Video Edward Teller: Father of the Hydrogen Bomb 352
Video no longer available.
pigrabbitbear writes "Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, had a thing for nuclear bombs. He wanted them bigger, smaller, faster, used in ways that no one had thought of before or since, and always more of them. He suffered no fools, and though he would be more vilified than any other American scientist in the 20th century, he always dismissed his critics as lacking in common sense or patriotism. Amid Cold War paranoia and fears of the Soviet nuclear program, the stakes were simply too high: for the free world, building the most powerful weapon in history was a matter of life and horrible death."
They Saved The World (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that without the atomic bomb, WWIII most certainly would have happened between the West and the USSR. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki raised the stakes of another general war between the remaining Great Powers so enormously that a war like WWII would no longer be possible.
As horrible as these weapons are, they stopped the most terrible war the world would have ever known.
Re:They Saved The World (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Wonder what Mr. Teller thinks of Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Iran ever dared to use such a weapon against anyone, it would be the last thing it ever did. China and Russia will tolerate the Ayatollahs to a point, but to actually launch an attack against anyone else, that would be intolerable even by their standards. All support would end instantly and Israel and the United States would be given carte blanche to deal with Iran as they chose. The Iranian airforce and navy would be wiped out, most of its military installations of any size would be destroyed, it would be left with an army and a bunch of poorly armed Basij who are only useful as cannon fodder, except the cannons would be bombing from 40,000 feet. I suspect the Ayatollahs' regime wouldn't last a month. The regular army, who has no great love for the Basij or the Revolutionary Guard, would probably arrest or just simply start shooting them, because the very few nuclear weapons that Iran would have would be useless, or worse than useless, once the necessary infrastructure to launch attacks was crippled or turned to slag.
The fact is that as nasty as an attack by a second rate power like Iran would be, it's not something that could be repeated. Places like North Korea and Iran do not have the resources to build vast stockpiles of nukes. Once the oil dries up, they won't even be able to afford to maintain what they've built by that point.
Re:They Saved The World (Score:5, Insightful)
The Chinese admired the Americans quite a lot. Even Mao tried to make overtures, not wanting to be totally reliant on the Soviets, but the Americans had this bizarre fixation on Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang (Churchill made special note of this unreasonable obsession in his History of WWII), even after the Communists had driven them off the mainland. The strict anti-Communist stance lead the Americans to miss an opportunity at rapprochement and drove Mao completely into the Soviet sphere, and continued support for the Kuomintang, who weren't exactly all that pleasant when they were running China, pissed a lot of Chinese off.
Re:Salami tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
the rules of MAD are still in place i think. nuke anyone at all, and you're as good as nuked yourself.
countries with nukes are diverse enough that you couldn't bomb one ideology without pissing off some nuclear power. we have communists (China), mafia states (sadly Russia), capitalist states (USA, UK), social democracies (France, sort of), Islamic states (Pakistan), and India which is kinda a bit of everything. then there's Israel... the whole political spectrum in all it's shades of madness and reason have nukes.
Re:Wonder what Mr. Teller thinks of Iran? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want my personal opinion, Iran is a thinly veiled military dictatorship that uses religion as its unifying ideology much as the Soviets and the Chinese use(d) Communism. The Basij are all very swirly eyed, but I don't get the feeling the country is actually run by similar types.
Re:Wonder what Mr. Teller thinks of Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
They will build the bombs and they will use the bombs, no, they won't bomb anyone, but rather, they will use the bombs they have accumulated to blackmail the world
Blackmail the world into... ...not invading them? ...letting them build nuclear bombs? ...letting their politicians be dicks and say outrageous things?
Re:Salami tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily. Suppose Iran used a nuke against North Korea?
If Israel sees a missile launched from any of the nuclear sites in Iran, I doubt they're going to wait to see where it's aimed before striking with all they've got.
Re:They Saved The World (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but reality is a bit more complicated. China was basically in a civil war at the beginning of WWII. Japan had basically already taken over Manchuria (there was a movie about this "the last emperor"). To help keep Japan in check, first we gave money and supplies to the KMT (basically chiang kai-shek govt) to help them fight the Japanese, but they turned out to be incompetent, so then we gave money to CCP (basically mao and his supporters of the communist party). W/o money from the US, it is likely that both "governments" would have been defeated by the japanese. Of course that's a bit simplification, but when a countries is in a civil war and fighing the Soviet Union & Japan at the same time (ironically, germany was allied with china for a short time, until they flipped sides joined with Japan against the Soviet Union, but I digress), it isn't very simple...
