Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America at the Atomic Crossroads

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: America at the Atomic Crossroads

#11

Post by [deleted] »

zeveb wrote: post #9
bronson wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may have been just following our example. 'Meshcheryakov, the Soviet physicist, like all of the international observers, was not allowed to see any more than the reporters. But he still saw much. The mushroom clouds from Able and Baker interested him some, but he was more taken with what he saw in the people around him. The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in disarmament. Rather, they we…

> The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in disarmament. Rather, they were training their armed forces to integrate nuclear weapons into their military doctrine. Of course, disarmament doesn't really make sense: once science has discovered something, it can't be undiscovered. Integrating every new discovery into one's doctrine (even if that integration is, 'we'd rather not') is far more mature…

[deleted]

Re: America at the Atomic Crossroads

#12

Post by Turing_Machine »

bronson wrote: post #4
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horrible indeed. Makes one wonder what the Soviets got up to when the US is supposedly the "good guys".

They may have been just following our example. 'Meshcheryakov, the Soviet physicist, like all of the international observers, was not allowed to see any more than the reporters. But he still saw much. The mushroom clouds from Able and Baker interested him some, but he was more taken with what he saw in the people around him. The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in disarmament. Rather, they we…

"The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in disarmament. Rather, they were training their armed forces to integrate nuclear weapons into their military doctrine."

If you look at the relative size of the two armies and (especially) the size of the tank corps, you'll understand why that was.

The United States wasn't about to give up nukes if it meant its interests in Europe would be at the mercy of a massive Soviet tank invasion.

Re: America at the Atomic Crossroads

#13

Post by emp_zealoth »

phaefele wrote: post #5
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horrible indeed. Makes one wonder what the Soviets got up to when the US is supposedly the "good guys".

If you haven't yet, check out Noam Chomsky - he holds the US up to their supposed 'good guy' status - fascinating. Andrew Bacevich, a retired Colonel, also has lots of interesting things to say on this. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFpXFFPEZ9w

The last woman nailed it on the head

Re: America at the Atomic Crossroads

#14

Post by xyzzy123 »

zeveb wrote: post #9
bronson wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may have been just following our example. 'Meshcheryakov, the Soviet physicist, like all of the international observers, was not allowed to see any more than the reporters. But he still saw much. The mushroom clouds from Able and Baker interested him some, but he was more taken with what he saw in the people around him. The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in disarmament. Rather, they we…

> The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in disarmament. Rather, they were training their armed forces to integrate nuclear weapons into their military doctrine. Of course, disarmament doesn't really make sense: once science has discovered something, it can't be undiscovered. Integrating every new discovery into one's doctrine (even if that integration is, 'we'd rather not') is far more mature…

Disarmament can make sense from a game theoretic point of view if the parties involved can verify destruction of weapons, and monitor production.

Re: America at the Atomic Crossroads

#15

Post by dghf »

zeveb wrote: post #9
bronson wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may have been just following our example. 'Meshcheryakov, the Soviet physicist, like all of the international observers, was not allowed to see any more than the reporters. But he still saw much. The mushroom clouds from Able and Baker interested him some, but he was more taken with what he saw in the people around him. The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in disarmament. Rather, they we…

> The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in disarmament. Rather, they were training their armed forces to integrate nuclear weapons into their military doctrine. Of course, disarmament doesn't really make sense: once science has discovered something, it can't be undiscovered. Integrating every new discovery into one's doctrine (even if that integration is, 'we'd rather not') is far more mature…

I'm in the middle of reading _Command and Control_ by Eric Schlosser: if it is to be believed, then in the immediate wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was a widely held opinion (possibly approaching a consensus) even among the upper ranks of the US armed forces that atomic weapons should either be banned outright or placed under the sole control of a world authority, maybe even a world government.

Curtis LeMay (IIRC) stated that those two were by far the preferable options: but failing those, it was imperative that the US had "the best, the biggest, and the most".

Re: America at the Atomic Crossroads

#16

Post by phaefele »

effie wrote: post #8
phaefele wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you haven't yet, check out Noam Chomsky - he holds the US up to their supposed 'good guy' status - fascinating. Andrew Bacevich, a retired Colonel, also has lots of interesting things to say on this. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFpXFFPEZ9w

Thanks, that was a great speech. Why isn't this man running for president...

Am reading his book called Breach of Trust. An easy read, but very compelling. I'd vote for him for sure.

Re: America at the Atomic Crossroads

#17

Post by knowaveragejoe »

bronson wrote: post #4
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horrible indeed. Makes one wonder what the Soviets got up to when the US is supposedly the "good guys".

They may have been just following our example. 'Meshcheryakov, the Soviet physicist, like all of the international observers, was not allowed to see any more than the reporters. But he still saw much. The mushroom clouds from Able and Baker interested him some, but he was more taken with what he saw in the people around him. The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in disarmament. Rather, they we…

As with their space program, we actually have no real idea to what lengths the Soviets went to in terms of human cost. It's entirely likely that they were far more blase about the safety of everyone involved. In most areas of research and development, the Soviets were known for flying by the seat of their pants(the same could be said for the US shortly after the war, but that changed significantly in the coming decades).

> "The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in disarmament. Rather, they were training their armed forces to integrate nuclear weapons into their military doctrine."

As others have pointed out, this is only a surface-level interpretation of what was going on.

Re: America at the Atomic Crossroads

#18

Post by Houshalter »

effie wrote: post #8
phaefele wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you haven't yet, check out Noam Chomsky - he holds the US up to their supposed 'good guy' status - fascinating. Andrew Bacevich, a retired Colonel, also has lots of interesting things to say on this. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFpXFFPEZ9w

Thanks, that was a great speech. Why isn't this man running for president...

Well he doesn't believe in governments for one. And his very far left views make him unelectable.
Post reply on HN