Slashdot Mirror


Edward Teller Passes Away At 95

Lord Prox writes "Edward Teller, one of the 20th Century's greats in physics, died Tuesday afternoon at his home in Stanford. He was 95." Newsforge.com also has one of the final interviews with Teller, who was "a principal architect of the hydrogen bomb, [and] passionate advocate of nuclear power and antimissile defense."

618 comments

  1. Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the salad days of nuclear-weapons testing, the United States detonated 331atomic, hydrogen, and thermonuclear bombs. Many of those explosions appear in Trinity and Beyond, which utilizes a lot of declassified footage, most of it in color. Standouts include the United States' South Pacific detonation of an atom bomb 90 feet below the water to study the effects on a fleet of ships. Surprise, surprise, they sink! If that wasn't enough, the navy also loaded the decks with sheep to study the effects of the blast on life forms. Surprise, surprise, they die! Glowing leg of lamb anyone? This film will alternately amuse and horrify you at the rampant irresponsibility of the Soviets and Americans in their quest for nuclear domination. The Russians have the honor of having detonated the largest nuclear bomb ever at a whopping 58 megatons. The Hiroshima bomb was barely a kiloton. Of course, after the U.S.and Russia ceased their activities, the Chinese decided to get in on the act. But that's a different story for a different documentary.

    1. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      The amazing thing wasn't that some ships sank, it was that of the 100+ ships in the bay that ONLY 13 sank in TWO detonation! (the first one ABLE was above ground and sunk 5 ships, the second underwater test BAKER sunk 8). Btw the scrap ships used for the test would have qualified as the world's 8th largest navy if they had been owned by another country and the support staff occupied another 115 vessels.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A history of U.S. atomic testing can be found here:

      http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/index.htm l

      Plenty of pics and interesting stories about how many of the tests went awry.

    3. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice refferer link mr inertishomepa

      you can just get the movie here instead

      ed2k://|file|Trinity.And.Beyond.The.Atomic.Bomb. (1 995).DVDRip.DivX-SFM.avi|724813824|E386A022981FD2D 138A212ACB4EE86C6|/

      enjoy

    4. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hiroshima was in around 15 kilotons, not "barely a kiloton".

    5. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by pork_spies · · Score: 1

      Along time ago, in my final year of my degree, I did some basic research on radiation. A post-graduate student showed me an analysis of radioactive materials in a standard sample of soil from Edinburgh - he ascribed the majority of the radioactive material in the soil to the blow ins from the atmospheric tests. Scarey stuff.

      Can anybody quantify this?

    6. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hiroshima bomb was 22 kilotons, much more than 1 kiloton.

    7. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      I was really hoping for some new footage, filmed in the Middle East, of some of our MODERN weapons; The ones in this movie are all North-Korea style, Hiroshima devices, except for a couple of the big ones at bikini island. (I thouroughly recommend this movie, as well as Richard Rhodes' 'Making of' books.)
      The ones shown on Dr. Strangelove, which aired last weekend, (Yes, mockups, but we built ones like that) were the bigger 100 megaton Thermonuclear devices; They were ~5 ft. in dia, about 20 ft long, and wouldn't fit on an ICBM; now, we can put ~10 of these on one trident missle!!

      Yeah, Osama! Just let us find your sorry ass!

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    8. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by confused+one · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually that's not true. A majority of the radioactive material is naturally occuring. I actually find it interesting just how much radioactive material exists on Earth naturally... The truth is: due to atmospheric nuclear testing, we (collectively) increased the "natural" amount of background radiation by around 30%. The current annual dosage for the average person is around 300 mRem.

    9. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The propaganda: 15. Truth: barely 1.

    10. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: Hiroshima is estimated at 14 KT, Nagasaki at 21 KT. Certainly, more than "barely a kiloton".

    11. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by Kombat · · Score: 1

      While I concur that "Trinity and Beyond" is a very fascinating and compelling movie, I must jump in and correct your number.

      The Hiroshima bomb was barely a kiloton.

      You're way off. It was 15 kilotons. Still "tiny" compared to thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs, but obviously much, much more than "barely a kiloton."

      Also, you refer to "atomic, hydrogen, and thermonuclear bombs." I may be mistaken, but I believe that a hydrogen bomb is a "thermonuclear" bomb. They're the same thing. Atomic == Fission. Hydrogen == Fusion == Thermonuclear.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    12. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by atomicarchive · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ABLE bomb was dropped off target, a tail fin on the bomb failed. That is why so few ships were sunk. Although the BAKER test did sink more ships, the water plume that was created was very radioactive and if the ships had been manned, there would have been serious radiation issues for the crew. For more information : Operation Crossroads or buy the Atomic Archive CD-ROM

    13. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by mfrank · · Score: 1

      US H-Bombs are about 1 megaton. Biggest one ever shot off was a Soviet one about 58 megatons. I think the largest US one tested was about 20 megatons.

    14. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by feyhunde · · Score: 0

      The big danger is from some less than natural isotopes that can replace calcium in our bones with stronium. Thus milk is can actually kill your immune system via your bone marrow.

      --
      I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
    15. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong about the number of MIRV on a TRIDENT. Check Janes or FAS for a publically released number.

    16. Re:Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Only if you're present at the site of a nuclear blast. Radioactive Strontium occurs naturally anyway. We just increased the concentration in a few areas for a little while.

  2. the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    how is Penn taking the news? He'll never be the same without Teller.

    1. Re:the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He just disapeared.
      Don't worry.
      He will reapear.
      With a really big BANG!

    2. Re:the real question is... by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 0, Redundant

      you know, that's exactly what I was thinking too. Silly me ^_^

      --
      Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
  3. Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The world needs missiles. Eventually every nation, even the ones in Africa, will have nukes. A good anti-ICBM system is necessary. So let's not cut funding now.

    1. Re:Missiles are necessary by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The world needs missiles.
      Nope.

      Eventually every nation, even the ones in Africa, will have nukes.
      Yep.

      "Nukes" are nuclear explosives, sometimes called "warheads". They do not need missiles to deliver them. Kamikaze terrorists are sufficient. A good ICBM shield does nothing against nukes.

      An African nation that fired an ICBM at the US would have 80 missiles targeted to melt it into a puddle before their single shot even reached the Atlantic. Any non-suicidal African dictator who wishes to nuke America will transport the bomb by SUV, not ICBM.

    2. Re:Missiles are necessary by Com2Kid · · Score: 1
      • Any non-suicidal African dictator who wishes to nuke America will transport the bomb by SUV, not ICBM.


      Which changes the orientation of those 80 missiles how now?

      As soon as somebody uses Nukes on the U.S. they would be screwed the moment the CIA investigation got overwith.

      Well, assuming the CIA correctly guessed which country did it. . . .
    3. Re:Missiles are necessary by Gherald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know if I am comfortable with the word "guessed" being used in that context.

    4. Re:Missiles are necessary by kfg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope, they won't even need an SUV. They'll just build it in place. It makes the whole thing much easier and cheaper that way since you can make a big, heavy, crude sucker out of whatever you can turn to the task.

      You just rent that abandoned warehouse on the edge of town. Every big town has many to choose from.

      No need to be a kamikaze either since you don't need to worry about getting close enough to the target like you do with a conventional bomb.

      Either set a timer a week or so down the road, set it off with a radio,, or maybe a phone call, or. . .gasp, use the internet.

      KFG

    5. Re:Missiles are necessary by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1, Troll

      As soon as somebody uses Nukes on the U.S. they would be screwed the moment the CIA investigation got overwith.

      Oh, a CIA investigation! Oh that's really reliable. Especially considering that all direct evidence of the perpetrators was atomized at ground zero. As was Langley itself.

      The only evidence firm enough for a reflexive venegance-strike is a radar-track from Lesotho to Pennsylvania Avenue.

    6. Re:Missiles are necessary by Zebbers · · Score: 1

      he might have problems with that atlantic ocean....
      though suvs are mighty capable these days...

    7. Re:Missiles are necessary by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      make a big, heavy, crude sucker out of whatever you can turn to the task.

      The word "crude" has no place around atomic weapons. You've got to line up the atoms exactly, or almost nothing happens.

      However, it would be quite reasonable to ship a bomb as little parts, each 40kg or less, which can be assembled near the target site. I'd personally recommend concealing them inside the air-gaps within wide-screen TVs being shipped from China, but there are lots of ways to hide these things.

      gasp, use the internet.

      I've got a screenplay to sell you. An attractive teenage hacker stumbles onto a terrorist plot to nuke Washington, but he wards it off with a quick DDoS worm. Now he's got to find the bomb and unplug it while dodging the FBI and HLS agents hot on his trail!

    8. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does your bomb run linux?

    9. Re:Missiles are necessary by Penguinshit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry.. the "Star Wars" program died when the Soviet Union did. It was ostensibly meant to counter their massive ICBM threat. What is was really meant to do was (kind of a re-vamp of the 70s moon program) to force them to spend billions of rubles on developing their own counterpart (or a way to defeat it). They started this, and then finally, at long last, fell bankrupt under their own stagnation.

      It was the best non-deployed weapons program ever conceived.

      And it should stay that way.

    10. Re:Missiles are necessary by refactored · · Score: 1
      An African nation that fired an ICBM at the US would have 80 missiles targeted to melt it into a puddle...

      Africa is not worried. They know what Microsoft software is like.

      They know most of those ICBM's of yours will never work.

    11. Re:Missiles are necessary by kfg · · Score: 1

      "The word "crude" has no place around atomic weapons"

      Fat Man and Big Boy were quite crude. Not as crude as what preceded them though. If you don't mind if it weighs 20,000 pounds and isn't made to "military specs" you might be surprised at the scrap crap that could be turned to the purpose.

      "You've got to line up the atoms exactly, or almost nothing happens."

      Oooooooo-K. I'll go to NAPA and get an "atom alignment tool."

      "How's it look Charlie?"

      "Not bad, but give that atom on the end there a little nudge, it isn't quite lined up right."

      ". . . shipped from China. . ."

      Why on earth would you ship from China when all the stuff is already available where you want to build the bomb? Especially if that somewhere is the US. If you wanted to target NYC I'm not even sure you'd have to leave the city (and certainly not the state) to get everything you need. Talk about taking coals to Newcastle.

      Yes, I've got a Manhatten Project A1 security clearance badge (Just a button really. Ideas about badges were pretty crude then too) around the place somewhere and live a few blocks from one of the old labs. I've got some basic ideas of how these things go boom.

      So do thousands of the bad guys. That's the scary part.

      KFG

    12. Re:Missiles are necessary by kfg · · Score: 1

      In a critical mass beowulf cluster.

      Profit!

      KFG

    13. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've sometimes played with the idea of using UPS as the delivery system for nuclear warheads..

    14. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the CIA HQ is in Langley doesn't mean there won't be an investigation. And, no, not all evidence would be vaporized. People always leave trails. It's amazing how cameras and computers these days can store date hundreds of miles away from their location.

    15. Re:Missiles are necessary by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would you ship from China when all the stuff is already available where you want to build the bomb?

      Technical, engineering risk. You have no guarantee the manufacturing process will work, unless you've carried it out already and tested the result. (Nothing's more embarrassing than reading about a "dirty bomb" attack in the headlines when you had planned for a mushroom cloud!) And if you've done that in some other country, it's simpler and safer to ship the finished device than to risk starting up a munitions factory near the target.

      The US could get lucky and local-law enforcement might inspect that little manufacturing project for OSHA compliance and noise ordinances. They're much less likely to exhaustively search every motorhome rolling south from Canada. (And if you do run into difficulty and murder a border guard, fleeing the scene won't leave much evidence behind to point the investigators to the target city, or the nature of the plot. Mobility is the terrorist infiltrator's best friend.)

      Talk about taking coals to Newcastle.

      Scrounging up uranium in Manhattan is a good way to get some jumpy PATRIOT enforcers all over you. The dealers for nuke-quality components have gotten into a habit of phoning the FBI whenever a new customer shows up. Far safer to collect the materials in a neutral country and then ship them over.

      One advantage of bringing in a finished bomb is that it's much easier to recruit operatives with the right skill-sets. It takes one kind of person to infiltrate an infidel nation and coldly kill a million sleeping civilians. It takes different talents to improvise an explosive device capable of inducing atomic fission. Finding a crew that can handle both jobs (and also speak inconspicuous English) will be a big headache for Human Resources. And increasing the staffing level will just raise the chance of someone screwing up and spilling the beans.

    16. Re:Missiles are necessary by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's a somewhat simpleminded analysis. Yes, having antimissiles for defense won't protect us from all nukes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't develop them.

      No one would accept the army following the logic, "The enemy has guns, so we could buy bulletproof vests for our soldiers, but if we did that the enemy would just sneak up on them and use knives or bombs instead, so let's not bother with the bulletproof vests and let our soldiers get shot to pieces."

      Who's to say that there won't be a suicidal/insane dictator in Africa? Or more likely, what happens if the US decides to invade N. Korea? (Perhaps on a mistaken belief that they don't really have long range missiles, or perhaps for other reasons) In that situation the leader of N. Korea might decide that he's fucked anyways, and decide to launch against the US.

      If the US has no antimissile defense, it's going to be in a tough spot. The fact that we can turn N. Korea into a parking lot afterwards won't make those of us on the west coast feel much better about the situation. There's even a slight chance the US won't feel that launching a counterstrike is politically viable. Our friends in S. Korea wouldn't be too happy about all the radiation right next door, and although i would expect internation opinion to be on our side, the way the US has been treating it's allies lately, who knows?

      If the US had an antimissile shield on the other hand, N. Korea's nukes get blown up in flight, and the ground invasion grinds on.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    17. Re:Missiles are necessary by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      "The enemy has guns, so we could buy bulletproof vests for our soldiers, but if we did that the enemy would just sneak up on them and use knives or bombs instead, so let's not bother with the bulletproof vests and let our soldiers get shot to pieces."

      There's a rule of thumb about analogies and slashdot. You've illustrated it excellently. Not only are guns and nukes completely different, but so are soldiers and cities, and ballistic vests and antimissile shields (hint: one of them can be bought, the other is impossible)

      If the US had an antimissile shield on the other hand,

      Then N.Korea doesn't waste any cash on missiles, so they can built more bombs, and have a little leftover to bribe the border guards who think they're bargaining with drug-dealers.

    18. Re:Missiles are necessary by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "An African nation that fired an ICBM at the US would have 80 missiles targeted to melt it into a puddle before their single shot even reached the Atlantic. Any non-suicidal African dictator who wishes to nuke America will transport the bomb by SUV, not ICBM. "

      However, if the missiles were dismantled, then the button could be pushed from the comfort of your own continent. Chicken and egg, yadda yadda yadda.

      In any case, technology makes it easier and easier to lob destruction over great distances. Wasn't it just a week or two ago that Slashdot had a story about an RC plane making a trans-atlantic flight?

      I'd rather be one step ahead of the bad guys and have all kinds of weapons laying around than no weapons at all. Yes, the world needs missiles.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    19. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An African nation that fired an ICBM at the US would have 80 missiles targeted to melt it into a puddle before their single shot even reached the Atlantic. Any non-suicidal African dictator who wishes to nuke America will transport the bomb by SUV, not ICBM.

      Not a problem. We just have to start targetting missiles at SUVs. I know I won't miss them.

    20. Re:Missiles are necessary by selderrr · · Score: 1

      errr... wrong :
      this kid did it all himself in his backyard. Granted, not a mushroom, but tie a few hundred kilo of semtex to it, set it of in center NY and you've got a cancer-disaster compared to which 9/11 is nothing.

    21. Re:Missiles are necessary by screenrc · · Score: 1

      There was nothing wrong with your analogies,
      as far as illustrating your views. The logic,
      however, sucks. What counts is the benefit/cost
      ratio, and whether it is affordable. Rope-dancing,
      and logic without quantifiers, as shown in
      your post, is a logic I expect from CNN, FOX, etc.,
      but not from you: just because there are
      benefits, it does not automatically imply that
      this is what we should do. It depends, and it
      does depend on a lot things, but at very least
      you should *weight* the advantages and disadvantage.

    22. Re:Missiles are necessary by mrsev · · Score: 1

      You are talking utter crap. Who do you need missiles for? The US, Russia, UK and France all have more than enough for everybody. Who are you going to attack?

      North Korea..... is a joke. The reason that they have/are developing them is because we have them. They are trying to get a deterent.

      Let me remind you that 9/11 was done with civilian airliners. Most terrorist bombs are fertilizer.

      On another point. Why does everybody blame the scientists. It it the politicians and the generals that drop the bombs. Morality has nothing to do with science.... if it was proved that Issac Newton molested children or Albert Einstein was an axe murderer this detracts nothing from their work. The priciples and laws of nature have nothing to do with morality. Have you ever met an evil equation? Ever seen a good chemical reaction?

      Just remember that (in the west) you get who you vote for. Dont give me the crap that you dont have enough choice. Stand yourself is you have to! Remember that it is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for something you dont and to get it! Never forget that Adolf Hitler was voted on to power in democratic elections, only then did he seize power.

      There is a terible responsibility that comes with democracy.

      .

    23. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solution: don't invade North Korea.

    24. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the world does not. A certain creature belonging to the class of advanced apes whose mental capabilities cannot keep up with technical advancements needs missiles. The world does not, though.

      The world does not need apes either, though.

    25. Re:Missiles are necessary by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Any non-suicidal African dictator who wishes to nuke America will transport the bomb by SUV, not ICBM."

      What, you think it will take forever to figure out who did what in such a situation? First off, even if they are capable of building the bombs, they certainly don't have the resources to build (or even buy) more than a few dozen, which means they'll be far easier for intelligence communities to track.

      Secondly, not having a fuselage with your national logo emblazoned on it doesn't mean you won't get caught. Ask Qadaffi or (of you can find him) Mullah Omar.

      Third, there will always have to be a response. Like it or not, ICBMs launched on a sub-orbital ballistic arc are the only option we currently have for attacking a landlocked coutry without having to borrow somebody else's airspace (since they go over said airspace). We didn't ask Pakistan to let us through to Afghanistan because we had to, but because we thought we'd be (relatively) nice about things.

