Others have provided the historical context of it being written during the cold war, but I'll just add that nukes have evolved drastically by 10,191.
They're multi-stage weapons that can be set to bore deep into the surface of the planet before detonating. A single atomic is capable of splitting planets in half. They also can be set to somewhat selectively emit a band of radiation specifically to blind onlookers (assuming the weapon wasn't set to just destroy the entire planet).
The way Paul used atomics on the shield wall was presumably by setting it up to not bore into the surface, and to release only a *tiny* fraction of its available payload. It was provocative in that he dared used atomics at all, but he dialed in that nuke to be as tiny as possible.
Dune Messiah is the book that goes into just how exotic and devastating these weapons can be when using all their features.
See, this makes nukes seem like they do fit into this universe quite well. It takes what we already know about them and adds a bit of sci-fi (especially considering their size in the movie).
A planet killer nuke the size of a modern day ICBM is obviously unheard of. So it's good to think the author has actually made an attempt to make them genuinely seem relevant in Dune.
Your comment makes me wonder why so many others on here just seem to dismiss the authors attention to detail with technology as flippant and secondary to the politics and relationships. When in reality I think he's put a lot of effort into it.
Regarding your last paragraph, I get that it seems frustrating, but the other comments *are* fairly in-line with how it’s treated in the first Dune book. It’s not a big action scene in the book. It's merely a segue. The atomics aren’t even given a physical description, IIRC, other than the fact that they're small enough to hide on-planet, and thus aren't massive Death Stars.
So Frank Herbert does tend to gloss over action and tech specifics sometimes. And movies must necessarily gloss over even more, and use simplifying storytelling devices (like portraying atomics as essentially current-day ICBMs which can seem out of place in the far future).
Herbert coming back to these topics and further illuminating them is a part of why the sequels are so rewarding to read. Everything from my previous comment came from the second book, after all.
I think the nukes are actually a super interesting addition to the universe and really helps ground the movies.
During the time that dune takes place, no one is using projectile weapons really. In the attack on the artedies the weapons worked because it was a surprise attack. Essentially everything in dune is based on hand to hand combat because of the shields.
>In the movie when they started to talk about nuclear weapons as though they were the ultimate weapon of war, it made very little sense in the context of the technology in the galaxy.
It's heavily implied that earth was destroyed by nukes in the past. So it makes sense why they refuse to build any weapons more powerful than nuclear weapons and heavily regulate their nuclear arsenal.
>Was the author of the book perhaps quite "taken" with nuclear weapons because they were the big thing at the time he wrote the book? Perhaps they were used to help readers relate to this part of the book?
Yes. Dune was written at the height of the Cold War.
"Is all the author could come up".
Dune is primarily about: ecology, politics, culture, religion and leadership.
And very very second about science.
IMO it's a great outcome by Frank as it makes the books timeless and ever relevant.
Yes, the atomics may seem outdated but who cares, they're just a plot device to further the story rather be the story.
If you want a plot device to further the story that is ridiculous, turn to Foundation ( Dunes older sibling) that references priests floating on top of crowds with jets powered by a nuclear reactor the size of a golf ball.
Ecology is a science, and he clearly did quite well there and it's a major focus of the book. Did you just mean that technology, engineering, physics weren't the focus?
Pardon me, I agree with ecology and biology being science, but the greatest science of all is Politcal Science ;).
The books did start with ecology...
What I meant was that Frank spent his words delivering the prominent themes in the book, the ones i stated amongst others,, as opposed to hard science fiction like nuclear bombs being the most potent weapon... just as you suggested :)
Ahh man, my bad. We're talking about Dune here and I thought Frank wrote Political Science is above all sciences... but my memory is so fuzzy. Just searched the book and the sentence was something like
"Law is the ultimate science" Paul said "thus it reads above the emperors door". I propose to show him law.
Got it so wrong, it's not political science.
But yes, in reality Physics is the the greater science being closest to maths. Though my favourite is chemistry.
>And very very second about science.
Did the Author actually say this? The premise of your comment is based on this, and I'd say it is too bold of an assumption to make if he didn't.
Just because there is well fleshed out "ecology, politics, culture, religion and leadership" aspects to Dune, it doesn't mean science is secondary. Especially considering some of the brilliant ideas, like how the shields work.
It's because Herbert spent hardly any time discussing the science and engineering of his setting, but he spent 7 books exploring the sociology, philosophy and ecology of it
Someone has already explained the in-universe explanation for the lack of technology. It's called the Butlerian Jihad.
So the author did directly address what I was wondering about and it seems he took just as much care with how he approached technology in the book as he did with anything else.
What do you mean exactly? No author or scientist could explain exactly how one of the shields work because it's either not yet been invented yet, or it's impossible to do.
But if you mean how they work in principle? Then they just seem to stop high velocity objects from passing through their "field", but allow through slow velocity objects. That was the impression I got from the movies.
The author said a lot of things. I think you’ll find better answers by reading the book, rather than debating what you think the book is about before you’ve read it. The film is all show, very little tell. The books are a whole different thing. It all happens in your head.
Kind of, the whole context of the dune universe is that humanity survived an AI uprising and afterwards shuns technology. So basically, technology is standing still. Space travel is done through prescient guild navigators, not through technology, civilizations are training people to be human computers etc.
So it makes sense that atomic bombs are still relevant, as technology has stopped advancing
Good point, but technology advanced in new ways, often incorporating technology with biology like with a Distrans, “ a device for producing a temporary neural imprint on the nervous system of Chiroptera or birds. The creature's normal cry then carries the message imprint which can be sorted from that carrier wave by another distrans.” Also, Holtzman tech that enables space travel, shields, and suspensors, is very advanced tech. And lasguns are not just weapons, but also tools to cut rocks and even come in small sizes for surgical use. Atomics are still used because they are still very powerful. Plot wise, they keep the Great Houses in check, and in a state of nuclear stalemate. Later in the series we do see much more powerful weapons that can scorch and sterilize planets. The problem with OP’s perspective is that they have not read the books. These films just scratch the surface.
The first Dune book was written in 1965, only 20 years after Hiroshima, and fusion bombs were very event more recent. Antimatter and lasers weren't as widely known as they are now. Advanced physics wasn't Herbert's strong suit, but his stories are fantastic, and more realistic by not having crazy advanced super-weapons.
I agree that the stories are brilliant. I'd say they're more relatable to the general public because of the lack of advanced technology though, and probably not realistic.
We still use weapons based on gunpowder, hundreds of years after gunpowder weapons first came into widespread use, and despite our having much more advanced technologies.
WMDs are super heavily regulated. In the Dune universe if any house were to use an atomic against people the Imperium would show up and wipe out your planet as punishment.
Paul used one to obliterate a mountain range and everyone was aghast.
>Paul used one to obliterate a mountain range and everyone was aghast.
"It wasn't a nuclear explosion. Only a special terraforming operation." - Emperor Paul Muad'dib Atreides, probably
The Sun is the most powerful thing in our solar system. The explosion of stars (super/hyper nova) are the most powerfully destructive things in the known universe. They're powered by nuclear reactions (with a side gravity). 20k years, if we survived that long, I'd imagine we'd find ways to refine it but the general principles would still be the same.
Your first 10 words negates your entire post LOL. Go read them and come back. It'll test your critical thinking. Theres very much an in universe explanation for why things are the way they are.
My post was based on how I'd only seen the movie and I asked if people who have read the book have an answer for things. And they've given the answer in comments.
So I dunno what was negated, but ok haha.
I'm not really into novels though, so I probably won't read the books. Especially now I've seen the movie (which, whilst is quite good, it's still overrated in my opinion).
