Bill Snyder wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:20:57 +0000 (UTC), jdnic...@panix.com (James > Nicoll) wrote:
> >In article <7lj3m5F3ecg0...@mid.individual.net>, > >Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful James Nicoll > >>declared:
> >>> Didn't the War on Drugs require payphones stop accepting > >>> incoming calls before cell phones began to spread. That reduced the > >>> usefulness of payphones
> >>It was never fully implemented. I still see payphones that accept > >>incoming calls.
> >>> (and makes part of THE MIRACLE MILE obsolete).
> >>As opposed to the Soviet Union's collapse obsoleting the whole thing.
> > Oh, I think a US/Russia nuclear war could still be made to work.
> Thus giving us another valuable calibration point on Nicollian > values of "work."
I think he is considering literary merit, not casualty statistics or who wins.
There's an SF story from the old days, in the form of the script of a recorded broadcast announcement from the Soviet nuclear space station in the event of the East being nuclear destroyed: that their sealed orders for that contingency say "Surrender". Unless as usual I'm massively and crucially misremembering it.
Several U.S. presidents must have never read the story that I /think/ I remember, and a very good thing too.
>Bill Snyder wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:20:57 +0000 (UTC), jdnic...@panix.com (James >> Nicoll) wrote:
>> >In article <7lj3m5F3ecg0...@mid.individual.net>, >> >Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful James Nicoll >> >>declared:
>> >>> Didn't the War on Drugs require payphones stop accepting >> >>> incoming calls before cell phones began to spread. That reduced the >> >>> usefulness of payphones
>> >>It was never fully implemented. I still see payphones that accept >> >>incoming calls.
>> >>> (and makes part of THE MIRACLE MILE obsolete).
>> >>As opposed to the Soviet Union's collapse obsoleting the whole thing.
>> > Oh, I think a US/Russia nuclear war could still be made to work.
>> Thus giving us another valuable calibration point on Nicollian >> values of "work."
>I think he is considering literary merit, not casualty statistics or >who wins.
>There's an SF story from the old days, in the form of the script of a >recorded broadcast announcement from the Soviet nuclear space station >in the event of the East being nuclear destroyed: that their sealed >orders for that contingency say "Surrender". Unless as usual I'm >massively and crucially misremembering it.
>Several U.S. presidents must have never read the story that I /think/ >I remember, and a very good thing too.
It's a Clarke, I think. The twist is it's carefully phrased so the reader is given the impression that the American President is ordering his men to choose preservation of the species over revenge, when in fact it's a damn dirty Red from Communist Sovietland. -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
In article <hd510p$pl...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) said:
> It's a Clarke, I think. The twist is it's carefully phrased so the > reader is given the impression that the American President is > ordering his men to choose preservation of the species over > revenge, when in fact it's a damn dirty Red from Communist > Sovietland.
I agree that it's a Clarke.
Looking at the ISFDB I'd say that it's most likely "The Last Command" (1965), in THE WIND FROM THE SUN and THE COLLECTED STORIES OF ARTHUR C. CLARKE.
On Nov 7, 11:29 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <hd510p$pl...@reader1.panix.com>, > jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) said:
> > It's a Clarke, I think. The twist is it's carefully phrased so the > > reader is given the impression that the American President is > > ordering his men to choose preservation of the species over > > revenge, when in fact it's a damn dirty Red from Communist > > Sovietland.
> I agree that it's a Clarke.
> Looking at the ISFDB I'd say that it's most likely "The Last Command" > (1965), in THE WIND FROM THE SUN and THE COLLECTED STORIES OF ARTHUR > C. CLARKE.
Right you are. Here's the last paragraph of "The Last Command":
"Then you will have one more thing to do. Men of Fort Lenin, the President of the Supreme Soviet bids you farewell, and orders you to place yourselves at the disposal of the United States."
The ending is not much of a twist. It would have been more of a shocker if it had been the American President surrendering. As we all know, the Communists were the good guys in the Cold War, fighting for peace and democracy, while the greedy Americans oppressed the masses and threatened the world with war.