As you mentioned, the KMT is now one of the parties in Taiwan (currently holding power), but the DPP is a taiwan opposition party which breifly held the presidency from 2000-2008. So in many respects, the KMT, DPP and CCP are really sort parties, not "governments", per-se. Nominally, you'd think the DPP would be the most friendly to the US, but since the DPP supports taiwan independence, we are oddly more aligned with the KMT (and the CCP in mainland china) on this issue. Politics makes strange bedfellows...
Re:They Saved The World (Score:2, Insightful)
Speculation. Had the bombs been used on uninhabited areas or purely military targets first we would know if they would have surrendered. Instead you went straight to nuking innocent civilians and then tried to retroactively justify it.
The bombings were tests on human subjects as much as strategic attacks.
Why the Right Wing Progaganda? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any other reason to lionize Teller at this moment in time? The text of the link includes the phrase "a matter of life and horrible death". In other words, an existential threat to Western Civilization. The implied parallel is that Islam and international Communism are similar threats to the West. If Teller is a hero for his position, the all the Republican presidential hopefuls are also heroes for calling for an attack against Iran. And Obama, along with anyone else who advocates caution, is a spineless traitor who want to destroy democracy.
Pure right wing propaganda.
Instead of looking back more then 60 years to the late 1940's, let's consider a much more recent and infinitely more relevant event: G. W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. This was a war of choice, and has emerged as the single worst policy mistake in the history of the USA. It cost the US and it's allies hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of US casualties, and over one hundred thousand civilian causalities in Iraq.
It made Iran much more powerful, and alienated the entire world from the US. All the European leaders who supported the war fell out of favor. Radical Islamic movements, who really do want to destroy the West, have much more influence in Islamic politics. Even with the nominal end of combat, no one knows when it will really end or how much it will cost, in both life and treasure. We still don't know how badly screwed up we are over this.
And now Republicans, who lied their teeth out over Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, are screaming that WE MUST ATTACK IRAN RIGHT NOW!!! So someone decides it's time to raise H-Bomb Teller from his crypt, wrap him up in the stars and stripes, and declare that he saved civilization from the Godless Hoards. Meanwhile, G. W. Bush, who is very much alive and well, is completely missing. He is so off the charts it's like he never existed.
As far as the Republicans and the mainstream media is concerned, Clinton left office, the world hibernated for 8 years, and then Obama took over. Now there is talk of more war in the Middle East, and no one even speaks the name of Bush. It's not like someone asked his opinion and he responded "no comment". No one is even asking. He has been edited out of history, like in 1984.
This topic is a de facto intelligence test. If you looked at it and wondered why anyone would be saying these kinds of things about Teller then you pass. If you saw nothing unusual, you failed. Given the kind of comments I've seen so far, everyone reading Slashdot is politically brain dead. If there was some way I could turn off life support for all the flat-lined Slashdot readers, I'd do it in an instant.
Re:Salami tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily. Suppose Iran used a nuke against North Korea? Would the world approve or disapprove?
You're missing the point.
The point is:
Why in the world would Iran want to nuke anyone? It makes absolutely zero military sense Do you really think Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollahs are that stupid?
Re:They Saved The World (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, there were no "purely military" targets. The defense for the planned invasion of Kyushu was almost entirely civilian, and any military production facilities were generally located well within city limits, so again, you show you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but feel it necessary to be self-righteous anyway.
Re:Wonder what Mr. Teller thinks of Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... if it was an existential threat to their system, their power and even possibly their lives, they might well launch.
And wouldn't they have ever right to?
The Soviets had their empire, there was no need to nuke NATO unless something drastically changed, but be aware, at least some of the Soviet military leaders were known to have believed a nuclear war was winnable.
Just as many Americans also believed. Yet a nuclear war never did happen. Why is that?
Now take Iran, which is probably a lot less pragmatic than the Soviets were
Why? Because our government and their friends want you to believe so? Do you really think Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs have maintained control for so long by being stupid? Do you really think they want to "end it all" and be nuked into oblivion, which would be the clearly inevitable result of using a nuke against another country?
The problem is, the Iranian people don't have any practical control over their government at all. [...] In Iran, the government doesn't have checks and balances, it has a blank check to do whatever it wants, as long as the Supreme Leader signs it.
Just like the United States!
In the US, the President would likely be obeyed if he ordered a retaliatory launch, but if it was for something other than pure defense, he might well find himself disobeyed
Ever heard of "plausible deniability"? It's a product of U.S. politics! Of course the President can't just launch nukes at will. But if the missile detection system malfunctions, as it is later determined, signalling an incoming attack, and the President orders an all-out retaliatory strike based on this data......well, who can blame him right?
