56 Comments

  1. That Lewis Strauss opposed the dictatorship of the former Soviet Union and its State-enforced atheism is commendable. That he was a devout Jew true to the religious traditions of Moses is likewise commendable. That he was not necessarily pro-nuclear power is problematic at best. That his recommendations to the President would have had (if implemented) an adverse impact on the development of US civilian nuclear power is bad.

    There is no correlation between being anti-Soviet dictatorship and anti-nuclear power. Indeed, most of the left wing Marxists in the United States at that time and now are anti-nuclear power.

    Furthermore, there is no correlation between being opposed to State-enforced atheism and being anti-nuclear power, and likewise there is no correlation between being a devout Jew or Christian and being anti-nuclear power (actually, most of today’s agnostics and atheists, being enamored with the so-called Gaia movement, would tend to be anti-nuclear power, but I haven’t done a statistical study too verify that; I only know what I learn from talking with such people).

    1. @Ioannes

      Is it logically or morally consistent for a devout religious person to aggressively develop megaton class thermonuclear weapons and threaten to use them?

      1. Rod,

        Being a devout Catholic, I defer to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in Article 2314 

        “‘Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.’ A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes.”

        Sadly, however it was the atheist communists of the former Soviet Union who elected to embark on an arms race that necessitated the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. Nevertheless, we may thank Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope Saint John Paul II for the defeat of the Soviet Union.

        Would that the embarkation of other regimes on nuclear weapons programs did not necessitate their continued existence in our military arsenal. As for their abolition, I have often argued with other Catholics (normally of the heterodox vice orthodox variety) who are anti-nuclear weapons as to why they do not support down-blending and consuming weapons grade fuel in commercial nuclear reactor, forever making such material unavailable for destructive use. Interestingly and unsurprisingly, orthodox Catholics completely understand and agree with my proposal.

        1. @Ioannes

          Sadly, however it was the atheist communists of the former Soviet Union who elected to embark on an arms race that necessitated the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.

          Patently untrue. Please review your history to find out who built the first weapons and then rapidly constructed the infrastructure to expand the inventory BEFORE any other nation had weapons of their own.

          The first Soviet detonation took place in 1949.

          I will grant you that the arms race was started during the Truman Administration (Democrat).

          1. Sadly the Democrats today do not produce leaders like Truman who are real patriots.
            .
            As for the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to which you allude, kindly open your mind:
            .
            http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/07/24/father-wison-miscamble-defends-bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/
            .
            Too many people today are communists sympathizers and want to revise history into something other than it is. The Soviet Union was an evil empire. Stalin murdered tens of millions of his own citizens. Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, etc., kept enslaved those citizens whom they allowed to remain alive. They pursued weapons of greater and greater power. There was no cold war till till they started it. It is not possible to have dialog with individuals who sympathize with such people.
            .
            You may be pro-nuclear power and that is good, but that is all that is good.

            1. @Ioannes

              You may be pro-nuclear power and that is good, but that is all that is good.

              Back at you, my ally.

              Just FYI, though no longer much of a church-goer, I was active and proud member of the religious left in a denomination I used to call “Catholic without the guilt.”

        2. The world according to loannes….

          Whoa.

          “‘Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.’ A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes.”

          Cheney greased the skids for Iraq to acquire chemical weapons, by being instrumental in tweaking our export laws in a manner that was designed to ease Saddam’s procurement of certain chemicals. Of course, thats all well and good as long as Saddam was gassing Iranians, right loannes? Interesting that the Iranians didn’t respond with chemicals, eh? And you don’t think Israel’s nuclear arsenal fuels the Iranian’s alleged pursuit of such weapons?

          The religious right was loudly supportive of our invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of non-combatant Iraqis, thousands of our troops dying, and a huge drain on our economy, our world standing, and the credibility of our so called “leaders””. Its ironic that the framers of this foreign policy disaster are being ressurected by our media to stroke Netanyahu, and march us towards another ill concieved war in the middle east. These people belong in prison, yet here they are being touted as “experts”. Are we supposed to forget they lied us into that mess, that we will be paying for for many decades to come?

          Gee, how’d that work out, the three month timeline? The Iraqi oil paying for the adventure? The vast arsenal of WMDs that Saddam possessed?

          And here they are, these same skull faced right wing “god fearing” megalomanics blowing the trumpets of war yet again. Your heroes.

          The dichotomy between your political leanings and the catholic church’s Article 2314 is GLARING.

      2. Is it logically or morally consistent for a devout religious person to aggressively develop megaton class thermonuclear weapons and threaten to use them?

        Is it logically or morally consistent for a devout religious person to own a crossbow and threaten to use it? Apparently Pope Innocent II and the Second Council of the Lateran believed that it is not (at least, not against Christians — a few hundred years later, they might have changed their minds about the use of this weapon against the Protestant Christians).

        These types of questions are very silly questions, and history has not been kind to them.

        1. @Brian May

          Don’t be absurd. A cross bow is a precision instrument. It can be aimed directly at a person doing evil.

          Any use of a megaton class thermonuclear device on any target where there are human populations within a few miles will inevitably kill and maim thousands of innocent people. There is no such thing as a moral use of such a weapon, while there is plenty of adequate doctrinal support for a just war that targets only combatants and guilty leaders.

          Of course, as a scientist, you have probably never formally studied the just war theory or the international rules of armed conflict.

          1. Rod – I’m being absurd?! Really?

            Sorry, I don’t have a military background, so perhaps you can explain to me the part of the crossbow that prevents its use against people who are not “doing evil.” I’m just not familiar enough with the weapon to know how this “evil” detection safety feature works.

            No, the Catholic Church’s prohibition against the using the crossbow (and against archers too) was due to its effectiveness in killing armored elite fighting units, most of whom were from the influential upper elite of society, not because of its potential use against “innocent people.” What is moral and immoral depends on one’s perspective.

            I find your perspective to be quite curious. Why is immorality limited to a “megaton class thermonuclear device”? Hand grenades kill without discrimination, so are hand grenades also immoral? How about long-range artillery? And what about the kiloton class thermonuclear devices that were on your old boat? Is there a moral use for them? Is it moral even to serve on a weapons platform device whose sole purpose is to threaten to use such devices with no moral use?

            Please explain how this fits into the “just war” theory. I suppose that I missed the part where the size of the bang determines the morality of the weapon.

            1. @Brian Mays

              It is the discrimination of the weapon that enables its use against just combatants and prevents it from indiscriminately killing innocent people. Of course a cross bow can be aimed at an innocent; so can a fist or a head bump. The key is that the person firing the weapon has the ability to aim it and to do everything possible to prevent innocents from being harmed.

              You are right about hand grenades and virtually all arial weapons, but at least most of them have a rather limited kill radius. I cannot morally defend bombing from the sky compared to suicide bombers. Neither is right in my view.

              My defense of my involvement with the weapons that my submarine carried was the strong belief that we never intended to use them. Now that it has been almost a quarter of a century since my last deployment, I can also admit that I would have interfered with the process of executing a launch order. Several other shipmates confessed they had similar notions. I won’t say any more.

            2. Here is a pretty good introduction to the importance of “noncombatant immunity” in the context of “just war.” Quoted from Just Warfare Theory and Noncombatant Immunity by Richard J. Arneson

              According to just war theory, a just war is a war against military aggression or the serious intentional threat of military aggression or a war of intervention to protect fundamental human rights. A just war must also satisfy a proportionality norm: the reasonably expected moral gains of commencing and sustaining military intervention must exceed the reasonably expected moral costs. In this tradition, the justice of the war is regarded as a separate issue from the justice of the conduct of the war. Justice in warfare requires, above all, respect for noncombatant immunity. Those engaged in war are prohibited from deliberately attacking those who are not soldiers, those who are not political leaders of soldiers, and those who are not supplying soldiers with the necessities to carry out warfare. Combatants are those whose activities materially assist the war effort (or in a more narrow construction, those engaged in the war effort).

              The right of noncombatant immunity forbids inflicting harm on noncombatants as either an end in itself or as a means to an end. In other words, noncombatants have the right not to be deliberate targets of attack.

          2. Its almost comical seeing the catholic church discussed in any conversation concerning “just” war or humane treatment of non-combatant populations. The irony behind the Chumash people of California being decimated by syphilis, introduced by the Catholic missionaries, is a perfect ruler by which to measure the “morality” of the church’s actions throughout history.

            These kinds of ironies are demonstrated by the entire body of the religious right, no matter their professed “faith”. Blathering about “right to life”, while endorsing our criminal adventure in
            Iraq, which killed hundreds of thousands. Decrying criticism of Israel as bring “anti-semitic”, while casting all who are muslim as evil doers and terrorists. This paragraph could go on forever, but no need, I’m sure most of you, if honest, could add a few sentences of your own. Organised religion has been a scourge on mankind throughout history. Piety, bigotry, and hypocrisy have nothing to do with God, or with a true spiritual manner of living. If we ever do decide to nuke each other, you can be damned sure that religion will have its boney finger on the button.

          3. “Now that it has been almost a quarter of a century since my last deployment, I can also admit that I would have interfered with the process of executing a launch order”

            Sadly, your dissention would have been for naught. If nothing else, our actions of the last few decades should serve to demonstrate that there are plenty of willing participants who would push the button at the drop of a hat.

          4. Rod – These are strange words coming from someone who thinks that Iran is entitled to a nuclear weapons program for the sake of “deterrence” against its neighbors and the US.

            Please help me out here. I’m just looking for a bit of logical consistency. You seem to be flying on emotional autopilot.

            1. @Brian Mays

              Might be misremembering my own words, but I THINK I’ve made it clear that I don’t believe the U.S. has a right to use force to stop Iran’s nuclear energy program.

              I don’t think I’ve asserted they have a right to develop a bomb, even though I could understand their logic if they did.

          5. The irony behind the Chumash people of California being decimated by syphilis, introduced by the Catholic missionaries

            Syphilis originated in S. America and was novel to Europeans; accusing Catholic missionaries of knowingly transmitting it, before the germ theory of disease was accepted, is silly.

          6. “Rod – These are strange words coming from someone who thinks that Iran is entitled to a nuclear weapons program for the sake of “deterrence” against its neighbors and the US”

            Who has Iran invaded this last century? A shame Israel and the United States doesn’t share Iran’s reluctance to attack other nations, eh? Tell me, Brian, if you had a nieghbor like Israel, who constantly threatens you, and is an ally of a nation that wages non-stop undeclared war on a number of fronts, wouldn’t you expect your leaders to make an effort at “deterrence”. After all, we have repeatedly stated that “all options are on the table”. Of course, if we are considering “all” options, we do have nukes, as does Israel. So, what is Iran to do, sit idly by as we dictate what energy sources they can develop, all the while threatening them with our nuclear might? Personally, I feel the Iranians would be idiots not to be pursuing nuclear weapons, even though there is no evidence that they are. We are spitting on the NPT, while allied with a nation that refuses to even join. Meanwhile these mewling servants of Israel, in our Congress, show a willingness to place Israel’s “security” above our own. War with Iran is not going to be the cakewalk the invasion of Iraq was. And much could escalate beyond our control. Are you really so eager to start such an inferno at the behest of some arrogant bigoted murderous zealot like Netanyahu? Our Congress should bow their heads in shame for worshipping such a “leader”. They won’t be the ones dying in Iran, nor will they send their own children. John Q will pay the for such folly. Who needs enemies when we have allies like Israel?

            Remember the Liberty.

          7. Rod….

            I have a couple of links languishing, awaiting your moderation in reponse to EP’s post. I hope you’ll clear them.

            1. @poa

              Nope. Even regular commenters need to provide context to a post. Your comment only includes a single two letter word and two indecipherable links.

          8. Who has Iran invaded this last century?

            POS – Are you kidding me?!! How about the US? I thought that you were old enough to remember the Iran Hostage Crisis from 1979 to 1981. By commonly accepted international rules, any attack on an embassy is an attack on the country it represents. Iran attacked us, invaded our embassy, and took our people hostage. Have you forgotten about that?

            And then, after that was over, Iran fought a brutal decade-long war with Iraq. So much for “Iran’s reluctance to attack other nations,” eh? If that’s reluctance, I’d hate to see what willingness looks like.

            In the course of this decade-long war, both sides used chemical weapons, in spite of being parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of such weapons. Yeah … these are the kind of guys I really trust to have nuclear weapons. /sarc

            But I suppose that you’re going to claim that the war was all Iraq’s fault. The problem is that liberal revisionists like you keep claiming that Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, was such a nice, swell, trustworthy guy that the US should never have invaded Iraq to depose him. Please make up your mind, because you’re starting to exhibit symptoms of schizophrenia.

            Your antisemitic bigotry is well documented in the comments on this blog, so you’re most recent comment does not surprise me at all. Nevertheless, that does not allow you to make up your own history.

            But this is getting off topic. What I want to know is how someone can think that it is immoral aggressively develop nuclear weapons, while simultaneously condoning an aggressive, clandestine nuclear weapons program by a state that is a well-known sponsor of international terrorism. There is nothing logically or morally consistent about that.

            1. @Brian Mays

              You have an odd interpretation of history, though perhaps it’s not all that uncommon among those on the right.

              The group of people that attacked our embassy were not officially directed by the Iranian government. Their attack was pretty well executed from a tactical point of view because they didn’t need to kill anyone. In fact, all of the hostages were released after 444 days.

              The U.S. supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, even to the point of protecting oil tankers carrying Iraqi oil. We held such a grudge against Iran for embarrassing us that we ignored their pleas for assistance when Iraq initiated chemical warfare.

          9. EP…

            As I’m sure you know, the science community is divided as to the origin of syphilis. Your positively offered assertion begs argument. The fact is that prior to the arrival of the spaniards, syphilis was unheard of in the native californian tribes. So too measles. Yet the toll these diseases took on the natives is indisputable.

            Sometimes you argue from a position that is a result of your dislike for me, rather than one based in factual information. You should ask yourself what that does to your credibility in regards to NE. Are you offering an emotional argument, or a scientific argument? Add those such as loannes to the mix, and this site becomes somewhat suspect in respect to trustworthiness. Rod deserves better for his efforts. A shame some of the participants here don’t follow Rod’s lead, and leave the partisan horseshit out of the debate.

          10. “Your antisemitic bigotry is well documented in the comments on this blog, so you’re most recent comment does not surprise me at all. Nevertheless, that does not allow you to make up your own history”

            Brian, you are a liar. I challenge you to find one single anti-semitic comment from me.

            I repeat, YOU ARE A LIAR.

            One wonders, if you are willing to lie about this issue, then how do we trust your assertions concerning NE?

            “Iran attacked us, invaded our embassy, and took our people hostage. Have you forgotten about that?”

            If you are this ignorant about what actually happened, (as Rod points out), are your assertions concerning other topics equally as ill-based?

            “The problem is that liberal revisionists like you keep claiming that Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, was such a nice, swell, trustworthy guy”

            Huh? Is this how you debate? With fallacies? It amazes, this shallow manner of rebuttal that you and EP employ when confronted with arguments you can’t counter with actual substance.

            “In the course of this decade-long war, both sides used chemical weapons, in spite of being parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of such weapons. Yeah … these are the kind of guys I really trust to have nuclear weapons”

            So, considering that Israel has used both white phosphorous and cluster munitions against civilian populations, it is your contention that Israel should not be trusted to possess nuclear weaponry. Hmmm, for once, you and I am in agreement.

            I wll back up anything I say, with links. Just ask. But stop throwing shallow crap and ignorance at me , Brian. You are making an idiot of yourself. And back up your accusation of my anti-semitism with something other than spit.

          11. Rod….

            Sorry, I just assumed you would check the links and realize that the information contained would provide the context. Its interesting to me that you will disallow a couple of links that provide substantive rebuttal to EP’s comment, yet you allow the ignorant sputter that Brian offers that is based in fantasy and partisan myth. Further, allowing him to accuse me of anti-semitism, yet disallowing my attempts to demand that he provide any examples of anti-semitic remarks offered by me. I have seen you offer criticism of Israel, and have no doubt that you would not allow someone to counter that criticism by simply calling you a bigot. My criticism of Israel is well earned, and I make no assertions about Israel that cannot be buttressed with sourcing and factual account. This timeworn tactic of countering criticism of Israel with accusations of bigotry is despicable, and it suprises me that you allow it.

            1. @poa

              Wasn’t disallowing your links, just requesting that you provide some context. No one should ever just click on a link without some knowledge of where the link will take them.

          12. Might be misremembering my own words, but I THINK I’ve made it clear …

            Rod – For someone who prides himself on being a student of English and an effective communicator, you have been rather vague, or perhaps overly nuanced, on this particular topic. I’m just expressing the impression that I have gotten from what you have written on your blog and in its comments section. The “failure to communicate” is not on my end.

            Look at this as an opportunity. You can now clarify your position on this subject once and for all. Please give it a go.

            But if you do, keep this in mind. It’s not the United States that has been warning against the dangers of Iran’s weapons program. If that were the case, there would have been no reason for Israel’s Prime Minister to speak to Congress earlier this year. The warnings of what Iran has been doing over the past half decade or more have come from the IAEA, a body that is independent of the US.

          13. The group of people that attacked our embassy were not officially directed by the Iranian government. … The U.S. supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, …

            Rod – I find your interpretation of history to be extremely naive.

            First of all, if you’re going to assert that the students who invaded the US embassy in Iran were not “officially directed” then you should provide some proof. Some sources say no, others say yes. This point is not entirely clear even three and a half decades later. Perhaps you are also clinging on to the story that the attack on 9/11/12, which resulted in the death of a US ambassador, was a spontaneous protest of the release of an internet video (which was, as it turns out, a short trailer for a video that was never actually made)?

            Whether Iran’s government knew of the invasion or not, the hostage situation was condoned and supported by the Iranian government. Was it not?

            Yes, the US supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. That’s certainly no secret. Once again, you analysis of geopolitics is extremely naive and one-dimensional. Iraq was a natural ally for the US at the time. It had a secular dictator who had aspirations for a pan-Arab greater state, rather than a regional caliphate. If such a pan-Arab nationalism were actually to take root throughout the region, then it would have been better for it to be lead by someone friendly to the US than someone else. Keep in mind that we were still in the Cold War at the time and other Arab nations were far more friendly with the Soviet Union.

            When you look at the whole picture, the “grudges” were a minor consideration, and they were mostly held by the other side.

            1. @Brian Mays

              Your “understanding” of history and geopolitics comes through an exceedingly narrow world view that might be quite popular among the groups with whom you have associated during most of your life — spent here in the foothills of the Blue Ridge where people like the Falwells are a dominant influence.

              Just curious, but do you have any idea WHY the Iranian revolution was almost inevitable and why the revolutionaries carried a particular animosity toward the U.S. and the UK?

          14. The disingenuous semantics that are interwoven through Brian’s commentary give clues as to his integrity. He speaks of an Iranian “nuclear weapons program” as if there is proof positive such a program exists. In fact, no such proof or evidence has been brought forward, by the IAEA, or any other source. The semantics, employed by Brian, are simply the script, as written, by those who wrote the script that embroiled us in the debacle unfolding in Iraq. Brian repeats by rote what he is expected to repeat, taught to repeat, by those who govern by deceit, fear mongering, and misinformation. He is the poster child of an ignorant and malleable public that has been hoodwinked into supporting a industrial/military complex that is polar to everything this nation once stood for. In short he is a fool, masquerading as a patriot.

          15. I invite anyone on this blog that may be following the exchange on this thread to carefully look into Brian’s argument. There is nary a paragraph that doesn’t contain a falsehood, propaganda talking point, or an exhibition of gross ignorance. To take his ignorant blather apart, paragraph by paragraph, is simply far too tedious a task. However, if there are any assertions that I have made here that are questionable to you, please feel free to ask, and I will provide my sources for the information.

            Here is an interesting article sbout Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and our complicity during the Reagan Administration. Note that Brian claims that both sides used chemicals. However, verification of Iran’s use of chemicals was never established. Note that Iran has been extremely active in the efforts to ban such weaponry, and has signed onto all treaties and agreements pursuing that banishment.

            http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

  2. 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.

    @Rod Adams

    I’m not sure I see the connections here. Strauss was dubious that Eisenhower’s proposal for disarmament could be achieved via gradual and limited contribution of weapons material to a central repository. This would leave Russia and the US with substantial weapons material in their possession and would likely not significantly reduce the threat of “biological, nuclear, or conventional” warfare. Strauss appears to have seen some merit to the proposal for publicity purposes, and creating the impression among “plain people” that something was being done about disarmament. But on practical considerations, the idea was a non-starter for Strauss and he did not push it (except to satisfy directives as set by Eisenhower). This seems to support the general thesis of Hewlett and Holl that Eisenhower was a strong and active president, and that subordinates like Strauss “did not dominate him” (p. xv).

    There are many examples in Hewlett and Holl of Strauss as a power broker and strong negotiator for private industry as leading in the expansion of nuclear power (which was his goal and consistent with his view of the role of government on such mattters). Other circumstances (described in book and elsewhere) made this difficult at the time and stood in the way of this (Strauss’s heavy handed tactics, bullying, and personality perhaps being among them).

    “Building on the mandate that he saw in the President’s reelection victory, Strauss launched out boldly in 1957 to entice private industry into building and operating nuclear power plants. A part of this strategy was creating a market for American power reactors in Europe through the EURATOM plan. As Chapter 15 reveals, the prospects for nuclear power had already begun to fade in the face of economic realities. By the end of the year Strauss stood almost alone in his dogmatic fight for a private power industry” (p. xxiv).

    1. @EL

      Strauss’s idea of stopping uranium and thorium mining and burying already mined materials would have completely prevented any beneficial use of the material.

      Pushing private industry to spend their money without any government support or even government guaranteed markets for useful reactor products — not only electricity, but materials — does not prove anything about his desire to share atomic knowledge and technology to make life better for underpowered people.

      Pushing American light water reactors into the European market is also not evidence of support for using atomic energy to reduce the need to burn fossil fuels. With their natural uranium reactors based on either heavy water or gas-graphite technology, Europeans were developing a nuclear capability that could not be controlled by the American elites. By promoting light water reactors, which required enriched fuel, and over selling our experience with them, Strauss and others were able to force the Europeans to be — at least temporarily — dependent on supplies of enriched fuel from the US. Once they built their expensive reactors, they were in a position of subservience to American demands imposed as a condition of the sale because there were no other sources of uranium enrichment.

      If you haven’t read them already, I recommend two books for a non-US perspective on the way that American officials misused nuclear technology to force their “friends” to kowtow to their demands.

      Goldschmidt, Bertrand, The Atomic Complex: A Worldwide Political History of Nuclear Energy, The American Nuclear Society Press, 1982

      Winnacker/Wirtz, Nuclear Energy in Germany, The American Nuclear Society Press, 1979

      By the way, how do you think Strauss’s security fetish, desire to impose tight control of all materials, and dramatic increase in the size of the weapons production complex affected the economic potential of nuclear energy?

