[talk.politics.misc] Heinlein's supposed panegyric for the Bomb

mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (09/12/86)

I find it a little strange that people are trying to use what an
author has a fictional character say, to indict the author's  character.
Does this mean that, if someone writes a story where a major character is a 
terrorist, the author is one also?


If you truely wish to discuss Heinlein's political views, the place to
start would be where Heinlein actually states his views.  

To quote from "Expanded Universe" by Robert A. Heinlein, pp. 145-146:

	...The general public is just as dangerously ignorant as to
	the significance of nuclear weapons today, 1979, as in 1945 -
	but in different ways.  In 1945 we were smugly ignorant; in
	1979 we have the Pollyannas, and the Ostriches, and the
	Jingoists, who think we can "win" a nuclear war, and the group
	- a majority? - who regard World War III as of no importance
	compared with inflation, gasoline rationing, forced
	school-busing, or you name it.  There is much excuse for the
	ignorance of 1945; the citizenry had been hit by ideas utterly
	new and strange.  But there is no excuse for the ignorance of
	1979.  Ignorance today can be charged only to stupidity and
	laziness - both capital offences.

	I wrote nine articles intended to shed light on the
	post-Hiroshima age, and I have never worked harder on any
	writing, researched the background more thoroughly, tried
	harder to make the (grim and horrid) message entertaining and
	readable.  I offered them to commercial markets, not to make
	money, but because the only propaganda that stands any chance
	of influencing people is packaged so attractively that editors
	will buy it in the belief that the cash customers will be
	entertained by it.

	Mine was not packaged that attractively.

	...

	But I continued to write these articles until the USSR
	rejected the United State's proposals for controlling and
	outlawing atomic weapons through open skies and mutual on-the-
	ground inspection, i.e. every country in the world to
	surrender enough of its sovereignty to the United Nations that
	mass weapons war would become impossible (and lesser war
	unnecessary).

	The USSR rejected inspection - and I stopped trying to peddle
	articles based on tying the Bomb down through international
	policing.

	I wish that I could say that thirty-three years of "peace"
	(i.e. no A- or H- or C- or N- or X bombs dropped) indicates
	that we really have nothing to fear from such weapons, but
	because the human race has sence enough not to commit suicide.
	But I am sorry to say that the situation is even more
	dangerous, even less stable, than it was in 1946
	...



If this isn't proof enough to end this silly charge against Heinlein, 
I can quote more.
-- 
Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

UUCP	ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs