction genre] into respectability at the price of a

nuclear war hanging like a sword of Damocles over the world forever."116 The competition between superpowers over atomic supremacy created this threat to the American way of life.

Although the United States created these weapons, its populace remained in constant fear of their use during the late 1940s and 1950s — especially against American citizens.

In "Cold War," Neville explores this constant state of fear in America by discussing how such anxiety will eventually break the American psyche. In the story, a man resides in each space station, poised to manually attack any point in the globe with atomic weapons. Neville employs these men to explore how fear of a nuclear attack can place psychological pressure on

Americans. Despite rigid tests to check for mental stability, the crewmen inadvertently break down during their furlough and turn homicidal because they cannot take the constant psychological pressure caused by controlling use of the atomic weapons. Such men constantly deal with the notion of "Life and death…life and death…life and death—Over and over,

114 Kris Neville. "Cold War," Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 44, No. 2 (Oct. 1949),126. 115 Ibid., 125. 116 Albert I. Berger, "The Triumph of Prophecy: Science Fiction and Nuclear Power in the Post-Hiroshima Period," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 3, No. 2 (July 1976), 143. 40

producing a hypnotic effect—like the individual death-wish."117 Their sentiments portray an

extreme version of the emotions actual Americans felt, because they constantly faced the possibility of a fatal atomic attack during the course of their normal lives. Neville's president

fears that eventually the psychological pressure will cause one man to suffer a complete

meltdown while on the space station: "The law of averages, he [the President] thought, is

catching up with us...swirling in one of those nine unites, up there, is a man who may, at any

moment, become…murderous…insane! And in each Station there is enough power to destroy

half a continent."118 The president acknowledges that the psychological pressure of possible

atomic destruction remains too much for people to handle, yet no other option remains available

to the American government to prevent this psychological degeneration. Through this assertion,

Neville suggests that actual Americans may not be able to handle the pressures of the Cold War;

they will eventually succumb to their fear. However, no other option for the United States exists

both in "Cold War" and in reality. Moreover, in Neville's fictional world, the use of atomic

weapons on civilians remains inevitable since one crewman's psyche will eventually break. The

fear of such an occurrence plagued actual Americans in the mid-1950s as the Cold War reached

its zenith.

117 Kris Neville. "Cold War,"Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 44, No. 2 (Oct. 1949),131. 118 Ibid. 41

Belief in Inevitable War

The trepidation Americans felt about the atomic bomb was often accompanied by the

belief in an inevitable nuclear war. The Cold War intensified in the early 1950s as the United

States and the Soviet Union manufactured more nuclear weapons capable of increasingly

destructive feats. Americans became obsessed with staying ahead of the Soviets in terms of

nuclear capabilities, leading to the creation of the hydrogen bomb and other such weaponry. As

the United States government struggled to maintain supremacy in the weapons race, many people

recognized that such attempts remained futile: the Soviet Union would eventually match the

United States in nuclear power. The National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) depicts

American's struggle against atomic equality between the United States and the Soviet Union.

This document espouses the notion that America will not maintain nuclear supremacy after the

1950s, because the Soviet Union will eventually obtain an equal amount of nuclear power.

Americans recognized the problems with the increasing amount of nuclear weaponry on the

global scene. While they originally viewed nuclear weapons as simply another missile to employ

during war, the rapid evolution of atomic technology and the government's plan to employ those

weapons differentiated nuclear-powered bombs from traditional explosives. The Soviet Union's

attitude towards atomic weapons simply intensified American's concern over their belief in an inevitable nuclear war.

After the Soviet Union acquired nuclear capabilities in August 1949, the United States government feared that such power encouraged its enemy to act in a more aggressive manner.

Francis J. Gavin asserts that "the United States was convinced that nuclear weapons had so emboldened the Soviet Union that a third world war might be unavoidable."119 Soviet ally North

119 Francis J. Gavin, "Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation, and the Cold War," International Security Vol. 34, No. 3 (Winter 2009/10), 15. 42

Korea's attack against South Korea in 1950 confirmed this worry for many Americans. Although the Soviet Union did not directly involve itself with the conflict, the People's Republic of China openly supported the North Koreans. At the time, Americans oversimplified the complex alliance between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Therefore, they believed that

Chinese involvement in the conflict was the same as Soviet involvement. Although the MAD

(mutually assured destruction) policy seemed to safeguard against a nuclear war between the

United States and the Soviet Union, North Korea's willingness to engage in conventional warfare

with South Korea, a United States ally, illustrated a fault with such an undependable safeguard.

Since the North Koreans indirectly brought the Soviet Union into conflict with the United States

through the Korean War, North Korea showed that allies of nuclear-capable countries lack the same restraint as the two superpowers. The United States and the Soviet Union could thus inadvertently begin to physically combat each other if a war between their allies escalated, as it did in World War I. Either the United States or the Soviet Union might eventually choose to

employ nuclear weapons in such a conflict in order to secure a victory. Americans, recognizing

the possibility of a war with the Soviet Union because of their allies, therefore grew concerned

with the idea of an upcoming war.

The science fiction genre, particularly Bernard Wolfe's Limbo '90 (1952), displays the

growing belief in the certainty of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. When faced with the

destructive potential of nuclear weapons, few science fiction authors disputed the believed

inevitability of an atomic war. They believed that the creation of the atomic bomb began this

unavoidable path; as Merritt Abrash states, "there is an inevitable progression from 43

superweapon development to deterrence to apocalyptic war."120 In the early 1950s, a plethora of

science fiction tales concerning such a conflict emerged in the science fiction genre. Popular

authors even tackled this increasingly realistic notion: Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles, for

example, concerns the utter destruction of Earth, which results in humanity colonizing Mars and

thus beginning a new atomic conflict with Martians. Like many Americans, Bradbury seems to

have believed that, despite all the well-intentioned efforts to prevent such an event, the invention

of the atomic bomb would lead to a nuclear apocalypse. Walter M. Miller, for instance, shows

the belief that knowledge of atomic power drives a society to warfare in his famous A Canticle

for Leibowitz. After forgetting about nuclear technology in the wake of a devastating atomic

conflict, Paul Brians argues that Miller depicts how "the revival of learning may lead only to

another and more apocalyptic war"121 in the novel. Nevertheless, of the science fiction works

produced at the time, Bernard Wolfe's Limbo '90 provides an accurate depiction of Americans

fear of their belief in an inevitable nuclear war. Furthermore, Wolfe simultaneously challenges

Americans to contemplate the true cause of nuclear war; through his characters' failed attempts to

disarm, he argues that humanity could possibly prevent nuclear war by curbing their inclination

towards violence.