    26. Re:Missiles are necessary by Trent05 · · Score: 0

      Excellent points, but Hitler was actually appointed Chancellor. I remember the whole "being elected" thing from high school, not sure why they didn't get it right.

      http://www.thirdreichpages.org/chancellor.htm

      A couple years later he strong armed the cabinet into giving him absolute power. His goons in the room to take out anyone who didn't vote for him.

      http://www.thirdreichpages.org/power.htm

      VERY interesting story, ABC did a nice piece on it when they ran their Our Century mini-series. They re-run it on the History Channel every now and then, not sure if they still do. Had a nice chunk in there on Ed Teller as well.

      --


      --
      The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
    27. Re:Missiles are necessary by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      thats right, then you give the bargaining power to north korea.

      then north korea can do whatever it wants.

      we had a strategy when it came to czechoslovakia. don't invade Germany. look where it got us then.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    28. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then north korea can do whatever it wants.

      No wonder you're so worried about being attacked. You think "if we don't attack the USA, they can do whatever they want" is a satisfactory reason.

    29. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some good points, we cannot defend ourselves from enemies who do not fight on a 'battlefield'.

      The logical conclusion is to take OUT those enemies then isn't it?

      Doing nothing (Clinton 8 years) got us USS Cole, 93 WTC bombing, Sudan US embassy bombing, 9/11....appeasement does not work with these people.

      Like Kuroshin, they simply hate America.

    30. Re:Missiles are necessary by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      I asume your "Doing nothing" does include keep bullying the world just as USA always did since WWI, a behavior just related with the "hate America" consequence you talked about.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    31. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that the missile shield will give America the opportunity to attack other countries without fearing any kind of retaliation. That's a very noble goal my friend. Well worth spending all that money.

      Don't kid yourself, the ballistic missile defense is an offensive weapon more than anything else. And also a good opportunity to funnel some taxpayer money into the greasy hands of the weapons / high-tech lobby. Both suit the interests of Bush & co. like a glove, but for you and me this is all a gigantic and dangerous money waste.

    32. Re:Missiles are necessary by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, it wouldn't be a big deal if North Korea was a legitimate government. They're not. They take the concept of human rights and hump its dead corpse in the eyesocket.

      So, it matters that they can do whatever they want. France, Spain, Brazil, etc all legitimate governments with legitimate elections. North Korea has proved itself nuts. its people are starving. they continue to build more weapons. what do you want us to say? that we shouldn't be concerned?

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    33. Re:Missiles are necessary by schon · · Score: 1

      you might be surprised at the scrap crap that could be turned to the purpose.

      Cool - you should write RDF Media - I'd love to see this on next season's Junkyard Wars! :o)

    34. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention bombing Afghanistan, Iraq (dozens of times) Yugoslavia and Sudan.

      Regardless of what Rummy says, it was Clinton, not Sadaam Hussein who kicked UNSCOM out of Iraq with his "Desert Fox" bombing campaign.

    35. Re:Missiles are necessary by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      Any non-suicidal African dictator who wishes to nuke America will transport the bomb by SUV, not ICBM.

      That is exactly the same reason why I never bought the Bush administration's arguments for missile defense. To push funding, they used North Korea as an example of a country that could threaten the US with nuclear missiles. True, North Korea and terrorist states could develop ICBM capabilities and deliver a pre-emptive strike against the US, but
      1) They would have to spend several billion dollars and years to get ICBM capabilities.
      2) They paint a huge target on themselves if they did. Not only would the US know who fired at them, so would the rest of the world.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    36. Re:Missiles are necessary by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Doing nothing (Clinton 8 years)

      Clinton didn't do "nothing". His misguided and illegal assasination attempt against Osama Bin Laden in 1998 was the direct motivation for the retaliatory WTC attacks 2 years ago today.

    37. Re:Missiles are necessary by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Let's put it in simpler terms. If we had an effective missile defense, we could tell Kim Il Jong to go hang himself instead of having to play nice with him.

      Why don't you try to tell some crackpot lunatic that we'll fry your country if you nuke one of our cities. That threat only works on rational people, not suicidal maniacs, and not people like former leaders of China who actually commented a nuclear war would be good for them if it could kill off a couple of hundred million chinese and reduce their population pressures.

      And what if that one missile hits DC? Or NYC, or Los Angeles?

      MADD is just what it spells: Insanity.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    38. Re:Missiles are necessary by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      You bet North Korea is developing Nukes as a deterrent. Only, not in the way you obviously intended.

      North Korea is developing Nukes as a deterrent against anyone attacking them NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO!

      You see, it goes both ways.

      With theater capability, NK, can now, say, invade SK. What are we going to do? Invade them and risk a nuclear strike?

      There is a REASON third-world dictators lust for nuclear weapons, and it's NOT to protect them from US aggression.

      Sometimes I think we should pack every America-hating liberal to a country like NK for six months just so they can realize what the hell a dictatorship and aggressive, bullying nation with aspirations of empire really looks like.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    39. Re:Missiles are necessary by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Erm, wrong. That's not what we're talking about. In my parent post I defined the term "nuke" to be an atomic explosive like a warhead on a Cold War missile, not a "dirty bomb" like you are proposing.

      If you read my last post again, you'll see that I stated that a dirty bomb would be easy to make, but that was not the topic of discussion.

      However, from a the perspective of a rational terrorist wishing to maximize civilian deaths, distributing chemical or biological agents into a food supply is the way to go. A fission bomb, however, has the advantage of killing a well-protected target (like 1600 Pennsylvania) just by reaching the outskirts of town.

      tie a few hundred kilo of semtex to it,

      That by itself could kill around 3000 people if you know where to plant it.

    40. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You just rent that abandoned warehouse on the edge of town. Every big town has many to choose from."

      The fact that nobody has done this, or even really tried to do it apparently, surprises me.

      The knowledge required to make a 1950's style atomic bomb isn't that special anymore, not even grad-level physics. And the machine shop required isn't spectacular, muscle car enthusiasts work to the .001's.

      Obtaining the fissionable material is the hard part, obviously. You either have to buy it, steal it, or make it. To make it, you're going to make a lot of noise with your breeder reactor. I wonder how hard it would be to hide that though? You wouldn't have to be that concerned about safety, except that you'd want to ensure that a catastrophic accident made the most damage possible, I guess.

    41. Re:Missiles are necessary by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      No one would accept the army following the logic, "The enemy has guns, so we could buy bulletproof vests for our soldiers, but if we did that the enemy would just sneak up on them and use knives or bombs instead, so let's not bother with the bulletproof vests and let our soldiers get shot to pieces."

      You analogy sucks. Nuclear weapons are not the same as bullets.

      The point of nuclear missile arsenal is not to attack somebody. It's to make another country think twice about attacking you. This is the principal of "deterrence". A missile defense system destroys the concept of deterrence. If I were a suicidal dictator *today*, the logical thing to do would be to build up my arsenal as fast as possible and nuke the US before we got the defense system employed. Also, the simplest way to counter a defense system is to just build more warheads. And, on top of that, missiles are passe anyway. IMO, the future threat is not from missiles. It's from weapons smuggled into the country by other means, or just built here and detonated.

      In short: The missile defense system is an expensive way of not protecting us from the real danger.

    42. Re:Missiles are necessary by frankie · · Score: 1
      You've got to line up the atoms exactly, or almost nothing happens.

      If you're making a plutonium compression bomb (like Fat Man or all modern US weapons), yes, the shape and detonation needs to be precise on the 10^-6 scale. However, a fully working uranium bomb (like Little Boy) could be assembled by a Jr High metal shop class, given the correct pieces of enriched U235.

    43. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, why did he turn down 3 offers for Osama from 98-00 ???

      One from sudan, one from Jordan(i think) and one from Saudia Arabia.

    44. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the ICBMs don't run Windows, idiot. We had nukes long before MS was ever in business.

    45. Re:Missiles are necessary by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      If by "impossible" you mean "not feasible with current budgetary constraints", sure, I'll agree. But I could think of a few (expensive or otherwise politically unacceptable) ways to handle mid-phase missile intercepts without even having to muck with discrimintating decoys out of the cloud.

      And honestly, the report you linked to is highly uncreative about the prospects of boost-phase intercepts (which could also be done from a space-based platform), although it DOES claim they're feasible.

      Oh, and North Korea freakin' BRAGS about having missiles, and shoots one off at least once a year.

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    46. Re:Missiles are necessary by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      So what you're saying is that the missile shield will give America the opportunity to attack other countries without fearing any kind of retaliation. That's a very noble goal my friend. Well worth spending all that money.

      Don't kid yourself, the ballistic missile defense is an offensive weapon more than anything else. And also a good opportunity to funnel some taxpayer money into the greasy hands of the weapons / high-tech lobby. Both suit the interests of Bush & co. like a glove, but for you and me this is all a gigantic and dangerous money waste.

      An offensive weapon is something used for offense, to attack. A defensive device is something used to defend, to protect from attack. No matter how much you attempt to twist the words around, you can't change what they really mean.

      Sure, a good defense allows a good offense, that has ALWAYS been true. Likewise, weapons can always be used as a defense. Bows and arrows allowed protected defensive positions to be held more easily, that doesn't make a bow and arrow defensive. Castles allowed strategic points to be held with less men, thus freeing up soldiers to go attack elsewhere, that doesn't make castles offensive. Likewise heavy armor, clearly a defensive technology, allowed knights to wipe out opposing forces.

      Do you think we'd be in Iraq right now if not for out bullet-proof vests and helmets? I've seen the news shots of US soldiers showing off the dented helmets that saved them from getting their brains blown out. Bulletproof vests are defensive, but without them we either never would have gotten into the Iraq war knowing the costs, or we'd still be fighting it now with thousands or more dead american soldiers instead of a few hundred.

      Whether the US would use an antimissile shield as leverage for offensive actions or not does not affect whether the shield would be offensive or defensive. It would protect us from attack, so it would be defensive. Nuclear weapons kill other people, they are offensive weapons. It doesn't matter if we use them as a threat to enforce peace, they are not a defense.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    47. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one thing lacking in New York state to build a nuclear bomb is the knowedge to do it. Just because you read an illustrated book call "How does an Atomic Bomb work?" doesn't mean you can build one. NAPA doesn't sell the parts either.

      The other thing lacking is a big old plant to refine Uranium (first you need the Uranium) into Plutonium. Most abandoned factories are NOT BIG ENOUGH to do this. It's the type of place you don't miss walking by it.

      If you're going to build a bomb, yes, there are a few scientist who know parts of what you need to do who may be willing to work for you. But you have to get all of them together. Noone builds a Nuke in their garage in their spare time. I doubt there has ever been any one person who could direct the building of a bomb by himself. It is a group effort requiring several specialists.

      The only way to do it is to have a major government project, or to buy one from a rogue nation.

    48. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insert nuclear warhead. Connect to timer. Connect timer to battery. Close case. Sure.

      Fat Man and Little Boy were the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were exactly the same except the size of the payload.

    49. Re:Missiles are necessary by JudasBlue · · Score: 1

      The word "crude" has no place around atomic weapons. You've got to line up the atoms exactly, or almost nothing happens.

      With enriched uranimum or plutonium, you are correct. There is all kinds of complex implosion trickiness involved.

      However, highly enriched uranium (HEU) doesn't follow the rules. You slap together a couple of bits of it at the speed of a good MLB fastball and you are going to get a low-yeild sustained chain reaction.

      This is the stuff that is really scaring the daylights out of thinktank folks who are pondering nuclear terrorism right now.

      --

      7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

    50. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fat Man and Little Boy ... were exactly the same except the size of the payload.

      and except that they had completely different shapes, fissile material, design, and testing. Other than that they were exactly the same.

    51. Re:Missiles are necessary by refactored · · Score: 1
      Yip, and those programmers or their kids then went on to create windows.

      Whole new meaning to Blue Screen Of Death.

    52. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Analogy time.

      Suppose that you, a (not so) noble knight and your (not so) noble and (not so) friendly fellow knight are sitting in a table, unarmored. You disagree about something. That other knight then rises up and begins to put on armor, all the time ranting about how it will make it invincible and how you are the source of all evil. It's obvious he's going to attack you as soon as he can finish putting the armor on. You don't have armor. What do you do ? Why, you attack him before he can put on the armor, of course. If you didn't, you'd basically be signing your death warrant. Therefore, rising ones defenses can in fact provoke an offence and therefore be an offense itself.

      And no, I don't mean to imply that you are unnoble, just that the knights have no problem with attacking unarmored or half-dressed foes.

      Example number two. You have to walk through a forest. You think there will be wolves there, and that they will likely be hungry enough to attack humans. Therefore, you bring your rifle, an offensive weapon. However, in this particular case, wouldn't you agree that the rifle is, in fact, a defensive weapon ?

      Anyway, if the only assurance North Korea has that USA won't attack them is the ability to nuke USA, then USA building a nuclear defense system will certainly feel like offense to them, and thus they strike first; after all, they have nothing to lose.

      The book "War Day" by author whose name I can't just now remember shows excatly this kind of scenario, except that the attacker was the Soviet Russia.

    53. Re:Missiles are necessary by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      The big problem of course is to get enough weapons grade Uranium to make a bomb. That is all what the Manhattan Project was about and today is still not a trivial task.

    54. Re:Missiles are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as if getting weapons grade plutonium is trivial compared to uranium. doofus.

  4. Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's sad to hear. Though some might strongly disagree, as a military guy myself, anyone who advances the capability for the USA to protect and defend itself is held in high regard by me.

    Thank you Mr Teller.

    1. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hey genius, the hydrogen bomb is not a tool of defense, it's a tool of offense. That is the same kind of backwards logic that supports Bush and his "preemptive defense". Bleh, save the pro war rhetoric, please.

    2. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes. exactly. that is what I have been saying all along.

    3. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Mr Teller.

      You'll have to speak up, his hearing doesn't work so well any more.

    4. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's sad to hear. Though some might strongly disagree, as a military guy myself, anyone who advances the capability for the USA to protect and defend itself is held in high regard by me.

      Yep, protect and defend it self with enough hydrogen bombs to irraticate the entire earth's population in under a few hours. After all, the only way to win a nuclear war is to blow up the earth before those other guys do.

      Except Australia, they'll just get radioactive fallout and nuclear winter.

    5. Re:Thank you Teller. by Nept · · Score: 4, Funny

      Except Australia, they'll just get radioactive fallout and nuclear winter

      then we'll have to live on the beach

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    6. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a military guy, I strongly condemn many of Mr. Teller's actions.

      A ballistic missile shield will simply cost us a tremendous amount of money and will undermine nuclear deterrence.

      Secondly, I am very unenthusiastic about warfare. I have fought in Iraq. War is not fun. Have you been in combat?

    7. Re:Thank you Teller. by aduzik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes indeed. Well put.

      --
      If it's not one thing it's your mother.
    8. Re:Thank you Teller. by aduzik · · Score: 1

      Oops... I meant to reference the original comment, thanking Teller. Sorry for any confusion.

      --
      If it's not one thing it's your mother.
    9. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A ballistic missile shield will simply cost us a tremendous amount of money and will undermine nuclear deterrence.

      Artillery --> SAMs --> ABM shield

      Progress along these lines is simply inevitable. People like you should stick their head back in the mud where it belongs.

    10. Re:Thank you Teller. by anto · · Score: 1

      Luckily we have US bases & tracking stations on our (opps I mean American) soil - hopefully enough to pick up at least a few war heads. We would hate to miss out on the fun..

    11. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you did...?

    12. Re:Thank you Teller. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the bigger stick that we did not need then, would have found someday anyway, and speeding up the downward spiral towards mankinds' doom.

      Will education outpace technology? or will the technology get the best of us in the long run?

      FYI:
      its technically an offensive weapon and even then its just a threat that hopefully nobody will follow thru on.

    13. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I could remember what book you're alluding to.

    14. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call this progress.

      Stick your head back in the mud. It might do you some good. Try getting shot at, it's not fun.

    15. Re:Thank you Teller. by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > That's sad to hear. Though some might strongly disagree, as a military guy myself, anyone who advances the capability for the USA to protect and defend itself is held in high regard by me.
      >
      > Thank you Mr Teller.

      <AOL>Me too</AOL>

      And one doesn't have to be a military guy to be thankful. I'm a civvie.

      Einstein was my first childhood hero; his life taught me that science could be fun. Almost immediately, my classmates taught me that there was a downside to all this fun; being into science could also make you very unpopular.

      It was a short hop from Einstein to Oppenheimer (Feynmann was still ten years beyond my comprehension; I'd just learned long division, fer chrissakes!), and from Oppie to Teller.

      Teller was my second childhood hero - and possibly the one with the greatest impact on my daily life - because his life taught me that even if the pursuit of scientific knowledge made you unpopular, it was still right to pursue it. Truth comes first. No matter who it offends.

      So thanks, Dr. Teller. You made mistakes, and you owned up to them. (And with the benefit of 20 years of history, perhaps you weren't as mistaken about Oppenheimer as you thought). But more importantly, when you hadn't made a mistake (and for anyone who's not perfectly clear on this, Yes, I Mean The H-Bomb), for sticking to your guns, doing the science, and for never letting the bastards get you down.

      Today, in adulthood, upon reading a few choice passages from Memoirs and today's obituaries, I stood in awe of a mind still active and exploring, even at 95. And I realized I'd be a very happy guy if my mind's only half as functional as that when I'm 65, never mind 95.

      So goodbye, Dr. Teller. And thanks for being an inspiration to me one more time.

    16. Re:Thank you Teller. by phoebusQ · · Score: 1

      I have tried it. It's not fun. Nor is it fun to be shot at with nuclear warhead tipped missiles. Missile defense, yes please.

    17. Re:Thank you Teller. by refactored · · Score: 1
      You must just _love_ old bin Laden. Nobody has done anything like that to the US military budget in decades....

      How much did you guys pay him?

    18. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, too bad Dr. Strangelove just died, i suppose on some level its a bad thing

    19. Re:Thank you Teller. by refactored · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Strange. Most Russians I have met say that living in Communist Russian was hell. But quite a lot better than living in the Capitalist Russia they have now.

    20. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that? Did someone set him up a bomb?