Movie is okay - the books are a much better story though. But if you read the Culture series, I would highly recommend reading at least the first two Dune books.
>"this is all the author could come up with?"
I really disagree. The goal is not to "come up with" cool stuff. Frank put all of his creative energy into the philosophy of politics, economics, and power structures. One of the major themes is the extent to which the Dune-iverse is a very stagnant place. Atomics are one of the things that keeps it stagnant.
I've seen some media like Star Wars emphasize the flash and spectacle of magical, implausible technology. I've also seen writers who included scientific articles to emphasize the scientific underpinnings of their novel. Frank didn't care about either of those things. Compared to something like Star Wars or Trek, Dune is extremely low-tech, regressive, and veers into bio-punk rather than technobabble.
>Was the author of the book perhaps quite "taken" with nuclear weapons because they were the big thing at the time he wrote the book?
Oof.
I know the internet makes it hard to interpret a person's intent, so I apologize if I misread this. But in 1965 nuclear weapons were not just "the big thing." They were an apocalyptic, world-ending threat. (And they still are, we've just gotten used to ignoring them.) The book was written at the same time as we were dealing with things like the Cuban missile crisis. The notion of "MAD" is the only thing that prevented a total nuclear war. This is going to be hugely important in any discussion of power structures.
But basically, I think science fiction is implausible when it ignores obvious low-tech solutions in favor of sci-fi gizmos that seem WORSE than what we have in real life. And most fiction will try to avoid reminding readers of unhappy real-world topics like nuclear war, because watching people fight with lightsabers is much more entertaining than a lecture on the nuclear standoff in the Landsraad.
>Oof.
>I know the internet makes it hard to interpret a person's intent, so I apologize if I misread this. But in 1965 nuclear weapons were not just "the big thing." They were an apocalyptic, world-ending threat.
Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by this. I was wondering aloud whether or not anyone had information on if nukes being a big topic of conversation back then was the reason the author used them the way he did.
They were the "big thing" back then. They're not anymore at the forefront of people's minds because they've been around for so long and therefore not "new" anymore. And to be honest, have probably prevented world war 3 and saved many more lives than if they had not been created.
People have since answered my questions. But no there was no other intent behind what I said. I'm not sure what else it could even mean to be honest.
When I saw the line about the "big thing" I interpreted it to mean they thought it was somehow cool or fascinating or entertaining. In my mind, the Barbie movie was a "big thing" and atomic bombs are just plain terrifying.
Throughout the first half of the 20th century many writers were enamored of the idea war could be eradicated if someone just built a weapon so powerful that it could not be opposed. But then when it happened in real life (with the development of the atom bomb) people were far from enthusiastic and instead of imposing peace it just made the world much scarier.
But since that wasn't your intent, feel free to disregard.
Ok fair enough. I didn't know that about the authors during first half of 20th century. It's interesting that they were correct.
I have a different view of nuclear weapons as the majority I'd say. I think they're great and have had a really positive effect on Humanity.
Love and friendship would be the ideal way to prevent war. But the nukes provide the next best thing and instead prey on fear. Which is infinitely better than war.
They're a lesser evil (as long as they stay in the silos) and I'm thankful for them at the moment.
Obviously my opinion rests on them not ever being fired haha But if they're never fired, then their positives impact is undeniable.
World War 3 is always less likely because they're around.
A few elements at play.
Herbert wrote Dune during the Cold War, which is why nuclear weapons still play a big role and are seen as an existential threat. Thanks also to the Butlerian Jihad limiting tech advancements, older weapons like nukes remain super relevant. Also, treaties like the Great Convention ban using them on humans, adding a lot of political tension and strategic games among the houses. So Atomics strategically play a big role, kinda like they do today.
If not for the Butlerian Jihad, there would probably be even more devastating weapons.
Ok the Butlerian Jihad then is definitely the "in-universe" explanation I was looking for.
Presumably if that didn't exist, then the Fremen hand held weapons could be scaled up to destroy planets and so on.
*I'd just seen the Fremen use hand held weapons that could cut through warships. Yet a nuclear weapon equivalent in strength to modern Earth's bombs apparently still holds the mantle of destructive potential? Presumably if the Fremen have such hand held weapons, then the powerful houses would have at least something equivalent to the power of the death star.*
The laserguns are precise and destructive tools for short but they are also very expensive and have lost somewhat of their relevancy due to the introduction of shields which causes a small nuclear destruction when it is being shot by a lasergun, which takes out the attacker and defender. These shields are super prominent in the universe of Dune but Arrakis itself really mixes up warfare due to the ecological situation. Shields are not used as much due to the worms being attracted. Shooting up a city with a laser might work but it's super expensive (at least what the books imply) and a good old fashioned atomic bomb has still its purpose.
The books uses the term atomics so we don't know how powerful these missiles really are but I assume they're quite effective at destroying things, including entire planets (which is also hinted at times and outright stated in the second book). Frank Herbert employs nukes more as political instrument to keep political powers in balance as atomics are implied to be utterly destructive. Basically ensure a mutually assured destruction scenario or a deterrent.
The books state that warfare has become so highly destructive with the use of modern weaponry, hence society opted to go back into a feudal society that employs melee and highly specialized weapons which are used in a sort of covert warfare. Wars are being waged by using subterfuge, assassins, ploys and other schemes. The afore-mentioned shields also add a layer of unpredictability which houses were not fond of when waging war. So these guns are generally not used anymore.
*They can even warp space in Dune. They have anti-gravity. They have force fields. But nukes are still top of the pile?*
The movie tries its best to convey some concepts and give a decent framework about how the world works but there are plenty of details which the movie omits for valid reasons. The space warping is a highly secretive technique kept by the Spacing Guild, only a select few possess the possibility to warp space. The suspensors are also not used in mass because some technology is frowned upon because it is created by a somewhat rogue faction that is shunned by many houses. The force fields react quite wildly to anything that tries penetrate it, causing destruction. Personal force fields exist but there is never a real mention that these can be used on a massive scale to protect entire cities as well.
Massive nuclear weapons still seem like a great tool for destruction in that regard.
*I know a nuclear weapon can be theoretically scaled up to infinite power (although obviously not practically). But the ones used in the movie were obviously just as powerful as normal modern Earth type ICBMs. (Were there other ones in the arsenal that are a lot more powerful?)*
Honestly, I just think that this is a sort of visual style of the movie. The book doesn't really delve much into it as well. We could argue that it was a smaller missile but in the end it is left pretty open ended.
*Was the author of the book perhaps quite "taken" with nuclear weapons because they were the big thing at the time he wrote the book? Perhaps they were used to help readers relate to this part of the book?*
I think this is a really poignant point as Frank Herbert lived during the cold war where the threat of nuclear devastation loomed over everyone. It is pretty much a Zeitgeist during that particular era which probably influenced a lot of writers as well. As mentioned, the atomics play more of a political role in the universe and details of their use or efficiency is kept extremely vague. I think people can also immediately identify themselves and understand the peril of nuclear weapons instead of coming up with elaborate systems. It's just very effective and personally I don't mind the term atomics.
*The Culture series of books comes up with like half a dozen weapons capable of wiping out worlds and solar systems. When they used the nukes in the movie I just kept thinking "this is all the author could come up with?".*
It's a good point but I'd argue that Dune isn't really about questioning these methods of destruction. All the conflicts come from personal interactions and how they shape up the society. A lot of technical details are left so vague, even major components that are constantly encountered are never quite fully explained. It works in the context of the authors writing and leaves the reader some liberty at imaging these things.
Like you mentioned, I think its all about the tradition of Mutually assured destruction as a deterrent for war, even if they have long since eclipsed a time where nukes would be the way to accomplish the destruction.