Limbo '90 concerns an American society similar to the actual United States in the early

1950s, and employs that society to illustrate the certainty of atomic warfare between the United

States and the Soviet Union. The novel revolves around Martine, a surgeon who fled from

atomic warfare to an uncharted island, and his reintegration into civilized society. Through

Martine's uninformed perspective, Wolfe explores the intricacies of nuclear war, deterrence, and

120 Merritt Abrash, "Through Logic to Apocalypse: Science-Fiction Scenarios of Nuclear Deterrence Breakdown (De la logique vers l'apocalypse: quelques scenarios de SF sue la faillite de la dissuasion nucléaire)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 132. 121 Paul Brians, "Nuclear War in Science Fiction, 1945-59 (La guerre nucléaire en science-fiction, 1945-59)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 11, No. 3 (November 1984), 257. 44

the Cold War, and how such aspects of American society led to nuclear conflict. To accomplish

this goal, he presents the fictional world as one informed by the same history-changing events as

the actual one. In particular, Wolfe's Third World War mirrors World War II. While the fictional

war results in far more destruction, some key aspects of the conflict remain similar to World War

II, thus allowing for a connection between them. The war in Limbo '90 concerned attacks against

civilians via city bombings; the narrator tells us that Theo, a war hero, "had to his credit the

destruction of Chunking, Warsaw, Paris, Johannesburg, and several other great cosmopolitan

centers."122 Such devastating events not only parallel the atomic explosions at Hiroshima and

Nagasaki, but the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, London, and other such cities. Furthermore,

Wolfe also reflects World War II through his acknowledgement of the vast casualties sustained

in the Third World War; his claim that "the population back home [in the United States] had

been cut down by much more than a third, and the end wasn't yet in sight"123 parallels the demise of millions during World War II simply because the death toll remained improbably high in both the fictional and real war. By establishing this connection between the Third World War and

World War II, Wolfe closely ties his fictional society to the actual America. This connection allows him to properly examine the various emotions Americans felt about the idea of an inevitable atomic war.

In particular, Limbo '90 explores how many Americans feared that attacking the atomic bomb through a drive for disarmament might not prevent a possible nuclear war. Many

Americans, and people throughout the world, vied for the prevention of atomic weapons' use in war through actions like creating the Stockholm Peace Agreement.124 Wolfe reflects this desire

122 Bernard Wolfe, Limbo '90 (London: Penguin Books, 1961), 121. 123 Ibid., 126. 124 Nina Tannenwald, "Stigmatizing the Bomb Origins of the Nuclear Taboo," International Security Vol. 29, No. 4 (Spring 2005): 20. 45

in his work by illustrating how Americans in Limbo '90 try to avoid another world war. Wolfe's

world remains divided into two countries, the Strip and the East Union, which respectively

represent the United States and the Soviet Union. Both new nations try to emotionally and

physically disarm themselves in order to avoid further war. However, the instigation of a new

atomic war at the novel's conclusion illustrates American's growing recognition that disarmament

cannot prevent a possible war.

On the emotional front, the people in Limbo '90 suffered from the same anxieties that

were felt by mid-century Americans; because of this trepidation, they decided to emotionally

disarm aggressive members of their society to prevent war. In the 1950s, the constant fear of

nuclear weapons stressed many Americans, similar to Neville's suggestion in "Cold War."

Wolfe's prediction about the effects of such anxiety on people as shown in the novel, though

proved false in subsequent years, serves as a powerful portrayal of the anxiety level produced in

Americans by Cold War rhetoric. In Limbo '90, by the 1960s, "things had gotten so bad that one

out of every fifteen Americans could expect to be a psychotic patient in a mental institution at

some time in his life."125 To prevent the total mental deterioration of Americans, the populace

turned towards lobotomy for aid. This reliance on the brain-altering technique eventually bled

into their desire to prevent warfare. The lobotomies in Wolfe's world soon began to remove the

aggression in people to prevent them from fighting each other in a preemptive strike against

possible war. However, Martine soon realizes that this method of dealing with aggression will

fail because humans are inherently violent. When Martine encounters Theo and his old friend

Helder, political leaders of the Strip, he snaps after realizing these self-proclaimed pacifists hope for the onset of war with the "aggressive" East Union in order to create world peace:

125 Bernard Wolfe, Limbo '90 (London: Penguin Books, 1961), 77. 46

Attacking the human organism with a scalpel won't work, that's sure! I can slice

up the worst homicidal maniacs prefrontal lobe and give you a real lamb of a

pacifist, sure…[but] the knife won't work, you swine! Look at yourself [Theo]

this moment – the pacifist's flown out of the window, the rapist's back in action

with his emergency flashes and Plan B's!126

Martine believes that human beings have an ineradicable tendency toward aggression and,

therefore, war. Wolfe thus challenges his readers to fight against this instinct by arguing that

their failure to accomplish this might cause a nuclear war. Theo remains as a prime example of

the consequences of people's failure to emotionally disarm in Limbo '90. A famous lobotomized

pacifist and former atomic bomber in the Third World War, Theo serves as a main figure in the

new government that advocates for peace. However, his involvement in politics eventually

causes him to aid in the instigation of another atomic war. The emotional disarmament prevalent

in Wolfe's narrative fails, resulting in atomic war, and therefore depicts actual American's belief

in the inevitability of a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union.

Limbo '90 also portrays the world's physical dis-armament as another attempt to avoid an

inescapable atomic war. After the Third World War's devastating nuclear holocaust, Martha

Bartter divulges that Wolfe depicted another means of preventing a fourth worldwide conflict:

literal dis-armament.127 The majority of male citizens actually amputate their limbs, replacing

them with technologically-advanced prosthetics called "pros;" the more limbs a male lacks, the

greater his status in this new society. The government and most of the populace in Limbo '90

view these voluntary amputations as a way to "give ourselves fully, all the way, for ever, to

126 Ibid., 492. 127 Martha A. Bartter, "Nuclear Holocaust as Urban Renewal (La guerre nucléaire et la renouveau urbain)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 149. 47

peace!"128 Wolfe explains the connection between this dis-armament and disarmament in the narrative: "Disarmament can't amount to much unless, well, a man is really disarmed. Arms are what men fight with, and legs are what take them to the battlefield...a real hand always wants to make a fist and slug somebody, and it can't be stopped. But the pro, it's detachable, see? The minute it starts to make a fist, zip, one yank and it's off."129 By amputating their limbs, citizens

of the Strip attempt to curb their desire for conflict. However, Wolfe argues that physical

alterations cannot eliminate the people's mental inclination towards violence and war. This

remains especially evident in both governments' development of ways to weaponize the pros,

essentially turning the artificial limbs into flamethrowers and guns. Furthermore, the leading

members of the Strip and the East Union actually stealthily stockpile weapons for a war they

believe will occur because of their tense diplomatic relationship, despite outward attempts to

curb people's violent nature and thus prevent a conflict.