In article <34f0c587-f781-4e95-a3fd-ceb8fcf97...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> The ending is not much of a twist. It would have been more of a > shocker if it had been the American President surrendering. As we > all know, the Communists were the good guys in the Cold War, > fighting for peace and democracy, while the greedy Americans > oppressed the masses and threatened the world with war.
Okay, I can tell that you're being sarcastic but I can't discern the real-life element that you're being sarcastic _about_.
On Nov 8, 1:15 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <34f0c587-f781-4e95-a3fd-ceb8fcf97...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> > The ending is not much of a twist. It would have been more of a > > shocker if it had been the American President surrendering. As we > > all know, the Communists were the good guys in the Cold War, > > fighting for peace and democracy, while the greedy Americans > > oppressed the masses and threatened the world with war.
> Okay, I can tell that you're being sarcastic but I can't discern the > real-life element that you're being sarcastic _about_.
"As we all know" was a bit sarcastic, yes. For a less sarcastic version, change that to "As all right-thinking people knew". It was _about_ my reaction to:
1. The idea that anyone would be *surprised* that Clarke did *not* make the United States the noble victim of a Soviet first strike. Of *course* Clarke wouldn't pander to Cold War paranoia like that.
2. "Several U.S. presidents must have never read the story that I / think/ I remember, and a very good thing too." This seems consistent with (but crazier than) my alleged sarcasm.
3. ". . . when in fact it's a damn dirty Red from Communist Sovietland." Sounds a bit sarcastic, don't you think?
Butch Malahide wrote: > On Nov 8, 1:15 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: > > In article <34f0c587-f781-4e95-a3fd-ceb8fcf97...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> > > The ending is not much of a twist. It would have been more of a > > > shocker if it had been the American President surrendering. As we > > > all know, the Communists were the good guys in the Cold War, > > > fighting for peace and democracy, while the greedy Americans > > > oppressed the masses and threatened the world with war.
> > Okay, I can tell that you're being sarcastic but I can't discern the > > real-life element that you're being sarcastic _about_.
> "As we all know" was a bit sarcastic, yes. For a less sarcastic > version, change that to "As all right-thinking people knew". It was > _about_ my reaction to:
> 1. The idea that anyone would be *surprised* that Clarke did *not* > make the United States the noble victim of a Soviet first strike. Of > *course* Clarke wouldn't pander to Cold War paranoia like that.
> 2. "Several U.S. presidents must have never read the story that I / > think/ > I remember, and a very good thing too." > This seems consistent with (but crazier than) my alleged sarcasm.
> 3. ". . . when in fact it's a damn dirty Red from Communist > Sovietland." > Sounds a bit sarcastic, don't you think?
On point 2, just as the message of _Othello_ could be "would you want /your/ daughter to marry one of them, they're barely more than animals you know", the message of /this/ story is that the Commies believe that nuclear retaliation and total destruction of an enemy that has already totally destroyed /you/ is pointless. So they won't do it. So you can launch your first and final strike against them any time with no fear of reprisals. Which is just what MAD was there to deter you from doing.
> Butch Malahide wrote: > > On Nov 8, 1:15 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: > > > In article <34f0c587-f781-4e95-a3fd-ceb8fcf97...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> > > > The ending is not much of a twist. It would have been more of a > > > > shocker if it had been the American President surrendering. As we > > > > all know, the Communists were the good guys in the Cold War, > > > > fighting for peace and democracy, while the greedy Americans > > > > oppressed the masses and threatened the world with war.
> > > Okay, I can tell that you're being sarcastic but I can't discern the > > > real-life element that you're being sarcastic _about_.
> > "As we all know" was a bit sarcastic, yes. For a less sarcastic > > version, change that to "As all right-thinking people knew". It was > > _about_ my reaction to:
> > 1. The idea that anyone would be *surprised* that Clarke did *not* > > make the United States the noble victim of a Soviet first strike. Of > > *course* Clarke wouldn't pander to Cold War paranoia like that.