    21. Re:Thank you Teller. by javiercero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So please let us know what contributions to the field of physics did your hero Teller brought? Have you even read any paper from Teller? And how can you hop from Oppenheimer to Teller? Do you even know what fields of physics were they involved. Jeezus, do you even know what physics is for that matter. Oh, and let us know what new information you have about Oppenheimer that the rest of the world seems to be unaware of. Did you know that Oppenheimer did 100x more to defend this country by being one of the most succesful administrators of the national labs than Teller did with his political manipulations and 0 scientific contributions. But I guess Oppenheimer had to be a dirty commie for opposing a device that had no use, and that would bring us all one step closer to total destruction.

    22. Re:Thank you Teller. by secolactico · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you Mr Teller.

      Likewise over here. I just hope your long time partner Penn Jillette is able to carry on with your work.

      --
      No sig
    23. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the Beach.

    24. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Holy crap, did you admire them from a hole in the ground? Oppenheimer was much more of a true patriot than Teller; in the long run the efforts of Teller will continue to be completely negative for America and the world. There is no scientific angle, he didn't contribute much if anything. And worst of all he drove a slander against Oppenheimer, that wasn't scientific or good in any way, it was just emotional knee-jerk reaction based on scars left from the Nazis rolling over home Hungary.

      It's sad that he died but the world needs fewer Tellers.

    25. Re:Thank you Teller. by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Secondly, I am very unenthusiastic about warfare

      Good.

      --
      -- $G
    26. Re:Thank you Teller. by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      "On the Beach" by Nevil Shute. A stark portrayal of a small town in Australia which is one of the last to die horribly after a nuclear war.

    27. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey genius how many hydrogen bombs have been detonated in offense.

      Just another dipshit peacenik shouting slogans with no grip on reality WHATSOEVER.

      Atomic weapons have prevented(and ended) more deaths than all the peace loving dope smoking hippies of the world.

      You really believe the Soviets would not have been more aggressive had we not been a nuclear power?

      Atomic weapons power lie in our willingness to use them, not their use.

      Oh yea, what territories have the US gained in its 'offensive' use of the H bomb?

      You are a retard, sir.

    28. Re:Thank you Teller. by hellraizr · · Score: 1

      Wow that was the first educated and well written post I've seen on this article. most of the people posting here have no clue the impact he made. Although truth be known Oppenheimer did most of the scientific work, teller oversaw the project but nevertheless all the contributions were for good.

    29. Re:Thank you Teller. by gustgr · · Score: 1

      Thanks for what ? For helping to kill millions of people at the least 50 years ?

      Dr. Teller leaded America to an important achieviement at nuclear and atomic research, and that is good, not just for USA but for mankind at all. He was a genius, no doubts about that.

      But to use his IQ to destroy his own kind wasn't that clever, and we should think his achieviements as a good and usefull result to Earth and mankind, not only to a country. He was Hungarian remember ?

      You americans think about you as Gods and other people are just scumb. This conception is very paradoxal concerning the "high evoluted level" of a nation as USA. You have to remember that USA is placed into Earth, and destroying it will destroy you too.

    30. Re:Thank you Teller. by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Winston Churchill once said that it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

      I suggest you take his advice.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    31. Re:Thank you Teller. by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      A stupid book based on junk science. It's easy to make your moral message when you don't have to pay attention to reality.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    32. Re:Thank you Teller. by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      They don't live in a capitalist democracy. They live in an oligarchy. That there are some countries where capitalism does not take root quickly does not demonstrate that capitalism is itself bad.

    33. Re:Thank you Teller. by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      Riiight...because everyone had such a good understanding of what the effects of nuclear fallout would be back in 1957, a scant 12 years after the first bombs were dropped on Japan, when the book was first published.

    34. Re:Thank you Teller. by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      being into science could also make you very unpopular.

      Yes, I became a scientist despite being presented with the image of Simon Barsinister, villian of Underdog, at an early age.

      Edward Teller was an extraordinary individual, both quirky and brilliant. And he kind of looked a bit like Simon Barsinister, too.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    35. Re:Thank you Teller. by mfrank · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, just who exactly are these millions of people Dr. Teller helped to kill?

    36. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides being the strongest country for the past century, The USA is the oldest* nation on the Earth, by at least a hundred years. Forgive us if we sound condescending to all your young, naive governments who've never really had a chance to prove themselves.

      * Except for maybe England. Their government has evolved much since 1776 though.

    37. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is, you had no idea who Edward Teller was until you received instruction from the teevee when the propganda mills started spinning yesterday, and Oppenheimer was some company that sponsored your political organs. They sell government bonds, by the way. It's a monopoly.

    38. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That there are some countries where capitalism does not take root quickly does not demonstrate that capitalism is itself bad.

      Does the fact that the most successful example of capitalism is a country full of selfish, ignorant and self-righteous people, the majority crushed under the bootheel of savage greedy corporations earning more and more money for the upper 1% of the population demonstrate that capitalism is bad?

    39. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's the asshole who has found this comment "insightful" ? /. doesn't need hopelessly stupid moderators.

    40. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. T was a grade A a-hole

      You best watch yo'self, foo!

      Mister T.

    41. Re:Thank you Teller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teller is the personification of the mad scientists.

      He betrayed Science, he betrayed Oppenheimer, he only served his own ego, he didn't care about anyone else, and he spent the rest of his life trying to cover up his ass.

      He deserves to be remembered as such.

    42. Re:Thank you Teller. by Dreamnite · · Score: 1

      I'm going to kill my karma on this, but.. Atomic weapons have only twice ever been used in offence. Yes, the US was the one who dropped them, but that has been the first and last time this was really "possible". (After all.. we were the only ones who had the capability at the time, hence the ability to "get away with it"). The nuke today is NOT a tactial offensive weapon. You gain nothing but scorched earth if you Nuke some place. You can not viably threaten to nuke a country that has such capability, or nuclear capabale allies (or if you have such in enemies). Even when the US used the bombs on Japan, the idea was not to "capture" japan but to demonstrate that we now had such force to wipe the islands clean. The threat of destruction is in some cases what prevents the use of the bombs today. For instance: should the bitter enemies of Inida and Pakistan seriously threaten to use such a weapon (or north korea, or iran, or any other country) you would have every other nuclear capable country pointing it's nukes at them, similar to a gun toting robber in a police station.

    43. Re:Thank you Teller. by gustgr · · Score: 1

      I could go on with this discussion here but it would be too OT. If you want to go on with that please make contact by mail.

  5. Once you've helped to develop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...destructive nuclear tipped missles, of course you'll be damned passionate about anti-missle defense!

    Teller: Godfey, we did it! Nuclear missles, it's been attained!

    Godfrey: Uh sir, if we can do it, I'm sure the Russians will be able to also.

    Teller: SHIT!

  6. Hiroshima by scrote-ma-hote · · Score: 5, Interesting
    After visiting Hiroshima on a school trip, and seeing the awesome destruction of nuclear weapons, I have been scared witless of them. It didn't help that I was also in Tokyo when they had their nuclear "accident".

    I have no objections to a healthy debate about nuclear weapons, but you have to think that their main task is wholesale destruction.

    1. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      I have no objections to a healthy debate about nuclear weapons, but you have to think that their main task is wholesale destruction.

      An H-bomb is just a tool and like any other tool it can be used for good (eg population control) or bad (eg. killing defenseless civilians) purposes. Remember thermonuclear devices don't kill, people do!

      Speaking personally I sleep a lot sounder at night knowing that a hostile power somewhere in the world has a ICBM trained on the city I live in.

      Thank you so much Edward Teller, what a wonderful legacy you have left for mankind.

    2. Re:Hiroshima by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "After visiting Hiroshima on a school trip, and seeing the awesome destruction of nuclear weapons, I have been scared witless of them."

      Whoah, that took me by surprise. Is Hiroshima as it was after the blast?

      Sorry to sound ignorant, at least give me credit for asking. I haven't really thought about what Hiroshima would be today.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you. The theory of safe working nuclear power is something that's well founded. That's the technicalities over with

      The reality is that one thing more well founded and that won't change is the ability for humans to not quite do everything as they should, to cut corners, to save money and lower costs. You just can't do that with nuclear power, yet N power is still used. We just cannot risk those problems.

      Besides, wind farming is alot better, along with wave energy, also alot safer and as reliable as the sun.

    4. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You prove people can be idiots and cut corners for no good reason.

      "alot" is not a word.

    5. Re:Hiroshima by bishmasterb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For what it's worth, Mr. Teller said (at least later in life) that we should have high-altitude detonated the first bomb over Tokyo bay as a demonstration of power, where casualties would have been minimal.

    6. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is Hiroshima as it was after the blast?

      Hiroshima is gorgeous. It's not a crater and not a radioactive wasteland. Unless you recognize the name, you'd have no way to tell it apart from any other gleaming Japanese city. Some people have absorbed anti-nuclear propaganda and assume that atomic weapons will render the target area uninhabitable for centuries. That's just wrong (although the propaganda is based on Cold War era weapons, which dwarf the power of the bombs dropped on Japan)

      Note that 100% of Japanese cities were bombed flat in WWII, so all buildings are less than 50 years old (even without the bombing, earthquakes would keep destroying them). Thus they may all look similar to a naive visitor.

    7. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That'd be a "blink and you missed it" kinda thing. What if the political leaders didn't happen to be watching? What if it was hard to judge distance, and they assumed a conventional bomb had nearly missed them? A blast over water doesn't leave tangible evidence behind (unless prehaps it destroyed some warships, but the Imperial Navy was already pushing up coral)

      To make a good demonstration, you'd need to do it on lightly inhabited land so that nearby people can wander onto the blast area and gaze around in awe before reporting back to the emperor. And you'd want to telegraph a warning 24 hours ahead, to re-emphasize military superiority (proving that it wasn't some kind of natural volcano).

      Mt. Fuji would've been an ideal target. Take a scared mountain and convert it into a scared gravel pit. That would be an undeniable show of force!

    8. Re:Hiroshima by rjkimble · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Note that 100% of Japanese cities were bombed flat in WWII, so all buildings are less than 50 years old (even without the bombing, earthquakes would keep destroying them). Thus they may all look similar to a naive visitor.
      Not at all true. There were still several large cities left pretty much untouched at the end of the war. Truman in particular refused to authorize the bombing of Kyoto because of its religious, historical, and cultural significance. I might add that the Japanese military would have shown no similar sense of honor. They were insane zealots of the first magnitude. Just take a look at how they fought on the Pacific islands, especially Okinawa. If you don't believe me, ask the Koreans, Chinese, and Philippinos who experienced them firsthand.
      --

      Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
      But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
    9. Re:Hiroshima by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hiroshima was nothing, the cities of Dresden, Kobe, Osaka, and others were destroyed in a MUCH worse fashion by the carpet firebombing of the allies. My German teacher was a little girl in Dresden during WWII and saw firsthand the horrors of those attacks. The percentage of Hiroshima affected even by the fallout was small compared to the destruction wrought on those other cities.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re:Hiroshima by rjkimble · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were designed to be exploded in the air, roughtly 1000 feet above the ground. They were nowhere near powerful enough to put much of a dent into Mount Fuji. Most of the damage caused at Hiroshima was done by the fires afterward. To be sure, the blast did enormous damage, but the fires that followed leveled the city. Truman and his cabinet debated the merits of various approaches and concluded that the best approach was the one they followed. I think history has shown them to have been right.

      --

      Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
      But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
    11. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a camel with it's head up it's arse.

      I'd pay to see that.

      And it's its.

    12. Re:Hiroshima by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is false. My uncle lives in his wifes family home which is more than 150 years old. This house is on the outskirts of Nagoya, a large city.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    13. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (Nobody should mod you down for that. Real flamebait looks distinctly different)

      I might add that the Japanese military would have shown no similar sense of honor.

      Some would question whether avoiding potentially useful targets, which prolongs the fighting and endagers your own troops, is really "honor". What does it mean to value some rotting wooden buildings over human lives?

      Others might ask if commanding a single pilot to kill 100,000 helpless civilians simply to impress the USSR is honorable.

      But let's not get into that.

    14. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      That house has been rebuilt. With traditional Japanese building materials, no residence can survive more than 40 years. It might be replaced piece-by-piece, or all at once after a disaster, but the original building is gone.

      PS. What's the rule of thumb for evaluating the veracity of any sentence starting with "100% of the ..." ?

    15. Re:Hiroshima by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, the local doctor where I lived as a kid was from Hiroshima and was there during the blast. From the story I was told she and her twin sister were bathing in a local pond. She was fortunate enough to have been under water at the time and survived. Her twin sister was half incinerated.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    16. Re:Hiroshima by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Actually, 100% of Japanese cities were NOT bombed flat in WW2, but if the Atomic Bombs hadn't been developed and deployed, things would have been much worse.

      From the United States Stratigic Bombing Survey for the Pacific War - http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

      "he physical destruction resulting from the air attack on Japan approximates that suffered by Germany, even though the tonnage of bombs dropped was far smaller. The attack was more concentrated in time, and the target areas were smaller and more vulnerable. Not only were the Japanese defenses overwhelmed, but Japan's will and capacity for reconstruction, dispersal, and passive defense were less than Germany's. In the aggregate some 40 percent of the built-up area of the 66 cities attacked was destroyed. Approximately 30 percent of the entire urban population of Japan lost their homes and many of their possessions. The physical destruction of industrial plants subjected to high-explosive attacks was similarly impressive. The larger bomb loads of the B-29s permitted higher densities of bombs per acre in the plant area, and on the average somewhat heavier bombs were used. The destruction was generally more complete than in Germany. Plants specifically attacked with high explosive bombs were, however, limited in number."

      And like in Germany, the extensive bombing didn't do as much damage to the infrastructure as hoped or needed.

      "The railroad system had not yet been subjected to substantial attack and remained in reasonably good operating condition at the time of surrender. Little damage was suffered which interfered with main line operations. Trains were running through Hiroshima 48 hours after the dropping of the atomic bomb on that city. Damage to local transport facilities, however, seriously disrupted the movement of supplies within and between cities, thereby hindering production, repair work and dispersal operations."

    17. Re:Hiroshima by iomega · · Score: 1

      dont forget who attacked whom while their diplomats were still in the capital crying war can be avoided,

      i call that a sneak attack,, and sneak attacks are inherently dishonorable

    18. Re:Hiroshima by four12 · · Score: 1
      assume that atomic weapons will render the target area uninhabitable for centuries

      ...but what about the Cobalt-Thorium G? It has a half-life if 93 years and will encircle the Earth in a doomsday shroud!

    19. Re:Hiroshima by skyhawker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure what you mean by your comments, but Kyoto was then and is still a very beautiful city. Many of Truman's war planners wanted to "poke a hot cinder into the eyes of" the Japanese by targeting Hiroshima, but he decided it was just too dishonorable, even for an opponent as despicable as the WWII Japanese. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were largely untouched to that point and they had significant manufacturing and logistical facilities. They weren't just filled with helpless civilians. If you think that we dropped those bombs merely to impress the Soviets, you're quite mistaken. The Japanese were still a formidable threat, and it was essential that we defeat them utterly. To allow them to regroup and rebuild without eliminating the elements that led them into the war would have been utter folly.

      Keep in mind that the Japanese of today bear little in common with those who ran the military of WWII. To understand why we dropped the bombs on them the way we did, you have to go back and study what the WWII military did to the countries around them in the '30's and '40's. I assure you that there were very few tears shed by the peoples they butchered when those bombs exploded.

      --

      The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
      -- Scotty.
    20. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The difference between an A-Bomb and systematic firebombing is that panicked civilians can outrun fires and huddle together to starve in crowded suburban ruins.

      One does not outrun a gamma ray.

      Numerically, twice as many people died in 1 second at Hiroshima as did in one day at Dresden. Some people might say the amount of pain they suffered makes some difference; I don't.

    21. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Truman and his cabinet debated the merits of various approaches and concluded that the best approach was the one they followed. I think history has shown them to have been right.

      If you think it's effect on the USSR was valuable, then that's true. The argument that such a spectacular defeat lead to better rebuilding has merit, but I won't go into that here.

      The bombing was irrelevant for purposes of defeating Japan however. The Japanese ability to wage offensive war had been completely destroyed. If the US Navy had simply turned around and gone home in July 1945, Japan wouldn't have troubled them again.

      Even given 200 years to work on it, they couldn't have put together another destroyer- there simply wasn't enough iron on the whole archipelago. The best they could've made were wooden ships to sail to Korea with... and the Koreans would've been ready with a nasty greeting party. Before long every other country occupied by Japan would've come back for revenge, and they'd probably be a poor Chinese protectorate today.

    22. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Japanese were still a formidable threat, and it was essential that we defeat them utterly. To allow them to regroup and rebuild without eliminating the elements that led them into the war would have been utter folly.

      No they were not formidable. They had no Navy left at all. Japan has zero natural resources (iron, coal, oil), and had no stockpiles left. There is no way to "rebuild" a 20th century army from rice and wood. They could not have harmed any American serviceman unless he set foot on their island and got stabbed.

      The only thing separating them from utter defeat was a thousand heirloom swords and a million sharp pieces of bamboo.

      I assure you that there were very few tears shed by the peoples they butchered when those bombs exploded.

      I concur that humans quickly lose the ability to cry after being butchered.

    23. Re:Hiroshima by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Sad thing is, Hiroshima was devastated by a puny little fission bomb. Teller was behind the much more devastating fusion bomb, which uses a fission bomb just for a fuse. The difference between the largest fusion bombs and the first fission bombs is about the same as the difference between the latter and a plain old TNT bomb.

    24. Re:Hiroshima by cranos · · Score: 1

      Yes Dresden was worse in terms of damage and casualties, however I think a lot of the horror of nuclear weapons comes from the fact that attrocities like Dresden required thousands of tons of explosives being dropped by hundreds of bombers, while Hiroshima and Nagisaki(sp?) only took one bomb each.

    25. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      dont forget who attacked whom while their diplomats were still in the capital crying war can be avoided,

      That's mostly true. Even though the Admiral who carried out the attack mistakenly believed that war had been formally declared some hours before the strike, it was still a violation of the era's martial codes.