      Do you think some of imposed action just MIGHT have added considerable projected costs to both development and plant operations?

      Do you think his persecution of Oppenheimer and the resulting schism among talented scientists and engineers might have caused some good people with fine ideas to avoid involvement in beneficial nuclear energy development?

      1. Strauss’s idea of stopping uranium and thorium mining and burying already mined materials would have completely prevented any beneficial use of the material.

        @Rod Adams

        I was under impression that material gathered from weapons and disarmament programs (much like today) would be used for peaceful purposes and managed by “World Atomic Power Administration,” not prevented from “beneficial use”? Why do you think otherwise?

        The proposal to halt uranium and thorium mining for 10 years is much the same and supports the goals of disarmament, and not making scarce a material for peaceful purposes that would be made more abundant under such programs.

        Eisenhower seems to be the main impetus for many of these proposals (Strauss charged with executing the task). The US had used the bomb twice, I don’t think security issues were a “fetish” for anyone in the government at the time.

        Do you think his persecution of Oppenheimer and the resulting schism among talented scientists and engineers …

        Strauss is rather famous for bullying and heavy handed tactics. These have less to do with a hidden agenda to harm the advancement of nuclear, and more to do with management and personal style.

        Pushing private industry to spend their money without any government support or even government guaranteed markets for useful reactor products …

        Strauss’s conviction and very strong defense that nuclear power could be stood up on it’s own, and could succeed on the merits in competitive energy markets, is hardly a new idea (or one specifically design to stand in the way of an expansion of the industry). Government research and development (supported by Strauss at Argonne and elsewhere) are certainly an important part of this mix. In hindsight, realizing he was incorrect, and that more government support was needed (technology support and market support), international frameworks, a more favorable economic environment, and more, isn’t evidence of ulterior motives (but underestimating the challenges of the task, bad timing, and perhaps overconfidence in a philosophy of government that was unworkable for nuclear power).

        1. @EL

          You’re confusing me. Are you actually telling me that you don’t see how halting mining for and burying already mined inventories of the key ingredient that makes nuclear energy possible halts beneficial development and deployment of the technology?

          WRT secrecy – from 1946-1954, the U.S. government held a tight monopoly on atomic knowledge and imposed harsh penalties on anyone who shared it. Everyone wanting access had to hold a clearance and undergo intrusive investigation. Document protection regulations required expensive facilities and procedural enforcement. The amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 only slightly eased those hurdles to peaceful development.

          1. Are you actually telling me that you don’t see how halting mining for and burying already mined inventories of the key ingredient that makes nuclear energy possible halts beneficial development and deployment of the technology?

            @Rod Adams

            I don’t see it (I actually see the opposite). The 10 year moratorium on mining was proposed in the context of disarmament, and diverting an abundance of nuclear materials from weapons programs to peaceful applications (and the production of nuclear power). This results in an expansion of nuclear material for peaceful purposes, not a reduction. How else are you to achieve a goal of disarmament unless you succeed in shifting production of nuclear materials from weapons applications to something else? To say nothing of the additional challenge of storing material that you already have in abundance.

            Given there was no shortage of the stuff, and new mines aren’t needed to advance an arms race (at least that was the hope), where is the impetus for new mining supposed to come from (in your view)? I really don’t get it. The situation is not dissimilar to today, we mine at a level consistent with demand (and this includes a large share of nuclear material from weapons stocks via megatons to megawatts program). If production from new mines was needed at the time, and in the context of disarmament, to meet development goals, I have no doubt it would have made a lot of sense to continue mining at the same levels. But it wasn’t … people should just dig holes in the ground for the fun of it?

            1. @EL

              There was no abundance of mined uranium and thorium at the time, no announced plans to stop building weapons, and the power programs had just been enabled by a very recent change in legislation.

              Strauss’s proposal was complete contrary to Eisenhower’s vision as described in his Atoms for Peace speech where he talked about providing the world’s scientists and engineers with sufficient fissionable materials for creative, peaceful applications.

              One might not dig holes in the ground “for fun,” but if mining is prohibited for 10 years, the entire industry and its supporting infrastructure would collapse and deteriorate. People would forget most of the skills they had learned. It would take many years to rebuild the infrastructure and relearn the skills.

              More and more you reveal that you have a lot of experience with papers, books, and words, perhaps some knowledge of the undeveloped outdoors, and almost no understanding of the industrial activities that make modern living so comfortable.

          2. There was no abundance of mined uranium and thorium at the time …

            @Rod Adams

            You might want to do a search for the great uranium boom of the 1950s!

