Talk:Nuclear weapons in popular culture

Question

Does the U.N. know about this game?: "The card game Nuclear War and its expansion sets are rife with atomic weapons." Perhaps this should be reworded, along with about 75% of the rest of this article. Doesn't anybody proofread these articles?

i think you know the answer to that question.

Nuclear weapons in religious scripture

Where would we mention Xenu? He's getting mentioned in just about every recent press article about Tom Cruise - David Gerard 00:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons in Battlestar Galactica

Is the new series of Battlestar Galactica the only TV series so far to show nukes as viable, effective weapons in space? I've just edited the main page to add the show's depiction of nuclear war, including that it's the show with the largest quota of weapons used (depicted or alluded to). Do we add a mention about how casually nuclear weapons are used in this series? - Sentinel75 10:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure it would add to the article. In space, nuclear weapons are one of the few reliable ways to "kill" a hardened structure (such as a "Battlestar") because of, well, among other things, the vastness of space and the degree to which a conventional chemical detonation would dissipate in vacuum. During most of the 1960s, nuclear-armed missiles were maintained by the US Air Force to knock down enemy satellites in time of war, so there is real-world precedent for use of nuclear weapons in space. In Battlestar Galactica, nuclear weapons are shorthand for "extremely powerful weapon that can't be defended against easily." - loupgarous (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Herman Kahn

“Some nonfiction works of the time had an effect on cultural works. Herman Kahn's non-fiction book On Thermonuclear War, (1961) describing various nuclear war scenarios, was never popular, but the outlandishness of its projections and the possibility of a "Doomsday Machine", an idea Kahn got from the novel Red Alert, as a way to prevent war...”

I'm not sure that it's accurate to label On Thermonuclear War as "never popular" as it was a valuable edition to the field of nuclear strategy, but my main problem with the above quote is the proposition that Kahn developed his theories after reading pulp fiction. A source would be helpful, otherwise i'd be inclined to do a bit of chopping. --Onebravemonkey 08:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely O T W was never popolar the way the other mass market artistic works mentioned on this page were popular; this does not contradict its importance historically to nuclear strategey. About Doomsday Machine idea from Red Alert, I have found the reference. "Herman Kahn's ground-breaking theories in his book On Thermonuclear War, made their presence felt in popular culture: The brutal reality of Mutual Assured Destruction and the terryifing theoretical possiblity of a Doomsday Device were echoed in the novel Red Alert," can't be right, Red Alert came first. Reverting. --GangofOne 07:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Red Alert did come first, that does need reworking, but i find it hard to believe that the novel influenced Kahn. If there's a citation that proves otherwise then i'm happy to accept it... otherwise it needs to be removed. And as far as the 'never popular' claim, i'm not sure you can measure it's importance with the same criteria that you do artistic works. Otherwise you'd have to tar other similar theoretic works with the same brush - Sure, Newton wrote some revolutionary work but sheesh, they're not page-turners. :) Maybe it might be simpler to remove Kahn completely and just start with discussing how literature dealt with MAD without explicitly mentioning OTW? --Onebravemonkey 08:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well shut my mouth! I just read that article you (GoO) posted... *backs slowly away* Still not sure about 'never popular', though. (Although to be honest that's the least of this article's problems.) --Onebravemonkey 08:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I like On Thermonuclear War :) Still have my first edition copy, Princeton University Press.

Kahn used Red Alert as a source for popular discussion of command-and-control issues surrounding nuclear weapons; he got the "Doomsday Machine" idea from Leo Szilard during early debate surrounding development of the hydrogen bomb, when it was feared that the H-bomb would be so large and unwieldy as to be undeliverable by aircraft, and useful only as a huge-yield radiological blackmail weapon.

The Teller-Ulam design resulted in a deliverable thermonuclear weapon and obviated that role for those weapons. However, Kahn and Ian Harold Brown developed the idea of connecting a Doomsday Machine to a computer that would monitor various sensors or reports of enemy action that might merit its detonation.

The Soviets (and their post-Soviet successors in Russia) have implemented this idea with human decision-makers in the chain to ensure release of their nuclear arsenal in the event that the civilian and military leadership have been destroyed in a pre-emptive nuclear attack - it's called "Perimetr" or "Dead Hand".