      However, we can go back to the question of what "honor" means. Does it mean doing everything in your power to preserve the lives of your citizens? If so, then a sneak attack can be honorable if it's the safest way to win. "All's fair"

      (Of course, that definition would place not antagonizing the USA as the best choice of all)

    26. Re:Hiroshima by Kymermosst · · Score: 0

      If the US Navy had simply turned around and gone home in July 1945, Japan wouldn't have troubled them again.

      Right.

      That worked with all the other countries with tried it with.

      Besides, complete and spectacular defeat was the only option after the despicable sneak-attack that Japan did on that little place called Pearl Harbor.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    27. Re:Hiroshima by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Hiroshima is gorgeous. It's not a crater and not a radioactive wasteland."

      So the city still thrives. Besides the dome, are there areas that are left as they were after the blast?

      Ugh I get such an awful feeling discussing this topic. Whatever problems we had with the Japanese in WW2, it's so difficult to imagine celebrating a moment like that today, even though I realize it marked a turning point in a brutal war.

      Sorry for the run-on sentence there, I'm just rather fond of Japan.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    28. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truly precise. Well said.

    29. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think history has shown them to have been right." Killing 140,000 innocent people....Right? Of course, 140,000 people wasn't enough to get the message across to an nation that was already beaten so 73,000 more innocent people were killed in Nagasaki.

    30. Re:Hiroshima by skyhawker · · Score: 2, Informative

      They still had operating submarines and they still had an operating air force, most notably the kamikazes. The U.S. sustained quite heavy casualties during the Okinawa campaign from these and other forces. And invading the main islands would have been hugely costly in American lives. And I think you need to go study the historical record a little more closely. Their defense of their homeland would have been formidable indeed, and without the atomic bombs, we would have paid a steep price to conquer them.

      There was no way that we could end the war without elminating the Japanese military completely, and that meant invasion and occupation. Just look at what happened when the winners of WWI left a vacuum in Germany. We were not about to make that mistake again.

      Besides, the Soviets were eager to join the war against Japan and had we not invaded the Japanese main islands, they would have. As it is, they took the northernmost islands (Northern Territories?) and still hold them until this day, nearly 60 years later. We turned over our control of Okinawa, the last part of Japan that we occupied, about three decades ago. With our guidance and assistance after WWII, we helped Japan transform itself into a responsible member of the world community. And the Japanese are better off because of it.

      Your last comment is not up to the standards of the rest of your commentary. I don't think you appreciate fully just how much hatred the Japanese military sowed around the western Pacific. They were a bunch of racist thugs who needed to be beaten to a pulp. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it was.

      FWIW, I have lived for two different years on a U.S. Marine Corps Air Station in Iwakuni, about 30 miles south of Hiroshima. The Japanese I met were wonderful people and I enjoyed my time there immensely. I'm glad that the history we're discussing is exactly that -- history. I admire the modern Japanese very much and I hope to travel there again. I was a jet pilot, so I have already traveled fairly extensively throughout (and above) the country. It has many wondrous sites.

      --

      The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
      -- Scotty.
    31. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think history has shown them to have been right.

      US morality:

      Killing 140,000 innocent civilians in Hiroshima: right!

      Killing 3,000 innocent civilians in New York: evil!

    32. Re:Hiroshima by dabadab · · Score: 2, Informative

      It should be noted, that more people were killed by the absolutely unnecessary bombing of Dresden (done with conventional bombs)than in Hiroshima.

      As for nuclear power stations: people like to forget how much damaging are the conventional coal power plants (and they DO emit much more radioactivity) - and nuclear ones replace mostly these, not solar cell farms.

      And finally, it should be noted, that his name is Teller Ede, since he was Hungarian.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    33. Re:Hiroshima by rjkimble · · Score: 1

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important industrial centers, and there was no way we were going to pack up and go home without invading and occupying Japan. It's too bad so many civilians had to die. It was their leadership that led them down that path, and very many of them were willing to be led that way. What do you say of the millions of Chinese, Koreans, and Philippinos the Japanese slaughtered in their attempts to enslave the western Pacific? It's a shame that those two cities were bombed, but the Japanese went well out of their way to earn that treatment. You need to read some history books (besides the ones written and printed in Japan).

      Out of curiosity, do you share the same outrage over the Japanese massacre of a couple hundred thousand civilians in Nanjing? Was that OK because they killed them a few at a time?

      --

      Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
      But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
    34. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They still had operating submarines and they still had an operating air force, most notably the kamikazes. The U.S. sustained quite heavy casualties during the Okinawa campaign from these and other forces.

      The submarines were undirected, unfueled, and helpless. The kamikazes left in the "air force" were Tsurugi, a kind of wooden plane built after running out of steel. They were never known to hit a single target- they rarely had enough petrol to take off.

      The losses on Okinawa were serious, but they were from light-infantry attacks- the kind of thing that could be avoided entirely by prudently deciding against occupying enemy territory with ground troops.

      There was no way that we could end the war without elminating the Japanese military completely,

      Well that really depends on your perspective. The US could've stopped fighting and gone home at any time, and the war would've been over for them. (Various nations from Southeast Asia would've eagerly volunteered to invade Japan within a year or two).

      The only reason they couldn't stop fighting is the US public wanted a conclusive, total victory. If you accept that mental state as a given, then it's true they couldn't stop fighting.

      But going down the path of "I was powerless to do anything besides what I wanted to do" seems silly (although it is more valid when looking at a nation than for discussing individual motivation).

      Once the option of withdrawing to an anticlimatic technical victory is eliminated, then the only choice left for the US President was overwhelming force- the atomic bomb. Truman couldn't have withstood counting the families that would be sundered by pouring American troops into Japan for a whole other year of violent invasion, while knowing he'd possesed a resource that hadn't been used. Not only would US casulties be high, but the Japanese dead would quickly outnumber the populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

      Their defense of their homeland would have been formidable indeed, and without the atomic bombs, we would have paid a steep price to conquer them.

      My whole point is that the US had no military need to conquer them. Japan had been knocked out of the fight; it presented no threat. Occupying the islands had to be evaluted as an opportunity for future profit, not as a defense measure against an attack.

      (But it wasn't logically "evaluated" at all- as I said, the US public had long since decided that only a total victory would satisfy them. They were in no mood to think of pros and cons)

      Your last comment is not up to the standards of the rest of your commentary.

      Just being a literalist-nazi.

    35. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      more people were killed by the absolutely unnecessary bombing of Dresden (done with conventional bombs)than in Hiroshima.

      If you count slow death by radiation poisoning, then the Hiroshima deathcount surpassed Dresden's within 10 years.

    36. Re:Hiroshima by CausticWindow · · Score: 1

      Don't even go there. Americans don't want to hear this story. It's not what they're taught in school.

      Millions of Americans (!) would have died, had the bombs not been dropped. It's in the history books, Truman said it!

      --
      How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    37. Re:Hiroshima by jimbobborg · · Score: 1

      The other thing you don't realize is that at the time, the USSR was very eager to "help" us finish off the Japanese. Once they got a toe-hold, it would take 50 years to get rid of them. And they still have a legacy of a divided country (Korea). It was imperative that we end it quickly, as the Soviets would have swooped in and taken half the islands. As it was, when McArthur took control of Japan, he told the Soviets to piss off.

    38. Re:Hiroshima by skyhawker · · Score: 1
      The submarines were undirected, unfueled, and helpless.
      Tell that to the crew of the USS Indianapolis.
      The kamikazes left in the "air force" were Tsurugi, a kind of wooden plane built after running out of steel. They were never known to hit a single target- they rarely had enough petrol to take off.
      Tell that to the ships sunk or severely damaged in the Okinawa campaign.
      The losses on Okinawa were serious, but they were from light-infantry attacks- the kind of thing that could be avoided entirely by prudently deciding against occupying enemy territory with ground troops.
      Huh? Are you saying we could have defeated the Japanese on Okinawa without occupying it? You need to learn basic military strategy if that's what you think.
      (Various nations from Southeast Asia would've eagerly volunteered to invade Japan within a year or two).
      And how exactly would they have accomplished that? By marching their armies across the pond????

      I don't care if the Japanese were reduced to fighting with schoolgirls wielding bamboo sticks at that point -- they were still formidable. You even admit as much by agreeing that U.S. casualties would have been very high in a conventional invasion of the mainland. Just look at the casualty figures the Japanese inflicted on themselves in their insane resistance on the various islands of the Pacific campaign. And to suggest that the U.S. could have simply packed up and gone home after conquering Okinawa is very naive. First, there were still numerous Japanese occupying forces in other countries and on several Pacific islands. They weren't about to capitulate until the emperor told them to, and the emperor had to be persuaded to do so. As it was, we came very close to still having to invade the Japanese mainland, because the emperor still had difficulty convincing the military to capitulate. Truman's use of the atomic bombs provided a demonstration of their terrible power and inflicted severe damage on two major production centers for the Japanese war machine. I think you need to examine your history a little more closely. There is no way that we could have stopped short of total victory in Japan. The lessons of World War I were too fresh to ignore. It would have been utterly silly for us to not defeat them totally. Which we did. And they and the rest of the world are better off as a result.
      --

      The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
      -- Scotty.
    39. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Numerically, twice as many people died in 1 second at Hiroshima as did in one day at Dresden. Some people might say the amount of pain they suffered makes some difference; I don't"

      What an absurd way of using statistics. Even if accurate, your figures are useless. More people died in Dresden than in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    40. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the firebombing was so severe in germany that all the oxygen was used up at ground level. Yes, people huddled in ruins. Then they suffocated.

    41. Re:Hiroshima by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      So, it boils down on how fast the destruction occurs? The number of casualties is Hiroshima is about as big as number of casualties in Tokyo or Dresden. How exactly is Hiroshima worse than either of those two? Because it all happened in an instant? How so? Is Hiroshima worse because "twice as many people died in 1 second at Hiroshima as did in one day at Dresden." (the bombing of Dresden took 1 day, are you saying that total casualtios of Dresden are lower than on first 1 second of Hiroshima? I don't think so). So?

      It's the overall number of casualties that count. After the Allied were finished with Dresden, 85% of the city was destroyed and 35.000 - 135.000 people had lost their lives (best estimates put the figure somewhere around 100.000). And I have seen figures that say that about 66.000 died in Hiroshima, which would put it below Dresden.

      Nagasaki is considerably below any of those three

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    42. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ya gotta love monday morning quarterbacks. Telling us what we should'a done 60 years ago.

      Where were you when we needed you dude!

      Of course we were wrong! Americans are always wrong. Whatever we do, it's wrong. Anyone could'a told ya that. Sheesh.

      Nothing new here, move along.
    43. Re:Hiroshima by cfan · · Score: 1

      I think that some number helps:

      people died in Dresden: 35000 (from http://www.meredith.edu/stones/newpage2.htm )
      people died in hiroshima: from 90000 to 140000 (from http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm#faq1

    44. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japanese morality: killing 2400 American servicemen in Pearl Harbor, while not at war: right!

    45. Re:Hiroshima by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It didn't help that I was also in Tokyo when they had their nuclear "accident"."

      IIRC, it was less than a cubic foot of radioactive steam that was released.

      Your knee-jerk, poorly-reasoned reaction to seeing that (immediately thinking of a multi-kiloton nuclear blast) is why neither Japan, the US, and most other countries that know how to build nuclear power plants will never be able to take advantage of the clean and efficient source of power that such reactors are.

      Just to put things into perspective, compare that cubic foot of steam to the pounds (in some casses tons) of greenhouse gasses continued reliance on fossil fuels for power production fossil such plants put out in the course of normal operation. But I guess panic-mongering over inhaled carcinogens isn't as sexy as fearing something with the word "radioactive" in it, no matter how utterly insignifigant it really is.

    46. Re:Hiroshima by eddie+can+read · · Score: 1

      The only reason they couldn't stop fighting is the US public wanted a conclusive, total victory. If you accept that mental state as a given, then it's true they couldn't stop fighting.

      It would have been unwise to have left that political structure intact. It would have been like leaving Hitler in power at the end of WWII.

      My whole point is that the US had no military need to conquer them.

      Military need is relative to ultimate goals. The ultimate goal was to truly put an end to the threat from Japan, and that required reshaping the political structure.

    47. Re:Hiroshima by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "They had no Navy left at all."

      But they had an army. And very large portions of it was still stationed outside of Japan.

      "Japan has zero natural resources (iron, coal, oil),"

      Which is why they invaded the Asian mainland to begin with. And they still occupied most of it until the formal surrender process was over 09/1945.

      "and had no stockpiles left."

      On Honshu perhaps, but they were still in posession of many natural resources in China, et al.

      "They could not have harmed any American serviceman unless he set foot on their island and got stabbed."

      And there's the rub. So what if they were still content raping and pillaging the places they still owned (the places we "island-hopped" over, for example, becuase they were still heavily defended)? Nevermind that the Japanese still effectively and brutally controlled an empire that rivled the British in size. They're just a bunch of silly slant-eyes, anyway. Why should we get care? Just so long as they don't attack us again is all that matters, right? Peace in our time (for us, anyway)!

      "The only thing separating them from utter defeat was a thousand heirloom swords and a million sharp pieces of bamboo."

      Not only are you forgetting about the munitions stockpiles their forces still had elsewhere, you're forgetting about their willingness to use them against nuclear bombs. Don't forget that, after two nuclear attacks and the Soviets finally getting around to declaring war on them, major portions of their army staged a coup to try to prevent Hirohito from surrendering.

      "I concur that humans quickly lose the ability to cry after being butchered."

      Only if you do it quickly. If you take your time and let them suffer miserably for days and weeks before dying after infecting them with the anthrax you're weaponizing, they're quite capable of crying. But hey, they weren't Americans, so they don't count.

    48. Re:Hiroshima by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      Remember, this is the same 'Honor' that kept us from glassing large areas of the Middle East. If the object is to use the best available means because it would shorten the war, are you saying that we should have used nukes on Afganistan and Iraq?

      "Kill them all, god knows his own" is a good working strategy if you want security. Read Sun Tzu's "Art of War", for a better insight.

      Our honor is in our efforts not to annhilate a people, but to use just enough effort to succeed.

      If countries continue to be "unreasonable", well, that's what we developed Nukes for.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    49. Re:Hiroshima by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      The best they could've made were wooden ships to sail to Korea with... and the Koreans would've been ready with a nasty greeting party. Before long every other country occupied by Japan would've come back for revenge, and they'd probably be a poor Chinese protectorate today.

      Wow. Had we turned tail, we would have left the entire region destabilized and worse, with a vaccum of power. By filling Japan's role as the superpower in the southeast, the US was able to control the carnage and long term, establish a relative peace. The exception being Korea and Viet Nam which were originally proxy wars between the US and communist states.

      Truman was right. He chose the lesser of two evils to end the war.

      --
      -- $G
    50. Re:Hiroshima by matticus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Incidentally, I just moved to Dresden. Unlike Japan, the Dresdners are still rebuilding from the horror of that night, and the flood last year didn't help. However, all rebuilding should be complete for the beginning of 2006 (the city's 800th anniversary). You should see the Frauenkirche, an incredible old church that was utterly destroyed in 1945, and just started rebuilding in the late 80s (with private money, nonetheless). The scaffolding just came off part of the outside, and it looks amazing. I consider myself very lucky to be able to witness the Frauenkirche's dome in its former glory, as it's been destroyed since 1945. I'm getting very excited, being an American and seeing the horror my country inflicted on this amazing city. If you ever visit East Germany, GO TO DRESDEN and check out the resolve of these amazing people to restore their city to its former greatness. It's a nice place to live, and a great place to visit.

    51. Re:Hiroshima by 11223 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A lot of Japanese historians actually agree with our decision to drop the bomb - that the military would have simply continued on inertia as long as it could, and this gave the Emperor a chance for a reasonable surrender.

      It's only here in the US that we have such guilt about it.

    52. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were largely untouched to that point and they had significant manufacturing and logistical facilities.

      Nagasaki was not chosen -- it was a target of opportunity, and the bomb that was dropped did little to damage manufacturing or logistical facilities. It did, however, do a good job of destroying a lot of Nagasaki's Christian heritage, civilian areas and a prison for American POWs.

    53. Re:Hiroshima by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      or like leaving Saddam in power in 1991...

      while (1){
      history();
      }

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    54. Re:Hiroshima by jslag · · Score: 1
      Truman and his cabinet debated the merits of various approaches and concluded that the best approach was the one they followed. I think history has shown them to have been right.


      Yes, the ensuing 60+ years of nuclear brinkmanship have been great. Good thing we were brave enough to demonstrate to the world that there is a nation crazy enough to use nuclear weapons against other nations.

    55. Re:Hiroshima by mangu · · Score: 1
      The US could've stopped fighting and gone home at any time, and the war would've been over for them


      Like they did in Europe, only to fight a forty years long cold war?


      Japan had been knocked out of the fight; it presented no threat


      Looking from a resources standpoint, Japan presented no threat in 1941. It was inconceivable that such a small nation without any oil, coal, or steel, could attack the USA. Yet they did. Left to themselves in 1945, the most likely result would have been a rearmament, (possibly with nuclear weapons) and a much bloodier war a few years later.

    56. Re:Hiroshima by Steve+B · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The difference between an A-Bomb and systematic firebombing is that panicked civilians can outrun fires and huddle together to starve in crowded suburban ruins.

      You don't outrun a firestorm, unless you have muscle tissue that doesn't run by oxidation.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    57. Re:Hiroshima by radtea · · Score: 1

      Several comments:

      1) The argument that "the Japanese didn't have a great industrial infrastructure" and therefore an invasion of mainland Japan would have been relatively bloodless does not hold water. To name just a couple of nations that had even less industrial infrastructure than Japan circa 1945: Afgahnistan in the '80's and Vietnam in the '70's. Ill-equiped local forces fighting "the little war" have for centuries proven to be formidable enemies to technologically superior foreign invaders.

      2) Total victory was a political, not a military requirement, and it was justified by reference to the unsatisfactory outcome of "technical victory" in WWI. It was a widely and plausibly held view that anything short of total victory would result in another world war in 25 years, just like the last time.

      It is always easy to solve problems we never had--the invasion of mainland Japan, or the creation of a lasting peace after a "technical victory" over an unconquered enemy. But we know with certainty from similar cases that those scenarios would play out with at least as much bloodshed and horror as we actually had.

      --Tom

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    58. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're convienently overlooking the fact that while the Japanese forces had been removed from a series of Pacific islands, they still held large areas of mainland Asia including portions of China, all of Korea, and southeast asia. Would have been a bit difficult for those nations to invade Japan, no?

      Furthermore, leaving them with the same militarist government would have virtually ensured that another war to avenge their honor would have been fought against the US when they had time to regroup.

      Finally, you seem to misunderstand the nature of total war. It is to win or be destroyed. World War II was not some proxy war like Korea or Vietnam. The US saw it as a fight to the finish. The unfortunate part for the Japanese was that they overestimated themselves and underestimated the US.

    59. Re:Hiroshima by hellraizr · · Score: 2, Informative

      No they were not formidable. They had no Navy left at all. Japan has zero natural resources (iron, coal, oil), and had no stockpiles left. There is no way to "rebuild" a 20th century army from rice and wood.

      I believe you need a history lesson. america had to invade mainland japan to win the war, or force them to surrender. the japanese were willing to fight untill EVERY and I mean E. V. E. R. Y. damn one of them was dead. they had 6 million people in training (civ's, children, old people, EVERYONE!) to fight off the coming american invasion. hell they even had propaganda campaign's trying to get more support. there was literilly no other choice but to nuke them. it SAVED countless millions of lives. I trully dispise reading such uneducated garbage on slashdot, we're supposed to be the geeks, the ones that payed attention in school.

    60. Re:Hiroshima by daniel_yokomiso · · Score: 1

      People living in Dresden, Kobe or Osaka in the next decades didn't have a tendency to develop cancer. Normal bombs cease to cause damages after they explode, nuclear weaponry is foverever*

      *I know about half-life, but more than 10 centuries is forever in human life terms.

      --
      Disclaimer: If I disagree with you I'm probably trolling...
    61. Re:Hiroshima by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      > The difference between an A-Bomb and systematic firebombing is that panicked civilians can outrun fires

      I'm sorry, but if you think people can outrun fires then you have no idea what you're talking about.

      Chris Mattern

    62. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well, whenever I read these arguments about Hiroshima I'm often stunned by some of the arguments that the anti-bomb crowd throw out, simply because they are based on some factual mistakes. Note that there are still some excellent arguments about how the bomb was used (why no demonstration drop? why not more time before the 2nd bomb? etc) but those seem to rarely get brought up.

      Anyways, on to the mistakes:

      Q) Japan was already defeated, so why invade?

      A) The vast majority of the territory conquered by Japan (China, Manchuria, Korea, ect) was still occupied by Japan. The only major population area in the Japanese empire that the US invaded was the Philipines. The rest of the areas the US had invaded were small and/or sparsely populated islands. The Japanese Empire, as a whole, was still in existance and operating in 1945. Albiet at a reduced level.

      A lot of people seem to have this huge misconception that Japan had been beaten back everywhere across Asia and only had the home Islands left. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      Q) Isn't it true they had nothing left to defend the Home Islands with and we'd just do a walkover?

      A) *sigh* Okay, a 2.5 Million army + 20+ Million militia + thousands (yes thousands) of planes now counts as "nothing"?

      Q) Yeah, but wouldn't they just surrendor knowing they couldn't win?

      A) Throughout the war the Japanese had often found themselves in hopeless positions and not once did they surrendor. The cultural taboo against surrendor was so incredibly strong that almost all battles were to the death. Logically, the Japanese should have surrendered. Most of the top brass knew they couldn't win. But in no way does that mean they would have surrendered, because the decision to fight was more emotional/cultural than logical.

      If the US had invaded and the Japanese continued to fight the Japanese would have lost. But the casualties (mostly Japanese) would have been on a scale the world had never seen, dwarfing the use of the bomb.

    63. Re:Hiroshima by iomega · · Score: 1

      "However, we can go back to the question of what "honor" means. Does it mean doing everything in your power to preserve the lives of your citizens? If so, then a sneak attack can be honorable if it's the safest way to win. "All's fair"

      when u put it that way, trumans decision to spare an estimated 500,000 american lives by dropping the bomb instead of launching a seige of the main japanese islands seems pretty honorable to me

    64. Re:Hiroshima by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      still a violation of the era's martial codes
      Yet Germany declared war on no country except the United States. The only country they declared war on was the only country they couldn't invade. EVERY attack made by the Germans was a war crime; EVERY attack was made without provocation and without declaration of war.
      Apart from the initial communication problem (where the attack took place shortly before the formal declaration of war), the Japanese behaved honorably, if stupidly.

    65. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Looking from a resources standpoint, Japan presented no threat in 1941.

      No. In 41 they had accumulated material from around the world, and had many productive colonies.

      Yet they did. Left to themselves in 1945, the most likely result would have been a rearmament,

      No. The most likely result would be the ex-slaves from all those formly productive colonies mutilating any Japanese who steps foot on the Asia mainland.

    66. Re:Hiroshima by EnigmaticSource · · Score: 1

      Basically

      if (100% == 1) != (!0 == true) printf("%s", "false");

      It only takes one white crow to prove that not all crows are black.
      --
      The Geek in Black
      I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
    67. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      And how exactly would they have accomplished that? By marching their armies across the pond????

      They could've eventually got ships from somewhere- something the Japanese could never do.

      First, there were still numerous Japanese occupying forces in other countries and on several Pacific islands.

      They were unsupplied, uncommanded, and just plain weak. The US Naval and Aerial superiority was total, and no resupply would ever reach those units. Time would defeat them. But even granting them a tenacious ability to hold out in their positions, they presented no threat to the US. Infantry on a Pacific Island is not a threat.

      The lessons of World War I were too fresh to ignore.

      The victory in WWI was total enough for the winners to subject the vanquished states to severe, ceaseless reparations. It was that punishment inflicted on the fallen which was the mistake of WWI- a postconflict political/economic descision, not a military one.

    68. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The other thing you don't realize is that at the time, the USSR was very eager to "help" us finish off the Japanese.

      That was exactly my first comment that opened this whole thread!

      The atomic bombings on Japan weren't truely directed at Japan, but at the USSR. Both the US and USSR already knew that WWII was winding down, and both were looking ahead to dividing up international influence amoung the two of them for the next few decades.

    69. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the crew of the USS Indianapolis.

      Ahem, circular logic anyone? The Indianapolis was lost BECAUSE of the atomic bombing of Japan. If not for the Hiroshima mission, it never would've travelled that far from sub-hunting escorts.

      By 1945 US pilots were well practiced in detecting and destroying submarines in the Pacific. That ship's deviation from protocol was so extreme and so obviously dangerous that its commander was court martialed (even though he was just following orders).

    70. Re:Hiroshima by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      1) The argument that "the Japanese didn't have a great industrial infrastructure" and therefore an invasion of mainland Japan would have been relatively bloodless does not hold water.

      Nice for you to mention that. But who are you responding to? Nobody on this page has made that argument.

      Total victory was a political, not a military requirement, and it was justified by ref

      That's the second time someone has made that claim on this page- that WWI was a "minor" victory, but WWII was a "major" one, and that the difference was somehow important.

      The difference between the aftermaths of those two wars came not from the degree of capitulation achieved, but by the actions of the winners. After WWI, the Allied demanded money from the losers. After WWII they gave them money.

      Give people money, and they become your friends. Take their money, and they develop plans to strike back.

    71. Re:Hiroshima by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because what they teach in school is so sooth, right? No revisionist history, bias, or propaganda there to make the US look the best possible, right? No desire to enforce the sense of "patriotism" that's instilled in Americans from the day they're born, right?

      Seriously, be critical. Question. It's your duty as part of a free democracy. Frankly, I know I'm wholly uninformed regarding the intricacies of WWII, vis-a-vis the Pacific theatre, but I do know that believing every single thing I was taught in gradeschool is more than a little naive, especially with regards to history. After all, what do you think the textbooks would look like if Hitler had won?

    72. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only here in the US that we have such guilt about it.

      Makes sense, as it was the US that dropped the bomb. Why would anyone else feel guilty?

    73. Re:Hiroshima by jvonk · · Score: 1
      "...and you can outrun the vacuum effect of the updrafts pulling you into the fireball."

      Firebombing should be an atrocity of war. The mentioned effect was by design. These targets were purely civilian. At least Hiroshima could be claimed (however weakly) as a strategic target of industrial value. Dresden was designed to kill civilians.

    74. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are lowballing Dresden. The loss of life for Dresden is historically estimated at 35,000 to 135,000 (here and here). German counts of death were from 60e5-100e5.

      Anyway: remember, firebombing was much more common.

    75. Re:Hiroshima by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Odd, I've never had a problem sleeping knowing that a hostile power somewhere has an ICBM trained on the city I live in. Must be because I also know we have ICBMs trained on all their cities.

      If I don't sleep soundly, it's because of the pepperoni pizza.

    76. Re:Hiroshima by Tungbo · · Score: 1

      > I might add that the Japanese military would have shown no similar sense of honor.

      That is not entirely true. The Japanese army did try to preserve some of the cultural treasures of China while they were invading. It's the Chinese people whom they had no problem destroying. You have to remember, a treasure in hand is better than a treasure in ruin. #=(

    77. Re:Hiroshima by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Around the time Hiroshima was bombed, the bombing strategists figured out that bombing the railroad system would be a very effective strategy. If the war had gone on a few weeks longer and they'd destroyed the railyards, millions of Japanese would have starved that winter. As it was, even with relatively intact railroads and massive US help, several hundred thousand starved.

      The strategic bombing campaign over Germany happened over a few years. The bombing campaign over Japan had only started a few months earlier, and really only started happening in a big way when LeMay took over and firebombed Tokyo.

    78. Re:Hiroshima by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1
      Dresden was not the only one.
      • Hamburg suffered a similar 'hit' earlier in the war, the stated aim was to kill the workers manning the factories producing war material. I am not sure if Hamburg could have been considered a legitimate target, but it is possible. I can't remember the exact details, but the RAF attacked Hamburg 3 nights in a row (something like that) aiming for 3 areas. They screwed up to the extent that one of the areas was hit twice so another got off.
      • Darmstadt was also fire-bombed. There were two areas here which were attacked on two evenings. The flares dropped as targets on the second evening were blown off-target into some nearby woods. Almost 60 years later, those woods are still a mass of bomb-craters. Darmstadt was a minor administrative centre. When the Allies got to the area, they moved the administration to Wiesbaden because Darmstadt was such a mess.
      • Pforzheim's Industry was working with Gold and Jewelry. Pforzheim is a rather hilly area - like Dresden - and the effect of the RAF's fire-bombing was similar to the one on Dresden.
      I am not sure how much the US were involved in those three. Air Vice Marshal Arthur Harris was in charge of the RAF for the duration of the war. Back in the 1920's, he used to fly bombing atacks on Kurdish villages in Iraq. Preferably on market day. His rank was high enough for him not to be on flying duties but he liked dropping bombs on civilians.
      It has to be said that this strategy did help Britain in the early days of the war: the Germans had been attacking airfields with some success, but after a raid on Germany (possibly Berlin), Hitler personally ordered the Luftwaffe to go for civilian targets instead. This allowed the RAF time to build up their strength and inflict enough damage on the Luftwaffe to tip the balance in the air.
      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    79. Re:Hiroshima by mfrank · · Score: 1

      You must not be an elderly Chinese, Korean, or Fillipino citizen.

    80. Re:Hiroshima by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Well, since they didn't surrender after a low altitude detonation over Hiroshima, I'm kinda doubting that blowing one up over Tokyo bay would have done annything but delay nuking a few of their cities.

      And in the meantime an ungodly number of Asians would have died at the hands of the Japanese military.

    81. Re:Hiroshima by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1
      The Japanese still occupied a large part of SE Asia when those two bombs were dropped. Just as in Germany, the Allies were not going to stop until Japan was under occupation.
      WW1 was terminated by an armistice. The Germans accepted humiliating conditions because they were in no condition to fight (in addition, the war-making parties were totally discredited and the opposition had come to power). The Germans knew they were in no condition to fight because Generals like Ludendorff were telling them so. Ludendorff then became a leading member of a fascist group and spread the tale that the efforts of the valiant soldiers at the front had been undermined by the civilians at home. Hitler added the message that it was the Jews who had sapped the will to fight because their profits were suffering.

      The allies had learnt three lessons from WW1:
      • Throwing men at machine-guns is an insane way to fight a war
      • The conditions imposed on Germany/Austria at the end of WW1 were totally unjust and a prime cause of WW2. The more so because the government consisted of the anti-war parties who were subsequently rejected for making such a mess of the peace.
      • No way were the Allies going to allow elements in Japan to pull the same trick as Ludendorff and - on his coat-tails - Hitler. Japan had to be beaten and know it had been beaten.
      Dropping the 'big one' was pretty unpleasant, but it had exactly the effect it was intended to. Just leaving Japan to stew over SE Asia was not even remotely an option.
      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    82. Re:Hiroshima by mfrank · · Score: 1

      You may be interested to know that there were over two million Japanese soldiers in Korea, Manchuria, China, and SE Asia and if the US Navy had "simply turned around and gone home" those soldiers would have continued killing those Asians to the tune of about 200,000 a month.

      Your parent poster didn't mention the USSR. The fact that ending the war early saved an enormous number of lives. If the war had gone on just a few more weeks, it's likely that *millions* of Japanese would have died of starvation that winter.

    83. Re:Hiroshima by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we should have just blockaded Japan and continued firebombing their cities until the Japanese people rose up against their military and the Emperor. Tens of millions would die from starvation and disease, but the US wouldn't have to bear the shame of being the only nation crazy enough to use nuclear weapons.

      And yeah, we wouldn't have to worry about nuclear brinksmanship either. Right. If the US isn't going to nuke a country that attacks without declaring war, doesn't that kinda render the whole concept of nuclear deterrence untenable?

    84. Re:Hiroshima by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      If you want something to complain at, look at the US role in Chile 30 years ago. The Pinochet coup on the 11th of September was instigated, coordinated and paid for by the US. even to the extent that a Chilean general who would have opposed it was killed (in a botched kidnapping organised by the CIA) a while earlier.

      Two years ago, one or two Slashdotters from Chile commented on the irony of it all, and that the Chileans were a lot less sympathetic on this date than most of the rest of the world. I did not know why then, the 30-years rule mean that I do now.
      Yep, most other countries do not release that sort of document. Respect.

      I can argue a case for Hiroshima, although I can argue a case against it as well.
      Justifying the attack on the WTC requires mental processes I have no intention of acquiring.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    85. Re:Hiroshima by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      The only issue I have with that is that I think you overestimate the Kamikaze threat by implication.
      When they first appeared on the scene, they were effective as a surprise weapon. After that they were ineffective in a military sense but acted as a symbol for both sides, they will have been a contributory factor in the US decision to drop nukes.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    86. Re:Hiroshima by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      The submarines were undirected, unfueled, and helpless. The kamikazes left in the "air force" were Tsurugi, a kind of wooden plane built after running out of steel. They were never known to hit a single target- they rarely had enough petrol to take off.
      uh, I thought they were gliders with no engine at all. They were pulled up to altitude by another aircraft and then released.

      The Japanese Army still occupied a large chunk of SE Asia. The Japanese surrender meant a hell of a lot to those occupied territories - they were in no condition to kick the Japanese army out themselves. Leaving the Japanese to their empire was not an acceptable option.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    87. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dresden was payback for the German bombing of Coventry (a city with no military and extensive historical value). And as they say, payback's a bitch.

    88. Re:Hiroshima by mfrank · · Score: 1

      There were quite a few Japanese that survived firebomb attacks by running like hell at the first sign their city was being bombed. Not all the bombs hit at once, and it took a while for the firestorm to develop.

      After the first few missions, US planes started dropping pamphlets on cities telling them when they'd be bombed.

    89. Re:Hiroshima by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      Slightly different context - slightly different everything, but one of the CSA Generals (Joe Johnstone ?) had a phrase for armchair warriors who claimed that the South had not really been defeated or 'knew' how the South could have won.

      Invisible in war, invincible in defeat.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    90. Re:Hiroshima by mfrank · · Score: 1

      And according to Kurt Vonnegut, who was a POW in Dresden and survived because their air-raid shelter was an air-tight meat locker (Slaughterhouse 5), the people in regular air raid shelters (not air-tight) were rendered down to about a half-inch of lard on the floor.

    91. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem, circular logic anyone? The Indianapolis was lost BECAUSE of the atomic bombing of Japan. If not for the Hiroshima mission, it never would've travelled that far from sub-hunting escorts.

      Wait a minute! I thought the Japanese subs were unfueled an helpless. How did they sink a ship, then?

      At first, I was intrigued by your posts. The more I read, though, the more disappointed I've been. Now it reads like you believe that the US should have just gone home, refused to fight, and left the Japanese alone to rebuild because somebody else might eventually finish the job anyway.

    92. Re:Hiroshima by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were largely untouched to that point and they had significant manufacturing and logistical facilities. They weren't just filled with helpless civilians

      Actually Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely untouched by intention. These cities were deliberately preserved from allied bombings, along with Dresden and perhaps other German cities, for the purpose of having pristine targets onto which to drop the Atomic Bomb so we could determine with greater certainty the effects of nuclear weapons.

      When the writing was on the wall and it was only a matter of time before the allied victory in Europe, we decided to bomb the hell out of Dresden, conventionally, more or less just to see what would happen. If the Nazis had held out longer, or if the Atomic Bomb was created sooner, Dresden would have been nuked.

      However, I do agree with your point that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done for reasons other than impressing Josef Stalin and "scientific research". The anticipated casulties of the planned amphibious invasion of the Japanese home islands were so great that the Atomic Bomb was used to shock Japan into unconditional surrender. The lesson to Japan in August, 1945 was this: You may continue fighting if you want, but if you do, we are just going to kill all of you with super weapons for which there is no defense whatsoever.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    93. Re:Hiroshima by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      I think that you are underestimating the military capability of the Japanese at the end of the war. It's true that their naval and air forces were largely destroyed. It's also true that Japan was isolated from vital war materials.