By presenting a situation eerily similar to the actual Cold War in Limbo '90, Wolf essentially argues that the inherent suspicion in such a tense political relationship will cause people to indulge in their violent nature and instigate atomic war. In Limbo '90 the Strip and the

East Union serve as the only great powers in the fictional society, and "everything's sweetness and light between them, one big happy family."130 However, this presentation of peace in the

post-war society only serves as a superficial illusion that hides the political tensions between the world powers — a description similar to the actual relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II. In actuality, suspicion and other negative emotions remain buried beneath the artificial appearance of friendly relations between the Strip and the East

Union. The source of this tension concerns the two powers' vie for columbium, a rare metal vital

128 Bernard Wolfe, Limbo '90 (London: Penguin Books, 1961), 397. 129 Ibid., 181. 130 Ibid., 103. 48

for the creation of pros. As an East Union member informs Martine, "Obviously we've [the East

Union] got to interest ourselves in this metal because the Strip is trying so hard to corner a

monopoly on the supply. We've no alternative – it's a case of self-defense."131 This fight for

columbium mirrors the contention over atomic weapons; both countries desire more because they

believe the attainment of greater amounts will aid in the defense of their people, even though this

simply causes greater worldwide tensions. As a result, Martha Bartter argues that "the society [in

Limbo '90] is inherently unstable; repressed antagonisms lead again to war."132 The fight

between the Strip and the East Union over columbium spirals out of control, because "as it

happened, we [the Strip] got a head start on this, they did on another; either way, the other side

soon found out about the new development and caught up… it ran away with us before we knew

it."133 Since such antagonisms mirror the actual rivalry between the United States and the Soviet

Union, the emergence of another nuclear war in Limbo '90 reflects Wolfe's belief that Cold War

rivalry over domination in the field of nuclear weaponry may inevitably result in nuclear war. He

thus informs his readers that their government's relationship with the Soviet Union may cause

war because the antagonistic relationship causes the government leaders to indulge in their

inherently violent nature. Through Martine's desperate attempt to divert the war at the novel's

conclusion, Wolfe shows his readers that they must actively try to prevent war by refusing to

indulge in their tendency towards violence and by actively trying to diffuse the tense relationship

between the United States and the Soviet Union in any possible manner. Wolfe's call for action is

reinforced by Limbo '90's depiction of the Cold War and its possible consequence: nuclear war.

131 Ibid., 294. 132 Martha A. Bartter, "Nuclear Holocaust as Urban Renewal (La guerre nucléaire et la renouveau urbain)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 149-50. 133 Bernard Wolfe, Limbo '90 (London: Penguin Books, 1961), 480. 49

Strained diplomatic relationships in the early 1950s only compounded American

trepidation over the inescapable conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. The

Soviet Union's newfound nuclear capabilities only served as the first of several occurrences that threatened to break the poorly-named Long Peace between the two superpowers. With a civil war in Korea involving several key global powers, the Korean conflict nearly escalated into a global conflict that surely would have included use of the atomic bomb by both the Soviets and the Americans. Furthermore, the Soviet Union threatened the British and the French, American allies, with newly-acquired nuclear weaponry during their conflict over the Suez Canal; the

United States returned the favor by intimidating the People's Republic of China, a Soviet ally, during a dispute over control of the Taiwan Strait. Such strained diplomatic relations only fostered the anxiety many Americans felt over possible nuclear war, because nuclear weapons never left the political stage; both superpower governments used them as the primary intimidating force behind their diplomatic relationships. In fact, by 1954, the United States government adopted the New Look. According to Lawrence Freedman, the New Look "was not only increasing the reliance on the deterrent effect of U.S. nuclear power, but was also forcing its allies to associate themselves with U.S. nuclear strategy...[and shifted] the balance of American forces from conventional to the nuclear."134 In essence, the United States government integrated

nuclear weaponry into the fabric of its military, assuring that any conflict with the Soviet Union

involved such destructive weapons. This decision simply confirmed many people's fears of an

atomic-oriented war.

When the United States government decided to integrate atomic weapons into its military, Americans grew fearful that their government might feel compelled to use the threat of

134 Lawrence Freedman, "25. The First Two Generations of Nuclear Strategists," in Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, ed. by Peter Paret (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986), 744. 50

an atomic attack in the near future. Their anxieties about nuclear weapons increased when

scientists developed the hydrogen bomb. According to Lawrence Freedman, Americans felt the

hydrogen bomb "was carrying 'much further than the atomic bomb itself the policy of exterminating civilian populations.'"135 Concern over the power of nuclear weaponry grew in the

wake of accidents during their tests. In Nevada, 1953, the Upshot-Knothole test contaminated

surrounding land and people with nuclear radiation. Moreover, in 1954, radiation from the Bravo

tests in the Marshall Islands contaminated the Lucky Dragon, a nearby ship. This event in

particular caused worldwide alarm over atomic testing, and public fears continued to mount over

the newfound power of nuclear weaponry. In essence, as Alison Kraft states, "such incidents served to heighten fears of fallout and, in underlining the link between nuclear technologies and radiation, fuelled further public wariness of the nuclear enterprise generally."136 By 1955,

science fiction writers had noticed this growing anxiety, and many of them reacted by composing

fiction dedicated to the possibility of nuclear war.137

L. Sprague de Camp serves as one of many science fiction authors who wrote about an

inevitable nuclear conflict; his "Judgment Day" (1955) reflects American's suspicion of the

nuclear enterprise supported by their government by describing not only the destructive potential of nuclear weaponry, but also how such power leads to war. De Camp reveals these beliefs in his short story while simultaneously arguing against further development of nuclear technology. His

"Judgment Day" details the internal monologue of a scientist who discovers a new, more dangerous way to employ nuclear power as a weapon. This unnamed scientist subsequently contemplates whether he should publish his findings, or simply discard them because of his new

135 Ibid., 738. 136 Alison Kraft, "Atomic Medicine." HistoryToday Vol. 59, No. 11 (Nov. 2009), 30-1. 137 Paul Brians, "Nuclear War in Science Fiction, 1945-59 (La guerre nucléaire en science-fiction, 1945-59)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 11, No. 3 (November 1984), 255. 51 weapon's destructive capabilities. Through exploring this dilemma in "Judgment Day," de Camp discusses an ethical concern that plagued most scientists researching nuclear technology in the

1950s, and continues to trouble modern researchers. Whether about Cold War anxieties over creating more nuclear weapons or about current concerns over developing new biological weapons, this single argument divides the scientific community: should scientists research and publish information on potentially harmful technological advances? In his short story, De Camp essentially argues against any further research in nuclear technology because it only results in the potential for greater amounts of destruction and death; his narrator recognizes that, if he decides to publish his findings, someone will eventually employ the weapon. De Camp therefore employs "Judgment Day" as a means of advising scientists to abstain from developing nuclear technology in order to save lives and avoid needless destruction.

De Camp presents this advice by illustrating negative aspects of nuclear weapons, and thus simultaneously displaying American's fear of the steadily increasing power of nuclear weapons. He compares the power of his weapons to recognizable villains: "Hitler might give orders for the execution of ten million, and Stalin orders that would kill another ten million. But neither could send the world up in a puff of flame by a few marks on a piece of paper. Only now had physics got to the point where such a decision is possible."138 Through such an assertion, de

Camp's narrator evokes two images of mass death familiar to many Americans and completed by two great enemies of the United States, Hitler and Stalin, then subsequently belittles these examples in comparison to his weapon's power. This action thus defines nuclear weapons as an unbelievably powerful tool that could cause a global disaster — an occurrence many Americans feared as the result of war between the Soviet Union and the United States. Through his claim,

138 L. Sprague De Camp, "Judgment Day," Zlivebeat, http://zlivebeat.info/2011/de-camp-l-sprague-judgement-day/ 52

therefore, de Camp justifies American's fear over the increasing destructive power of nuclear

weapons.

Many Americans began to blame atomic scientists for creating nuclear weapons, since

without the weapons war remained less dangerous to civilian populations; de Camp depicts

American's distaste for scientists, and tries to increase this dislike, in "Judgment Day" through

his portrayal of the story's main character. As nuclear scientists created the bomb, science fiction

writers dealt with the scientists' responsibility for the United States' use of nuclear power.