To recapitulate, Kahn mentions the novel "Red Alert," but does not attribute the Doomsday Machine to that book; instead, he refers to the plot, which centers around problems with nuclear command and control and deterrence that he goes on to discuss at length. - loupgarous (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons in Computer Games

What about the Fallout game series? If Mad Max is going to be mentioned, I'd think that Fallout deserves one as well. - Gargantrithor 02:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved Metal Gear from the art section to the video games section, but it could do with a bit more detail in it if anyone can add to it. davekeeling 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I added Civilization and Trinity to the games section. Do they need more fleshing out, or are they OK as-is? Dstumme 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to add Strike_Fighters:_Project_1.CMarshall (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone add Defcon 71.105.93.212 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons in Comic Books

Shouldn't there be some mentioned? The Hulk (comics) at least? --24.46.164.83 04:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Banner only became the Hulk after an exposure to gamma rays - no nuclear weapons involved. -- loupgarous (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And The Dark Knight Returns. A nuclear explosion is central to the plot. AlanD 20:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV question

The text just added by justaperson117 seems to me heaviliy biased, but I am not certain enough to simply remove it myself. See History for the text he added. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 06:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It really would require a lot more qualification to be NPOV, as how "extreme" nukes are depends on 1. who you talk to, and 2. in what specific contexts you are referring to. Nobody doubts that a full-on nuclear exchange between nuclear countries would have immense social and environmental effects, though the question of whether smaller exchanges would have similar effects or whether or not you would ever have "world-killing" scenarios is up for debate. In any case I think the overall impression of the sentence is not one which is POV. --Fastfission 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons in music

Megadeth has a song called Polaris...Rust in Peace that deals with nuclear weapons