      It's also true that the Japanese resistance on Saipan, the first pre-war Japanese island invaded by the US, was so great that Japanese soldiers forced Japanese civilians to jump of cliffs to their deaths rather than suffer the indignity of falling under the occupation of the United States.

      Furthermore, the ability of a people willing to spend their lives like water in resistence to an enemy cannot be underestimated. Consider Vietnam, for example. Also consider the tremendous resistance of the Japanese on Iwo Jima and other more or less worthless pieces of rock in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Consider the strident attitude of the North Koreans today - uncooperative despite rampant malnutrition. People don't give up so easily, even if they have no resources with which to fight.

      The bottom line is that unless the United States was willing to accept a negotiated settlement to the war leaving the same clique that started war in power, rather than an unconditional surrender, more Japanese soldiers and civilians would have died had we not used the Atomic Bomb and had invaded Japan conventionally instead.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    94. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      No. The most likely result would be the ex-slaves from all those formly productive colonies mutilating any Japanese who steps foot on the Asia mainland.


      Uh, the Japanese still occupied Korea, Manchuria, and many other areas in 1945. They were never invaded. The U.S. just took the Pacific islands. So, they could have easily built up their military and industry in Manchuria and China with the slave labor.

    95. Re:Hiroshima by The+Wing+Lover · · Score: 1
      Hiroshima is gorgeous. It's not a crater and not a radioactive wasteland

      Yeah, but that huge park in the centre of the city used to be a built-up area. I think that the magnitude of what had happened in Hiroshima hit me the hardest when I was walking through the Peace Park and came across the map as the area used to be.

      --

      - In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!

    96. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thank you for that very insightful and informative post. I'm in complete agreement.
      • You need to read some history books (besides the ones written and printed in Japan).
      Exactly. Modern Japanese history books completely fail to include many negative factual events that happened in their not-so-rosy past. The government must feel that future generations shouldn't have to know the complete truth, especially when it puts their country in such negative light. Fear for Japanese future...

      "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [The Life of Reason (1905)]
      --Santayana, George 1863 - 1952
    97. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bet Hamburg was a legitimate target. The attack was at the height of the Battle of the Atlantic, and guess where most of the U-boats were built? It was also Germany's second-largest city. The attack obliterated Hamburg,stunned the rest of Germany and apparently Speer said afterwards that another six attacks like that and Germany was out of the war. A fourth raid had to be called off due to bad weather, but the previous three raids had been enough to flatten it.

      Darmstadt belongs to the generally controversial 1945 RAF bombing campaign, where they resumed area bombing after supporting the armies after D-day. By that stage there was little left to bomb and so second-rank cities like Darmstadt got caught up in it.

      My own feelings? I don't like area bombing as a strategy but Germany started it (Guernica, Rotterdam, etc etc) and pre-D-Day it was the only way Britain could bring the war back to German soil. Harris' first phase from Cologne to Hamburg was IMHO both successful and justified. The subsquent "Battle of Berlin" was justified but Harris should have realised he'd been beaten earlier. And what possessed him to launch the Nuremberg raid? Post D-Day the rationale for nearly all area bombing IMHO disappeared and Harris should have been reigned in well before Dresden.

      Due to European weather in practice the USAF was frequently unable to get its required accuracy and late in the war many of its raids were essentially day-time area bombing. In a recent documentary I saw called "Germany's war" in an episode on allied bombing they said that the most casualties suffered in any raid on Berlin was a US *daylight* raid in early 1945 that killed over 25,000.

      Similarly, the British did on occasion do precision attacks, the most famous being the "dam busters".

      And of course the US switched to an area bombing strategy against Japan for very similar reasons to the British earlier in the war.

      There was a lot more overlap between the bombing strategies of the two major allies than is generally believed.

    98. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dresden was indeed a strategic target; it was a major communications and transport hub for the last stand of the Wehrmacht against the Russian army in the area. The question is whether it deserved the total devastation it received, which exceeded any other city in the European theatre.

      Incidentally, don't forget that apart from the RAF there was a US daylight raid the next day to finish off the survivors, and that included the notorious incident of refugee columns being straffed by P51 escort fighters. If Dresden was an atrocity, it wasn't just a British one...

    99. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One does not outrun a firestorm. The winds created by the fire updrafts are incredibly strong.

      The reason that far fewer people were killed in Nagasaki than Hiroshima was that in the former case while there were fires mainly because of the city's topography they didn't join to form a firestorm proper.

    100. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Estimates of the death toll at Dresden vary wildly. Not surprising given that the city had no idea it was on the target list and hence hadn't prepared, it was late in the war and German record-keeping was in chaos and it then became part of the GDR.

      35,000 is the absolute lowest figure I've seen quoted. I've seen as high as 120,000. We'll never know for sure, but I would guess it was around the 100,000 mark. After all, 50,000 were killed in the Hamburg attack and that's not remembered as being as devastating as Dresden.

    101. Re:Hiroshima by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      And in Germany during the Second World War, for the most part bombing didn't greatly degrade the infrastructure.

      Even as the Soviets entered eastern Berlin, it was possible to make a phone call from Nazi Berlin to Soviet Berlin and to grab a train out of the city, as long as the Hitler Youth and SS Warewolves didn't shoot you.

      Tactical bombing did have some good times over France at slowing down the rail operations, but for the most part, American, British and German bombing didn't do a good job with the tactics they used.

      Also remember that it's estimated that hundreds of thousands of Allied POWs were on the verge of starvation within the Septemeber-December 1945 timeframe, POWs who were saved by the quick end of the war from the atomic bombing.

    102. Re:Hiroshima by CargoCultCoder · · Score: 1

      I find this astounding. We dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and utterly destroyed the city, and Japan did not take immediate steps to surrender.

      Yet Teller (and presumably others) think that they would have reacted more rapidly by demonstration over water?

    103. Re:Hiroshima by CargoCultCoder · · Score: 1
      The bombing was irrelevant for purposes of defeating Japan however. The Japanese ability to wage offensive war had been completely destroyed.

      Bull. Japan's ability to wage naval warfare had been effectively destroyed, but her ability to wage land warfare had not. In summer 1945, 100,000 lives a month were being lost in China and Southeast Asia either as a direct result of Japanese aggression or as a consequence of their occupation (e.g., starvation).

      Japan's core leadership, with the Emperor's explicit agreement, was striving for a major victory of some sort on the Asian mainland, that they could then use as leverage in peace negotiations. Meanwhile, they had raised force levels in Kyushu to such an extent that US planners were having serious second thoughts about the wisdom of invading.

      It certainly would have been possible to blockade and strangle Japan (like the deaths caused by that would somehow be better than dying by the bomb). However, that would have done virtually nothing to bring her considerable forces in mainland Asia to heel, or to slow the massive loss of life occurring there monthly.

      The best they could've made were wooden ships to sail to Korea

      They were already in Korea, in force. If anything, they needed ships to sail from Korea to Japan (to feed the populace there, which was facing severe food shortages in winter 1945), than the other way around.

    104. Re:Hiroshima by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Japan was far more vulnerable to bombing and blockade. Japanese cities were mostly wood, and they had almost no air defense systems and few air raid shelters. Most of the freight transport was done by ships, even between cities on the same island. There wasn't much railroad transport (most of it was to take freight to ports) and their road system was abysmal. B-29s were also used to drop mines in harbors; between that, submarines, and carrier-base planes, the Japanese merchant marine was decimated. About all they had left was their railroads, and they would have been easily destroyed. Japan didn't have the capability to repair their infrastructure like the Europeans did; I guess their arrogance caused them to totally dismiss the need for civil defense preparations. By the end of the war one of their main sources of metal was US bomb fragments. Strategic bombing and blockade would have utterly crushed Japan.

      Just got done reading "Downfall" by Richard Frank; it's got some pretty interesting stuff about the end of the war in Japan.

    105. Re:Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are boring, get some new material.

  7. Wow he was old by flopsy+mopsalon · · Score: 1

    95 is an impressively long time for a human being to live. I would bet that all the nuclear materials Teller worked with somehow mutated him into having extraordinary longevity. Let's hope they do a comprehensive autopsy on Teller to see if radiation was indeed the cause of his long life.

    1. Re:Wow he was old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're being facetious, but 95 isn't particularly old - Japan has ~20,000 people over 100.

    2. Re:Wow he was old by nlangille · · Score: 1

      Well that just supports his nuclear mutationl theory. Think of all the radiation floating around Japan ;)

    3. Re:Wow he was old by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Funny
      95 is an impressively long time for a human being to live. I would bet that all the nuclear materials Teller worked with somehow mutated him into having extraordinary longevity.

      Leni Riefenstahl died the same (previous?) day aged 101! Maybe making Nazi propaganda movies is the secret to longevity?

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    4. Re:Wow he was old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      95 is an impressively long time for a human being to live.

      Especially for an American. The average USian dies at a younger age than many other first world countries such as Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Japan, to name just a few places.

    5. Re:Wow he was old by javiercero · · Score: 1

      And a population of over 100+ million people. Yeah 20K people are just soooooooo many out of all those millions of people. Go ahead work the percentage, jeez!

    6. Re:Wow he was old by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but what people are forgetting is that this was really just his half life....

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    7. Re:Wow he was old by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      According to this United Nations report, 66 million people are aged 80 or older. Of that population, 59 million are octogenarians, 7 million are nonagenarians, and 135,000 are centenarians.

      As you can see, it's a rather steep curve. While Teller's lifespan of 95 years is respectable, it isn't terribly remarkable,and pales in importance next to his scientific career.

      (BTW,if the Japanese figures quoted in the parent posts were correct, the Japanese comprise 2 percent of the world's population, but Japanese centenarians make up 15 percent of the world's population aged over 100 years.)

    8. Re:Wow he was old by diatonic · · Score: 1

      I don't see how exposure to ionizing radiation could possibly extend a human's life. When a cell absorbs radiation, there are four possible effects on the cell. First, the cell may suffer enough damage to cause loss of proper function, and the cell will die. Second, the cell may lose its ability to reproduce. Third, the cell's genetic code (the DNA) may be damaged such that future copies of the cell are altered, which may result in cancerous growth. Finally, the absorption of radiation by a cell may have no adverse effect.

      Cells that are damaged by radiation exposure can often repair themselves, if given the time. If a cell reproduces before it can repair itself is when you have problems. Cells that reproduce quickly are more suceptable to radiation exposure.

      Besides these direct attacks to cells from radiation, radiation exposure can also create enzymes n the body which attack cells causing damage. I think the only way radiation exposure could potentially help a human being would be targeting cancerous areas and killing all cancerous cells.

      .:diatonic:.

    9. Re:Wow he was old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Mr. Science, how does that explain the Hulk?

    10. Re:Wow he was old by turgid · · Score: 1

      No, it's the super spider powers, silly.

    11. Re:Wow he was old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a cell absorbs radiation, there are four possible effects on the cell

      Gee, we must know absolutely everything there is to know about the effects of radiation on cells. I bet there are some really bored scientists sitting around !

    12. Re:Wow he was old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there's another Teller around somewhere?

  8. Check out "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    By Richard Rhoads.

    It's a fantastic book about the creation of the Atomic Bomb -- from when scientists first realized the possibility, through the manhatten project. It's set against the backdrop of political events of the first half of the century and provides a fascinating account of the entire experience, including the actions of Edward Teller.

    I'd highly recommend it.

    1. Re:Check out "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by shelby289 · · Score: 1

      Also Check out "The Making of the Hydrogen bomb" by the same author. Teller was the scientist most responsible for pushing for the "Super" or Thermonuclear weapons. Very smart man, staunch anti-communist. He was one of the main people who pushed to revoke Oppenhimer's security clearance.

      --
      This is the way the world ends, not with a bang , but a wimper
    2. Re:Check out "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by arri · · Score: 1

      Wrong book, what you want to read for information on Teller and H-bombs is:

      R. Rhodes,
      Dark Sun: The making of the Hydrogen Bomb
      Simon & Schuster
      ISBN: 0-684-81690-3

      Available, for example, on Amazon.

    3. Re:Check out "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by ralphb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correct - I just happened to be reading Dark Sun when I heard that Teller had died. It was a weird coincidence.

      The book paints Teller as ideosyncratic and egomaniacal, but brilliant. That seems to apply to many of the atomic scientists (Oppenheimer, et al).

      The book goes into a lot of great tech detail about the H-Bomb. Building it was an enormously complex engineering problem. The first H-bomb was a cylinder with hemispherical ends that was over 20 feet long and over 6 feet in diameter, and used an A-bomb at one end to start the fusion reaction.

      Also, they could only do limited testing, so most of the predictions were purely theoretical. The book recounts one test of a Lithium-reaction H-Bomb that was expected to yield about a 6-Megaton blast that actually was over 15-Megatons. Caught the scientists off guard and caused some injuries and damage because the blast radius was so much larger than expected.

      The book was rather dry and slow in places, but overall is a pretty good read.

    4. Re:Check out "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by jstott · · Score: 1
      Also check out its companion Dark Sun Rising, also by Richard Rhoads, which is about the making of the hydrogen bomb, but also gets into a number of other historically relevant topics (such as Teller getting Oppenhiemer's security clearance yanked because he was insufficiently in favor of thermonuclear weapons development).

      -JS

      --
      Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...
    5. Re:Check out "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by ralphart · · Score: 1

      Another interesting book on a similar subject is Brotherhood of the Bomb, by Gregg Herken, which examines more of the politics of the time and centers around Teller, Oppenheimer and Lawrence. Coincidentally, I finished reading it the night before Teller passed away.

      There is a website for the book at:
      www.brotherhoodofthebomb.com

    6. Re:Check out "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll find that Teller figures prominently in both books ;)

  9. Yes by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1, Funny

    Truly an American icon

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    1. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was a dangerous, misinformed asshole. Is that what you meant?

    2. Re:Yes by Lx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, like Leni Riefenstahl, also dead today. Both vigorously supported some of the most destructive and forces known to humanity. Together, they could probably take over hell.

    3. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kurva anyad, az!!

  10. In Memory of the man... by ChrisHanel · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...since he was referred to as "Dr. Strangelove" by some, i only thought it appropriate to quote a line that Teller would have found quite appropriate...

    "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world!?"

    --

    -=-This sig brought to you by The Cheat; and by Viewers Like You.-=-

    1. Re:In Memory of the man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world!?"

      This one should be moded as funny.

    2. Re:In Memory of the man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason people referred to him as Strangelove is that he was a model for the mad scientist in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. Read more about it here.

      Incidentally, there is nothing cool about Teller, whose activities included testifying at a congressional hearing against Los Alamos project leader Oppenheimer during the McCarthy era Red Scare.

  11. A great loss by leeum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some will mourn the loss of a man who vocally advocated the a strong national defense and who made great contributions to the development of the hydrogen bomb. I'm sure as well that others will castigate the man for those very same achievements.

    However, I remember myself as a geeky kid in Malaysia interested in science and technology, writing a letter to one of the 'great names'. I was quite amazed to receive a personal reply to my letter, typewritten but signed by hand. His reply was humble (he never put down any of what must have seemed to him to be naive and silly observations), encouraging (the words "I am pleased that there are children from all over the world like you who are interested in science." aren't much to an adult, but they sure meant a lot to me as a kid!) and inspiring.

    That sums up the man in my mind, and I mourn the loss of that man.

    1. Re:A great loss by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was quite amazed to receive a personal reply to my letter, typewritten but signed by hand.

      Wow, so you actually have a Teller number of 1 ?
      If you would only be so kind as to reply to my reply, then I could boast a Teller number of 2.

    2. Re:A great loss by refactored · · Score: 1
      Ah. So when is Malaysia going to detonate its first?

      I take it Singapore will be the test site....

      Or are you on the other side of that one?

    3. Re:A great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Castrate != castigate, you fucking ninny.

    4. Re:A great loss by leeum · · Score: 1

      Done. :)

    5. Re:A great loss by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 1

      Woohoo! Thanks. :)

  12. Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by platform · · Score: 3, Funny

    Edward Teller: advocated the use of nuclear weapons for everything from digging holes to brushing teeth.

    Charles Simonyi: primarily responsible for the creation of Microsoft Office and Hungarian notation. *shudder*

    Coincidence or evil Hungarian conspiracy?

    1. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by ruprechtjones · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but "Intential Programming" won't dig us new canals now, will it?

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
    2. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...you forgot Keyser Soze: no explanation needed.

    3. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by ruprechtjones · · Score: 1

      Um, Intentional Programming. whoops. sorry Charlie (heh heh).

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
    4. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by Indy1 · · Score: 1

      ironic you use the term hungarian conspiracy... During the Manhattan Project a large number of senior scientists on the project were hungarian and were known humorously as the hungarian conspiracy. Teller, Wigner, Szilard, and perhaps a few others were referred to by this name.

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    5. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 4, Funny
      There is a story that at one of the meetings at Los Alamos, Feynman was absent and Fermi had to leave the room for some reason. At this point one of the remaining physicists in the room said:
      Jol van, most maygarul folytathatunk.
      (Fine, now we can continue in Hungarian.)
      --
      Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    6. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's "magyarul", you bumbling idiot!

    7. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by rossz · · Score: 1
      The correct Hungarian is:
      Jo'l van, most folytathatjuk magyarul.
      The accent should be over the o (in Jol), but slashdot doesn't allow accents (I tried using amp+ocute+; but it stripped it), so I settled for a "flying accent".
      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    8. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to mention von Neumann for his contribution
      of course he was hungarian too

    9. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by Isti · · Score: 1
      Charles Simonyi? OMG, MS Office has Hungarian roots? Tell me more about that.

      If it is true, all I can say is:

      EVIL EVIL EVIL Hungary!
      Ops, that would make me evil too. Would using Openoffice make up for it?
    10. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by elohim · · Score: 1

      ObHungarian: don't forget Andy Grove!

    11. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by chad_r · · Score: 1

      Was this Leo Szilard?

    12. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by balazsa · · Score: 1

      and John Neumann, we really face with cospiracy done by Hungarian jewish immigrants

      --
      Is it right? Not?
    13. Re:Hungary is EVIL I tells ya! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the difference between a Hungarian and a Romanian?

      They'd both sell their grandmothers, but the Romanian delivers!

  13. Edward Teller, via IOP by photoblur · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I just received news of Edward Teller's passage today via PhysicsWeb update, a physics news summary service of the Institute of Physics. Here's what they had to say:
    Edward Teller dies (Sep 10) http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/9/6 Edward Teller died on September 9 at his home on the campus of Stanford University in California, having had a stroke a few days earlier, according to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Teller was instrumental in the development of the hydrogen bomb, having previously worked on the Manhattan atomic-bomb project during the Second World War. A passionate advocate of nuclear weapons, he angered many physicists after he gave evidence at the 1954 trial of Robert Oppenheimer, the leader of the Manhattan project, that led to Oppenheimer losing his security clearance.
  14. Glad he was on our side by Teeja · · Score: 2, Informative
    If it weren't for Teller, the Soviets might have developed (and used) the H-bomb first. Glad he was on our side.

    Here a link to an interesting interview with Teller along with some video clips: Teller Interview

    1. Re:Glad he was on our side by Sleeper · · Score: 1

      Actually Soviets did develop and tested H-bomb first . That is after stealing A-bomb secrets.

      --
      - Back off man. I am a scientist
    2. Re:Glad he was on our side by Sleeper · · Score: 1

      Actually no. I am wrong It was US.

      --
      - Back off man. I am a scientist
    3. Re:Glad he was on our side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it weren't for Teller, the Soviets might have developed (and used) the H-bomb first. Glad he was on our side.

      Bullshit! The USSR developed the H-bomb first. What the hell would they have used it on anyway. It was part of this stupid international pissing contest known as the cold-war.

    4. Re:Glad he was on our side by javiercero · · Score: 1

      They could also have developed fart bombs and kill us all while we pilled up on a mountain of vomit. The ruskies had the A-bomb, jeez those bombs did sure rain on our cities didn't them.

    5. Re:Glad he was on our side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It was Soviets in 1953. First US H-bomb wasn't a bomb but whole cryogenic lab. It was built for experiment only and hadn't actual military value. Soviet bomb was a real weapon. It was transported to target by standard russian bomber RDS-1. Soviet H-bomb was developed by Dmitry Sakharov.

    6. Re:Glad he was on our side by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Soviet H-bomb was developed by Dmitry Sakharov.

      Maybe that's why Elcomsoft's Skylarov (sp?) was arrested... A case of mistaken identity!

  15. Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be new around here...

  16. whew! by Comsn · · Score: 0, Redundant

    i thought you meant Teller of Pen & Teller...

    i thought he was somehow 95 and that he died. i need sleep :(

  17. obituary writer dead too by jwachter · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Did anyone notice that the obituary in the New York Times was written by someone who himself is already dead?

    Walter Sullivan, a science writer and editor for The New York Times, died in 1996.

    Spooky.

    1. Re:obituary writer dead too by ChrisHanel · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yeah, papers like the New York Times tend to stockpile Obituaries for people they know are going to kick the bucket soon. Obviously, Teller hung around a lot longer than they expected.

      IIRC, there was a website slipup where obituaries for people who weren't dead yet suddenly appeared in a code glitch. I think Ronald Reagan was one of them... pretty amusing how poignant they read.

      --

      -=-This sig brought to you by The Cheat; and by Viewers Like You.-=-

    2. Re:obituary writer dead too by sssmashy · · Score: 1

      It was the same with Bob Hope's obituary in the NY Times; it was written by Vincent Canby, who predeceased him by several years. Ironic, in a morbid kind of way.

    3. Re:obituary writer dead too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Did anyone notice that the obituary in the New York Times was written by someone who himself is already dead?"

      Tis a standard journalism practise to have canned obituaries at the ready for notable people. Walter Sullivan did some of the best. Here an excerpt of one of my personal favourites.

      http://www.gbn.com/BookClubSelectionDisplayServl et .srv?si=81

    4. Re:obituary writer dead too by WEFUNK · · Score: 1

      IIRC, there was a website slipup where obituaries for people who weren't dead yet suddenly appeared in a code glitch. I think Ronald Reagan was one of them... pretty amusing how poignant they read.

      It was a CNN webserver, and was fark.com that found and linked to the pages that included the pre-written obituaries. Some of them are available at The Smoking Gun.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
    5. Re:obituary writer dead too by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Man, if I was old and famous, it'd be kind of cool to see if I could get a copy of my own obituary from the Times.

      Hopefully none of them were written by Jason Blair.

  18. 95? by Kethinov · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Damn. If I died at 95 I'd be pretty pissed off about it. I bet he was shooting for the three digits.

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    1. Re:95? by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      Like Leni Riefenstahl?

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  19. So what is Penn going to do.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... now that Teller is dead?

  20. fairwell by ruprechtjones · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rest in peace, o ye father of the cold war. And may lessons be learned from your mistakes, your regrets, and your insights.

    --
    Kip Hawley is an idiot.
  21. Friend to the Environment by sssmashy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few years ago, he and colleagues submitted a paper to Nature that suggested dispersing sulfur dioxide or other submicron particles in the stratosphere to block sunlight and thus halt global warming.

    Easing the effects of one kind of pollutant by adding a whole bunch of other pollutants to the atmosphere. Goodbye, global warming; hello, acid rain! Between that, and the whole hydrogen bomb thing, I'm guessing he wasn't up for Greenpeace's Man of the Year award.

    1. Re:Friend to the Environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What gets me about his work on nukes is not that he developed the H-bomb, but that he tried to promote it as not just a weapon, but as a floor wax and dessert topping as well.

      For example, using H-bombs to do excavation.

      That's just loony. I guess it might help get him more research funding from the government, and, really, is there anything more important than that?

    2. Re:Friend to the Environment by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Good on him. Nobody's done more damage to the world and the progression of science than greenpeace. Their scaremongering and anti-nuclear propoganda has kept us in the dark ages digging up dead dinosaurs and spewing their burnt remains into the air.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    3. Re:Friend to the Environment by marko123 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he had just watched The Matrix for the first time.

      --
      http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
    4. Re:Friend to the Environment by confused+one · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You know, it wouldn't have to be sulfer dioxide. It could just as easily be corn starch...

      btw, we don't care what Greenpeace thinks... Mwahahaha

  22. It should also be said.. by cmowire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It should also be said that he unfairly denounced another scientist, Robert Oppenheimer, as a comunist. Because Oppenheimer didn't think we should go for the H-bomb.

    Not exactly a nice guy, glowing obituaries asside.

    1. Re:It should also be said.. by hoofie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Extract from Times Obituary :

      "He was later to say that, unlike Oppenheimer, he was opposed to the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, and would have preferred a demonstration of the new weapon's power to Japanese scientists. Nevertheless, in his memoirs, published in 2001, Teller admitted, while continuing to believe that Oppenheimer's opposition to the H-bomb was wrong, that the hearings had been a mistake, and that he himself had been unwise to testify."
    2. Re:It should also be said.. by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Informative
      ...he unfairly denounced another scientist...


      Read the Venona transcripts. Teller was right, Oppenheimer *was* a communist sympathizer at the very least.

      "...we can say for certain that Oppenheimer did in fact knowingly supply classified information on the atom bomb to the Soviet Union." While he directed the Manhattan Project, it was known that J. Robert Oppenheimer's wife, brother, and sister-in-law were all members of the Communist Party. The fact that he regularly gave a large portion of his salary to the Communist Party was also common knowledge among government officials overseeing the project. This should have made him at the least a security risk for a project with such deep ramifications for national security. It didn't. In Venona, Oppenheimer is identified with the code-name "Veskel." One message instructs agents to "re-establish contact with 'Veskel'...as soon as possible." In 1994, a year before the deciphered Venona cables were released, the man in charge of Soviet spying on America's atom bomb project revealed that Oppenheimer had supplied the Soviets with classified reports on atom bomb development."

      Teller was spot-on, and was/has been pilloried for DECADES by leftist sympathizers for his integrity.

      (quoted from http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/novemb er_2000_4.html, but confirmed by reading it personally)
      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:It should also be said.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      His relatives' affiliations with the CP are known. But Oppenheimer himself was never even accused of being a Communist, AFAIK. His security clearance was yanked on the much more nebulous grounds that Teller and others didn't think him trustworthy. They had nothing very concrete to back this up.

      The Verona transcripts are not proof. As noted, sources in it are identified only by code name. I don't believe it is an established fact that Oppenheimer gave anything to the Soviets. They acquired data from the Manhattan Project from other sources, principally Klaus Fuchs.

    4. Re:It should also be said.. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Go on & keep defending him, I guess it depends on your standards of proof.

      The codename for Oppenheimer was, AFAIK, (it's been a while since I read it) correlated to him based on conversations in the Venona docs that remarked about events in Veskel's life, etc. I don't believe it was even contested.

      Oppenheimer had been a financial supporter of Communist causes in the 1930s and had social ties not only to party members but also to senior Communist operatives on the West Coast. Several members of his family--his brother, sister-in-law, and his wife--were Communists. His wife's first husband had been a Communist organizer killed fighting in the Spanish Civil War, and she was close to Steve Nelson, a party official with disturbingly close ties to Soviet intelligence. A number of Oppenheimer's graduate students and several of the people he hired to work on the Manhattan Project were known party members. In 1943 Oppenheimer had reluctantly told security officials a bizarre story about being approached to spy for the Russians. Even when the United States government withdrew his security clearance in 1954, however, it didn't claim that he was a Soviet agent, only that his behavior made him a security risk. FBI wiretaps declassified a few years ago revealed that Oppenheimer was himself a secret member of the Communist party.

      Pavel Sudoplatov, the former Soviet spymaster claimed that Gregory Kheifitz, the KGB's resident in San Francisco, had met with Oppenheimer in December 1941, at which time the physicist had worried that the Nazis might build an atomic bomb before the Americans. Kheifitz allegedly introduced Elizabeth Zarubina, a KGB officer, to Oppenheimer's wife, through whom the Los Alamos director could stay in touch with the Russians; through this contact, Sudoplatov claimed, Oppenheimer facilitated Klaus Fuchs's arrival at Los Alamos. Sudoplatov also mentioned another point of entry Soviet intelligence used to get access to Oppenheimer: a Soviet mole, a Polish-born Jewish dentist, planted in California in the 1930s but long since out of touch and reactivated by Zarubina because of his close ties to Oppenheimer.

      FURTHER, Sacred Secrets reprints a 1944 memo from Vsevelod Merkulov to Lavrenty Beria. It notes that Soviet agents obtained important atomic information through Comintern contacts in the United States with Kheifitz and Zarubina. The memo goes on: "In 1942 one of the leaders of scientific work on uranium in the USA, Professor R. Oppenheimer, while being an unlisted member of the apparatus of Comrade Browder, informed us about the beginning of work. On the request of Comrade Kheifitz, confirmed by Comrade Browder, he provided cooperation in access to research for several of our tested sources including a relative of Comrade Browder."

      (large chunks of this post taken from various web sources, simply because I didn't have time to retype it all in my words)

      Ultimately, it depends on your standards of proof. If you are CONVINCED that he was not a spy then simply nothing short of a poster-sized print of JRO handing a big red file marked "ATOMIC SECRETS" to Natasha and Boris figures with SPY in big white letters on their hats will convince you. Sorry, I don't think such a level of proof exists.

      But to suggest that there is some question about Oppenheimer takes EITHER an assertive act of naivete or a political agenda.

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:It should also be said.. by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Wow, so not only did he welcome our new atomic overlords, he was useful in rounding up others to toil in the underground sugar caves, too! Eeerie...

    6. Re:It should also be said.. by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, Oppenheimer *was* a communist when he was younger.

  23. What a legacy by veg_all · · Score: 1


    The H-Bomb and SDI.

    And getting Oppenheimer's clearance revoked by casting doubts on his patriotism.

    If you want to read about a genuinely interesting and curious bomb-physicist, check this out.

    --
    grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
  24. Wrong. by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Their main task is to never be used, to just sit there and look evil.

    That we have them to use discourages their use.

    1. Re:Wrong. by k8to · · Score: 1

      Does that really make sense to you? Because it sure doesn't to me.

      --
      -josh
  25. Praise? I think not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Edward Teller did more to bring this world to the brink of destruction than any other human that has ever lived.

    His ego drove him to push the hydrogen bomb on the world, and his ego prevented him from both admitting his mistake and from doing his best (like many of the other scientists who aided him) to make amends.

    For those of who you insist the hydrogen bomb is necessary for national security, you're both ignorant and foolish. The hydrogen bomb has basically no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

    A non-hydrogen based atomic bomb has more than enough bang to destroy our enemies. The ONLY use for a hydrogen bomb is planetary destruction.

    I, for one, will not miss Teller in the least. He represents the worst of humanity. He was willing to put his ego ahead of, quite literally, ALL else.

    1. Re:Praise? I think not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with hydrogen bombs? They make big booms! Big booms are cool. =)

    2. Re:Praise? I think not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting all those wicked-cool videos of the Bikini Atoll being blown all to fucking hell.

      Now THAT was worth the price of admission...

    3. Re:Praise? I think not. by notAyank · · Score: 1

      erm, yeah, I totally agree. Where is all this RIP crap coming from? He was a egomaniacal psychopath who branded anyone who stood in his way as a communist.

    4. Re:Praise? I think not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He was not a likeable guy but the hydrogen bomb is a good tool. It is a cost saver.

      With thermonuclear bombs, city busters are big, heavy, very dirty and not so effective at destruction. Combine that with ineffectiveness of cruise control mechanisms, and suddenly a sneak attack becomes a viable option unless the enemy has tens of thousands of ICBMs each carrying a single warhead of massive weight.

      H bombs are not lightweight either, but compared to thermonuclears of same explosive capacity, they sure are. With H bombs, both sides could save money on ICBMs, ICBM sites, development costs etc. and keep MAD at the same time. Consider that all money spent on nukes is (hopefully) wasted and you will appriciate it.

    5. Re:Praise? I think not. by 10Ghz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But Oppenheimer really was a communist.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    6. Re:Praise? I think not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even a H2 bomb isn't powerful enough to destroy a planet. At best, a sufficient number of detonations could destroy most mammalian life.

      Even after a "nuclear winter" scenario, the planet itself would be just fine until the sun starts to expand in its red giant phase.

      As to all out nuclear war, I'm all for it. I say: bring it on!

    7. Re:Praise? I think not. by hellraizr · · Score: 1

      now see it's people like this who just ruin my day. you don't know what the f**k your talking about! the russians would have developed it if we hadn't, and likely USED IT! the only reason they didn't is cause we had better ones at the time. and furthermore the bomb does have redeeming qualities in the area of interplanetary and deep space travel. dropping an h-bomb out the back of a space craft is one of the most promissing ways to get to other stars (with our current technology). gawd people like you should be shot!

    8. Re:Praise? I think not. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > He was a egomaniacal psychopath who branded anyone who stood in his way as a communist.

      Wow, what ignorance. I'm glad then (from your nick) that you're "Not a Yank," cuz we don't need any more stupid people in my country! Egomaniac, maybe, but he was fucking brilliant. We have about 50% egomaniacs on /. ferchristsake!

      Psychopath? I don't know where you get that from, except possibly the idea that we should detonate an H-Bomb in Alaska to form a new bay for improved transportation... OK, yeah... that psychopath.

      BUT my main argument is the communist point. He accused one person of being a communist sympathizer. The kicker? HE FUCKING WAS, you dolt. He ID'ed him CORRECTLY, and even later said that he himself should not have testified against Oppenheimer (does that sound like an egomaniac to you?).

    9. Re:Praise? I think not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Edward Teller did more to bring this world to the brink of destruction than any other human that has ever lived.

      How many people died from H-bomb? and how many people died in the Gulag? While clearly the drive
      to build one of the most destructive weapons of human kind can be looked at with horror, let's not exaggarate how evil Teller was. You may disagree
      with his reasons but but blanket statements
      like

      "For those of who you insist the hydrogen bomb is necessary for national security, you're both ignorant and foolish."

      show only YOUR ignorance. It's 2003 and not 1950!!! There were many illustrious individuals who agreed
      with the arms-race as a preventive measure. Paranoid -- yes, wrong? who is to say? We would have all preferred a world without the cold war & the H, but you can't go back and say: the Soviets
      would have send love boats if we just didn't build the bomb. They blew theirs in just 3 years time...

      By the same argument you could dismiss others of his generation like von Neumann. He was also a "reactionary" by most standards. But then again,
      you didn't live through a Communist regime and Fascist regime like they both did. THAT REPRESENTED THE WORST OF HUMANITY.

      You may still disagree with building the H, but
      you're naive if you think the act in itself is evil. Others would have built it sooner or later anyways.

      Teller was a great individual, honest & upright. You don't have to like his politics.

    10. Re:Praise? I think not. by crapulent · · Score: 1

      OMG! Carl, is that you? Look everyone, he's channeling Sagan!

  26. A great? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Compared with the real luminaries of physics, Teller was a technician or at best an engineer.

    1. Re:A great? by javiercero · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He was also a cretin who tried to destroy the carreers of more talented people who stood in his way (Oppenheimer cough) he used other physicist under fear of alienation, rather than by sheer briliance and respect.

      His contributions to the field of physics are nil, unlike Oppenheimer et al.

      He also brought the most destructive power in the universe and allowed humans to not only destruct themselves but the whole planet. That is just too rotten... thank you Mr. Teller!

  27. you've been x'd! by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "And during the funeral, a reckless prank is being..."

    Oh wait a sec... listen to his coffin...

    *tick tick tick tick....*

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  28. Quick, call the President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy was working on developing weapons of mass destruction. Someone please tell Bush that California (a known rogue state) was harboring a known terrorist operative. California has flouted the will of the United States for too long; a regime change is long overdue.

    1. Re:Quick, call the President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regime change begins at home, douchebag.

    2. Re:Quick, call the President by Strudelkugel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, CA's positioned for regime change. And who's up for election? An Austrian. Hmmm...

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
  29. Troll?!? Or just illuminating the truth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trying to censor me, eh?

