WI no nuclear war theme in "Watchmen"?

Superman is a fantasy. The truth is, if any of us was bitten by an irradiated wombat,:p we'd more probably end up Spidey or Blue Beetle than Supes. Some of us maybe Bats or Rorschach. Some of us, Doc Doom. And some of us, Ozymandias, with the best of intentions, but just as bad as Doc Doom.

Wouldn't we end up dead from leukemia? :p
 

General Zod

Banned
Superman is a fantasy. The truth is, if any of us was bitten by an irradiated wombat,:p we'd more probably end up Spidey or Blue Beetle than Supes. Some of us maybe Bats or Rorschach. Some of us, Doc Doom. And some of us, Ozymandias, with the best of intentions, but just as bad as Doc Doom.

Me, I'd entusiastically join the Authority. :D
 

General Zod

Banned
What if the Soviets invented a version of Major Force?

Strategically, we are back to MAD, only superpower-enforced. The isler lining is that you might acutally see substantial nuclear disarming (not complete, the superpowers would not put all eggs in one basket) as mundane WMD become obsolete.

Socio-economically, you now have Communism being given an artificial but very effective lease on life, as the Soviet Manhattan powers would sidestep many of the Soviet economy inefficiences. Of course, in time this would only make that system even more inefficient and reliant on super "miracles". Think: Superman, Red Son.

A thought of mine: if you can duplicate the accident once, why not multiple times ? Could you create a whole rooster of Manhattans ?
 
Are you aware that the graphic novel was written well before the end of the Cold War?
I read the originals as they came out, & got the 1st print as a Christmas gift...so yeah.

I stand by the question, tho. Norman Spinrad made the same point, once. He started a book in around '84, picking the most outlandish outcome he could think of, the fall of the Berlin Wall. When it was published in '89, he looked like a genius...

I think Alan was working in an SF universe, anyhow, not ours. He'd created a situation where masks could pretty much do whatever they wanted, & was asking, "why not?" Which is somehing not many writers actually do... (It also explains why he told DC they wouldn't be able to use the characters when he was done...:p)

For me, it's the flipside of X-Men when Chris & John were doing it: they were just people trying to get by in a world that hated & feared them. My fave stories were the ones where they'd just hang out & be people, where they could actually have lives, not just be masks. (Which doesn't make JLI less funny.:D {"I should never come out in the daytime.":p})

As to the inconsistency, yeah, it's there. Why? Who's to say Jon doesn't get an attack of conscience? Or indifference?
 
Last edited:
Strategically, we are back to MAD, only superpower-enforced. The isler lining is that you might acutally see substantial nuclear disarming (not complete, the superpowers would not put all eggs in one basket) as mundane WMD become obsolete.

Socio-economically, you now have Communism being given an artificial but very effective lease on life, as the Soviet Manhattan powers would sidestep many of the Soviet economy inefficiences. Of course, in time this would only make that system even more inefficient and reliant on super "miracles". Think: Superman, Red Son.

A thought of mine: if you can duplicate the accident once, why not multiple times ? Could you create a whole rooster of Manhattans ?

As I understand it, no. Dr Manhattan was not created by the experiment. He was created when Jon put himself back together after getting his body destroyed, and that ability was unique to him. (something stupid about him being a watchmaker) Repeating the experiment would just disintegrate whoever it is used on. Though if Manhattan cooperates, presumably it would be possible to train another person in the art of putting oneself together as a blue God, and depending on how you interpret Manhattan's ability to duplicate himself, it's possible that Manhattan himself could create more like him from others.

I think another point of Soviet weakness that hasn't been mentioned, is that there is no way the Soviet Union could protect itself from a first strike by the United States, and with Nixon as crazy as portrayed in Watchmen, the U.S. really would launch a first strike once it could get away with it. It is impossible for the Soviets to keep their arsenal ready to launch at all times, and Manhattan by himself would both know which weapons were ready and be able to destroy them before they can launch. You can't hide submarines from Manhattan, so there goes the second strike after the wave of missiles backing up Manhattan obliterate all land based Soviet weapons. For that matter, Manhattan could simply teleport small nuclear bombs into the rock around or beneath each Soviet Missile base or sub bastion, taking his time over a few weeks, then detonate them all. Even if a few survive, there won't be enough to threaten Manhattan's ability to stop them. The simple fact is that the Soviet Union is doomed to utter defeat without being able to strike back from the moment Manhattan formed until the moment he becomes too detached from humanity to give a damn. (Though that too makes no sense, given Manhattan's "nonlinear time.")

Moore was working from the point of view that Reagan's military buildup would just lead to greater tensions as the Soviets increased their own arming without understanding that the U.S. could easily outbuild the Soviets even without Manhattan, and the Soviets being rational would rather back down than all die. That point of view has been discredited, which I suppose is one reason it is difficult to agree with Ozymandias now.
 
I read the originals as they came out, & got the 1st print as a Christmas gift...so yeah.

I stand by the question, tho. Norman Spinrad made the same point, once. He started a book in around '84, picking the most outlandish outcome he could think of, the fall of the Berlin Wall. When it was published in '89, he looked like a genius...