Computer games section

That section is completely irrelevant. It contains nothing beyond "nuclear weapons are seen in games, often with somewhat realistic effects". It is of no consequence to overall understanding of the subject, and just serves as a place to accumulate clutter. --Eyrian 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, the entire article should go. The whole article is a list of occurrences of nuclear weapons in pop culture. Please do not remove the entire section without getting some kind of consensus here. Dstumme 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not undo a removal without getting consensus here. To the contrary, a fair amount of the article is about the way people have thought about nuclear weapons, and evolving attitudes. There's still plenty of trivial references, but the section I removed was the worst. Wikipedia is a trivia collection. --Eyrian 21:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism states that you should not remove whole sections of pages without getting consensus first, not the other way around. This is considered vandalism (blanking). That being said, I'm going to leave it alone for now, to allow someone besides the two of us to chime in. From my point of view, the whole article is basically a trivia list anyway, so purging a large chunk of it seems odd. Certainly video/computer games do fall under popular culture, so important uses of nuclear weapons seems an appropriate part of the article. Dstumme 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It also states that it must be in bad faith. --Eyrian 22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While re-reading WP:TRIVIA, (specifically, the "Not all lists are trivia" section) I found this: "A selectively-populated list with a narrow theme is not trivia, and can be the best way to present some information" Seems to fit the case here. Just because this is a list of facts does not in itself make it trivia. There is a selective list here (a half-dozen or so items), with a narrow theme (nukes in video games.) Dstumme 14:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That needs to be changed. I'm not convinced there's any actual selectiveness being applied, just that nobody's felt the need to add more yet. And no, being a list does not ipso facto make it trivia. The fact that it's just a few times that nuclear weapons appear in games does. As I've said, the earlier parts of the article tell us how nuclear weapons were perceived by (Western) society through time. Just listing appearances in video games, with no greater comment as to how that has a larger impact is worthless. --Eyrian 14:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is "just" a few times is what makes it selective. You're contradicting yourself there. You're using the fact that it's a short, selective list to try to prove it's triviality, when in fact it helps prove that the list is selective, and therefore NOT trivia. Dstumme 17:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Just" means "merely" in this context. What is the requirement for listing? Why should I not list every video game that's ever had a nuclear weapon in it (WP:POINT aside)? The list provides no greater context or understanding. It is of no consequence, and insignificant to the topic at hand (popular perception of nuclear weapons). That makes it trivia --Eyrian 17:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to the first time you used "just" in your last comment, not the latter one.  :-) To answer your questions, I would say the requirement for listing should be that there was some cultural or historical reason to mention the given game, just as there would be for movies or other media. Most of the listings in that section do have such background information. If anything, I would think that Nuclear_weapons_in_popular_culture#In_art would be a likelier target for removal, as it is simply a list, with no explanations given as to their context or cultural impact. The games list at least tends to mention examples of how nuclear weapons are depicted in the game, their effects (Civilization), or historical references (such as Fallout.) The one line I agree on is the RTS one, as it is simply a mention that nukes are commonly depicted in such games. Dstumme 21:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with the removal of (most) further material, as it's all very uncited. The problem is that the nuke depictions in games are very straightforward, and I don't think could reveal cultural relevance. --Eyrian 21:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That just seems to reveal an unfamiliarity with the games in question. Certainly Civ and Trinity have something to say on the subject, and it's not any less relevant than cultural impact in other media. Dstumme 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I know the games. It's just that I don't think they really exemplify anything out of the ordinary. Nuclear weapons cause radiation, and can lead to a doomsday scenario. That's nothing new. I think the article would be better served by more cited information. --Eyrian 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the reason you know these things as general knowledge, so that they are not out of the ordinary, is because of the pop culture references in movies, books, games, etc. By dismissing these references as useless because they represent something you know already, you're making an assumption about what the article reader may or may not know. Seems like a WP:NPOV#Geographical bias (cultural) issue there. Dstumme 23:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If there's a general sentiment like that, it's best to rely on secondary sourced analysis of those beliefs, rather than trying to reassemble them with a list of trivial references, each of which has no verifiable importance. --Eyrian 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Covering computer games in an article entitled "Nuclear weapons in popular culture" seems entirely appropriate - I say go for it. Artw 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no inherent problem with covering computer games. Any citation indicating that a computer game has affected popular culture will be welcome. The problem is when an array of primary source appearances are used to demonstrate an impact. I.e. reading primary sources and generating an conclusion. That original research, and is not permitted. --Eyrian 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If the main article establishes notability and nuclear war is a major theme then thats good enough for me. Obviously you have different criteria. Artw 20:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. Notability is not inherited. --Eyrian 20:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So is your thinking that each reference to a computer game should have a cite establishing it's notability in the field of Nuclear War in Popular culture? TBH the more I think about it WP:NOTE sounds less and less like an applicable policy here. In WP:NOTE terms something is either notable or not, whether it is notable in relationship to something else sounds like something else entirely. Artw 21:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact... "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles". Artw 21:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, each entry needs to have a citation indicating it was relevant to the field. Items of no consequence are trivia, and do not belong here. --Eyrian 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why bring up notability? Perhaps WP:V would be more appropriate? Even then in most cases a wikilink should be sufficient.

I think if there was a requirement for each item in a trivia list to have a cite justifying it's placement the policy would actually say so. As far as I know it doesn't.

I think basically you are falling back on WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Artw 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You brought up notability. Why is a wikilink sufficient? That almost always will not demonstrate significance in culture. I'm afraid that, despite however hard you might try and make the connection, thinking that something is irrelevant to a page is not an example of merely not liking something. The fact is, these items don't prove anything, and they are of no evident consequence. They are just trivia, which is not acceptable. --Eyrian 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How are these irrelevant to the page? The whole point of the page is to provide examples of how nuclear weapons are depicted in popular culture. Unless these games do not have nukes in them, they're relevant to the topic at hand. Dstumme 00:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

An article topic based on trivia is not a valid article topic. And this article isn't "list of video games with nuclear weapons" (which should be deleted as a collection of loosely-associated topics), it's "nuclear weapons in popular culture", meaning an encyclopedic treatment of popular perceptions of nuclear weapons. Listing a bunch of appearances doesn't do that; that's primary source data devoid of the analysis that Wikipedia articles are built on. Why do we not list every cultural work that even mentions nuclear weapons? Because that guarantees no importance. But could not a single highly revealing, widely-spread remark in a game that otherwise contains no mentions of nuclear weapons tell us more about culture than a game riddled with banal, run-of-the-mill references that have no general impact? The point is, the significance of these things is simply not something that can be done by original research. It needs to be cited. Just as we cannot post public records and insinuate details about people living or dead, we cannot post details of appearances and insinuate significance. --Eyrian 04:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dayafter1.jpg