Re:Why is HE the most vilified? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of this:
What separates them is intent. Teller knew full well he was designing the weapons to end industrial civilization. Teller was deliberately designing stuff to kill people.
Thomas Midgley Jr. didn't know when he was developing the things he was developing that they were anything other than helpful to society.
It's all in how you frame it (Score:4, Insightful)
It does not matter to the Iran Government what happens to its people in the process, including perhaps allies deciding to wipe out Iran if Iran decides to use the bomb.
Right, because it's the Iranian government's fault that the United States and it's pals chose to place unwarranted embargoes on Iran, crippling its economy. If the U.S. attacks Iran, it will be because it was "forced" to (at gunpoint, apparently), not because it purposely decided to against all reasoning.
And depending on the area attacked by allies oil prices will be much much higher, if they could still use the oil.
Yes, high oil prices is totally the first thing I think of when I imagine the negative effects of blowing people's father's and sons limbs off, bombing homes and cities into rubble, and laying waste and death to a peaceful society.
The other problem with anyone who decides to attack Iran using the bomb is the fallout to surrounding countries
Right, because the fallout IN Iran isn't a problem at it.
Iran seems hell bent on building the bomb, and the embargo's do not seem to matter to them.
Right, refusing to capitulate to a bully's demands is the same as "not caring" if someone bullies you.
Attacking there nuclear hideouts, or facilities seems to be the only way to end it now or disrupt there plans..
False dichotomy because who the hell says we need to "end it now" or "disrupt there (sic) plans"?
WE DON'T. WE NEED TO START MINDING OUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.
Re:Wonder what Mr. Teller thinks of Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to add a point about China and Russia. I don't know what is the stance of China with respect to Iran, but before the Russian elections last week Putin published enormous "letter" outlining his platform and very clearly stating his opinions about all kinds of domestic and international issues. On the subject of Iran the message was clear - Russia will not tolerate Iran with nuclear weapons, period. However Russia will not lightly agree on military intervention as a "solution"; in fact they will oppose it at every turn. "Reasons for this position" - asks Mr. Putin - "look what happened everywhere where there was an intervention".
Hard to argue against, isn't it?
Stupid and evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we think Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs are that stupid. Plainly.
Next question.
Re:Salami tactics (Score:4, Insightful)
Your point is the crux of the debate, yet is not being discussed. They're as likely to use it as NATO/Russia*/Pakistan, etc. So what is this war-mongering and chest-beating all about? The simplest answer is that once a Bomb is acquired, Iran becomes less vulnerable, reducing likelihood of invasion/overt military action. For some, that can't be considered.
The next question is "Why is this reduced vulnerability considered such a seriously bad thing by Israel?", which is what Western commentators should be discussing. Can't be simply all about Middle Eastern hegomonies, but what are the other concerns?
*is it only Russia that have atomic devices or do other former SSRs still have relic weapons? Would Russia have recently knackered Georgia if they had them still?
Re:Wonder what Mr. Teller thinks of Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fat chance they'd get any of that.
If they started blackmailing, the political position of their remaining allies would quickly become totally untenable. They could give hints, saying "well... we'd like to have more influence on the security council... nudge nudge wink wink"... but that's about it.
As a deterrent to actually invading them when they start shooting dissidents in lots of 10000, now that is quite another matter. It would be very effective in doing exactly that - which is why a nuke is a bad thing mostly for the Iranians themselves, and not so much anyone else.
Re:Stupid and evil (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, we think Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs are that stupid. Plainly.
Next question.
The guys run a country, even if it is run in a way you disagree with, and that makes them smarter than you already.
Re:Communists != Muslims (Score:5, Insightful)
You're being irrational. Suicide bombers are employed as a last resort against a technically superior enemy. I'm sure that if you go back in time, you'll find that all major religions have had suicidal fighters in one way or another. It has nothing to do with religion.
The fact that you conclude that the communists "undoubtedly wanted to wipe out their enemies" just shows how narrow you're thinking about this. The tragedy of an arms race like in the cold war is that both sides are building weapons out of fear of an attack. It's madness.
Re:Salami tactics (Score:4, Insightful)
If Iran launches a nuke
If a nuke carried by a truck blows up suddenly in <insert city> it might be hard to find the "made in Iran" sticker.
Let alone it may have had a "made in Israel" sticker, but they might find a "made in Iran" sticker anyway just for shits and giggle and turn Iran into glass anyway.
This mad principal only applies to super powers. The best way to defeat your enemy is to make the big bully hate you, otherwise known as a false flag, but that would never happen now would it.
G
Re:What the fuck? (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely you're not serious?!
I believe that he is. He lets Fox News shape his "fair and balanced" view of the world. I mean, after all, all Muslim's are potential suicide bombers. Right? So it follows that all "Islamic" states have the same suicidal thoughts.