> > 2. "Several U.S. presidents must have never read the story that I / > > think/ > > I remember, and a very good thing too." > > This seems consistent with (but crazier than) my alleged sarcasm.
> > 3. ". . . when in fact it's a damn dirty Red from Communist > > Sovietland." > > Sounds a bit sarcastic, don't you think?
> On point 2, just as the message of _Othello_ could be "would you > want /your/ daughter to marry one of them, they're barely more than > animals you know", the message of /this/ story is that the Commies > believe that nuclear retaliation and total destruction of an enemy > that has already totally destroyed /you/ is pointless. So they won't > do it. So you can launch your first and final strike against them any > time with no fear of reprisals. Which is just what MAD was there to > deter you from doing.
> I think that's a dangerous message.
The message that the deterrence of MAD depends on the adversary doubting your rationality, because rational men would not carry out the promised retaliation? Of course that was well known, and books had been written about it, some of them by Herman Kahn, years before Arthur C. Clarke wrote that story.
What I am curious about, though, is just *which* U. S. presidents you are talking about, and *what* you think they would have done if they had read that Clarke story?
> On Nov 8, 9:53 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Butch Malahide wrote: > > > On Nov 8, 1:15 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: > > > > In article <34f0c587-f781-4e95-a3fd-ceb8fcf97...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> > > > > The ending is not much of a twist. It would have been more of a > > > > > shocker if it had been the American President surrendering. As we > > > > > all know, the Communists were the good guys in the Cold War, > > > > > fighting for peace and democracy, while the greedy Americans > > > > > oppressed the masses and threatened the world with war.
> > > > Okay, I can tell that you're being sarcastic but I can't discern the > > > > real-life element that you're being sarcastic _about_.
> > > "As we all know" was a bit sarcastic, yes. For a less sarcastic > > > version, change that to "As all right-thinking people knew". It was > > > _about_ my reaction to:
> > > 1. The idea that anyone would be *surprised* that Clarke did *not* > > > make the United States the noble victim of a Soviet first strike. Of > > > *course* Clarke wouldn't pander to Cold War paranoia like that.
> > > 2. "Several U.S. presidents must have never read the story that I / > > > think/ > > > I remember, and a very good thing too." > > > This seems consistent with (but crazier than) my alleged sarcasm.
> > > 3. ". . . when in fact it's a damn dirty Red from Communist > > > Sovietland." > > > Sounds a bit sarcastic, don't you think?
> > On point 2, just as the message of _Othello_ could be "would you > > want /your/ daughter to marry one of them, they're barely more than > > animals you know", the message of /this/ story is that the Commies > > believe that nuclear retaliation and total destruction of an enemy > > that has already totally destroyed /you/ is pointless. So they won't > > do it. So you can launch your first and final strike against them any > > time with no fear of reprisals. Which is just what MAD was there to > > deter you from doing.
> > I think that's a dangerous message.
> The message that the deterrence of MAD depends on the adversary > doubting your rationality, because rational men would not carry out > the promised retaliation? Of course that was well known, and books had > been written about it, some of them by Herman Kahn, years before > Arthur C. Clarke wrote that story.
Herman Kahn, if that's how he's spelled and if I haven't misunderstood you or him, is a jerk. One, define "rational", and find some guys who will react with rational self-interest during a nuclear war. Two, MAD was a design for avoiding nuclear war by establishing that there / will/ be unacceptable reprisal for a nuclear first strike by either side. So you hire guys whose creed is to be, "If they hit us first, we will hit them back, even if 'we' are for practical purposes all dead", and you have the other side know that you have those guys, just so that it doesn't ever happen.
> What I am curious about, though, is just *which* U. S. presidents you > are talking about, and *what* you think they would have done if they > had read that Clarke story?
