Book Review: Warday by Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka

A lucky find at the used book rack located in my train station gave me the opportunity to read and review Warday by Whitley Strieber (the same author who claims he was abducted by aliens) and James Kunetka.


Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka
Warner Books, Inc.
$7.99 (Used on Amazon)

I have been reading so muich new science fiction these days that I got an urge to read something older. A lucky find at the used book rack located in my train station gave me the opportunity to read and review Warday by Whitley Strieber (the same author who claims he was abducted by aliens) and James Kunetka. This book has always been on my radar because it is mentioned often in alternate history circles. Since I was between books, I thought why not give this old, yellowing copy a chance.

The book can best be described oral history about a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Unlike a lot of other nuclear holocaust works, this war was limited in scale with targets being mostly military/command related with only a few civilian targets (New York, Washington and San Antonio). Still the book tries to show how even a small nuclear could still be devastating for the entire world.

I can’t help myself from comparing this book to World War Z, the only other oral history, SF book I have experience with. As I have said before, both are oral histories with the author(s) acting as narrators. Unlike World War Z, however, the interviews are shown in the order they are given. The fictionalized versions of Whitley and James are traveling across post-war America, beginning in Texas, swinging through California, crossing the Great Plains by train toward New York to, eventually, coming home. On their way they talk with a variety of people trying to survive and give glimpses on how the geo-political situation has changed since the war. From their perspective we get a vision of what post-war America is like and, incidentally, what it must have been like for adults in the 1980s to live with the fear that people they didn’t know could one day decide to start a war and kill billions.

Speaking of the 80s, the book is full of nostalgia for this decade. You will see recognizable brand names, references to the Strategic Defense Initiative, and to the assumption of Japan’s likelihood of becoming a superpower (no Chinese economic miracle in this world apparently). It is funny how quickly our futures become obsolete. Even when taking into account the dark vision of nuclear destruction the book portrays, you still have some basic assumptions about what is likely to happen in the next few years and how wrong the authors ended up being. I wonder what other assumptions of the future we are wrong about now…

Back to Warday, the authors provide fictional government memos and polls to provide you with the technical details of the effects of the war and post-war society. This backstory can be dry, but you can skip it if you want because it does not effect the plot at all. The geo-political situation, however, is fascinating. The United States exists and at the same time it doesn’t. A smaller federal government (elections having not been held since the war) operates out of Los Angeles, but people have returned to a pre-Civil War outlook on America, where your first loyalty is to the state. There is a Hispanic secessionist state out of El Paso, Alaska is part of Canada and California is a police state with borders closed to other Americans and seriously considering just making a go for it on their own. Across the world, Japan and Britain wield considerable influence over the United States, the Israelis have curb stomped the Arabs so bad OPEC doesn’t even meet anymore, and the situation in the Soviet Union is so bad even the White Russians have returned.

The book is quite entertaining, even if the fear of nuclear war doesn’t set off the emotional triggers today as it did the 1980s. Although we still worry some rogue state might give a primitive bomb to some terrorist organization, the fear of nuclear war between the superpowers ended decades ago. Nevertheless, this book can be…difficult for contemporary readers. It can be sort of bigoted with the tales of Hispanics and Native Americans ethnically cleansing the Southwest of whites or how blacks have it easier in post-war America because there aren’t enough of them around to scare whites (as if that is the only reason racism still persists in America).

Sexism also rears its ugly head with most of the female characters working in traditional sectors like healthcare or education. To top it all off the one mention of homosexuality is in the form of a Catholic priest counseling a young boy who is in love with another boy and referring to him as “troubled”. Before people declare this book right-wing, I like to point out that conservatives might not be comfortable with how accepting the characters (and this world’s version of the Catholic church) are of abortion and euthanasia.

I’m not sure if I can recommend this book. Not only is its message of peace between the superpowers lost in the present day, but the politics/beliefs of the authors about American society might offend some readers. Read at your own risk is the best I can say about this book.

Related articles


  1. Good Lord. This is a fantastic book, Have we become so fanatically obedient to political correctness that we cannot recommend works of fiction free from the the current fascism of the Left. The funny thing is that Strieber is a Liberal and part of the impetus for his writing this book was his opposition to Reagan foreign policy (hence, deployment of a form of Star Wars triggers the Soviet Union, out of fear, to launch a first-strike against the US). Despite the left-wing bent, I found the portrayal of a realistic dystopian effect of a limit nuclear war fascinating when I read it in 1986. I am sure the author if this review supports the tearing down of any historic monument that does not comport with the oversensitive modern sensibilities of today’s Liberals (just like the Taliban’s destruction of World Heritage sites in the 90’s that offended their own religious sensibilities). Such reviews are the modern equivalent of book burning, a loss of culture and freedom…all with out the need for a Soviet first-strike/

    1. The reviewer states that modern audiences might find some objectionable portrayals in this book.

      I guess he was right.

      Paul, your comment is not helpful at all because it is, in fact, not a comment, but is instead a political rant, that makes completely unsupported statements regarding the reviewer. We ask that commenters address the topic, not the individual.

      I’d normally not have published this comment owing to the above violation, but I think it serves as a useful reminder of what we expect from comments and don’t want to see in them.

      It is simple enough to state that you disagree with the review and personally recommend it without going off the rails.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.