Adopting this notion in the 1950s, Americans also began to critique the scientific community,

partly for creating such a destructive device. De Camp portrays this blame of atomic scientists by

describing one that not only fails to obtain empathy from readers, but outwardly despises

humanity. His scientist remains indifferent to people, caring at first only for himself and, later in

life, only for his career at Los Alamos.139 Through claims like "On accommodating oneself to the

wishes of others, I never considered any wishes but my own...As far as I was concerned, other

people were simply inanimate things to put into the world to minster to my wants,"140 de Camp

depicts the American view of atomic scientist during the 1950s as a technocrat who was

concerned only with his own work and not with the rest of America or with humanity in general.

Moreover, de Camp takes this portrayal of the scientist one step further by blatantly painting him

as the villain of the short story, despite his role as the only actual character within it. Through

such a portrayal, de Camp actively attempts to further turn his readers against members of the

scientific community similar to his narrator. He does this by making the scientist actively hate

humanity; the scientist claims that the "mass of them are a lot of cruel, treacherous, hairless apes.

They hate us intellectuals, highbrows, eggheads, or doubledomes, despite (or perhaps because)

139 D.H. Dowling, "The Atomic Scientist: Machine or Moralist? (Le savant atomiste: une machine ou un moraliste?)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 142. 140 L. Sprague De Camp, "Judgment Day," Zlivebeat, http://zlivebeat.info/2011/de-camp-l-sprague-judgement-day/ 53

without us they would still be running naked in the wilderness and turning over flat stones for

their meals. Love them? Hah!"141 De Camp's scientist takes this hate to its inevitable conclusion

by the end of "Judgment Day," when the narrator finally decides to publish his findings and thus

set America one step closer to nuclear destruction.

By displaying American's distaste for nuclear scientists through the scientist, de Camp

not only illustrates their belief in inevitable war, but also actively attempts to dissuade scientists

from researching dangerous technology. The scientist's decision at the conclusion of "Judgment

Day" does not immediately cause a nuclear holocaust. In fact, he simply writes up a report of his

findings to send to his superiors for review. While on the surface this action seems harmless, the

scientist outlines how knowledge of such a weapon will result in its use. He admits that "people

in this business [of creating nuclear weapons] have learned to be pretty close-mouthed."142

However, such precautions cannot prevent the eventual use of the scientist's nuclear weapon:

If I write up the chain reaction, the news will probably get out. No amount of

security regulations will stop people from talking about the impending end of the

world. Once having done so, the knowledge will probably cause the blowing-up

of the earth-not right away, but in a decade or two. I shall probably not live to see

it, but it wouldn't displease me if it did go off in my lifetime.143

Through such a train of thought, de Camp's narrator espouses the American belief in inevitable war because of nuclear weaponry; this simultaneously presents to American scientists a reason why they should stop developing nuclear technology — such knowledge will eventually be used to kill thousands in war. Although the scientist does not build his weapon, or detonate it, the very existence of his discovery ensures that someone will eventually complete these two tasks. This

141 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 143 Ibid. 54 mirrors American's belief in the eventual use of nuclear weapons, which people just like de

Camp's scientist created in a lab and published construction plans for their government's use. De

Camp, by espousing how someone will eventually employ his narrator's weapon, thus asserts that some real country, probably the United States or the Soviet Union, will also utilize nuclear weapons created by scientists against a civilian populace. This belief in nuclear weaponry's inevitable use served as the main nightmare for many Americans in the early 1950s, as they feared the consequences of a nuclear attack. 55

Apocalyptic Nature of Nuclear War

By the late 1950s, Americans recognized that the consequences of a nuclear war had

grown into apocalyptic terms because of nuclear weapons' capability to destroy all of humanity.

Many Americans believed in an oncoming apocalypse. With the increase in nuclear weapons' power, the United States government and its citizens realized that they could not employ those weapons in the same manner as conventional missiles — the radius of destruction remained too large. People soon recognized that the use of these weapons in war meant the targeting of civilian populations as a means of war. In reacting to the new advances in atomic technology,

Americans believed that the superpowers might use nuclear weapons on civilians in a surprise attack. As a result, in the mid-1950s, people began imagining their own homes and cities devastated by a nuclear attack. The entire American public participated in this gloomy contemplation, and it soon became a common theme in American science fiction to envisage the complete destruction of the United States.

While Americans believed in the apocalyptic nature of nuclear war in the late 1950s, they still retained some hope for surviving such a destructive event. For instance, one government-

sponsored film depicted an unworried father calmly informing his family that "'If there's an

explosion, we'll wait about a minute…then we'll go upstairs and take a look around, see if it's all

right to clean up.'"144 Like this fictional father, many Americans presumed they would survive a

nuclear attack, and the United States government fostered this belief. The Federal Civil Defense

Agency (FCDA) took advantage of mass media — such as television, radio, and film — to promote its plans for nuclear war. Connecting with 175 million Americans per year, such campaigns fostered the possibility of survival in many American citizens. The civil defense planners thus tried to psychologically influence Americans in order to prepare them for the

144 Bruce Watson, "We couldn't run, so we hoped we could hide," Smithsonian Vol. 25, No. 1 (April 1994). 56 resulting chaos of an atomic attack against the United States; according to Joseph Masco, their media projects served as "an effort to install psychological defenses against the exploding bomb, as well as a belief in the possibility of national unity in a postnuclear environment."145

Philip K. Dick's "Second Variety" (1953) portrays the American belief in the possibility of surviving an apocalyptic war, while also exploring the aftereffects of nuclear fallout in the

United States. The short story depicts the effects of a nuclear attack, and the utter devastation to the environment such an event causes. In the opening part of "Second Variety," Dick paints the portrait of a landscape suffering from the results of an atomic attack: "The sky was overcast, drifting clouds of grey particles. Bare trunks of trees jutted up occasionally; the ground was level and bare, rubble-strewn, with the ruins of buildings standing out here and there like yellowing skulls."146 The atomic attack levels the entire landscape, including the buildings. Through such descriptions, Dick invokes the American fear of the atomic bomb because nothing escaped from the weapon's destructive force. However, he simultaneously expresses the hope of survival many

Americans embraced at the time as well. The short story describes events surrounding

Hendricks, an American soldier who survived the nuclear attack, and further establishes that many other Americans outlived the nuclear attack on the United States:

Most of North America had been blasted off the map…Europe was gone; a slag

heap with dark weeds growing from the ashes and bones. Most of North America

was useless; nothing could be planted, no one could live. A few million people

kept going up in Canada and down in South America. But during the second year

Soviet parachutists began to drop, a few at first, then more and more. They wore

145 Joseph Masco, "Survival is Your Business: Engineering Ruins and Affect in Nuclear America," Cultural Anthropology Vol. 23, No. 2 (May 2008). 146 Philip K. Dick, "Second Variety," Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32032/32032-h/32032- h.htm 57

the first really effective antiradiation equipment; what was left of American

production moved to the moon along with the governments.147

Dick's description of the nuclear attack's aftereffects perpetuate the notion of American survival.

