Lewis Strauss was no fan of useful atomic energy

Every once in a while, I feel the need to share some of the historical research I’m conducting. This serves multiple purposes; it provides me with an easily searchable log of interesting tidbits and it enables me to continue working on my mission of sharing as much information as I can find about atomic energy development.

For many years, I have been under the assumption that Lewis Strauss (pronounced Straws), one of the original members of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the Chairman of the AEC for most of the Eisenhower Administration (June 1953 – June 1958) was a fan and promoter of the Atoms for Peace program. It was Strauss that was responsible for the famous “too cheap to meter” phrase.

However, I’ve begun to change my view of the man and his opinions about the beneficial use of atomic energy. There is little or no doubt that he was a huge promoter and supporter of the Cold War development of a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, pushed for the development of the hydrogen bomb, and was an enthusiastic developer of an increased industrial infrastructure aimed at producing weapons. He held a deep distrust and active dislike of the Soviet Union, which seems to have been largely due to its state-enforced atheism. (Strauss was a devout man who served as president of the Congregation Emanu-El, a Reform synagogue in New York, from 1938 to 1948.)

However, I came across some information that indicates that he was not such a big fan of using nuclear energy to produce electricity or other useful energy products. Here are some quotes from Hewlett and Holt’s Atoms for Peace and War, The Eisenhower Administration and the Atomic Energy Commission, A History of the Atomic Energy Commission, Volume III (pg 62-66).

“Suppose,” the President suggested, “the United States and the Soviets were each to turn over to the United Nations, for peaceful uses, X kilograms of fissionable material.” (p. 62)

Much higher on his agenda was the President’s suggestion that the United States and the Soviet Union might divert equal amounts of fissionable material to peaceful purposes. At first Strauss did not see any practical advantage in Eisenhower’s suggestion. What good would it do to contribute fissionable materials to peaceful uses if the United States and the Soviet Union both retained large amounts in the form of weapons? (p. 65)

Building on Eisenhower’s idea, Strauss proposed that all uranium and thorium mines be shut down for ten years. All plutonium production reactors would cease operation except for one facility in each country for producing radioactive isotopes for research. Each nuclear nation would deliver a fixed amount of fissionable material each month to a “World Atomic Power Administration.” To provide maximum protection for the material, Strauss proposed that it either be stored as a highly diluted solution in underground tanks at some isolated location, such as Ascension Island, or be dispersed to a large number of scattered sites. Strauss acknowledged that the plan would not immediately reduce the threat of biological, nuclear, or conventional warfare, but it did offer “a means of impounding gradually the devastation of atomic warfare and, by its simplicity and plausibility, it would be likely to attract the adherence of the small neutrals and the enthusiastic support of plain people. (pp. 65-66)

Notice that Strauss considered that the role of an Atomic Power Administration was to prevent the use of fissionable materials, not to use fissionable materials to produce energy to make life better for underpowered people.

Fortunately, President Eisenhower had different ideas about the possible benefits of turning potential bomb material into Atoms for Peace.

In nine weeks, the President had moved far beyond Strauss’s proposal for an international pool of fissionable material. Instead of isolating the material in underground tanks, Eisenhower was now proposing to use it to develop power for peaceful purposes. “Who can doubt,” the President asked, “if the entire body of the world’s scientists and engineers had adequate amounts of fissionable material…, that this capability would rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient, and economic usage.” Nuclear power itself was to save the world from nuclear devastation.

Balancing the nuclear threat with nuclear power was an idea that Eisenhower seems to have vaguely in mind in his very first comments to Snapp in Augusta more than a year before. The idea’s simplicity and directness were appealing. It electrified the United Nations General Assembly and the world as few political statements had done since Bernard Baruch’s address in June 1946. But in the very simplicity of the idea lay its limitations. Could atomic energy, which had heightened world tensions and distrust, now become a unifying force for peace? And was nuclear power as imminent as the President seemed to think? These were questions the Atomic Energy Commission would have to answer. (IBID p. 72)

This information provides me with more context for a comment I once received about Lewis Strauss’s thoughts on the future of nuclear energy as documented in the following:

“It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.”
Lewis L. Strauss
Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New York City September 16th, 1954.

The April 26, 2010 note came from Luke Strauss. Here is what he wrote:

As the great-grandson of the speaker in question, I’d like to thank you for your fair treatment of the quote – oft misused. However, that particular talking point was in reference to fusion energy, not fission – he was talking about the potential development of a power source that didn’t (and still doesn’t) exist, although hopefully LLNL’s NIF and “eater” will change that soon enough.

Luke and I traded some emails about fusion, with me expressing my habitual skepticism about the utility of fusion energy research. He is actively pursuing the fusion dream; I happily remain a fission fan.

Atomic Show #235 – Energy and Empire by George Gonzales

Energy and Empire cover

Dr. George Gonzales is an associate professor of political science at the University of Miami. In 2012, he published a book titled Energy and Empire: The Politics of Nuclear and Solar Power in the United States. In his book, Professor Gonzales recognizes that the development of nuclear energy poses an obvious threat to the continued […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #232 – Against the Tide by RADM Dave Oliver

Though it has been more than 30 years since Admiral Rickover finally retired from his position as the head of Naval Reactors, his legacy lives on in the people he directly trained and in the people that those initial Navy nukes trained and led. A new book titled Against the Tide: Rickover’s Leadership Principles and […]

Read more »

Rod Adams and Alex Epstein on Power Hour

On Atomic Show #230, I talked with Alex Epstein, the author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Some of the things I told Alex during that show intrigued him enough to ask me to be a guest on his Power Hour show. That show has now been published as Power Hour: Rod Adams on […]

Read more »

Putting excitement back into nuclear technology development

Josh Freed, Third Way‘s clean energy vice president, has published a thoughtful, graphically enticing Brookings Essay titled Back to the Future: Advanced Nuclear Energy and the Battle Against Climate Change. It focuses on Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie of Transatomic Power, but it also makes it abundantly clear that those two visionary entrepreneurs are examples […]

Read more »

Is Chernobyl still dangerous or was 60 Minutes pushing propaganda?

On November 23, 2014, 60 minutes, the venerable CBS News Sunday evening program that has been on the air since its launch in 1968, aired a segment titled Chernobyl: The Catastrophe That Never Ended. The show is full of fascinating contrasts between what the cameras show to the audience and what the narrator tells the […]

Read more »

Disneyland 3-14 – Our Friend, The Atom

On Sunday, January 23, 1957, a large American audience gathered around their television sets to watch the weekly episode of Disneyland, a popular show created and hosted by Walt Disney in return for an investment from ABC that he used to build Disneyland. On that evening, the audience was treated to a compressed course in […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #220 – Atoms for California

Wind farm land impact is not limited to turbine foundation

Andrew Benson from Atoms For California contacted me last week to find out if I was interested in having a conversation about the history of nuclear energy in California, with a special focus on the history of the antinuclear movement in that trend-setting state. It sounded like a great idea for an Atomic Show so […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #219 – Mike Rosen misused Edward Calabrese’s Earth Day column

On Atomic Show #218 – Ed Calabrese – Researching Dose Response Dr. Calabrese shared some important stories about the data manipulations he had discovered relating to the establishment of the linear, no-threshold (LNT) dose response assessment. Those stories will shake the established order. Not surprisingly, two commenters immediately added statements apparently aimed at discrediting Dr. […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #218 – Ed Calabrese – Researching Dose Response

Dr. Ed Calabrese is a professor of toxicology at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, MA. For the past twenty years, he has focused his research on understanding the response of a variety of organisms and tissues to a variety of chemicals and radiation as doses vary from extremely low to quite high. He is […]

Read more »

Opportunity to use science to establish radiation standards

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit comments from the general public and affected stakeholders about 40 CFR 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations. The comment period closes on August 3, 2014. The ANPR page includes links to summary webinars provided to the […]

Read more »

Shell Oil and Gas Company’s Perspective on Energy Future

There was a time when the Royal Dutch Shell corporation demonstrated strong interest in nuclear energy. In 1973, it was approached by Gulf Oil Company, the owner of Gulf General Atomics, as a capital partner for an aggressive expansion program. GA had spent the better part of two decades developing an innovative high temperature gas-cooled […]

Read more »