            The proposal for a 10 moratorium on uranium mining was made in the context of disarmament (and converting weapons material to power production). There’s little confusion about this (whether you gather information from “papers, books, and words” … or some other source for historical information that you consider to be more authoritative and is unspecified).

            People would forget most of the skills they had learned. It would take many years to rebuild the infrastructure and relearn the skills.

            Like, you are suggesting, when a commodity industry collapses because of oversupply and a collapse of prices (resulting in unsustainable economics and boom and bust cycles). Because uranium mining is endemic with such examples (if you will forgive the reference to actual historical particulars). It’s fine to focus on supply when spinning a tale about ulterior motives and corrupt actions by the most actively engaged nuclear supporters and proponents at the time (e.g., Lewis Strauss), but to ignore demand entirely (and prospects for abundant nuclear materials made accessible via weapons programs) adds little to the debate and does little to make a clear or convincing case. It says you are mischaracterizing such proposals (or worse, simply don’t understand their clearly articulated and described rationale and purpose).

            1. @EL

              I’m well aware of the U boom and bust cycles, which have, quite unsurprisingly been related to significant changes in government policies like the abrupt end of the AEC purchase program, the restrictions on enriching imported uranium, and the virtual moratorium on new nuclear power plants after TMI. The DOE continues to disrupt the uranium market – see some of the background stories on why Barrasso is angry about Poneman’s recent job announcement at Cereus, ne USEC.

            2. @EL

              Strauss made his suggestion in 1953. Here is an excerpt from a site about Utah’s uranium mining boom.

              School teachers, insurance brokers, used car salesmen, and shoe clerks around the nation converged on the Colorado Plateau to seek their fortune. Even a group of high school students staked forty claims and later sold them for $15,000. By the mid-1950s, almost six hundred producers on the Colorado Plateau were shipping uranium ore. Employment in the industry topped 8,000 workers in the mines and mills. Another bonanza in penny uranium stock established Salt Lake City as “The Wall Street of Uranium.” The AEC had turned the tap and caused a flood.

              But by 1964, after producing almost 9 million tons of ore valued at $250 million, the Atomic Energy Commission announced that “it is no longer in the interest of the Government to expand production of uranium concentrate.” The market was saturated. There were 71 million tons of reserves–enough to satisfy United States needs through the next four years. For the first time, private enterprise was invited to purchase uranium oxide and the AEC put federal buying on hold. During the late 1960s the industry rallied again with mining by large companies for developing nuclear plants. But the furor was never the same. Ostensibly, the uranium boom was over.

          3. …quite unsurprisingly been related to significant changes in government policies …

            Yes … and Strauss/Eisenhower disarmament proposal was desiged to expand availability of nuclear materials for peaceful purposes (not limit it).

            People would forget most of the skills they had learned. It would take many years to rebuild the infrastructure and relearn the skills.

            The state of the art for uranium mining in the 1950s was no sophisticated venture (which is why there are so many sites in the West that continue to be an environmental hazard).

            http://national-radiation-instrument-catalog.com/new_page_14.htm

            10 years is no great risk to “forget” how to mine ore (and prospect with a Detectron DG-2 geiger counter and pickaxe). The 1950s saw a huge spike in uranium production in the US.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Uranium_Production_1949-2011.png

            Such levels were not needed for sustainable production of nuclear materials for peaceful or beneficial uses to society in the 1950s (to say nothing of competitive economic advantage that was not fully realized).

    1. I also think that those people are clearly abusing the quote. The man was envisioning what might be POSSIBLE in the future, not making any promises. Is there something wrong with trying to look beyond the horizon, and come up with hopeful statements of what science suggests may be possible with continued research?

      So far, disease and aging haven’t been eradicated, but I don’t see anyone using Strauss’s quote to dismiss the entire medical field.

  3. Rod,

    How do you come to your conclusion, “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.”

    The quotes your provided seem to contradict your thesis?

    It seems to me, upon reading those passages, that Strauss, once he warmed to the idea of an atomic power administration, simply wanted to have something like the “Megatons to Megawatts” program which did eventually come to fruition?

    1. @Jeff S

      The quote said Strauss wanted to gather and store — “impound” — fissionable material. Until being redirected by President Eisenhower, he had no thoughts of making that material AVAILABLE for beneficial uses. He also wanted to halt mining for ten years, even though there was not much of an inventory at the time, certainly not enough to supply a growing number of power reactors or other types of beneficial uses.