Even while bombarded numerous times by Russia, the American people continued to survive and flourish by moving to the moon, a safe haven from attack. Therefore, by placing "Second

Variety" in a setting where people continue to live in the remains of a nuclear attack, Dick subsequently displays the same beliefs held by many Americans in the 1950s.

However, Dick further delves into the American survival of a nuclear attack in "Second

Variety" by exploring how the American people react to a nuclear attack; the dark world he depicts presents a real possibility for Americans following an attack by the Soviet Union. In

America, Robert Jacobs divulges that "survival was the endpoint in almost every publication about nuclear war produced by the FCDA. There was never any discussion of war, or of the social aftermath of an atomic explosion."148 Dick explores the aftermath of a nuclear fallout in

"Second Variety" by arguing that that the war with the Soviet Union will probably continue after

an atomic attack on the United States. Through this notion, Dick paints a dystopian society where the war never ended. Despite the utter destruction of the world's environment, Hendricks remains on earth to continue fighting the war against Russia. Through this situation, Dick presents the same argument as Wolfe; humans have an innate tendency towards violence, and will continue to keep destroying each other unless people attempt to control their impulses. Dick, though, purports that the effects of numerous nuclear weapons will not convince humanity to stop engaging in war. In fact, Dick suggests that people will discover even more effective methods to kill each other once nuclear weapons destroy the environment. While Hendricks and

147 Ibid. 148 Robert A. Jacobs, "'There Are No Civilians; We Are All at War': Nuclear War Shelter and Survival Narratives during the Early Cold War," The Journal of American Culture Vol. 30, No. 4 (Dec. 2007): 403. 58

the other American soldiers remain protected by their bunker, machines fight the majority of the

war with Russia. The United States government created killing machines that slaughter any non-

American soldier in its path. These new weapons parallel the atomic bomb in "Second Variety."

Americans continued to create more destructive machines, just like the government did atomic weapons, until the machines posed a similarly powerful threat against people as the atomic bomb: "One of the big ones [machines], the kind with stalks, got into an Ivan bunker last week…It got a whole platoon of them before they got their lid shut.'"149 The Americans in

"Second Variety" failed to learn from their creation of the atomic bomb; instead, they continue to

indulge in their violent nature by creating more destructive weapons in the hope of winning their

war against Russia.

In the short story, Americans cause the utter destruction of the human species even after

surviving a nuclear fallout. By depicting this pessimistic view of humanity, Dick warns his

readers about the dangers of developing technology just for warfare. He argues that destructive

weapons, like the atomic bomb and his fictional machines, can create far-reaching consequences

and quickly grow out of control. As Paul Brians argues, Dick's machines in "Second Variety"

assume "the nature of a Frankenstein's monster, technology run amok."150 Through this

portrayal, the machines within "Second Variety" not only remain analogous to nuclear

technology, but also show that the weapons American scientists develop can also be used against

the United States. In the story, the United States' government programmed the machines to

manufacture more of their kind without the direction of a human, and Hendricks learns that the

American "claws [machines] were beginning to make up new designs on their own. New types

149 Philip K. Dick, "Second Variety," Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32032/32032-h/32032- h.htm 150 Paul Brians, "Nuclear War in Science Fiction, 1945-59 (La guerre nucléaire en science-fiction, 1945-59)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 11, No. 3 (November 1984), 257. 59

of their own. Better types. Down in your underground factories behind our lines."151 These new

machines, called the Second Variety, remain indistinguishable from humans, and Hendricks

unknowingly helps a machine gain access to the United States government on the moon. The machine plans to utterly annihilate the surviving humans on the moon. In essence, Americans created their own destructor in "Second Variety," and Dick uses this short story to warn

Americans about causing the same dreadful occurrence in reality. Hendricks "felt a little better, thinking about it. The bomb. Made by the Second Variety to destroy the other varieties. Made for that end alone. They were already beginning to design weapons to use against each other."152

Since the Second Variety machines remain indistinguishable from humans, Dick imbues them

with the same inclination towards violence. Hendricks recognizes that the cycle of destruction

will continue even after humanity's extinction because, like humans, the Second Variety already

created a bomb that works against fellow machines. Through such recognition, Dick espouses his

pessimistic view of people as beings that cannot stop fighting and killing one another. For Dick,

humanity's decision to follow their nature and use the atomic bomb against each other signifies

the true apocalypse; even if people survive the nuclear fallout, their violent natures will continue

the war and thus ensure the extinction of the human species.

The conclusion of "Second Variety" predicts American beliefs in the possible extinction

of humanity the late 1950s, for by then most people had recognized the folly of believing they

could survive a nuclear attack against the United States. The early 1950s saw people given the

'job' of surviving a nuclear explosion by the FCDA, but the American people began to reject this

notion after a few years. The United States government identified every urban population center

with over 50,000 people as a target for possible nuclear attack. No true safe area thus existed.

151 Philip K. Dick, "Second Variety," Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32032/32032-h/32032- h.htm 152 Ibid. 60

Joseph Masco asserts that "each community could increasingly argue that it was a 'first strike'

target of Soviet attack. Indeed, citizens were informed from multiple media sources that their

community - indeed, their very living room - was the literal front line of the Cold War, with

Soviet thermonuclear warheads poised to attack."153 Religious believers began espousing the notion that the Book of Revelations predicted the employment of atomic weaponry, thus signaling the end of days. They compared the effects of nuclear weapons to passages from the

Bible, such as suggesting that the hail of fire mentioned in the Bible referred to the atomic bomb and its aftermath.154 Through such beliefs, partly expressed via religion, the American people

extended their fear of possible inevitable war by proposing that such a conflict served as the

main cause for a worldwide apocalypse.

Mordecai Roshwald's Level 7 (1959) portrays this American belief in the apocalyptic

nature of nuclear war, derived from the failure of deterrence, where even the survivors of the

nuclear conflict remain unsafe from the war's aftermath. H. Bruce Franklin argues that Level 7

dramatizes "the extinction by nuclear war of all human consciousness. The novel achieves this

by showing the obliteration of human consciousness as not simply what would happen after a

nuclear holocaust but as the essence of the historical process culminating in this suicide of the

species."155 Roshwald's novel centers on X-127, an American soldier placed in the safest bunker created by the United States government, Level 7; his job serves as the reason for this prestigious position, for X-127's assignment consists of one simple task: press the buttons that launches a nuclear attack on the United States' enemy when ordered by his superiors. The decision to

153 Joseph Masco, "Survival is Your Business: Engineering Ruins and Affect in Nuclear America," Cultural Anthropology Vol. 23, No. 2 (May 2008). 154 Daniel Wojcik, "Embracing Doomsday: Faith, Fatalism, and Apocalyptic Beliefs in the Nuclear Age," Western Folklore Vol. 55 (Fall 1996). 155 H. Bruce Franklin, "Strange Scenarios: Science Fiction, the Theory of Alienation, and the Nuclear Gods (Des scenarios étranges: la science-fiction, la théorie de l'aliénation et les dieux nucléaires)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986): 125. 61

construct Level 7 results from increasing Cold War tensions with the Soviet Union, a political

situation reminiscent of the actual time Roshwald wrote the novel. Actual Americans feared a

nuclear attack from the Soviet Union in the wake of the Soviet's attainment of atomic weapons

and stronger nuclear capabilities, which made the Soviets an intimidating force in international

politics.156 X-127's superiors actually identify this growth of nuclear capability as the reason for

the creation of Level 7 and his assignment to the bunker:

Our infamous and treacherous enemy had gone too far in developing his striking-

power. In order to make ourselves safe from surprise attack and capable of

retaliation, it is imperative that we protect our protectors, that we secure for our

security forces the best possible shelter. That is the reason why you have been

brought down to Level 7.157

The rest of the bunker's residents remain other soldiers assigned to this position in order to

repopulate the world should the other fallout shelters, Levels 1-6, fail to protect the other

American citizens. "4,400 feet down inside the earth, with no chance of seeing sunshine again,

[X-127 spends his time] writing a diary which probably no one will ever read."158 This diary

serves as the text of Level 7, and thus provides insight into the mind of a man responsible for the

nuclear defense of America.