Re:Communists != Muslims (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Communists != Muslims (Score:3, Insightful)
The key there in what you said is "confidence that they can destroy their enemies". No one in the leadership of Iran is confident that they can destroy their enemies, not today, not tomorrow, not when they finally break through and get the bomb. Hell, we could even spot them a half-dozen ICBM's and they would not have that kind of confidence. Iran is a second rate power. Hell - Iran is worse than a second rate power. Iran is a third rate power. And all the nuclear weapons in the world are not going to change that.
Could Iran, within a few years (assuming a fairly robust weapons program) launch a highly effective nuclear strike on Israel. Yes. But Israel isn't their primary enemy - not even close. While the destruction of Israel may be their primary goal, their primary enemy is (as it always is when the interests of the United States are involved) the USA. And no amount of catching up is going to let Iran even put a dent in the mighty military-industrial complex that is the USA. Lets say they drop a nuke on Israel. The USA possesses enough nuclear capacity to turn Iran into a sheet of glass. However that's only the weapon of last resort - Iran won't get nuked because there's no need to nuke Iran (and possibly provoke other nuclear powers and setting off a nuclear war). No one that matters (China, Russia, the UK and France) would even bat an eye at a conventional retaliation against Iran after a nuclear attack (much the same as Russia more or less let NATO conquer Afghanistan - a nation traditionally at least partially in their sphere of influence - after 9/11). The USN closes of the Straits of Hormuz and launches enough cruise missiles to make "Shock and Awe" look like one of those cheap $25 firework sets. The USAF turns any and all military installations into rubble (using lessons learned from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan). NATO special forces "liberate" key Iranian oilfields to ensure the free flow of crude to the allies and drop in on any place where there is even a click on the Geiger Counter to secure any remaining atomic weapons. Eventually ground troops launch a concentrated attack and Iran falls. Iraq fell within 20 days. Iran may take slightly longer but I'd put the over-under at about 45 days.
In the mean time there is absolutely no way for Iran to make the USA do any more than wince. Even assuming they could sneak a nuke into the US to be used by suicide bombers, what are they going to do? Blow up New York? Ask Bin Laden how well that worked out for him in the end. Even if they managed to somehow get three into the country and detonate them more or less together that still doesn't put a dent in the USA's industrial capability. And now you have US armed forces and citizens who want nothing more than to see your head on a pike.
Nukes are just a show piece. They're good for making people afraid. They're great one off attacks. But unless you've got enough to win a war in one shot (and there's no way Iran gets to this point) then the true power is in the navy and (to a lesser extent the air force). To win a war, especially against the USA you need to be able to project your force over a great distance. Iran doesn't have a chance.
Re:Radioactive signature (Score:5, Insightful)
No. IAANP and that is hollywood fiction.
Re:Communists != Muslims (Score:5, Insightful)
Rules of MAD don't apply to Islamic regimes the same way that they did to Communists. Sure, the Communists (Soviets & Chinese) were evil, but they were at least rational about it - while they undoubtedly wanted to wipe out their enemies, they themselves wanted to survive. Which is why deterence worked during the Cold War. During that time, there were a lot of espionage & terrorist acts pulled off by the NKVD/KGB, but how many suicide bombings does anybody remember that the Soviets did?
...
How short the memories.
During the Cold War the hysteria-mongers routinely argued that the Communists could not be deterred because they cared nothing for human life - arguments trotted out for this view were the tens of millions of deaths in the Stalinist and Maoist purges and engineered famines, the way life was literally thrown away in Gulags, and in WWII how millions of Soviet soldiers were carelessly sacrificed for negligible battlefield effect (and the same with Chinese and North Korean soldiers a few years later, and North Vietnamese and Cambodian soldiers decades after that). Various quotes by Lenin were commonly repeated (some of them fictitious*) to show the utter ruthlessness, and that their messianic belief in the inevitable victory of Communism made them indifferent to the possibility of nuclear war since Communism would survive.**
And most of the statements about Communist behavior were true. But a big difference is it was never the leadership, the state itself that was put at risk. Nuclear weapons change that completely. That alone makes the whole claim completely invalid.
*The favored fake quote, often repeated was this one: "What does it matter if three-fourths of the world perish, if the remaining one fourth are good communists?" attributed to Lenin.
**Counter-evidence, like Stalin's decision not to seize West Berlin, Khruschev's hasty back-down in Cuba, and the striking intolerance to taking casualties in the 1980s after the Afghanistan invasion were ignored.
This "Islamists are insane and are not afraid of nuclear war" is just a retread of the same Cold War tripe.