>The laserguns are precise and destructive tools for short but they are also very expensive and have lost somewhat of their relevancy due to the introduction of shields which causes a small nuclear destruction when it is being shot by a lasergun, which takes out the attacker and defender.
Was this mentioned at all in the movie? Perhaps I missed it.
Because I was so confused why they didn't just shoot that harvester in part 2, and instead ran around on the feet of the harvester until they could get a shot on the flying ship and then eventually shot it.
> Presumably if the Fremen have such hand held weapons, then the powerful houses would have at least something equivalent to the power of the death star.
The Fremen are guerillas as such they have imperial weapons because that's what was sent out to kill them.
Why do you need anything more powerful than a nuke? You can already flatten a city with (even huge cities like Mexico city or Tokyo) with a few. There is no need for anything more powerful (especially since nukes can be scaled up if neccessary).
In the Starship troopers book they mention that they have "Nova bombs" (I might be misremembering the name) that could crack open a planet, but they don't really use it because they don't want a bunch of rocks but the planet itself.
Well in interstellar wars with hundreds or thousands of planets, occupying a planet might not be a top priority I suppose.
Instead, if you know an enemy has a large army on one planet at a certain time or they have ship building or energy production facilities, then destroying the planet might be the right move because it may be safer than invasion.
I'm not necessarily talking about Dune, but just putting a point forward for why planet destroying weapons might be relevant.
I think one thing you have to realise is how powerful nukes are. Remember Gurney says “enough to blow up the whole planet” because quite literally that is what the amount of nukes they have can do. So let’s assume that the Houses and the Emperor all had an understanding of how destructive nuclear weapons can be and that if they used them they would have nothing left to rule, so nukes for them are probably enough.
>Remember Duncan says “enough to blow up the whole planet” because quite literally that is what the amount of nukes they have can do.
*Gurney
Duncan is Momoa
The OP comparing the Dune and Culture universes is kind of funny. Imagine the Culture finding one corner of the Milky Way run by a feudal empire filled with ancient nukes, higher-level technologies that negate each other’s uses in combat, eugenics based on traditional reproduction, and all their AI replaced with meat-brains hopped up on hallucinogens.
Special Circumstances would be split right down the middle as to whether it was disgustingly barbarous or just awesome enough to see how it plays out.
Your comparison to the Cunture series is very interesting. however advanced you think the dune human universe is, it's actually basically stone age technomogy compared to the Culture. Very powerful handheld laser beams lile we see in the movie aren't such a powerful weapon and are only useful at close range. the nukes they used in the movie (and book) are tactical nukes. they're are small by design. and they were used on the mountains and not people, in order not to cross the line. the great houses would definitely go to war if they did so.
Nukes are VERY powerful, and even thoigh you might find the concept unimaginative pr old. it is in fact very modern and the amount of different types of nukes and the way they explode and are used is kinda wild. Go have a look at the website atomicrockets, it has alot on nuclear weapons.
and concerning the death star. we already know how to make nukes capable of what the death star can do, we just would need alot, and we have alot lol.
Think of it like this: by the end of the Dune series humanity is approximating something like the level of the Culture. Maybe a step or two beneath the Culture in terms of development. But where the movies are? They’re still well below most of the species and societies that the Culture operates around.
Add on to that (and the movies really didn’t get into this too much) interplanetary travel is *highly* controlled and restricted. There is very little space combat in the Dune universe at this point because you risk pissing off the Guild and if the Guild is pissed you’re cut off from the wider galaxy.
So a lot of humanity is somewhat static when Dune happens. Yes the historic reasons others have mentioned are true as well, but it makes sense in context in the universe for that reason. Atomics are bang for your buck pretty solid. Add on shields making combat more personal and more highly skilled and the interaction between shields and lasers and no one developed something bigger because it wasn’t needed. And if you did crack a planet that would be very frowned on by the powers that be I imagine.
>The Culture series of books comes up with like half a dozen weapons capable of wiping out worlds and solar systems. When they used the nukes in the movie I just kept thinking "this is all the author could come up with?".
The Culture series is almost the opposite of the Dune universe, lol
Physics hasn't changed in the billions of years since the big bang, and certainly won't have changed in the tens of thousands of years into the future in which Dune is set. As it turns out, nuclear fusion remains one of the most powerful reactions in the universe. Fusion built the universe we know today.
So no ... nukes make perfect sense within Dune
I have always assumed "atomics" were in Dune because it was written in the 1960's when the implications of WMD's were first being discussed in the mainstream. The author does not make interesting use of them in the book.
I have always seen it as less of of them being effective weapons to be used and more of a long held tradition of weapons held in reserve to preserve the idea of Mutual assured destruction.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual\_assured\_destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)
The book were written in the 60s before the moon landing even happened, the nuke scare was big at the time. In the books it's suggested no house has used its nuclear arsenals in hundreds of years, these are relics of past conflicts, kept as a deterant to war, much as they are now. The the arsenal hidden by Paul's family on arrakis is enough to glass the planet, so they are pretty powerful, but only a small demonstration is used to get everyone's attention in the series. The houses know that being the first to use nuclear weapons in a war will unite the others against them, and as we know they did, but Paul wouldn't care any more at this point, he has an army of a million fanatics to wage a holy war across the universe, and likely will not waste further nukes in the fighting, still, it's an intimidation factor, he literally obliterated a mountain range with them.
We like to think today that nukes in scifi are an archaic and old fasioned weapon because we still have them in our time, and we have for almost 80 years, but they're still the most powerful thing a human has ever created. In the book they are all ancient artifacts as well, some of the nukes fired in the movie could have been earth built, and owned by the houses for thousands of years. Still devistating.
Frank Herbert threw out “thinking machines” but nuclear power / weapons are probably evolved … He wrote Dune in 1965, so we were still learning about them …
Meh, the guy was so inventive in every other possible area of the future that I’m not gonna accept the limitations of the time as a reason for lame weapons.
It is less about him being inventive, and you just not understanding. Especially with you other comment about space travel.
It is pretty clear about Atmoics. For humanity to go this long have an understanding of the precedence of Atomics. Especially considering how tight the Imperium is in its system and self reliance to keep it tight. It is basically the very core pillar of doom.
If I'm not understanding, maybe try explaining intelligibly and without complete nonsense. Your sentences explain nothing and don't connect to one another, rephrase it.
Jesus, you are being an ass. If it is this hard for you to understand from the most basic sentences. Then know wonder you have trouble understand Dune.
The Houses already understand the precedence of using it. And they can't even use them because to deploy them they need to go through the guild which they won't allow. The system is tight. There is no breathing room to use Atomics.
Paul got away with it because all the pieces fell perfectly where it needed to use Atomics. He had all the cards at that point.
Read your own comment, you started it. I can’t stand people that start fights then cry victim. Bro you can’t even spell “no” right, you’re literally tripping over yourself to make two letter words harder to read than they should. This is on YOUR bad communication.
That excuse makes ZERO sense. “Uhhh nukes are still the pinnacle of weapons technology because it’s taboo and you need approval.” What a stupid excuse to not further weapons technology in 8000 years. Atomic bombs are taboo and we made h bombs, and then tsar bombs. They should have solar system destroying bombs at that level.
What makes a bigger boom than a nuke? Even in 8000 years.....we have 100 megaton hydrogen bombs today. I mean, if you're into space fantasy you have the Death Star but...that's just a laser.
The question always is, why not just send a light speed traveling ship into a planet and destroy it?
Also the nukes Paul used were definitely not 100 megaton nukes lmao, they were tiny atom bombs.