      1. … he had no thoughts of making that material AVAILABLE for beneficial uses …

        @Rod Adams

        No thoughts on this topic at all? Lewis Strauss: “My Faith in the Atomic Future” (Readers Digest, 1955)

        http://books.google.com/books?id=8Q-_A6_8S5wC&pg=PA104&dq=lewis+strauss&cd=2#v=onepage&q=lewis%20strauss&f=false

        “I believe firmly that our knowledge of the atom is intended by the Creator for the service and not the destruction of mankind … The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 … had certain specific reservations about it. Nuclear energy, which I believe could change the world, was straitjacketed in Government regulations. Research, development, patents, manufacturing and possession of fissionable materials were denied to private enterprise. Atomic energy was an absolute Government monopoly.”

        “Our nuclear stockpile also represents a national resource of incalculable value. With nuclear weapons you can ‘beat swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hews’ even more realistically than the Scriptures envisioned. The material is immediately convertible to peaceful uses … We are living in an era that seemed designed to test the courage and faith of free men. Yet I do not believe that any great discovery of the atom’s magnitude came from man’s intelligence alone. A Higher Intelligence decided that man was ready to receive it My faith tells me that the Creator did not intend man to evolve throughout he ages to this stage of civilization only now to devise something that would destroy life on this year.”

        He certainly sounds like a guy who is “no fan of useful atomic energy” and is working at cross purposes to undermine technologies that would “make life better for underpowered people.” He specifically states government controls were prolonged because of Soviet activities and threats (better international cooperation would have brought about such changes and a relaxation of government monopolies much sooner). I don’t see anything farfetched in this claim, or a sign of ulterior motives. Rapid progress made by Strauss advancing nuclear power with private industry (and breaking government monopoly on technologies and nuclear materials) appears to suggest the contrary.

        1. EL – thanks for those additional sources to shed more light on the subject. I think the quotes you found are in harmony with my observation that the statement of “impounding” is to be interpreted narrowly with regards to warfare/military use, not as a universal impoundment.

      2. Rod – you’re taking a single word out of context. The full context, right from your article above, is, “impounding gradually the devastation of atomic warfare”.

        I think you are completely misinterpreting the quote. I don’t think his intention was to keep the fuel forever impounded from ANY use, but specifically to impound it away from usage in “atomic warfare”. If his concern was not specifically atomic warfare, why, then, did he add those additional qualifying words to his sentence?

        Your interpretation, IMHO, goes beyond what is justified by the text itself. I respect that you were an English Major in school, but I think anyone can make an interpretational mistake in reading. It may also be that I am the one making the mistake, but I take a very conservative view of interpreting quotes – to take the narrowest, most specific interpretation that is generally required by the text, unless I am dealing with a genre like poetry, song lyrics, or some forms of fiction that are generally supposed to be metaphors and crafted for broader interpretation and multiple layers of meaning.

        That quote does not strike me as such.

        1. @Jeff S

          You are perfectly free to interpret Strauss’s intent any way you desire. The context in which I read those words is coming from a man who is also advocating halting all uranium and thorium mining for a period of ten years — at time before the great boom of discoveries and production in the later part of the 1950s — and who then spent the better part of the next five years derailing every effort by the President and his disarmament advisor to halt weapons testing.

          Strauss was later an enormous supporter of Teller and Lawrence’s rather idiotic proposal to develop “clean” nuclear weapons that would produce explosive powers of up to a megaton without producing as much radioactive material as already existing weapons.

          Strauss was not a disarmament advocate. He may have made a few half-hearted attempts and he might have said a few supportive words for his boss at times, but he was a devoted Cold Warrior who led a program of massive testing, rapid inventory expansion, and technical diversification into weapons like those that could be shot from ground based artillery.

          He also controlled access from scientific advisors to the President, viciously went after Oppenheimer, created a rift in the science and engineering communities, and directed a substantial portion of the “peaceful use” funding Congress provided into a fusion research program.

          Note: It’s my continuing opinion that fusion is a money sink and a diversion from nuclear technology that actually competes and takes markets from the established hydrocarbon industry. Even Strauss would have known that it is many decades farther away from commercialization than fission.

          1. Rod,

            It may be possible that what he thought at the time that he made that particular comment is different than what he later came to think? You cannot always interpret comments made at one point in time based upon later actions or comments, because people’s thinking on subjects does evolve and change.

            But, you do offer some definite things to think about, with regards to his total life impact on nuclear energy. Thank you for that historical research.

        2. @Jeff S

          …unless I am dealing with a genre like poetry, song lyrics, or some forms of fiction that are generally supposed to be metaphors and crafted for broader interpretation and multiple layers of meaning.

          I consider most political speech to be a form of fiction that is full of metaphors and crafted for broader interpretation and multiple layers of meaning depending on which audience is listening.

          1. “I consider most political speech to be a form of fiction that is full of metaphors and crafted for broader interpretation and multiple layers of meaning depending on which audience is listening.”

            Ok, that’s really well said lol. Thanks for the chuckle. I suppose you may be right.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts