I recently read "On the Beach" by Nevil Shute. While the book is a work of fiction, I thought that it had a lot to offer in terms of international relations. Instead of taking a look at what a proliferated nuclear war would look like, the author instead focussed upon the aftermath and upon the people who it affected. The novel seeks to humanize what can sometimes seem a very abstract, cold, and calculated aspect of nuclear war.
The author briefly describes the cause of the war and its development. What started as a war between Israel and the surrounding Arab states progressed to match NATO against Russia and finally Russia against China. Mr. Shute did not ever explain why or how the war developed in such a way, quite possibly to again emphasize the role of the innocent human bystanders to the war and not the aggressors themselves. I did, however, find it interesting that the book was published in 1957 and still it accurately demonstrates much of the global conflict that exists, specifically in the Middle East, and portrays the course of a war that could yet very well develop in real life, however unlikely that may be.
The novel is set in southern Australia. Since the war took place in the northern hemisphere, the fallout takes quite a while to filter down into the southern continents. The novel opens by introducing Peter Holmes who is a Lieutenant Commander in the Australian navy stationed in Melbourne. He is torn between his position and duty to fulfill tasks for the navy and his wife and newly born daughter at home. The secondary focus of the novel is upon Commander Dwight Towers, who operates the U.S.S Scorpion, which is an American nuclear powered submarine. Towers faces a deep internal struggle because he knows that his wife, son, and daughter who lived in Connecticut are all dead, but he cannot bring himself to accept that fact.
In an attempt to see if snow and rain could cleanse the air of nuclear radiation, to search for life in the northern hemisphere, and to locate the source of a mysterious radio transmission coming from the Seattle area, the U.S.S scorpion sets off on a months long tour of the northern hemisphere. Holmes is very conflicted about whether to leave his family in order to help with the mission, but in the end decides to go. Towers buys gifts for his deceased family to bring along with him on the trip. The tour merely served to confirm that everyone in the north has died. They all died in ghastly ways due to the effects of radiation sickness. At this, Holmes calls his wife and worries that he will not make it back before the fallout reaches her and their daughter. He tells her that she should euthanize them both if that should happen.
The novel really seems to vilify the concept of hope throughout the plot line. It is hope that his family is alive that deludes Towers into buying gifts for wife and children, which ends up torturing him. It is also hope that the fallout will not reach Australia that prompts the submarine tour and separates Holmes from his family for months. It is hope that they will be immune to the effects of radiation that motivates some people to refrain from killing themselves, however they all die very slowly and painfully. The author really seeks to emphasize that nuclear war is not a selectable option to dealing with international conflict. He wants to show that it is unacceptable to pursue nuclear war because of the effect that it would have upon the people who are affected by it. Even those nations who had nothing to do with the war would face the same ultimate consequence. Innocent families and individuals will die because in the end no one survives nuclear war.
The author has a very interesting view point which I agree with, but, just to be the devil's advocate, do you think that all nuclear weapons be banned? What other forms of absolute security will the nations have? Just because people are affected by it, does it mean that all weapons be banned? Is it better to have some die for the greater good (i.e. more security)?
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with the point made in the book. While Nuclear Weapons are essentially bad, there is no way that the world system will allow the complete destruction of nuclear weapons and nuclear material. With countries such as China having nuclear power programs, any attempt to stop nuclear programs will surely be stopped. The securing and regulation of nuclear weapons should be the next step in a world safe from Nuclear war. What was presented in the book was an extreme end result, something with an extremely low-probability of occurring.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to know what the author's reason for writing the book was? Was a person in his family personally affected by nuclear weapons?
This book sounds like a cautionary tale; perhaps the author chose to write about the extreme (and hopefully unlikely) end result because it would have the most impact. I don't believe that the world will ever be free of nuclear weapons, but I do think that it's important for countries to remember how bad the consequences could be if ever a nuclear war did occur. At least assuming the worst means you’re prepared.
ReplyDeleteYeah I'm not advocating the total destruction or elimination of nuclear weapons, however I definitely feel that the novel serves to caution nations with nuclear weapons against the reckless or arbitrary use of them. I'm all for nuclear power and from what I know it's pretty easy to distinguish between materials being used for weaponry and those being used for power. So the novel just serves as a caution in my opinion and to humanize the subject.
ReplyDelete