In Level 7, Roshwald creates a viable reason for the apocalyptic nuclear war through a

failure of deterrence, a possibility in the late 1950s. In the novel, the United States government

realizes that deterrence will eventually fail. This recognition appears several times when the

military officials talk about protecting the American populace from the Soviet threat. For

156 Lawrence Freedman, "25. The First Two Generations of Nuclear Strategists," in Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, ed. by Peter Paret (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986), 738. 157 Mordecai Roshwald, Level 7, (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1959). 158 Ibid. 62

instance, X-127's superiors inform him that "Til that day [when the Soviets employ their nuclear

weapons against the United States] you will have to serve your country and humanity on Level

7...Til that day."159 The phrasing of such statements implies that these superiors believe in the

inevitable war; they do not say 'if,' but 'til,' which subtly asserts their belief that such an attack

will occur. In the United States at the time of Level 7's composition, Americans not only

recognized the certainty of war with the Soviet Union, but also learned how both the Soviet

Union and the United States planned to fight such a war. They suddenly saw the war not as a

conventional war of the past, where bombers flew in to drop missiles on urban centers, but as a

"thirty minute push-button war, in which thousands of missiles would carry hydrogen bombs

around the globe in a matter of minutes."160 A nuclear war could now originate and finish in less than an hour, and Americans realized that such an occurrence could easily happen. Roshwald reflects belief in this quick war, resulting from the failure of deterrence, in Level 7 through his depiction of the nuclear war's initiation. The breakdown of deterrence occurs through what

Merritt Abrash calls an "ambiguous cross between a rally for limited advantage and a genuine accident"161 and not from any desire on the Soviet's part to instigate war. In fact, X-127 believes that "the war /did/ start by accident." 162 However, this conflict soon escalated, resulting in the

complete destruction of all life on earth; nothing but the people crowded into bunkers around the

world survive. Roshwald shows that once a nuclear strike occurs, regardless of the reason why,

nothing can prevent the resulting war. Therefore, he tries to make his readers fight against their

belief in an inevitable war and actively try to forestall or prevent it. Roshwald illustrates the need

159 Ibid. 160 Robert A. Jacobs, "'There Are No Civilians; We Are All at War': Nuclear War Shelter and Survival Narratives during the Early Cold War," The Journal of American Culture Vol. 30, No. 4 (Dec. 2007): 408. 161 Merritt Abrash, "Through Logic to Apocalypse: Science-Fiction Scenarios of Nuclear Deterrence Breakdown (De la logique vers l'apocalypse: quelques scenarios de SF sue la faillite de la dissuasion nucléaire)," Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986), 132. 162 Mordecai Roshwald, Level 7, (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1959). 63

for such action by depicting the consequences of failing to prevent a nuclear war — an

apocalypse created by man-made technology.

Through the failure of deterrence, Roshwald depicts the apocalyptic nature of nuclear war

feared by many Americans. The United States government in Level 7, like the American people, recognized the disastrous effects of nuclear weaponry. X-127 "knew quite well what atomic war implied. Even if /we/ were victorious, the damage up on top [the earth's surface] would be so disastrous and the atomic pollution so widespread that no living creature could exist there." 163 In

Roshwald's novel, though, this fails to deter the world governments from engaging in nuclear

war. When the actual war occurred in Level 7, the results mirrored the expectations of many

Americans in the late 1950s: complete and utter destruction. X-127 properly expresses the extent

and ease of American's greatest fears when he states, "I could summarize this war, the greatest in

human history, in a few words: 'Yesterday, in a little under three hours, life on vast patches if the

earth were annihilated." 164 As far as the survivors safe inside underground bunkers can tell, "no

one is still living on the surface of our country [the United States]." 165 Roshwald bolsters this

image of apocalyptic destruction later in the novel, days after the nuclear war that devastated the

world. A couple in an upper level bunker, close to the surface, cannot stand to continue living in the cramped conditions. While other Americans still desire to survive this catastrophe because they believe future generations could live on the earth's surface once again, the couple decide to venture outside into the devastated earth and die from the poisonous radiation together. Through radio messages, these two report back to the bunkers that "the destruction is so complete that it is hard to believe that anything ever stood where they are now. Nor do they [the couple] see

163 Ibid. 164 Ibid. 165 Ibid. 64 anything on the horizon."166 Through such a depiction of the United States' landscape, therefore,

Roshwald presents the view of an apocalyptic America. This result served as the believed inevitable destination for the United States by many Americans in the late 1950s.

Like Philip K. Dick, Roshwald explores the aftermath of a nuclear attack on the United

States; his final conclusion mirrors the dark, fearful sentiments of many Americans at the time.

Initially, Roshwald adopts the same stance as Dick in Level 7: he suggests that the United States and the Soviet Union would continue to fight their war from the safety of the bunkers. In essence, "the war continues! The military levels on both sides are doing nothing. But from their respective caves, the politicians fire insults at each other through the intercontinental radio transmitters."167 In Level 7, only the politicians vie for war. Each country's citizens have no impact in the matter and the soldiers actually prefer peace; once the politicians in the upper-level bunkers die, the remaining survivors quickly end the war. Roshwald thus places the blame for the apocalyptic war on the politicians and their aggressive rhetoric. Through this depiction,

Roshwald informs Americans they should act in order to make their representatives actively try to maintain peace with the Soviet Union instead of continuing to engage in antagonistic anti-

Soveit rhetoric. He enforces this need to take greater action in politics by showing the consequences of nuclear war. Instead of allowing survivors of the war to continue living,

Roshwald draws on the fears of nuclear fallout stemming from the Bravo test in 1954; just as nuclear radiation contaminated the Lucky Dragon, Roshwald makes the nuclear radiation resulting from the atomic war subsequently kill every remaining human on the planet.

In the end, although the United States government built Level 7 to be the safest place on the planet, deeper in the earth than any other nation's construction, even this fails to prevent the

166 Ibid. 167 Ibid. 65 death of Level 7's inhabitants. By the conclusion of the novel, the inhabitants of Level 7 begin to die: "It [the radiation] has finally reached us. Sickness and death are all around."168 Even though the radiation that eventually kills the residents of Level 7 derives from their atomic reactor, and not the nuclear weapon radiation that killed the upper levels, the nuclear war forced the residents into inhabiting underground bunkers; by depicting the fallout from nuclear war in such a manner,

Roshwald asserts that even the survival shelters remain unsafe, since the soldiers in Level 7 cannot flee from the radiation. Furthermore, the deadly radiation comes from an atomic reactor, a derivative of the atomic bombs that decimated the earth's surface. By the end of the novel, X-127 remains the last man alive. Some of his final words read, "I am dying, and humanity dies with me. I am the dying humanity. But let the tape [recorder] revolve, let the music last. I do not know why, but I want /something/ to last." 169 Roshwald closes his novel with this depressing image as a warning that use of the atomic bombs in war will cause the extinction of all life on earth. The only thing that lasts, and not even forever, remains the looped recording of American music playing in Level 7. This melancholy ending reflects the American belief that nuclear war causes a global apocalypse, as no one survives the events in Level 7.