Image:Dayafter1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on article

This article.... I'm not sure it deserves to be called an article. After the first two sections, the whole article essentially becomes a list of every bit of pop culture ever to feature the idea of a bomb, with no attempts to establish the relative notability of the examples quoted, and no attempt at critical analysis (surely there is someone who has written about this and can be referenced). -mattbuck (Talk) 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Jerhico'

Can we add a section about Jerhico TV Show, its about nuclear war 142.77.229.84 (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jericho (TV series), to save anyone the 2 seconds looking for it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any RS on the idea that :Jericho (TV series) damaged a lot of the understanding the International_Physicians_for_the_Prevention_of_Nuclear_War established. Charles Juvon (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Need to revisit passage on the lack of publicly-available information on and diagrams of how nuclear weapons work

The passage "Diagrams of the bombs' internal workings have only been available in the last few years: the design of nuclear weapons has been the most closely guarded secret until long after the secrets had been independently developed—or stolen—by all the major powers and a number of lesser ones." is not only unsourced, it's inaccurate.

The Federation of American Scientists's Web page containing Hansen's letter to Sen. Percy reproduces a letter from nuclear historian Chuck Hansen to US Senator Charles Percy describing the disclosures of nuclear weapons functional details in the years leading up to the trial of Howard Morland and The Progressive magazine versus the US Department of Energy to prevent the publication of Morland's article in The Progressive describing Morland's understanding of how the hydrogen bomb works.

Howard Morland later published the entire story of how he researched his article, the article itself, and the story of the trial in The Secret That Exploded, Random House, 1981.

Correspondence between nuclear weapons designers Ray Kidder and Hans Bethe provide several examples of how Morland might have gotten the "secret" that radiation implosion is necessary for thermonuclear fusion to proceed; Kidder cited several open literature sources for the information; Bethe disagreed that any of them were informative enough to give a would-be nuclear proliferator the needed information to produce a thermonuclear weapon, and that Morland's information was derived entirely from interviews he held as a journalist with officials at several Department of Energy nuclear weapons contractors' facilities. (The Federation of American Scientists Web page on the Kidder-Bethe correspondence)

There have been at least two encyclopedia articles, one by Hans Bethe, one by Edward Teller, giving either descriptions or diagrams of how thermonuclear weapons work; these date back at least as far back as 1969.

Dr. Robert J. Oppenheimer, technical director of the Manhattan Project, famously maintained from near the beginning of the Atomic Era that as far as weapons depending entirely on nuclear fission, there was no secret to protect - that the mechanics of both gun-type and implosion fission weapons were not defensible technical secrets.

Wikipedia itself, in its article "Teller-Ulam design," describes the situation with respect to public knowledge of nuclear weapon design:

"Public knowledge concerning nuclear weapon design

Detailed knowledge of actual fission and fusion weapons is classified to some degree in virtually every industrialized nation. In the United States, such "knowledge" can by default be classified as Restricted Data, even if it is created by persons who are not government employees or associated with weapons programs, in a legal doctrine known as "born secret" (though the constitutional standing of the doctrine has been at times called into question, see United States v. The Progressive). "Born secret" is rarely invoked for cases of private speculation. The official policy of the United States Department of Energy has been not to acknowledge the leaking of design information, as such acknowledgment would potentially validate the information as accurate. In a small number of prior cases, the U.S. government has attempted to censor weapons information in the public press, with limited success...