As for which U.S. presidents would be persuaded by a science fiction story that all-out nuking the Eastern Bloc is a good idea: I mean the stupid ones. And there have been several of those, haven't there, with the nuclear codes. Maybe I should say the stupid-and-vicious ones. Those traits often appear together, but not always - I don't only mean in U.S. presidents but in general - and are often covered by the same word.
> > > It's a Clarke, I think. The twist is it's carefully phrased so the > > > reader is given the impression that the American President is > > > ordering his men to choose preservation of the species over > > > revenge, when in fact it's a damn dirty Red from Communist > > > Sovietland.
> > I agree that it's a Clarke.
> > Looking at the ISFDB I'd say that it's most likely "The Last Command" > > (1965), in THE WIND FROM THE SUN and THE COLLECTED STORIES OF ARTHUR > > C. CLARKE.
> Right you are. Here's the last paragraph of "The Last Command":
> "Then you will have one more thing to do. Men of Fort Lenin, the > President of the Supreme Soviet bids you farewell, and orders you to > place yourselves at the disposal of the United States."
> The ending is not much of a twist. It would have been more of a > shocker if it had been the American President surrendering.
Clarke's "The Last Command" was first published in 1965 according to ISFDB.
Robert Lloyd's "Way Out" was in the August 1958 Nebula Science Fiction: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?67707 (My copy is the U.S. edition of Nebula, with a December 1958 cover date.)
Basically the same idea, but the earlier story (Lloyd's), counterintuitively, has a sneak attack by the *Soviets* against the Western Hemisphere, and it's the *Western* commander who refuses to retaliate: [QUOTE] "Arrest that man," he snapped, and pointed to Carter. "You!" He stabbed a finger at the technician. "Radio a message on all frequencies. The Western Hemisphere offers unconditional surrender. Move!" [. . .] "If we retaliate we lose everything," he said and knew while he was saying it that his words were mere justification for his decision. "By surrendering we at least ensure the survival of the race and what is left of our country. And our moral victory will be incalculable; we shall be the only true Christian nation history has ever known." [END QUOTE]
On Nov 9, 10:45 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> Herman Kahn, if that's how he's spelled
*If* that's how he's spelled? What kind of chickenship spelling flame is that supposed to be? Yes, I spelled his name right. I'll take your word for it that you've never heard of him, but he is rather famous. He gave us the phrase "thinking about the unthinkable" (sometimes misquoted "thinking the unthinkable" which rather changes the meaning) in the form of a book title.
> As for which U.S. presidents would be persuaded by a science fiction > story that all-out nuking the Eastern Bloc is a good idea: I mean the > stupid ones. And there have been several of those, haven't there, > with the nuclear codes. Maybe I should say the stupid-and-vicious > ones. Those traits often appear together, but not always - I don't > only mean in U.S. presidents but in general - and are often covered by > the same word.
Wow. I don't believe that even Barack Obama or Warren Harding would be dumb enough to start a nuclear war. But I have to give you Jack Kennedy, who almost did that. However, I rather doubt that Kennedy read science fiction.
On 2009-11-13 14:55:59 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> On Nov 13, 4:52 pm, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 9, 10:45 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote: >>> Herman Kahn, if that's how he's spelled
>> *If* that's how he's spelled? What kind of chickenship spelling flame >> is that supposed to be?
> On 2009-11-13 14:55:59 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> > On Nov 13, 4:52 pm, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 9, 10:45 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote: > >>> Herman Kahn, if that's how he's spelled
> >> *If* that's how he's spelled? What kind of chickenship spelling flame > >> is that supposed to be?
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:52:23 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
<fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: >Wow. I don't believe that even Barack Obama or Warren Harding would be >dumb enough to start a nuclear war. But I have to give you Jack >Kennedy, who almost did that. However, I rather doubt that Kennedy >read science fiction.
Depends how you define it; he liked James Bond, and some of those, e.g. _Moonraker_, were sort of science-fictional.
>>Wow. I don't believe that even Barack Obama or Warren Harding would be >>dumb enough to start a nuclear war. But I have to give you Jack >>Kennedy, who almost did that. However, I rather doubt that Kennedy >>read science fiction.