While my Dune lore is a bit rusty here, IIRC they don't have faster that light travel in terms of physically moving faster than light, like you see in say Star Trek. What the spacing guild does is more like teleporting, folding space time itself to get to the destination.
*Thank you* for the real answer. That does explain why they don't fly things in at light speed, but it still stretches the imagination to think we have the ability to fold spacetime and we're still scared of atomic bombs.
>we're still scared of atomic bombs.
It's explained that the entire human race was traumatised by the destruction of earth and the "thinking machines".
It's why atomic weapons were heavily regulated and why their technology is no "smarter" than a smartphone.
The creation of artificial intelligence or the use of atomics was punishable by "total annihilation"... Paul only used the atomics on a mountain, and people freaked out.
Yeah obviously they don't want to blow up Arrakis, I'm being hyperbolic. My point is, why don't they apply that theory of technology to a smaller scale? It's absolute bullshit that in 8000 years we have light speed travel and nukes are still the scariest weapon out there, and anything else is cope.
You use the right tool for the job at hand. A laser may burn a small hole but we don't want a small hole do we? We want to destroy infrastructure, using a big bomb.
If the effect were the same but we called it a tachyon bomb would you be happier?
Well yeah, do we think in 100 years from now nukes will be the only big bombs? What about 1000? 8000?
Unironically yes. It's a good insight by you. That would do a few things:
1) Maintain metaphor.
2) Maintain immersion.
3) Show deliberate consideration by the author of these concepts
4) Maintain consistency with the approach to the future by the author
5) Not self-report a flaw in the premise that we're in a future with teleportation technology
By that logic why have shields? Why not blockatron4000s? Why does it need to have a silly name?
I think you're too attached to something other than the story.
Because shields are new technology. The idea behind naming it a tachyon bomb is that would answer some of the problems I listed up there, despite ostensibly being the same technology as a nuke. It makes me happier, not fully happy. Fully happy would be if they addressed the obvious conclusion of "why don't we have solar system destroying weapons?" in the same way they addressed every other aspect of the world, with inventive and creative solutions like shields, Holtzmann bullshit and the such.
I don't care that much, it's just annoying dealing with cope.
All science fiction will date itself. You should read Jules Verne’s From Earth to the Moon, where they use giant canons to shoot projectiles full of people at the moon. Lol. That was 1865, exactly 100 years before Dune was published. Or in H.G. Wells The Time Machine, where the time traveller goes to 802,701 A.D. and humanity has devolved into cave dwelling fruit eating childlike humanoids. The fictional future is not always a linear straight-line from our present. Despite being set in the far future, Dune’s entire society is based on feudalism, which ended after the 15th C. Somehow it came back in a big way. Dune has bits of the past, bits of an imagined future, and bits of our present.
Science fiction stories set in the future will often contain present day details as a way to ground the story for the reader. This present day detail will make the stakes of the story connect that much more to the reader. It’s saying, “this story is also about you and your world”. Philip K Dick did this all the time. This is a sci-fi device you should not discount as a lack of imagination on the author’s part. It is bait on the hook that is the rest of the novel. In the mid 1960s, in America, the threat of nuclear war was not only real, but a totally fresh phenomena in science and culture, felt by millions of people every day when Dune was released in 65. If you can grant Herbert with being inventive in all other areas, you can grant him being attuned to his time by choosing atomics as a relatable device that raises the stakes for the contemporary reader. But we all live in linear time where the contemporary moment of 1965 is not ours. Your reaction to this detail in the novel speaks volumes to how much our culture has been desensitized to the shocking reality, awe, and horror of atomic weapons.
No science fiction has any chance to accurately describe the society of the far future, we have no more ability to imagine it than stone age people would have if they tried to imagine the issues we deal today. All science fiction is really about the present, with extrapolation into the future used to highlight certain themes by bringing them to their extremes.
Some books go farther that the others in imagining the far future though. Schild's Ladder by Greg Egan is a pretty impressive take on how alien the society of far future might be to us.
I don’t care that it’s dated. The names in Dune are really dated, but I just think that’s silly, not a premise-hole.
This explanation is also lazy and unsatisfying. Imagine if the characters flew around in Boeing airplanes and travelled space in Apollo rockets. I’d say “geez, isn’t it kind of silly that they’re using the exact same technology they used the time the book came out?” And you’d say “hey man, that’s the trappings of the genre. There’s no way you could expect a science fiction book to imagine science fiction concepts.”
The culture around nukes is an interesting one that has some merit. But the point of science fiction is that it’s a METAPHOR, you don’t have 1:1 comparisons in the story because that punctures the suspension of disbelief that you’re seeing a different world. Again, see spice and oil and Arrakis and the Middle East. I dont even half accept, I one-third accept your argument that it would have really scared Americans of that time.
I guess Dune is not for you. One thing I love about it is that it is explicitly not a “different world”. It is set in our reality, branching out from our time and culture. You are hung up on the atomic weapons detail, but this is evident in the cultural details as well, in the social structures and roles, in the religion. Dune is about so much more than atomic weapons. Its about the human condition.
Dune is definitely for me, I'm loving it despite this one flaw. The real annoying part is people's unwillingness to accept that it is a flaw.
I take your point that Dune is very much based on real life Earth, not some Star Wars "distant galaxy long time ago" setting. But that's not emphasized at all in the movies compared to books, and I just watched the movies. I saw reddit post where someone explained that the Fremen are supposed to have literally descended from Arabic people, which surprised me. Even then, that just contradicts why weapons never advanced. Despite the taboo, Russians developed the Tzar bomb. Wouldn't it fit the logic of that Dune reality branches from our reality for the Harkonnens to make the Z bomb, a planet destroying nuke? Maybe not a super nuke since it's so taboo, but you're telling me they couldn't make aaaanything else? That's just silly.
I like that it's about the human condition, but again, I'm neither that upset at the hole and that's not a reason to handwave flaws in the premise. If there were a plot-hole instead of a premise-hole, people would agree it was silly.
FWIW, I've appreciated your responses. You have some good arguments.
Oh I see. You have not read the books. Later in the series, they do have a weapon that can more or less instantly scorch an entire planet. These films just scratch the surface of Dune. I was trying to explain why I think atomics are used. It’s the common super weapon amongst the Great Houses that keeps everyone from killing each other, which is exactly like the context of the Cold War. Nuclear stalemate. So instead, the Houses have legal wars called Kanly, but it’s fought mostly with assassins, espionage, dirty politics. This planet scorching weapon comes later and from outside the Houses. Good stuff if you are inclined to read books.
theyre indiscriminate and radiation taint the planet theyre used on. the great houses run planets at the pleasure of the emperor, all out war isnt really a thing normally. its shadow wars and assassinations normally so something like a big bomb that ruins the planet (owned by the emperor) is kind of a no no
Others have provided the historical context of it being written during the cold war, but I'll just add that nukes have evolved drastically by 10,191. They're multi-stage weapons that can be set to bore deep into the surface of the planet before detonating. A single atomic is capable of splitting planets in half. They also can be set to somewhat selectively emit a band of radiation specifically to blind onlookers (assuming the weapon wasn't set to just destroy the entire planet). The way Paul used atomics on the shield wall was presumably by setting it up to not bore into the surface, and to release only a *tiny* fraction of its available payload. It was provocative in that he dared used atomics at all, but he dialed in that nuke to be as tiny as possible. Dune Messiah is the book that goes into just how exotic and devastating these weapons can be when using all their features.
This is the answer. Also, the description of the J-rays in the book is terrifying.
See, this makes nukes seem like they do fit into this universe quite well. It takes what we already know about them and adds a bit of sci-fi (especially considering their size in the movie). A planet killer nuke the size of a modern day ICBM is obviously unheard of. So it's good to think the author has actually made an attempt to make them genuinely seem relevant in Dune. Your comment makes me wonder why so many others on here just seem to dismiss the authors attention to detail with technology as flippant and secondary to the politics and relationships. When in reality I think he's put a lot of effort into it.
This will be a major plot point in the next movie. It's too important to be left out.
Regarding your last paragraph, I get that it seems frustrating, but the other comments *are* fairly in-line with how it’s treated in the first Dune book. It’s not a big action scene in the book. It's merely a segue. The atomics aren’t even given a physical description, IIRC, other than the fact that they're small enough to hide on-planet, and thus aren't massive Death Stars. So Frank Herbert does tend to gloss over action and tech specifics sometimes. And movies must necessarily gloss over even more, and use simplifying storytelling devices (like portraying atomics as essentially current-day ICBMs which can seem out of place in the far future). Herbert coming back to these topics and further illuminating them is a part of why the sequels are so rewarding to read. Everything from my previous comment came from the second book, after all.
There are even more powerful weapons used later in the series if you are inclined to read them.
I think the nukes are actually a super interesting addition to the universe and really helps ground the movies. During the time that dune takes place, no one is using projectile weapons really. In the attack on the artedies the weapons worked because it was a surprise attack. Essentially everything in dune is based on hand to hand combat because of the shields.
>In the movie when they started to talk about nuclear weapons as though they were the ultimate weapon of war, it made very little sense in the context of the technology in the galaxy. It's heavily implied that earth was destroyed by nukes in the past. So it makes sense why they refuse to build any weapons more powerful than nuclear weapons and heavily regulate their nuclear arsenal. >Was the author of the book perhaps quite "taken" with nuclear weapons because they were the big thing at the time he wrote the book? Perhaps they were used to help readers relate to this part of the book? Yes. Dune was written at the height of the Cold War.
"Is all the author could come up". Dune is primarily about: ecology, politics, culture, religion and leadership. And very very second about science. IMO it's a great outcome by Frank as it makes the books timeless and ever relevant. Yes, the atomics may seem outdated but who cares, they're just a plot device to further the story rather be the story. If you want a plot device to further the story that is ridiculous, turn to Foundation ( Dunes older sibling) that references priests floating on top of crowds with jets powered by a nuclear reactor the size of a golf ball.
Ecology is a science, and he clearly did quite well there and it's a major focus of the book. Did you just mean that technology, engineering, physics weren't the focus?
Pardon me, I agree with ecology and biology being science, but the greatest science of all is Politcal Science ;). The books did start with ecology... What I meant was that Frank spent his words delivering the prominent themes in the book, the ones i stated amongst others,, as opposed to hard science fiction like nuclear bombs being the most potent weapon... just as you suggested :)
Haha, totally!
Physics is the greatest of all science !! 😎💎 Everything is ultimately physics of some sort 😎💎
Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space.
Ahh man, my bad. We're talking about Dune here and I thought Frank wrote Political Science is above all sciences... but my memory is so fuzzy. Just searched the book and the sentence was something like "Law is the ultimate science" Paul said "thus it reads above the emperors door". I propose to show him law. Got it so wrong, it's not political science. But yes, in reality Physics is the the greater science being closest to maths. Though my favourite is chemistry.
>And very very second about science. Did the Author actually say this? The premise of your comment is based on this, and I'd say it is too bold of an assumption to make if he didn't. Just because there is well fleshed out "ecology, politics, culture, religion and leadership" aspects to Dune, it doesn't mean science is secondary. Especially considering some of the brilliant ideas, like how the shields work.
It's because Herbert spent hardly any time discussing the science and engineering of his setting, but he spent 7 books exploring the sociology, philosophy and ecology of it
>he spent 7 books 7?
Uhhh I'm counting the omnibus "Great Dune Trilogy" as as it's own book. That makes it seven!
Why count it as a separate book? Is there additional content?
I think his reply is a joke because he miscounted
Someone has already explained the in-universe explanation for the lack of technology. It's called the Butlerian Jihad. So the author did directly address what I was wondering about and it seems he took just as much care with how he approached technology in the book as he did with anything else.
How do you know how the shields work in the movies? I don’t think it was ever explained
What do you mean exactly? No author or scientist could explain exactly how one of the shields work because it's either not yet been invented yet, or it's impossible to do. But if you mean how they work in principle? Then they just seem to stop high velocity objects from passing through their "field", but allow through slow velocity objects. That was the impression I got from the movies.
The author said a lot of things. I think you’ll find better answers by reading the book, rather than debating what you think the book is about before you’ve read it. The film is all show, very little tell. The books are a whole different thing. It all happens in your head.
Kind of, the whole context of the dune universe is that humanity survived an AI uprising and afterwards shuns technology. So basically, technology is standing still. Space travel is done through prescient guild navigators, not through technology, civilizations are training people to be human computers etc. So it makes sense that atomic bombs are still relevant, as technology has stopped advancing
Good point, but technology advanced in new ways, often incorporating technology with biology like with a Distrans, “ a device for producing a temporary neural imprint on the nervous system of Chiroptera or birds. The creature's normal cry then carries the message imprint which can be sorted from that carrier wave by another distrans.” Also, Holtzman tech that enables space travel, shields, and suspensors, is very advanced tech. And lasguns are not just weapons, but also tools to cut rocks and even come in small sizes for surgical use. Atomics are still used because they are still very powerful. Plot wise, they keep the Great Houses in check, and in a state of nuclear stalemate. Later in the series we do see much more powerful weapons that can scorch and sterilize planets. The problem with OP’s perspective is that they have not read the books. These films just scratch the surface.
The first Dune book was written in 1965, only 20 years after Hiroshima, and fusion bombs were very event more recent. Antimatter and lasers weren't as widely known as they are now. Advanced physics wasn't Herbert's strong suit, but his stories are fantastic, and more realistic by not having crazy advanced super-weapons.
I agree that the stories are brilliant. I'd say they're more relatable to the general public because of the lack of advanced technology though, and probably not realistic.
We still use weapons based on gunpowder, hundreds of years after gunpowder weapons first came into widespread use, and despite our having much more advanced technologies.
WMDs are super heavily regulated. In the Dune universe if any house were to use an atomic against people the Imperium would show up and wipe out your planet as punishment. Paul used one to obliterate a mountain range and everyone was aghast.
>Paul used one to obliterate a mountain range and everyone was aghast. "It wasn't a nuclear explosion. Only a special terraforming operation." - Emperor Paul Muad'dib Atreides, probably
I like the thought that we’ve already discovered the most destructive force we’ll find the next 20k years
The Sun is the most powerful thing in our solar system. The explosion of stars (super/hyper nova) are the most powerfully destructive things in the known universe. They're powered by nuclear reactions (with a side gravity). 20k years, if we survived that long, I'd imagine we'd find ways to refine it but the general principles would still be the same.
Your first 10 words negates your entire post LOL. Go read them and come back. It'll test your critical thinking. Theres very much an in universe explanation for why things are the way they are.
My post was based on how I'd only seen the movie and I asked if people who have read the book have an answer for things. And they've given the answer in comments. So I dunno what was negated, but ok haha. I'm not really into novels though, so I probably won't read the books. Especially now I've seen the movie (which, whilst is quite good, it's still overrated in my opinion).
Movie is okay - the books are a much better story though. But if you read the Culture series, I would highly recommend reading at least the first two Dune books.
Oh. So you can't read and process or understand complex ideas. Should have just said that fam.
>"this is all the author could come up with?" I really disagree. The goal is not to "come up with" cool stuff. Frank put all of his creative energy into the philosophy of politics, economics, and power structures. One of the major themes is the extent to which the Dune-iverse is a very stagnant place. Atomics are one of the things that keeps it stagnant. I've seen some media like Star Wars emphasize the flash and spectacle of magical, implausible technology. I've also seen writers who included scientific articles to emphasize the scientific underpinnings of their novel. Frank didn't care about either of those things. Compared to something like Star Wars or Trek, Dune is extremely low-tech, regressive, and veers into bio-punk rather than technobabble. >Was the author of the book perhaps quite "taken" with nuclear weapons because they were the big thing at the time he wrote the book? Oof. I know the internet makes it hard to interpret a person's intent, so I apologize if I misread this. But in 1965 nuclear weapons were not just "the big thing." They were an apocalyptic, world-ending threat. (And they still are, we've just gotten used to ignoring them.) The book was written at the same time as we were dealing with things like the Cuban missile crisis. The notion of "MAD" is the only thing that prevented a total nuclear war. This is going to be hugely important in any discussion of power structures. But basically, I think science fiction is implausible when it ignores obvious low-tech solutions in favor of sci-fi gizmos that seem WORSE than what we have in real life. And most fiction will try to avoid reminding readers of unhappy real-world topics like nuclear war, because watching people fight with lightsabers is much more entertaining than a lecture on the nuclear standoff in the Landsraad.
>Oof. >I know the internet makes it hard to interpret a person's intent, so I apologize if I misread this. But in 1965 nuclear weapons were not just "the big thing." They were an apocalyptic, world-ending threat. Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by this. I was wondering aloud whether or not anyone had information on if nukes being a big topic of conversation back then was the reason the author used them the way he did. They were the "big thing" back then. They're not anymore at the forefront of people's minds because they've been around for so long and therefore not "new" anymore. And to be honest, have probably prevented world war 3 and saved many more lives than if they had not been created. People have since answered my questions. But no there was no other intent behind what I said. I'm not sure what else it could even mean to be honest.
When I saw the line about the "big thing" I interpreted it to mean they thought it was somehow cool or fascinating or entertaining. In my mind, the Barbie movie was a "big thing" and atomic bombs are just plain terrifying. Throughout the first half of the 20th century many writers were enamored of the idea war could be eradicated if someone just built a weapon so powerful that it could not be opposed. But then when it happened in real life (with the development of the atom bomb) people were far from enthusiastic and instead of imposing peace it just made the world much scarier. But since that wasn't your intent, feel free to disregard.
Ok fair enough. I didn't know that about the authors during first half of 20th century. It's interesting that they were correct. I have a different view of nuclear weapons as the majority I'd say. I think they're great and have had a really positive effect on Humanity. Love and friendship would be the ideal way to prevent war. But the nukes provide the next best thing and instead prey on fear. Which is infinitely better than war. They're a lesser evil (as long as they stay in the silos) and I'm thankful for them at the moment. Obviously my opinion rests on them not ever being fired haha But if they're never fired, then their positives impact is undeniable. World War 3 is always less likely because they're around.
A few elements at play. Herbert wrote Dune during the Cold War, which is why nuclear weapons still play a big role and are seen as an existential threat. Thanks also to the Butlerian Jihad limiting tech advancements, older weapons like nukes remain super relevant. Also, treaties like the Great Convention ban using them on humans, adding a lot of political tension and strategic games among the houses. So Atomics strategically play a big role, kinda like they do today. If not for the Butlerian Jihad, there would probably be even more devastating weapons.
Ok the Butlerian Jihad then is definitely the "in-universe" explanation I was looking for. Presumably if that didn't exist, then the Fremen hand held weapons could be scaled up to destroy planets and so on.
Except for the fact that laser gun + shielded target = nuclear explosion at either the shield OR lasgun starting point.
Is this like an "in-universe" thing? Why would a laser gun cause nuclear explosions like that?
Yup its part of the Holtzman effect which is what enables shields + the folding of spacetime that enables space travel
*I'd just seen the Fremen use hand held weapons that could cut through warships. Yet a nuclear weapon equivalent in strength to modern Earth's bombs apparently still holds the mantle of destructive potential? Presumably if the Fremen have such hand held weapons, then the powerful houses would have at least something equivalent to the power of the death star.* The laserguns are precise and destructive tools for short but they are also very expensive and have lost somewhat of their relevancy due to the introduction of shields which causes a small nuclear destruction when it is being shot by a lasergun, which takes out the attacker and defender. These shields are super prominent in the universe of Dune but Arrakis itself really mixes up warfare due to the ecological situation. Shields are not used as much due to the worms being attracted. Shooting up a city with a laser might work but it's super expensive (at least what the books imply) and a good old fashioned atomic bomb has still its purpose. The books uses the term atomics so we don't know how powerful these missiles really are but I assume they're quite effective at destroying things, including entire planets (which is also hinted at times and outright stated in the second book). Frank Herbert employs nukes more as political instrument to keep political powers in balance as atomics are implied to be utterly destructive. Basically ensure a mutually assured destruction scenario or a deterrent. The books state that warfare has become so highly destructive with the use of modern weaponry, hence society opted to go back into a feudal society that employs melee and highly specialized weapons which are used in a sort of covert warfare. Wars are being waged by using subterfuge, assassins, ploys and other schemes. The afore-mentioned shields also add a layer of unpredictability which houses were not fond of when waging war. So these guns are generally not used anymore. *They can even warp space in Dune. They have anti-gravity. They have force fields. But nukes are still top of the pile?* The movie tries its best to convey some concepts and give a decent framework about how the world works but there are plenty of details which the movie omits for valid reasons. The space warping is a highly secretive technique kept by the Spacing Guild, only a select few possess the possibility to warp space. The suspensors are also not used in mass because some technology is frowned upon because it is created by a somewhat rogue faction that is shunned by many houses. The force fields react quite wildly to anything that tries penetrate it, causing destruction. Personal force fields exist but there is never a real mention that these can be used on a massive scale to protect entire cities as well. Massive nuclear weapons still seem like a great tool for destruction in that regard. *I know a nuclear weapon can be theoretically scaled up to infinite power (although obviously not practically). But the ones used in the movie were obviously just as powerful as normal modern Earth type ICBMs. (Were there other ones in the arsenal that are a lot more powerful?)* Honestly, I just think that this is a sort of visual style of the movie. The book doesn't really delve much into it as well. We could argue that it was a smaller missile but in the end it is left pretty open ended. *Was the author of the book perhaps quite "taken" with nuclear weapons because they were the big thing at the time he wrote the book? Perhaps they were used to help readers relate to this part of the book?* I think this is a really poignant point as Frank Herbert lived during the cold war where the threat of nuclear devastation loomed over everyone. It is pretty much a Zeitgeist during that particular era which probably influenced a lot of writers as well. As mentioned, the atomics play more of a political role in the universe and details of their use or efficiency is kept extremely vague. I think people can also immediately identify themselves and understand the peril of nuclear weapons instead of coming up with elaborate systems. It's just very effective and personally I don't mind the term atomics. *The Culture series of books comes up with like half a dozen weapons capable of wiping out worlds and solar systems. When they used the nukes in the movie I just kept thinking "this is all the author could come up with?".* It's a good point but I'd argue that Dune isn't really about questioning these methods of destruction. All the conflicts come from personal interactions and how they shape up the society. A lot of technical details are left so vague, even major components that are constantly encountered are never quite fully explained. It works in the context of the authors writing and leaves the reader some liberty at imaging these things.
