> The book itself is the prediction.

The book itself is literature. To see it as a prediction and especially as a failed prediction seems simpleminded (in the techie-futurist way).

(A) I don't see it as a failed prediction, that's the author's view. Me, I think history is a long time compared to the time we've lived with WMD.

(B) The type of literature in question is called an allegory. To see an allegory as a prediction is... aligned with why people write them. I wouldn't call picking the wrong definition to support an argument simpleminded; perhaps friction-seeking would be a good term.