>Depends how you define it; he liked James Bond, and some of those, >e.g. _Moonraker_, were sort of science-fictional.
The movie, yes. The book, not so much.
IIRC, they kept the villian's name in the movie version (and the fact that he cheated at cards), and that was about it.
Ted -- ------ columbiaclosings.com What's not in Columbia anymore..
>>>Wow. I don't believe that even Barack Obama or Warren Harding would be >>>dumb enough to start a nuclear war. But I have to give you Jack >>>Kennedy, who almost did that. However, I rather doubt that Kennedy >>>read science fiction.
>>Depends how you define it; he liked James Bond, and some of those, >>e.g. _Moonraker_, were sort of science-fictional.
>The movie, yes. The book, not so much.
At the time it was at least up to technothriller level -- not VERY science-fictional, I admit.
>IIRC, they kept the villian's name in the movie version (and the fact >that he cheated at cards), and that was about it.
I don't think I ever saw the movie.
MOST of the movies were SF, really; the books, not so much.
Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: >"If we retaliate we lose everything," he said and knew while he was >saying it that his words were mere justification for his decision. "By >surrendering we at least ensure the survival of the race and what is >left of our country. And our moral victory will be incalculable; we >shall be the only true Christian nation history has ever known." >[END QUOTE]
Refusal to retaliate was the reason that the men were replaced by a computer in the opening scenes of the War Games movie.
Then Mercedes borrowed the War Games opening to advertise their version of I-Star in one of my favourite commercials of all time.
I can't find the ad on youtube, and they mangled my attempt to upload it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok8Oxw9i-aE (with wrecked audio) -- Tomorrow is today already. Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
On Nov 14, 1:28 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >"If we retaliate we lose everything," he said and knew while he was > >saying it that his words were mere justification for his decision. "By > >surrendering we at least ensure the survival of the race and what is > >left of our country. And our moral victory will be incalculable; we > >shall be the only true Christian nation history has ever known." > >[END QUOTE]
> Refusal to retaliate was the reason that the men were replaced by a > computer in the opening scenes of the War Games movie.
The idea that men were unreliable button pushers in a nuclear war also came up in Ward Moore's 1951 "Flying Dutchman":
[QUOTE] That the capital and the proud cities would be destroyed almost immediately was taken for granted, but the planners had gone much further than mere decentralization. In former wars operations had ultimately depended on men; the strategists knew how frail and fallible humans were. They thought with grim distaste of soldiers and mechanics made useless by uninterrupted bombardment or the effects of chemical and biological weapons, of civilians cowering in the innermost recesses of mines and caverns, their will to fight gone and only a base craving for peace left. Against this unstable factor the strategists had guarded zealously; they planned not only push-button war, but push-buttons for the push-buttons, and more push-buttons behind them. The civilians might cower and chatter, but the war would go on until victory was won. [END QUOTE]
In article <7m77hpF3gfgb...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) said:
>> Depends how you define it; he liked James Bond, and some of >> those, e.g. _Moonraker_, were sort of science-fictional.
> The movie, yes. The book, not so much.
> IIRC, they kept the villian's name in the movie version (and the > fact that he cheated at cards), and that was about it.
In both, Hugo Drax was a wealthy aerospace contractor who was ostensibly merely providing rocketry hardware (an early-generation ICBM in the book, a space shuttle in the movie) to the good-guy nation (Britain in the book, the U.S. in the movie because Great Britain having a space program would break the suspension of disbelief of even the most credulous of 007 fans), but actually had a Secret Dastardly Plan for using said piece of hardware to kill {everybody in London | everybody on Earth} for reasons grounded in his own megalomania, psychoses, etc.
So there was a _bit_ more in common than just the title and the name of the villain (and his card-cheatery, which in all honesty I don't remember from the movie but that's probably just me). Not that that obviated the studio's belief that the world needed a novelization of the movie as a product entirely separate from the Fleming novel, of course.
|