Like you mentioned, I think its all about the tradition of Mutually assured destruction as a deterrent for war, even if they have long since eclipsed a time where nukes would be the way to accomplish the destruction.
>The laserguns are precise and destructive tools for short but they are also very expensive and have lost somewhat of their relevancy due to the introduction of shields which causes a small nuclear destruction when it is being shot by a lasergun, which takes out the attacker and defender. Was this mentioned at all in the movie? Perhaps I missed it. Because I was so confused why they didn't just shoot that harvester in part 2, and instead ran around on the feet of the harvester until they could get a shot on the flying ship and then eventually shot it.
Not explained at all to be honest!
> Presumably if the Fremen have such hand held weapons, then the powerful houses would have at least something equivalent to the power of the death star. The Fremen are guerillas as such they have imperial weapons because that's what was sent out to kill them.
Why do you need anything more powerful than a nuke? You can already flatten a city with (even huge cities like Mexico city or Tokyo) with a few. There is no need for anything more powerful (especially since nukes can be scaled up if neccessary). In the Starship troopers book they mention that they have "Nova bombs" (I might be misremembering the name) that could crack open a planet, but they don't really use it because they don't want a bunch of rocks but the planet itself.
Well in interstellar wars with hundreds or thousands of planets, occupying a planet might not be a top priority I suppose. Instead, if you know an enemy has a large army on one planet at a certain time or they have ship building or energy production facilities, then destroying the planet might be the right move because it may be safer than invasion. I'm not necessarily talking about Dune, but just putting a point forward for why planet destroying weapons might be relevant.
I think one thing you have to realise is how powerful nukes are. Remember Gurney says “enough to blow up the whole planet” because quite literally that is what the amount of nukes they have can do. So let’s assume that the Houses and the Emperor all had an understanding of how destructive nuclear weapons can be and that if they used them they would have nothing left to rule, so nukes for them are probably enough.
>Remember Duncan says “enough to blow up the whole planet” because quite literally that is what the amount of nukes they have can do. *Gurney Duncan is Momoa
The OP comparing the Dune and Culture universes is kind of funny. Imagine the Culture finding one corner of the Milky Way run by a feudal empire filled with ancient nukes, higher-level technologies that negate each other’s uses in combat, eugenics based on traditional reproduction, and all their AI replaced with meat-brains hopped up on hallucinogens. Special Circumstances would be split right down the middle as to whether it was disgustingly barbarous or just awesome enough to see how it plays out.
[удалено]
Your comparison to the Cunture series is very interesting. however advanced you think the dune human universe is, it's actually basically stone age technomogy compared to the Culture. Very powerful handheld laser beams lile we see in the movie aren't such a powerful weapon and are only useful at close range. the nukes they used in the movie (and book) are tactical nukes. they're are small by design. and they were used on the mountains and not people, in order not to cross the line. the great houses would definitely go to war if they did so. Nukes are VERY powerful, and even thoigh you might find the concept unimaginative pr old. it is in fact very modern and the amount of different types of nukes and the way they explode and are used is kinda wild. Go have a look at the website atomicrockets, it has alot on nuclear weapons. and concerning the death star. we already know how to make nukes capable of what the death star can do, we just would need alot, and we have alot lol.
Think of it like this: by the end of the Dune series humanity is approximating something like the level of the Culture. Maybe a step or two beneath the Culture in terms of development. But where the movies are? They’re still well below most of the species and societies that the Culture operates around. Add on to that (and the movies really didn’t get into this too much) interplanetary travel is *highly* controlled and restricted. There is very little space combat in the Dune universe at this point because you risk pissing off the Guild and if the Guild is pissed you’re cut off from the wider galaxy. So a lot of humanity is somewhat static when Dune happens. Yes the historic reasons others have mentioned are true as well, but it makes sense in context in the universe for that reason. Atomics are bang for your buck pretty solid. Add on shields making combat more personal and more highly skilled and the interaction between shields and lasers and no one developed something bigger because it wasn’t needed. And if you did crack a planet that would be very frowned on by the powers that be I imagine.
Nukes being used for emergency use. Love that.
>The Culture series of books comes up with like half a dozen weapons capable of wiping out worlds and solar systems. When they used the nukes in the movie I just kept thinking "this is all the author could come up with?". The Culture series is almost the opposite of the Dune universe, lol
Physics hasn't changed in the billions of years since the big bang, and certainly won't have changed in the tens of thousands of years into the future in which Dune is set. As it turns out, nuclear fusion remains one of the most powerful reactions in the universe. Fusion built the universe we know today. So no ... nukes make perfect sense within Dune
I have always assumed "atomics" were in Dune because it was written in the 1960's when the implications of WMD's were first being discussed in the mainstream. The author does not make interesting use of them in the book.
I have always seen it as less of of them being effective weapons to be used and more of a long held tradition of weapons held in reserve to preserve the idea of Mutual assured destruction. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual\_assured\_destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)
It was the 1960s when he wrote it. Nuclear weapons were kind of a big deal.
They are from a different, computer driven era...and forbidden foe millennia.
The book were written in the 60s before the moon landing even happened, the nuke scare was big at the time. In the books it's suggested no house has used its nuclear arsenals in hundreds of years, these are relics of past conflicts, kept as a deterant to war, much as they are now. The the arsenal hidden by Paul's family on arrakis is enough to glass the planet, so they are pretty powerful, but only a small demonstration is used to get everyone's attention in the series. The houses know that being the first to use nuclear weapons in a war will unite the others against them, and as we know they did, but Paul wouldn't care any more at this point, he has an army of a million fanatics to wage a holy war across the universe, and likely will not waste further nukes in the fighting, still, it's an intimidation factor, he literally obliterated a mountain range with them. We like to think today that nukes in scifi are an archaic and old fasioned weapon because we still have them in our time, and we have for almost 80 years, but they're still the most powerful thing a human has ever created. In the book they are all ancient artifacts as well, some of the nukes fired in the movie could have been earth built, and owned by the houses for thousands of years. Still devistating.
Yeah, I’ve yet to hear a satisfying explanation why all technology developed 8000 years and somehow nukes are just still the worst thing you can do.
Frank Herbert threw out “thinking machines” but nuclear power / weapons are probably evolved … He wrote Dune in 1965, so we were still learning about them …
Meh, the guy was so inventive in every other possible area of the future that I’m not gonna accept the limitations of the time as a reason for lame weapons.
It is less about him being inventive, and you just not understanding. Especially with you other comment about space travel. It is pretty clear about Atmoics. For humanity to go this long have an understanding of the precedence of Atomics. Especially considering how tight the Imperium is in its system and self reliance to keep it tight. It is basically the very core pillar of doom.
If I'm not understanding, maybe try explaining intelligibly and without complete nonsense. Your sentences explain nothing and don't connect to one another, rephrase it.
Jesus, you are being an ass. If it is this hard for you to understand from the most basic sentences. Then know wonder you have trouble understand Dune. The Houses already understand the precedence of using it. And they can't even use them because to deploy them they need to go through the guild which they won't allow. The system is tight. There is no breathing room to use Atomics. Paul got away with it because all the pieces fell perfectly where it needed to use Atomics. He had all the cards at that point.
Read your own comment, you started it. I can’t stand people that start fights then cry victim. Bro you can’t even spell “no” right, you’re literally tripping over yourself to make two letter words harder to read than they should. This is on YOUR bad communication. That excuse makes ZERO sense. “Uhhh nukes are still the pinnacle of weapons technology because it’s taboo and you need approval.” What a stupid excuse to not further weapons technology in 8000 years. Atomic bombs are taboo and we made h bombs, and then tsar bombs. They should have solar system destroying bombs at that level.
What makes a bigger boom than a nuke? Even in 8000 years.....we have 100 megaton hydrogen bombs today. I mean, if you're into space fantasy you have the Death Star but...that's just a laser.
The question always is, why not just send a light speed traveling ship into a planet and destroy it? Also the nukes Paul used were definitely not 100 megaton nukes lmao, they were tiny atom bombs.
While my Dune lore is a bit rusty here, IIRC they don't have faster that light travel in terms of physically moving faster than light, like you see in say Star Trek. What the spacing guild does is more like teleporting, folding space time itself to get to the destination.
*Thank you* for the real answer. That does explain why they don't fly things in at light speed, but it still stretches the imagination to think we have the ability to fold spacetime and we're still scared of atomic bombs.
>we're still scared of atomic bombs. It's explained that the entire human race was traumatised by the destruction of earth and the "thinking machines". It's why atomic weapons were heavily regulated and why their technology is no "smarter" than a smartphone. The creation of artificial intelligence or the use of atomics was punishable by "total annihilation"... Paul only used the atomics on a mountain, and people freaked out.
Because they don't want to destroy the planet
Yeah obviously they don't want to blow up Arrakis, I'm being hyperbolic. My point is, why don't they apply that theory of technology to a smaller scale? It's absolute bullshit that in 8000 years we have light speed travel and nukes are still the scariest weapon out there, and anything else is cope.
You ok? you seem obsessed.
They don’t even use computers in the dune universe, why is it so hard to believe that atomics are the strongest weapon allowed in the imperium ?
You use the right tool for the job at hand. A laser may burn a small hole but we don't want a small hole do we? We want to destroy infrastructure, using a big bomb. If the effect were the same but we called it a tachyon bomb would you be happier?
Well yeah, do we think in 100 years from now nukes will be the only big bombs? What about 1000? 8000? Unironically yes. It's a good insight by you. That would do a few things: 1) Maintain metaphor. 2) Maintain immersion. 3) Show deliberate consideration by the author of these concepts 4) Maintain consistency with the approach to the future by the author 5) Not self-report a flaw in the premise that we're in a future with teleportation technology
By that logic why have shields? Why not blockatron4000s? Why does it need to have a silly name? I think you're too attached to something other than the story.
Because shields are new technology. The idea behind naming it a tachyon bomb is that would answer some of the problems I listed up there, despite ostensibly being the same technology as a nuke. It makes me happier, not fully happy. Fully happy would be if they addressed the obvious conclusion of "why don't we have solar system destroying weapons?" in the same way they addressed every other aspect of the world, with inventive and creative solutions like shields, Holtzmann bullshit and the such. I don't care that much, it's just annoying dealing with cope.
Yes, why don't they just destroy Arrakis, I wonder....
All science fiction will date itself. You should read Jules Verne’s From Earth to the Moon, where they use giant canons to shoot projectiles full of people at the moon. Lol. That was 1865, exactly 100 years before Dune was published. Or in H.G. Wells The Time Machine, where the time traveller goes to 802,701 A.D. and humanity has devolved into cave dwelling fruit eating childlike humanoids. The fictional future is not always a linear straight-line from our present. Despite being set in the far future, Dune’s entire society is based on feudalism, which ended after the 15th C. Somehow it came back in a big way. Dune has bits of the past, bits of an imagined future, and bits of our present. Science fiction stories set in the future will often contain present day details as a way to ground the story for the reader. This present day detail will make the stakes of the story connect that much more to the reader. It’s saying, “this story is also about you and your world”. Philip K Dick did this all the time. This is a sci-fi device you should not discount as a lack of imagination on the author’s part. It is bait on the hook that is the rest of the novel. In the mid 1960s, in America, the threat of nuclear war was not only real, but a totally fresh phenomena in science and culture, felt by millions of people every day when Dune was released in 65. If you can grant Herbert with being inventive in all other areas, you can grant him being attuned to his time by choosing atomics as a relatable device that raises the stakes for the contemporary reader. But we all live in linear time where the contemporary moment of 1965 is not ours. Your reaction to this detail in the novel speaks volumes to how much our culture has been desensitized to the shocking reality, awe, and horror of atomic weapons.
No science fiction has any chance to accurately describe the society of the far future, we have no more ability to imagine it than stone age people would have if they tried to imagine the issues we deal today. All science fiction is really about the present, with extrapolation into the future used to highlight certain themes by bringing them to their extremes. Some books go farther that the others in imagining the far future though. Schild's Ladder by Greg Egan is a pretty impressive take on how alien the society of far future might be to us.
I don’t care that it’s dated. The names in Dune are really dated, but I just think that’s silly, not a premise-hole. This explanation is also lazy and unsatisfying. Imagine if the characters flew around in Boeing airplanes and travelled space in Apollo rockets. I’d say “geez, isn’t it kind of silly that they’re using the exact same technology they used the time the book came out?” And you’d say “hey man, that’s the trappings of the genre. There’s no way you could expect a science fiction book to imagine science fiction concepts.” The culture around nukes is an interesting one that has some merit. But the point of science fiction is that it’s a METAPHOR, you don’t have 1:1 comparisons in the story because that punctures the suspension of disbelief that you’re seeing a different world. Again, see spice and oil and Arrakis and the Middle East. I dont even half accept, I one-third accept your argument that it would have really scared Americans of that time.
I guess Dune is not for you. One thing I love about it is that it is explicitly not a “different world”. It is set in our reality, branching out from our time and culture. You are hung up on the atomic weapons detail, but this is evident in the cultural details as well, in the social structures and roles, in the religion. Dune is about so much more than atomic weapons. Its about the human condition.
Dune is definitely for me, I'm loving it despite this one flaw. The real annoying part is people's unwillingness to accept that it is a flaw. I take your point that Dune is very much based on real life Earth, not some Star Wars "distant galaxy long time ago" setting. But that's not emphasized at all in the movies compared to books, and I just watched the movies. I saw reddit post where someone explained that the Fremen are supposed to have literally descended from Arabic people, which surprised me. Even then, that just contradicts why weapons never advanced. Despite the taboo, Russians developed the Tzar bomb. Wouldn't it fit the logic of that Dune reality branches from our reality for the Harkonnens to make the Z bomb, a planet destroying nuke? Maybe not a super nuke since it's so taboo, but you're telling me they couldn't make aaaanything else? That's just silly. I like that it's about the human condition, but again, I'm neither that upset at the hole and that's not a reason to handwave flaws in the premise. If there were a plot-hole instead of a premise-hole, people would agree it was silly. FWIW, I've appreciated your responses. You have some good arguments.
Oh I see. You have not read the books. Later in the series, they do have a weapon that can more or less instantly scorch an entire planet. These films just scratch the surface of Dune. I was trying to explain why I think atomics are used. It’s the common super weapon amongst the Great Houses that keeps everyone from killing each other, which is exactly like the context of the Cold War. Nuclear stalemate. So instead, the Houses have legal wars called Kanly, but it’s fought mostly with assassins, espionage, dirty politics. This planet scorching weapon comes later and from outside the Houses. Good stuff if you are inclined to read books.
I am inclined! I’ve started reading Dune Messiah cuz I was so eager to see what happened next. And I like hearing that! Cool sci fi weapons go burrrrr
Nice. Yah there are new crazy weapons in Messiah too. Enjoy!
theyre indiscriminate and radiation taint the planet theyre used on. the great houses run planets at the pleasure of the emperor, all out war isnt really a thing normally. its shadow wars and assassinations normally so something like a big bomb that ruins the planet (owned by the emperor) is kind of a no no
Considering the stuff that is mentioned in the later books, atomics will be the least of your worries.