Which Sci-Fi work first showed Nuclear Weapons?

Question

We see the use or mention of nuclear weapons in sci-fi world all the time. Examples can be Terminator, Star Trek, X-Men etc.

There are two related questions here:

Which Sci-Fi work first mentioned Nuclear Weapons?
Which Sci-Fi work first showed the use of Nuclear Weapons? Meaning, Nuclear Weapons are actually used.

To be clear, nuclear weapons as known after 1945? Or nuclear weapons as in anything written before 1945 that could have been realistically retconned as a nuclear weapon? — amflare, Jul 05 '17 at 16:12
@amflare Concept of nuclear weapons existed before 1945. Before Manhattan Project came into existence, people suspected that Hitler was trying to build nuclear weapons. Einstein even wrote a letter to US president about it. — user931, Jul 05 '17 at 17:08
Posting this as a comment as it is not the oldest per se, but a story of note is Cleve Cartmill's 1944 story "Deadline," which depicted the workings of a nuclear device in enough detail to warrant a US counterintelligence investigation into the authour. Wiki article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadline_(science_fiction_story) — Vanguard3000, Jul 05 '17 at 19:22
To the point @amflare made: Heinlein wrote about spreading a radioactive dust in "Solution Unsatisfactory" in 1941: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_Unsatisfactory — Adrien, Jul 05 '17 at 20:32
There is an atomic explosion in a 1906 story, but it's an accidental explosion, not a weapon, so I think Wells is the winner. — user14111, Jul 05 '17 at 20:50
@user14111, that would probably be Upton Sinclair's "The Millenium" where a "radiumite explosion" kills all but ten people (and leaves the infrastructure intact). — Eike Pierstorff, Jul 06 '17 at 06:19
@Adrein In 1933, Leó Szilárd proposed the idea of Nuclear Chain Reaction based on recent discovery of neutron (1932). Einstein referred to this in his 1939 letter to Roosevelt. In 1942, Fermi executed the first practical nuclear chain reaction. — user931, Jul 06 '17 at 07:24
@EikePierstorff I didn't know about that Upton Sinclair story, but it seems to have been published in 1924. — user14111, Jul 06 '17 at 07:44
@EikePierstorff and YOU ARE GROOT: I was referring to "'Wagenerium'", a 1906 short story by William Livingston Alden, title misspelled "'Wagnerium'" in the ISFDB entry. I haven't seen the actual story, just the review by E. F. Bleiler in Science-Fiction: The Early Years which you can see at Google Books. Apparently the first atomic explosion in literature. — user14111, Jul 06 '17 at 08:09
@IAMGROOT, according to the blurb in my edition this was published early 1907 (but this might be simply a translators error, I have a German edition only). Wikipedia does indeed give the publication date as 1924. — Eike Pierstorff, Jul 06 '17 at 08:24
Two related questions: First appearance of a weapon with the power of a nuclear bomb? asked on movies.SE in 2013, and What's the 'earliest future' mentioned in a work of science fiction? asked last month which had "Solution Unsatisfactory" as the second most upvoted answer. — Golden Cuy, Jul 07 '17 at 08:10
think it was a miss-quote then... can't find a primary source, did find a page claiming quotes in there, but can't find them — Mateo, Jul 08 '17 at 21:59

RichS · Accepted Answer · 2017-07-05T23:37:26.977

105

H. G. Wells predicted the atom bomb in his 1914 book, The World Set Free.

His story not only mentioned nuclear weapons, but showed them in use with a fore-knowledge that seems scarily accurate. (Kind of like how he accurately predicted the Apollo missions to the moon.)

He predicted bombs based on radioactive elements that were far more destructive than any conventional weapons. His knowledge of atomic physics came from reading William Ramsay, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy; the last discovered the disintegration of uranium. Wells already knew that radioactive elements released far more energy than any bombs based on chemical reactions. Although scientists like Soddy and Rutherford knew the nucleus of an atom contained enormous amounts of energy, they believed that energy was unavailable for human use.

Scientists of the time were well aware that the slow natural radioactive decay of elements like radium continues for thousands of years, and that while the rate of energy release is negligible, the total amount released is huge. His whole book was based on the premise that if the energy was released over a very short time, instead of thousands of years, it would be an incredible bomb.

(Based on the description of the book from the Wikipedia article.)

He made several accurate predictions of nuclear weapons.

He said, "a man could carry about in a handbag an amount of latent energy sufficient to wreck half a city." The critical mass of some fissile isotopes is small enough for a man to hold in his hands.
He predicted that cities would remain radioactive wastelands for many years after the battles were over.
He predicted the creation of nuclear weapons based on radioactive elements. But he did not go far enough to understand that only a small fraction of elements have fissile isotopes because no scientists in 1914 understood that.
He predicted that a single atomic weapon could destroy a city.
And even more noteworthy is that he predicted the military doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction!
He predicted they would be deployed by bomber planes when military strategists of the time dismissed airplanes as mere toys with no military application.

He also made some interesting wrong predictions.

He believed atomic weapons would explode continuously for days.
He believed the presence of nuclear weapons would force humanity to come together in peace and create a world government.
He thought the atom bomb would work by merely accelerating the natural decay process so that the half-life of an element was mere days instead of centuries.

edited Jul 05 '17 at 23:37

answered Jul 05 '17 at 16:12

RichS

38,592
34
184
375

57

He's not entirely wrong about the world government aspect. It can be argued that the UN was in part influenced by the desire to regulate nuclear arms (with the main motivation being to stop the horrors of WWII). Of course the UN isn't a real government, but I'd still give Wells half credit. – Arthur Dent Jul 05 '17 at 16:39
9

I was going to mention both the UN and the fact that there has not (yet) been another war to the level to be considered a World War, nor have any of the "superpowers" yet directly attacked one another. So, in a warped sense, the use of atomic weapons at the end of WWII has created a "peace" of sorts, and a "world government" in the UN. – CGCampbell Jul 05 '17 at 16:42
'He predicted that cities would become radioactive wastelands for many years after the battles were over.' Err, you can visit Hiroshima. It's not a radioactive wasteland. – Muzer Jul 05 '17 at 17:16
6

@Muzer Hiroshima was just one bomb. And not a very large one at that. For a "sufficient" tonnage of nuclear bombs of the "right" kind, "radioactive wastelands for many years" would probably be quite accurate. – Faheem Mitha Jul 05 '17 at 17:18
9

@Muzer Hiroshima indeed became a radioactive wasteland for many years. Today just doesn't falls under "many years". – user931 Jul 05 '17 at 17:28
2

Notably, with much of the 2016 political climate being related to globalization(Brexit, America's presidential election featuring globalism as a major talking point), I don't think its fair to declare H.G.Wells wrong on the global government point yet. I won't distract this answer by opining on the politics of if globalization is a good or bad thing. – godskook Jul 05 '17 at 17:36
4

@godskook The Globalization is result of industrialization, low cost international transportation and low cost communication networks. I doubt nuclear weapons contributed to it. Talking about UN, it's also not a result of nuclear weapons (although it may have influenced it). After the first world war (which didn't use nuclear weapons), LN (League of Nations) was founded. – user931 Jul 05 '17 at 18:04
4

I would've guessed Jules Verne, but Wells would've been a second option. Those two were so far ahead of their time, it's scary. – Omegacron Jul 06 '17 at 01:14
@Omegacron They were time travellers? Or, some 50th incarnation of The Doctor? – user931 Jul 06 '17 at 07:12
There is a novel by Jules Verne called Facing the Flag, in which he talks about a very powerful explosive weapon. There is no mention of radioactivity there, but the explosive in the novel is as powerful as an atomic blast. – user3653831 Jul 06 '17 at 09:23
As for the "wrong" physical points -- he wasn't, really. Let's assume that, by some as-yet undiscovered physical process (as chain reactions were undiscovered at the point of his writing), you could modify the half-life of an element. (Making him right in that point.) That means you don't need the special "fissile" elements, you just take what you have and shorten the half-life to, say, a couple of hours. Once triggered, your "warhead" would indeed release copious amounts of energy over a period of hours, even days. Because you are not looking at an "instant" chain reaction... – DevSolar Jul 06 '17 at 14:45
(ctd.) ...that ends as soon as the warhead is blown apart. You are looking at a sustained rapid decay that keeps up even after the warhead material is dispersed. So, the only thing he was "wrong" about was the mechanism by which the bomb would function (artificially decreased half-life instead of artificially-induced fission). All conclusions from there on are correct. – DevSolar Jul 06 '17 at 14:48
1

She.* – Lightness Races in Orbit Jul 06 '17 at 17:16
@DevSolar So you're saying Wells was not wrong because you assumed that half-lives for radioactive decay can be modified? Isn't that like saying Back to the Future is not wrong because somebody assumes time travel exists? Assumptions don't make predictions wrong or right. Only objective and verifiable evidence can make predictions wrong or right. – RichS Jul 06 '17 at 17:42
@RichS: I am saying that of the things you listed as "wrong" one is SciFi handwavium, but the others are (wirhout actually having read the story) logically consistent with that one handwavium element. – DevSolar Jul 06 '17 at 18:38
@DevSolar I know his explanation for how an atom bomb would work is "handwavium", and I know his description of the effects of a bomb based on "time-accelerated" half-lives is based on his assumption. Since the question is about first mention of atom bombs, and atom bombs exist in real life, we're dealing with reality here. And since we're dealing with reality here (and not some sci-fi story requiring suspension of disbelief), the only things that matter are objective and verifiable evidence, his prediction for how it would work was wrong because no evidence supports his claim. – RichS Jul 06 '17 at 18:56
2

I think you both are right. His prediction of how nuclear bombs would work was consistent and based on a wrong assumption. – Anonymous Coward Jul 06 '17 at 18:59
1

@JoseAntonioDuraOlmos No, they are not both right. DevSolar is wrong because predictions require actual observations to be right. H G Wells made an explanation for how he thought atom bombs might work, and his explanations might be self-consistent, but whether they are self-consistent is irrelevant to whether they are predictions. The only thing that makes a prediction right is an observed fact that matches the prediction. Nobody has observed accelerated time for radioactive decay, therefore Wells' explanation is not a prediction. – Jan 22 '18 at 04:10
@LincolnMan Are you claiming that "If you cut your throat you'll die" is not a right prediction unless you actually cut your throat? That is not how logic works. A->B is right (meaning true) if A is false. – Anonymous Coward Feb 01 '18 at 18:37
@JoseAntonioDuraOlmos That is called a predicate, not a prediction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_(mathematical_logic) – Apr 25 '18 at 22:17
@LincolnMan Indeed it is a predicate. It is also a prediction. The point though is that H.G. Well's prediction of the nuclear bomb was neither incorrect nor correct. It was a prediction with a certain degree of (in)accuracy. Much as Newton's gravity laws were not wrong just because later phenomena was discovered which did not adjust to them. They were a good description with a certain degree of accuracy which was surpassed by General relativity. – Anonymous Coward Apr 26 '18 at 16:42

Which Sci-Fi work first showed Nuclear Weapons?

1 Answers1

Linked