...Most of the current ideas on the workings of the Teller–Ulam design came into public awareness after the Department of Energy (DOE) attempted to censor a magazine article by U.S. antiweapons activist Howard Morland in 1979 on the "secret of the hydrogen bomb". In 1978, Morland had decided that discovering and exposing this "last remaining secret" would focus attention onto the arms race and allow citizens to feel empowered to question official statements on the importance of nuclear weapons and nuclear secrecy. Most of Morland's ideas about how the weapon worked were compiled from highly accessible sources—the drawings which most inspired his approach came from none other than the Encyclopedia Americana. Morland also interviewed (often informally) many former Los Alamos scientists (including Teller and Ulam, though neither gave him any useful information), and used a variety of interpersonal strategies to encourage informational responses from them (i.e., asking questions such as "Do they still use 'spark plugs'?" even if he was not aware what the latter term specifically referred to).

Morland eventually concluded that the "secret" was that the primary and secondary were kept separate and that radiation pressure from the primary compressed the secondary before igniting it. When an early draft of the article, to be published in The Progressive magazine, was sent to the DOE after falling into the hands of a professor who was opposed to Morland's goal, the DOE requested that the article not be published, and pressed for a temporary injunction. The DOE argued that Morland's information was (1) likely derived from classified sources, if not derived from classified sources, itself counted as "secret" information under the "born secret" clause of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, and was dangerous and would encourage nuclear proliferation.

Morland and his lawyers disagreed on all points, but the injunction was granted, as the judge in the case felt that it was safer to grant the injunction and allow Morland, et al., to appeal, which they did in United States v. The Progressive (1979).

Through a variety of more complicated circumstances, the DOE case began to wane as it became clear that some of the data they were attempting to claim as "secret" had been published in a students' encyclopedia a few years earlier. After another H-bomb speculator, Chuck Hansen, had his own ideas about the "secret" (quite different from Morland's) published in a Wisconsin newspaper, the DOE claimed that the Progressive case was moot, dropped its suit, and allowed the magazine to publish its article, which it did in November 1979. Morland had by then, however, changed his opinion of how the bomb worked, suggesting that a foam medium (the polystyrene) rather than radiation pressure was used to compress the secondary, and that in the secondary there was a spark plug of fissile material as well. He published these changes, based in part on the proceedings of the appeals trial, as a short erratum in The Progressive a month later. In 1981, Morland published a book about his experience, describing in detail the train of thought which led him to his conclusions about the "secret".

Morland's work is interpreted as being at least partially correct because the DOE had sought to censor it, one of the few times they violated their usual approach of not acknowledging "secret" material which had been released; however, to what degree it lacks information, or has incorrect information, is not known with any confidence. The difficulty that a number of nations had in developing the Teller–Ulam design (even when they apparently understood the design, such as with the United Kingdom), makes it somewhat unlikely that this simple information alone is what provides the ability to manufacture thermonuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the ideas put forward by Morland in 1979 have been the basis for all the current speculation on the Teller–Ulam design."

It's clear that this information has been out for more than just "the last few years." I'm going to edit the passage in question to make it reflect available information.loupgarous (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

rx bandits

Invented? The line cited can be found in a songtext of the Beastie Boys. Perhaps it is covered or cited. Or vice versa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.0.17.238 (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• CaptMarvelAdventures66.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge from Deplorable Word

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was not merged

---

I am doubtful Deplorable Word has stand-alone notability, but it could be discussed here. In fact, it is, but the bullet point here is unreferenced. Such bullet points lists are bad style, but merging the tiny DW here, with its references and such, could be a start of rewriting this from poorly sourced list of trivia into a proper, paragraphs of prose based, article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, on the grounds that Deplorable Word is a well-referenced and well-written article that is worthy of independent coverage as a distinct topic. I note from the edit history that Jonathunder also objects, but hasn't commented here. Klbrain (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: this article is such a dog's breakfast that merging something else here wouldn't improve either topic. Jonathunder (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Movies and the Fear of Nuclear Annihilation

I am currently taking a cold war science class and need to add to a Wikipedia article. I am very interested in this page however I'm not sure what is appropriate to talk about. The title is "Nuclear weapons in popular culture" however some media such as movies only get a passing remark such as Dr.Strangelove. I was thinking about talking about Godzilla and the fear of nuclear war/attacks and other such movies possibly ordering by year. Would this be appropriate to add? If not please point me in the right direction. Thank you Ventas Servitas (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ventas Servitas (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ventas Servitas (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)