Talk:The World Set Free

No Bomb

"No bomb could "explode continuously" without destroying itself."

Well, the sun does it. Let's hope our grandchildren continue to remain as skeptical about this possibility. -- 3 january 2005

Explosions occur "on" the Sun. I mean when sun explodes chances are high our grandchildren won't be skeptical about it at all. However I personally loved Wells nuclear bomb, and wrongly intrepeted as releasing high doses of radiation instead of exploding. -- 20 1 06

Well and explosion is usually defined as a violent and rapid expansion, often including some sort of shock wave. The sun is continuously undergoing fusion, but I wouldn't describe it as continuously exploding. - tonyB, march 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.143.136 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That cover image

Seems borderline-promotional to me. It's not contemporary with the book and the artwork reflects a modern interpretation of the subject matter. I guess I'll accept it as long as it's kept down to a reasonable size, and as long as we don't have an image of the original cover art. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"Published in the U. S. as 'The Last War???'"

I don't think so. Used bookseller abebooks shows numerous listings of "The World Set Free," published by E. P. Dutton & Co, New York, 1914 [1]. It has no listings for any book by H. G. Wells entitled "The Last War."

A search of the Cornell University online catalog [2] shows 286 titles by H. G. Wells, none entitled "The Last War" or anything like it. "Labour Wars," "Last Books of H. G. Wells," "Little Wars."

The link to the University of Nebraska Press does not link to that book and currently the site appears to be giving nothing but error messages in response to searches. Seems to be working now.

Ah. OK, I've got it. This appears to be a modern reprint, published in 2001. The title is "The Last War: A World Set Free," not "The Last War." It does not seem to have been published in 1914 under that name. I can't determine, either from the Amazon or the UNP website, why the title was changed. Perhaps Bear explains it in the introduction. Anyone know? Did they just want a spiffier title, or was this title Wells wanted, or is this an earlier, previously-unpublished version, or what? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Found it. Google Books search turns up the relevant introduction. Bear says without any additional explanation that "For this Bison Books edition, The World Set Free has been retitled. For this historical introduction, I will continue to use Wells's original title." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Check

The tone in the article is needlessly conversational and, it seems to me, judgmental vis-a-vis the work. It would be one thing if we were citing published criticism of the work, but it reads to me like I'm reading the Opinion Of Wikipedia, which is inappropriate. Nandesuka 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Leó Szilárd

Whoa, there! Did Szilard read the book or not? That's kind of important, don't you think? See Leó Szilárd. --Cbdorsett 08:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Leo Szilard - Science as a Mode of Being he did read it (and An Open Conspiracy). -tonyB March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.143.136 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, apparently he read it in 1932. Please also see my note below: Talk:The_World_Set_Free#Le.C3.B3_Szil.C3.A1rd.2C_again.

Modern State NOT cause of war in book?

In the book, is not the Modern State the worldwide state that arises on the wreckage after the Last War? The article says that the Modern State was the one that cause the war. Perhaps a better way to phrase that paragraph would be 'In his day, Wells viewed war as the inevitable result of modern technology combined with old ways of thinking." Komiksulo (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone please do a plot summary

I think it rather odd that a book generate so much discussion of its influence, yet there is no summary of the plot. Pschroeter (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You have "any little body of malcontents"* that can set off nuclear bombs and the answer is world government. That is most of the plot. Apparently this is after a nuclear war to prevent another. Any little body of malcontents? Think terrorists, anybody, anywhere. Even America has the neo Nazis, the KKK, Puerto Rican nationalists, etc. and many enemies outside. Now you got loose nukes in Russia since 1991. The only people who know how much has been stolen are the bad guys. Now maybe in a decade near you, imagine nuclear bombs going off like car bombs in a few world capitals, whether for extortion (money or power) or terror. You'll have world leaders scared shitless. They will demand a solution, cry "Give us peace! Safety!". Somebody will suggest world government and later, the mark. So H.G. Wells suggested how Revelations might turn out before nuclear power got started.Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• It would scare you on television how easily the Hiroshima bomb was made with uranium. An explosive slams two pieces of uranium together and together the combined mass is enough to sustain a nuclear reaction. Experts do this on TV to educate you how easily "any little body of malcontents" can make a bomb given bomb-grade uranium, and that was all over Russia for 20 years.Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not for example Al Qaeda wants to strike first with a nuclear weapon is a matter of conjecture. Al Jazeera insists that Al Qaeda would only use their nukes (and that Al Qaeda has them) in a retailatory strike against an American nuclear first strike. Of course, the leaders in America are prepared for the possibility that Al Qaeda, or someone else, will strike first with a nuclear weapon against a high-value city, especially Washington D.C.Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Leó Szilárd, again

Hi, fellow wikipedians! Since I have edited both the Leó Szilárd and H. G. Wells pages, I thought I might post my findings here too. There are no clear accounts I know of how Szilárd exactly was inspired by the book. These are the quite interesting parts in The Making of the Atomic Bomb (Richard Rhodes, 1987):

page 24: "Just then, in 1932, Szilard found or took up for the first time that appealing orphan among H. G. Wells' books that he had failed to discover before: The World Set Free."

page 24: "Yet The World Set Free influenced Szilard less than its subject matter might suggest. "This book made a very great impression on me, but I didn't regard it as anything but fiction. It didn't start me thinking of whether or not such things could in fact happen. I had not been working in nuclear physics up to that time"."

page 266: "After Bohr's arrival Szilard traveled down from New York to visit his sick friend and won a long-overdue surprise: "Wigner told me of Hahn's discovery. Hahn found that uranium breaks into two parts when it absorbs a neutron.... When I heard this I immediately saw that these fragments, being heavier than corresponds to their charge, must emit neutrons, and if enough neutrons are emitted ... then it should be, of course, possible to sustain a chain reaction. All the things which H. G. Wells predicted appeared suddenly real to me.""

page 331: "Something other than Briggs' penurious methodology triggered a new burst of activity from Szilard. He had spent the winter preparing a thorough theoretical study, "Divergent chain reactions in systems composed of uranium and carbon" - divergent in this case meaning chain reactions that continue to multiply once begun (the document's first footnote, numbered zero, cited "H. G. Wells, The World Set Free [1913]")."

This information is quite interesting, but from this I can only draw the conclusion that Szilárd read the book in 1932 and that he was impressed by it, no more, no less. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)