Heinlein, Robert A – Expanded Universe

so1ution~

In the years that have passed since I wrote that story (in 1940) the world

situation has grown much worse. Instead of one Absolute Weapon there arc now at

least free distinct types—an ”Absolute Weapon being de~

fined as one against which there is no effective defense and which kills

indiscriminately over a very wide area. The earliest of the five types, the A-bomb,

is now known to be possessed by at least five nations; at least twenty-five other

nations have the potential to build them in the next few years.

But there is a possible sixth type. Earlier this year (l965-R.A.H.) I

attended a seminar at one of the nation’s new think-factories. One of the questions

discussed was whether or not a “Doomsday Bomb” could be built-a single weapon which

would destroy all life of all sorts on this planet; one weapon, not an all-out

nuclear holocaust involving hundreds of thousands of ICBMs. No, this was to be a

world-wrecker of the sort Dr. E. E. Smith used to use in his interstellar sagas back

in the days when SF magazines had bug-eyed monsters on the cover and were considered

lowbrow, childish, fantastic.

The conclusions reached were: Could the Doomsday Machine be built?-yes, no

question about it. What would it cost?-quite cheap.

A seventh type hardly seems necessary.

And that makes the grimness of “Solution Unsatisfactory” seem more like an

Oz book in which the most harrowing adventures always turn out happily.

“Searchlight” is almost pure extrapolation, almost no speculation. The

gadgets in it are either hardware on the shelf, or hardware which will soon be on

the shelf because nothing is involved but straightforward engineering development.

“Life-Line” (my first story) is its opposite, a story which is sheer speculation and

either impossible or very highly improbable, as the What-If postulate will never be

solved-I think. I hope. But the two stories are much alike in that neither depends

on when it was written nor when it is read. Both are independent of any particular

shape to history; he~ are timeless.

Free Men’ is another timeless story. As told, it

looks like another “after the blowup” story-but it is not. Although the place is

nominally the United States and the time (as shown by the gadgetry) is set in the

not-distant future, simply by changing names of persons and places and by inserting

other weapons and other gadgets this story could be any country and any time in the

past or future-or could even be on another planet and concern a non-human race. But

the story does also apply here-and-now, so I told it that way.

“Pandora’s Box” was the original title of an article researched and written

in 1949 for publication in 1950, the end of the half-century. Inscrutable are the

ways of editors: it appeared with the title “Where To?” and purported to be a

nonfiction prophecy concerning the year 2000 A.D. as seen from 1950. (I agree that a

science fiction writer should avoid marijuana, prophecy, and time payments-but I was

tempted by a soft rustle.)

Our present editor (1965) decided to use this article, but suggested that it

should be updated. Authors who wish to stay in the business listen most carefully to

editors’ suggestions, even when they think an editor has been out in the sun without

a hat; I agreed.

And reread “Where To?” and discovered that our editor was undeniably

correct; it needed updating. At least.

But at last I decided not to try to conceal my bloopers. Below is

reproduced, unchanged, my predictions of fifteen years back. But here and there

through the article I have inserted signs for footnotes-like this:

(z)- and these will be found at the end of the 1950 article . . . calling attention

to bloopers and then forthrightly excusing myself by rationalizing how anyone, even

Nostradamus, would have made the same mistake. . . hedging my bets in other cases,

Page 132

or chucking in brand-new predictions and carefully laying them farther in the future

than I am likely to live

and, in some cases, crowing loudly about successful

predictions. (Addendum 1979: I have interpolated the

later comments, and marked each item 1950, or 1965,