168 Ibid. 169 Ibid. 66

Conclusion

Like many other literary works of science fiction's golden age that concern nuclear

technology, Level 7 displays American reactions to the emergence and development of nuclear

power. From the first appearance of Astounding Science Fiction in 1937 to its end in 1960,

science fiction experienced a golden age in which authors and the American reading public

viewed science fiction as legitimate literature. This view of the genre continues to the present

day, even though the focus of science fiction has shifted from nuclear technology to information

technology and biotechnology. Science fiction's initial popularity partly derived from John W.

Campbell, Jr.'s push to make science fiction writers employ actual science in their works. In

adhering to Campbell's wishes, many writers began to focus on nuclear technology in their

fiction, and these works illustrate how Americans reacted to this newfound atomic power.

Nuclear scientists and science fiction writers initially served as the only two groups of

American citizens interested in atomic power. They began simultaneously to dread the possible dangers of nuclear technology and to hope that such technology might lead to a better future for

America. In "Nerves," Lester del Rey portrays these two reactions toward atomic power through

Doctor Ferrel's attempts to prevent a nuclear meltdown. Furthermore, "Solution Unsatisfactory"

by Robert A. Heinlein explores the consequences of an atomic bomb on international politics and

the United States government's opinion of nuclear technology. Cleve Cartmill's "Deadline"

describes the threat of an atomic bomb on an alien planet with a political situation similar to the

one on earth during World War II. "Deadline" thus illustrates people's anxiety about the

development of nuclear weapons. Americans knowledgeable about nuclear technology felt

concern about the possible dangers of making such a weapon. Yet, several scientists still worked

to create an atomic bomb. The United States government funded their endeavor though the 67

Manhattan Project, a top-secret organization dedicated to creating an atomic bomb for use in

World War II. The government-sponsored endeavor succeed, culminating with the weapon's

deployment in August 1945.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only drastically changed the science

fiction genre, but international politics. The world suddenly realized that the United States had a

monopoly over an extraordinarily powerful weapon, and the American people suddenly

recognized the potential of that technology. Some of them viewed the atomic bomb as a symbol

of hope for the future, because they believed that the bomb would help to turn the United States

into a utopia. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many more Americans began reading science

fiction, since the reality of the atomic bomb made the technological feats described in science

fiction seem possible. Lewis Padgett's "Tomorrow and Tomorrow" illustrates this optimistic

view of nuclear power through his protagonist's belief that an atomic war will instigate a

worldwide utopia. For Padgett, and most Americans, the atomic bomb served as an object that

represented their hopes for the future.

However, concurrent to this optimism, a small portion of the American public began to fear the destructive capabilities of the atomic bomb. Tests of the bomb highlighted its ability to

wreak havoc on humans and the natural world. Therefore, some Americans grew increasingly

nervous about the possible use of an atomic bomb against American citizens, especially when the

Soviet Union also obtained nuclear capabilities. Chandler Davis' "The Nightmare" displays this

nervousness by relating the story of a possible atomic attack against New York City. In the short

story, he asserts that the creation of the atomic bomb set the United States on a path towards

danger. This anxiety about the bomb soon increased as the Cold War began in earnest. Both the

United States and the Soviet Union employed the threat of nuclear weapons in their tense 68 diplomatic relations, thus increasing the possibility that one country might use the bomb. Kris

Neville's "Cold War" illustrates such political tensions, and the fear of many Americans that the

Soviet Union might bomb American cities. Neville further contends in the short story that this overwhelming fear might cripple the American citizenry, a claim partly substantiated by the fear felt in the early 1950s of a possible inevitable atomic war.

With the increase in potency of nuclear technology, the United States government integrated nuclear weapons into its military. Soon, the American people and the United States government concluded that this policy made the idea of nuclear war more or less inevitable.

Bernard Wolfe's Limbo '90 depicts this possibility. Set in a world similar to post-World War II

America, Wolfe demonstrates how war with the Soviet Union could come about because of the political agenda being promoted at the time by American leaders. More atomic tests highlighted the increased destructive potential of nuclear weaponry, which only compounded the worry felt by many Americans. Since the bombs were what they feared most, some Americans turned against the scientists who were developing these weapons, since the bombs served as the core of their fears. L. Sprague de Camp's "Judgment Day" expresses American's distaste for atomic scientists through his hateful main character. He also gives voice to the widespread belief that the course of action being followed by American leaders would make nuclear war inevitable, simply because once people understood how to create destructive weapons, someone would eventually employ them against actual people. The employment of such weapons on the United States served as the crux of American's fears.

By the late 1950s, the American fear of an nuclear war soon carried with it the recognition that such a conflict could cause the utter destruction of life on earth. Initially,

Americans believed some people could survive the apocalyptic nature of war, partly due to 69

various media campaigns funded by the United States government. Philip K. Dick's "Second

Variety" portrays the possibility of survival after nuclear fallout; his protagonist, Hendricks,

serves as a soldier fighting on earth after the Soviet Union bombed the United States with

nuclear weapons. However, Dick portrays a dark future where the war between the United States

and Russia continues. Humanity's creation of new technology for the war causes their extinction.

This sinister conclusion foreshadows the belief held by many Americans in the late 1950s that no

person could survive a nuclear war. Therefore, by engaging in a nuclear conflict, the United

States and the Soviet Union essentially ensure the destruction of mankind. Mordecai Roshwald's

Level 7 depicts this view. Roshwald's realistic world illustrates American's belief that atomic war will inevitably occur, resulting in the utter destruction of life. In essence, for Roshwald and many

Americans, nuclear war signified the extinction of humanity.

By illustrating different aspects of American's reaction to nuclear technology, Roshwald and other science fiction authors provide valuable insight into American culture. Their literary pieces written during science fiction's golden age focus on a topic that dominated the United

States – nuclear technology – and thus captured American's interest. The American public experienced their brightest hopes and darkest fears about nuclear power by reading different science fiction works, quickly becoming avid science fiction enthusiasts and turning the genre into a cultural phenomenon. In essence, these literary works serve as windows into the hearts and minds of the American people, preserving the American character forever in the inked pages of the golden age's science fiction.

70

Bibliography

Abrash, Merritt. "Through Logic to Apocalypse: Science-Fiction Scenarios of Nuclear Deterrence Breakdown (De la logique vers l'apocalypse: quelques scenarios de SF sue la faillite de la dissuasion nucléaire)." Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986): 129-38. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4239740

Asimov, Isaac. Asimov on Science Fiction. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981.

Attebery, Brian. "The magazine era: 1926-1960." In The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Edited by Edward James and Farah Mendleson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 32-47.

Bartter, Martha A. "Nuclear Holocaust as Urban Renewal (La guerre nucléaire et la renouveau urbain)." Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986): 148-58. JSTOR. http://www.jestor.org/stable/4239742

Berger, Albert I. "Nuclear Energy: Science Fiction's Metaphor of Power (L'énergie nucléaire comme métaphore du pouvoir en science-fiction)." Science Fiction Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (July 1979): 121-8. JSTOR. http:///www.jstor.org/stable/4239244

---. "The Triumph of Prophecy: Science Fiction and Nuclear Power in the Post-Hiroshima Period." Science Fiction Studies Vol. 3, No. 2 (July 1976): 143-150. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4239017

Boyer, Paul. By the Bomb's Early Light: American thought and culture at the dawn of the atomic age. New York: Pantheon, 1985. Cited by Rob Latham, "Fiction, 1950-1963." In The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction. Edited by Mark Bould, Andrew M. Butler, Adam Roberts, and Sherryl Vint. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009: 80-8.

Brians, Paul. "Nuclear War in Science Fiction, 1945-59 (La guerre nucléaire en science-fiction, 1945-59)." Science Fiction Studies Vol. 11, No. 3 (November 1984): 253-63. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4239638

Broderick, Damien. "New Wave and backwash: 1960-1980." In The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Edited by Edward James and Farah Mendleson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 48-63.

Cartmill, Cleve. Deadline (Science Fiction's Most Controversial Story) & Other Classics. Edited by Jean Marie Stine. San Francisco: Futures-Past Editions, 2011.

Conklin, Groff. "Galaxy's 5 Star Shelf." Galaxy Science Fiction Vol. 4, No. 1 (April 1952): 118- 20.

Davis, Chan, "The Nightmare." Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 37, No. 3 (May 1946): 7-35. 71

De Camp, L. Sprague, "Judgment Day." Zlivebeat. http://zlivebeat.info/2011/de-camp-l-sprague- judgement-day/

Del Rey, Lester. "Nerves." http://www.univeros.com/usenet/cache/alt.binaries.ebooks/10.000. SciFi.and.Fantasy.Ebooks/Lester Del Rey/Lester Del Rey - Nerves.pdf

Dick, Philip K. "Second Variety." Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32032/32032-h/32032-h.htm

Dowling, D.H. "The Atomic Scientist: Machine or Moralist? (Le savant atomiste: une machine ou un moraliste?)." Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986): 139-47. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4239741

Franklin, H. Bruce. "Strange Scenarios: Science Fiction, the Theory of Alienation, and the Nuclear Gods (Des scenarios étranges: la science-fiction, la théorie de l'aliénation et les dieux nucléaires)." Science Fiction Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Nuclear War and Science Fiction (July 1986): 117-28. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4239793

Freedman, Lawrence. "25. The First Two Generations of Nuclear Strategists." In Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Edited by Peter Paret. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986. 735-778.

"Frequently Asked Questions About Isaac Asimov." Edited by Edward Seiler and John H. Jenkins. Asimov Online. http://www.asimovonline.com/asimov_FAQ.html

Gavin, Francis J. "Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation, and the Cold War." International Security Vol. 34, No. 3 (Winter 2009/10): 7-37. Project Muse.

Goldberg, Stanley. "Groves and Oppenheimer: The Story of a Partnership." The Antioch Review Vol. 53 (Fall 1995): 482-93. Wilson Web.

Gray, Colin S. War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History. New York: Routledge, 2007. Print.

Heinlein, Robert A. The Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein. New York: Ace Books, 1966. PDF.

Hodgson, P.E. "The Politics of Nuclear Power." Modern Age Vol. 51, No. 1 (Winter 2009): 47- 55. Wilson Web.

Jacobs, Robert A. "'There Are No Civilians; We Are All at War': Nuclear War Shelter and Survival Narratives during the Early Cold War." The Journal of American Culture Vol. 30, No. 4 (Dec. 2007): 401-16. Wilson Web.

72

Kaplan, Fred. The Wizards of Armageddon. New York: Touchstone, 1983. Cited by Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History. New York: Routledge, 2007. Print.

Kirstein, Peter N. "Hiroshima and Spinning the Atom: America, Britain, and Canada Proclaim the Nuclear Age, 6 August 1945." Historian Vol. 71, No. 4 (Winter 2009): 805-27. Wilson Web.

Kraft, Alison. "Atomic Medicine." HistoryToday Vol. 59, No. 11 (Nov. 2009): 26-33. Wilson Web.

Latham, Rob. "Fiction, 1950-1963." In The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction. Edited by Mark Bould, Andrew M. Butler, Adam Roberts, and Sherryl Vint. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009: 80-8.

Masco, Joseph. "Survival is Your Business: Engineering Ruins and Affect in Nuclear America." Cultural Anthropology Vol. 23, No. 2 (May 2008): 361-99. Wilson Web.

Mendlesohn, Farah. "Fiction, 1926-1949." In The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction. Edited by Mark Bould, Andrew M. Butler, Adam Roberts, and Sherryl Vint. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009: 52-60.

---. "Religion and science fiction." In The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Edited by Edward James and Farah Mendleson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 264-75.

Nave, Carl R., "Nuclear Weapons." HyperPhysics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/bomb.html

Neville, Kris. "Cold War."Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 44, No. 2 (Oct. 1949):121-31.

Padgett, Lewis. "Tomorrow and Tomorrow." Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 38, No. 5 (Jan. 1947): 6-71.

---. "Tomorrow and Tomorrow." Astounding Science Fiction Vol. 38, No. 6 (Feb. 1947): 140-77.

Paton, Maureen. "The Accidental Atomicist." HistoryToday Vol. 60, No. 8 (Aug. 2010): 54-5. Wilson Web.

Roshwald, Mordecai. Level 7. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1959. EBook.

Silverberg, Robert. "Introduction." In A Century of Science Fiction 1950-1959 The Greatest Stories of the Decade. Edited by Robert Silverberg. New York: MJF Books, 1996: 1-8.

---. "Reflections: The Cleve Cartmill Affair: One." Asimov's Science Fiction. http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0310/ref.shtml 73

Tannenwald, Nina. "Stigmatizing the Bomb Origins of the Nuclear Taboo." International Security Vol. 29, No. 4 (Spring 2005): 5-49. Project Muse.

Watson, Bruce. "We couldn't run, so we hoped we could hide." Smithsonian Vol. 25, No. 1 (April 1994). Wilson Web.

Williams, Paul. "Nuclear Criticism." In The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction. Edited by Mark Bould, Andrew M. Butler, Adam Roberts, and Sherryl Vint. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009: 246-54.

Wojcik, Daniel. "Embracing Doomsday: Faith, Fatalism, and Apocalyptic Beliefs in the Nuclear Age." Western Folklore Vol. 55 (Fall 1996): 297-330. Wilson Web.

Wolfe, Bernard. Limbo '90.London: Penguin Books, 1961. PDF.

Zeman, Scott C. "'Taking Hell's Measurements': Popular Science and Popular Mechanics Magazines and the Atomic Bomb from Hiroshima to Bikini." The Journal of Popular Culture Vol. 41, No. 4 (Aug. 2008): 695-711. Wilson Web.