I think Alan was working in an SF universe, anyhow, not ours. He'd created a situation where masks could pretty much do whatever they wanted, & was asking, "why not?" Which is somehing not many writers actually do... (It also explains why he told DC they wouldn't be able to use the characters when he was done...:p)

For me, it's the flipside of X-Men when Chris & John were doing it: they were just people trying to get by in a world that hated & feared them. My fave stories were the ones where they'd just hang out & be people, where they could actually have lives, not just be masks. (Which doesn't make JLI less funny.:D {"I should never come out in the daytime.":p})

As to the inconsistency, yeah, it's there. Why? Who's to say Jon doesn't get an attack of conscience? Or indifference?

Well it was obviously a SF universe of course, but regardless of the point he was attempting to make with his story, the underlying message of his universe, as a reflection of his perception of our own, included the idea of nuclear war as such a certainty that only a madman would not accept mass murder as a reasonable price to avoid it.

Furthermore, my arguement is that that perception was convential wisdom, or at the very least quite widespread, after all this graphic novell was popular enought to make the leap to the big screen.

And secondenly, that OTL proven that grim, convential wisdom incorrect, is something so telling that there must be much to be learned there.

After all if the actual result of an senerio is so unpredictable to the population as a whole, then we should question what was wrong with the perception of reality of that population. After all it is quite likely that whatever error was there before is still there, reducing our view of reality even today. Indeed it just occurred to me that perhaps that is why, or one of the whys, we have supressed the importance of these events in our collective memory.

And I agree the oppertunities to see the "people' behind the characters is a lot of fun. Reminds me once of when I got to see some strippers on their break. One was sitting there in her costume reading a book. Something about a bookworm stripper...:eek::cool::D
 
Furthermore, my arguement is that that perception was convential wisdom, or at the very least quite widespread, after all this graphic novell was popular enought to make the leap to the big screen.

And secondenly, that OTL proven that grim, convential wisdom incorrect, is something so telling that there must be much to be learned there.
I don't recall it being so conventional. (Not in Canada, anyhow.) My sense is, Alan was saying it was because of masks war was coming, because the U.S. felt invincible. Of course, he doesn't ask the (IMO) obvious question of a superhero world, "Why don't the Russians have masks, too?" Which then allows the world to "proxy war" between mask groups, in the fashion World Cup football does now. (Why do you think the fans are so tough?:p)

As for Jon, it was less the watchmaker than the superhero; you do know, don't you, every superhero (or -villain) created in an accident has a unique physiology? Otherwise, they'd be dead; 99 of a 100 bitten by the radioactive wombat get leukemia, the 100h becomes Max Lord.
 
Modern leftist concerns: global warming, takeover by Blackwater big business (obsolete since Jan. 20)

Modern rightist concerns: Islamofascism, takeover by socialist big government (since Jan. 20)

Yeah I guess a global economic meltdown is the only viable bipartisan fear then.
 
I think another point of Soviet weakness that hasn't been mentioned, is that there is no way the Soviet Union could protect itself from a first strike by the United States, and with Nixon as crazy as portrayed in Watchmen, the U.S. really would launch a first strike once it could get away with it. It is impossible for the Soviets to keep their arsenal ready to launch at all times, and Manhattan by himself would both know which weapons were ready and be able to destroy them before they can launch. You can't hide submarines from Manhattan, so there goes the second strike after the wave of missiles backing up Manhattan obliterate all land based Soviet weapons. For that matter, Manhattan could simply teleport small nuclear bombs into the rock around or beneath each Soviet Missile base or sub bastion, taking his time over a few weeks, then detonate them all. Even if a few survive, there won't be enough to threaten Manhattan's ability to stop them.

Assuming Manhattan's clairvoyance allows him to locate particular individuals, he could also just teleport or disintegrate everybody in the Soviet chain of command with the ability to order a second strike.
 
Personally I chalk this inconsistency with the author pigeonholing his intended left-wing radical pacifist message down the audience's throats, hard strategic realities of the setting be damned.
:mad::mad::eek::eek::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Heck, if we wish to be completely realistic, ITTL the West should and would have won the Cold War a few years after Jon appeared, in the early-middle 60s. If he could effortlessly destroy the Viets in a few weeks, how long it would have taken him to turn the whole Red Army and Soviet ICBMs to shreds ?

A great power backed by a Superman-level super, without any comparable individuals around to check, would be utterly unstoppable.

So, suppose Moore was more concerned with the internal realism of the Watchmen-verse. He still could have depicted a dystopic Nixon-run USA, very similar to that of the OTL novel, except that it is the world's sole hyperpower, with the USSR no longer in existence.

And the basic plotline could have been nearly identical to that of the OTL novel, up to the reveal that Ozy has been masterminding events to separate Manhattan from humanity, and Ozy's disintegration of Manhattan. Can't think of how the either the fake alien squid attack, or Manhattan's disintegration of Rorshach, could still have been part of the story tho.
 
Top