  30. Surprised that he lived so long... by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

    Surprised anyone who works with nuclear or radio-active material would actually live so long. Many of these physicists often die somewhat early.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    1. Re:Surprised that he lived so long... by javiercero · · Score: 1

      He was a mediocre physicist, his only contributions were his lobbying and strongarming of his more rational (and talented) detractors.

      Doubt he spend more than a couple of hours in his whole life near anything radioactive.

    2. Re:Surprised that he lived so long... by pdp11e · · Score: 1

      Well I work with radioactive materials daily, yet I have no intention of dying any time soon.
      On the serious note, when you handle a "hot" source you obey three golden rules.

      - Distance (e.g. use of long forceps),
      - Shielding (e.g. lead brick wall screening operator's torso),
      - Time, (obviously one wants to minimize the exposure.

      When we want to perform something particularly complicated (for example: loading a 4 Ci Co-60 source into newly designed collimator) we spend considerable time practicing with the dummy source. Of course we all wear dosimeters, and obey NRC regulations.

      The additional yearly dose I am receiving due to my occupation is less than one medical chest x-ray exam.

  31. Hans Bethe by alphaseven · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Not only that, he worked along with Hans Bethe who was born in 1906, and he's still alive (and still working last I read).

    Probably just a coincidence, maybe...

    1. Re:Hans Bethe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think in anybody's biography who's over 90 years old they should put at the end "YES, HE'S STILL ALIVE!"

  32. We've lost too many good people this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like so many unique and truly gifted folks have left us this year...

    I use to work for a company that is ran by Edward Teller's grandson (BodyMedia)... The positive influences of Edward's stay here on planet E was evident in his grandson.

    Undoubtedly, Edward was about more than bombs and military. A great scientist and contributing mind that loved academia all his life and contributed to both the darkness of man as well our collective hope.

    -p

  33. This article is a travesty. by Mordant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Beyond a few well-worn platitudes, it's obvious that the interviewer is almost completely ignorant of the history surrounding Edward Teller's life - essentially, the key events of the 20th Century.

    If it were not for Dr. Teller, there likely wouldn't be an Internet nor a Slashdot, because we'd all be too afraid of arrest by the KGB to do anything other than quote Marxist platitudes at one another at our jobs in Red October Tractor Factory #5 or whatever. And for this callow young woman to speculate that the world would've been better off without this man - the least technical of whose works she obviously has no concept of understanding, given her total ignorance of science and mathematics (it shows in the article) - and then to brand him as the incarnation of evil on this planet, ruminating on how the world would be a better place had he never lived, is boundlessly hypocritical.

    Even if she had enough historical and/or scientific knowledge to be entitled to opinions on these matters, the fact remains that she demonstrates no appreciation of the fact that she met someone who was truly a great man. Not necessarily a good man (though I certainly believe him to be so), but one of those who has truly made a mark on the history of the human race.

    Hell, Teller obtained his PhD under the tutelage of no less a personage than Heisenberg, himself. That alone ought to bring out a note of respect for the man.

    It's truly sad that such a brainless nitwit wasted some of the ever-dwindling store of hours Dr. Teller had left to him.

    1. Re:This article is a travesty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than the fact that you're full of shit and your eyes are completely star-blind, the thing which you attribute to keeping the Red Menace off of us (the H-Bomb) really did well in bringing democracy to the Soviet Union.

      Oh.. wait.. what's that you say? The Soviet Union finally collapsed under its own weight in the mid-80s, some 20 years after the development of said bomb? Oh, and they still don't have good old 'Merican democracy...

      Sorry jack.. try your jingoistic mechanism on someone else. The rest of us can read history and, what's more, understand it.

    2. Re:This article is a travesty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you are Ignorant of the Trail of History.
      Do you really know how evil and corrupt the
      Communists of Russia were? I do. So do
      many of my relatives... THey are dead.
      The Communnists lied, cheated, faked, whatever needed
      to achieve their goal of world domination,
      and personal power.

      Mrs. Rosevelt was even taken in.

      Was it worth the H-Bomb to hold them in bay?
      maybe... but what if they had gotten it first
      and said......
      you see my point.

      Now maybe Mr. Teller was one sided in his
      Anti-Communist fealings... But i can undestand
      why.

    3. Re:This article is a travesty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The first part of your post is a content-free anti-marxist hystery, and there is nothing to comment about it.


      In the second part of your article, you violently attack the journalist personnaly, but I don't understand what makes you so positive about her lack of knowledge. The final word about the world being a better place without Teller is quoted from the 1944 Nobel Prize in Physics... I cannot see how this could reveal a perticular ignorance of the journalist, nore would I take the risk of saying that this 1944 Nobel Prize was not qualified enough to emit reservs about Teller -- a man who was also depicted by another great phyicist as the most strinking example of a traitor against scientific ethics

  34. I met him once... by Scott+Ransom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I posted this a few years ago for a related story, but it seems worth repeating now:

    So, I met him in an pseudo-interview with about 6 other students. I asked him if it ever bothered him to be the "Father of the H-Bomb" since his "baby" could be used for such evil and/or immoral purposes.

    I thought he was going to jump out of his chair at me.

    He got very upset and angrily announced that a scientist's only responsibility is to science. The possible uses of a discovery should not even be considered by the researchers -- that is someone elses business. And because of this, he did not feel even the slightest bit of remorse for his work on the bomb.

    And then he upbraided _me_ (since I was on my way to grad school to become a scientist at the time) for thinking that a scientist _should_ worry about the moral implications of his/her work.

    Needless to say, I didn't ask any more questions. ;)

    1. Re:I met him once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then he upbraided _me_ (since I was on my way to grad school to become a scientist at the time) for thinking that a scientist _should_ worry about the moral implications of his/her work.

      And that, my friends, is one of the differences between a scientist and an engineer.

    2. Re:I met him once... by kfg · · Score: 1

      A scientist also shouldn't be afraid to ask questions, or make another scientist afraid to do so.

      KFG

    3. Re:I met him once... by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 0, Troll

      I agree with you completely.

      And we shouldn't have electricity, because that's used to make weapons.
      And we shouldn't have any sharp tools, because they could be used to cut/stab/slice/wound/maim people.
      And we shouldn't have blunt tools (eg rocks), because they could be used a blunt instruments to hurt people, or using them would give them a sharp edge (see above).
      And we shouldn't have fire, because that could be used to burn people.

      And we'd all be naked, wandering the grasslands, with no written language, chewing grass and leaves all day.

      Dying young; from disease, malnutrition, lack of shelter (remember, no tools) and predation by wild animals.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    4. Re:I met him once... by refactored · · Score: 4, Funny
      So long as they go up,
      who cares where they come down,
      that's not my department
      says Werner von Braun.
      by Tom Lehrer
    5. Re:I met him once... by Alex+Reynolds · · Score: 1

      Sweet God I wish I could vote your post as a belligerent troll.

      Electricity can do good and bad things. Electricity can fry political prisoners or provide overhead light so that people can study and educate themselves.

      However, hydrogen bombs are design to kill millions of people in one go. There is no obvious good utility for an atomic weapon of any kind.

      Even Teller expressed regret in 1990 that the initial use of atomic weaponry was not demonstrated on offshore Japan to encourage them to lay down their arms.

      The role of scientist is inevitably a moral one because that scientist chooses what to study.

      Atomic energy was not researched to develop a clean energy source but to invent a true weapon of mass destruction.

      The rest of your post is a therefore a non sequitor and deserves no further comment.

    6. Re:I met him once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:I met him once... by Evil+Pete · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, hydrogen bombs are design to kill millions of people in one go. There is no obvious good utility for an atomic weapon of any kind.

      Not only that. I think it was Oppenheimer, who opposed the H bomb, who pointed out that America was a better target for H-bombs than the USSR because it was much more urbanised. That was why he opposed it. Teller thought that if the US developed it the Russkies would take ages to catch up .... no prizes in hindsight to see he was wrong on that.

      At least Teller gave us the Arms Race and many kool end of the world SF movies. Oh wait that's a negative thing isn't it....

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    8. Re:I met him once... by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      I challenge you to show even one single technology which is purely good in every sense of the word, to anyone and everyone and the whole world, and has not (because it could not) been used as a weapon/to make weapons/to derive weapons or in any other way used against the general benefit of humankind as well as the specific benefit of any and all people.

      By the criteria you and your compatriots in cogitation espouse, we'd never have researched anything, because anything could be used for evil.

      Or, are you simply claiming that you have drawn a magic line in the sand which defines "good research" from "bad research"?

      If so please for the good of all mankind, enscribe your morals into a "good book" by which we all can live.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    9. Re:I met him once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switch 'n Bait in the above post!

      Developing a technology that has good AND bad useage is one thing. Dynamite was invented for the purpose of saving lives that were otherwise killed due to the highly dangerous nature of using nitroglycerin for mining. Mr. Noble was only thinking of the positive side of dynamite, and regretted it later when they started using it as a tool of war. Still, there is no doubt that dynamite DID save a lot of lives.

      On the other hand, an H-Bomb has NO positive uses. If Dr. Teller had been developing a form of atomic energy in order to decrease coal burning facilities and generating more efficient and less poluting energy, then perhaps his resulting work was not so bad. However, he was developing a BOMB. Not dynamite used to mine, not an energy source to generate electricity, but a bomb. A bomb is used for destruction and destruction alone alone, and Dr. Teller knew damn well that an H-Bomb was the closest thing to a Doomsday Machine humans would ever got their hands on (at least in the short term).

      Since this was after the A-Bomb was already invented and there was probably no doubt that Soviet Russia would have made an H-Bomb whether or not America did, in hind sight it really doesn't matter if Dr. Teller gave a damn or not.

      That doesn't change my opinion that Dr. Teller was basically an asshole in many ways (McCarthyism anyone?) and he SHOULD have had more respect and insight to what he was making.

    10. Re:I met him once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      von Braun's Autobiography was titled "I aim for the Stars". Detractors said that the sub-title was "But keep hitting London".

    11. Re:I met him once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He got very upset and angrily announced that a scientist's only responsibility is to science. The possible uses of a discovery should not even be considered by the researchers -- that is someone elses business. And because of this, he did not feel even the slightest bit of remorse for his work on the bomb.

      He gave a presentation at my high school several years ago during which he claimed the same thing.

      Granted other people were working on the bomb, but I find it reprehensible that one would try to claim that they aren't at all responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of people; that they had no duty to consider this when doing their research. Especially when they were directly responsible for the creation of the weapon used. It's akin to me putting a web-page up with links to applications that can be used to do DDOS, shutdown 911 networks, disrupt the power grids, etc. and then disclaim responsibility when someone actually uses them.

      I should also point out that my school had a Science, Society and the Future class that specifically included discussions on the moral considerations and implications to society of scientific research.

    12. Re:I met him once... by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      Well, IMO that's oversimplifying his views somewhat.

      When I heard him talk about this a couple months ago, he went into a bit more detail. His point is that scientists are not really in a position to evaluate the situations where their inventions might be used.

      He mentioned that, while working on the Manhattan Project, he visited Washington D.C. and spoke with the politicians who were considering dropping the bomb. He mentioned that the politicians knew a hell of a lot more about the motivations of the Japanese, their culture, how the war was going, and how and whether certain tactics might be used.

      His whole point is that scientists who are working on developing weapons do not have the information nor the expertise to make decisions about the final application of those weapons.

      From a purely scientific point of view, he has a point... I don't agree with him, but he has a point.

    13. Re:I met him once... by jak163 · · Score: 1

      How can someone not think about the possible uses when it's a weapon? You know, a device for killing people? It's not like he was just working on the possibility of nuclear fusion. He was building a bomb.

    14. Re:I met him once... by mfrank · · Score: 1

      You fail to realize the main purpose of the bomb. It doesn't exist to kill people. It exists to keep other people from using the bomb on you. Or, for that matter, to keep them from engaging in major hostilities with you. NK doesn't want the bomb so they can nuke Japan and San Francisco. They want it so Kim Il Jong II can keep on having orgies with Swedish hookers without worrying about the US and South Korea attacking him and ruining his party.

  35. The Greatest Killer in American History? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since someone already made the obligatory Dr Strangelove comment (since we all know that Dr Strangelove was based on Teller), I'll make the equally obvious comment regarding a song by the American band "Bad Religion", where Teller is presumably being referred to as the "greatest killer in American history." ( http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/9411/no substance.html )
    (I would post as my regular user account, but what kind of karma hit do you get for making reference to a punk rock song in an obit?)

  36. great pic of "the sausage" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great pic of the sausage can be found here:

    The Sausage

    It doesn't look too impressive until you see the guy sitting in front of it, which puts it into perspective. This was the United State's first thermonuclear device. Yield: 10.4 megatons. Made a big boom. =)

  37. scientist or advocate? by Goonie · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Given Teller's prominence as a scientist, you'd expect that his orbituary would say "he discovered the furble effect", or something like it. But in all the obits I've read all that it says is that he "headed Lawrence Livermore" and "advocated for" various things, giving the impression that Teller was perhaps an outstandingly successful science politician rather than an outstanding scientist.

    Is this accurate or not?

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:scientist or advocate? by javiercero · · Score: 1

      He was an average physicist at best, he was a great lobbier, hence his rememberance as such.

      Each gets his own at the end, Teller is getting his.

    2. Re:scientist or advocate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would think that given his area of specialization, most of his discoveries are stamped "Top Secret" and thus unknown to the most of scientific community.
      He did co-develop the 'Teller-Ulam design' which is the basis of all known fusion bombs.

    3. Re:scientist or advocate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's accurate. He was not a great physicist by any stretch of the imagination.

    4. Re:scientist or advocate? by fkocab1 · · Score: 1

      They probably should mention the Jahn Teller Effect

    5. Re:scientist or advocate? by cgb8176 · · Score: 1
      From http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Metropol is.html:
      The Metropolis algorithm, first described in a 1953 paper by Metropolis, A. Rosenbluth, M. Rosenbluth, A. Teller, and Edward Teller, was cited in Computing in Science and Engineering as being among the top 10 algorithms having the "greatest influence on the development and practice of science and engineering in the 20th century."
  38. double edge sword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teller, I do not know if I'm qualified to judge you.

    Your contribution lights homes across the world but you also created something that decimated entire cities with such horrible effects that footage of these atrocities is too politically sensitive to show to a wide audience in the US (How many Americans have seen melting Japanese children crying in hospitals?)

    To this day people suffer with the side effects of the 2 bombs dropped in Japan and are discriminated because of their genetic defects.

    Now that you're dead I'll just let the lord deliver his judgement.

    1. Re:double edge sword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had nothing to do with the development of those bombs, and even if he had, blaming him would be idiotic. Blame the guys who dropped them. They were the actual killers. It's like blaming the guy who invented the first firearm for every war in the history of the planet. Before firearms, war was faught with swords. Humans kill each other. We always have and we always will. Blaming the inventors of the weapons is ridiculous.

  39. relax... by VegetariMan · · Score: 0, Troll

    he's with satan now.

    --
    --Nick
    1. Re:relax... by refactored · · Score: 1

      Designing the big one for armageddon...

    2. Re:relax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love that the above post got a "Karma Bonus". Oh, the irony. Of course, I was laughing my ass off when I read it though. ;-)

  40. from CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Edward Teller, who played a key role in U.S. defense and energy policies for more than half a century and was dubbed the "father of the H-bomb" for his enthusiastic pursuit of the powerful weapon, died Tuesday, a spokesman for Lawrence Livermore Laboratory said. He was 95.

    Teller died in Stanford, California, near the Hoover Institute where he served as a senior research fellow.

    Teller exerted a profound influence on America's defense and energy policies, championing the development of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, nuclear power and the Strategic Defense Initiative.

    Among honors he received were the Albert Einstein Award, the Enrico Fermi Award and the National Medal of Science.

    Yet Teller also will be remembered for his role in destroying the career of his one-time boss, Robert Oppenheimer -- which alienated Teller from many of his colleagues -- and for pushing the H-bomb and the Strategic Defense Initiative on grounds that, in the opinion of critics, were sketchy or dubious.

    Teller's staunch support for defense stemmed in part from two events that shaped his dark, distrustful view of world affairs -- the 1919 communist revolution in his native Hungary and the rise of Nazism while he lived in Germany in the early 1930s.

    Even the end of the Cold War did not change Teller's view that the United States needed a strong defense.

    "The danger for ballistic missiles in the hands of 18 different nations has increased, and will increase, unless we have a defense," he said. "If we want to have stable, peaceful conditions, defense against sudden attack by rockets is more needed than ever."

    Witty and personable, with a passion for playing the piano, Teller nevertheless was a persuasive Cold Warrior who influenced presidents of both parties.

    In 1939, he was one of three scientists who encouraged Einstein to alert President Franklin Roosevelt that the power of nuclear fission -- the splitting of an atom's nucleus -- could be tapped to create a devastating new weapon.

    Two years later, even before the first atom bomb was completed, fellow scientist Fermi suggested that nuclear fusion -- fusing rather than splitting nuclei -- might be used for an even more destructive explosive, the hydrogen bomb. Teller quickly took to the idea.

    Teller's enthusiasm and pursuit of such a bomb -- he called it the "Super" -- won him the title "father of the H-bomb," a term he said he hated. The first megaton H-bomb was exploded in 1952.

    The H-bomb was never used in war, but atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945, quickly leading to Japan's surrender. They followed by less than one month the first major atomic explosion on July 16, 1945, at Trinity Site in New Mexico.

    In 1995, Teller looked back a half-century and wondered if the United States could have showed Japan the tremendous power of the bombs without destroying the cities. Some scientists had suggested at the time that a bomb be exploded in the sky miles over Tokyo harbor in hopes of scaring Japan into surrendering with a minimum of casualties.

    "I think we shared the opportunity and the duty, which we did not pursue, to find ... a possibility to demonstrate" the bomb, Teller said at a 50th anniversary forum. "Now in retrospect I have a regret."

    Still, he defended the existence of atomic weapons, saying, "The second half of the century has been incomparably more peaceful than the first, simply by putting power into the hands of those people who wanted peace."

    In his memoirs, published several years ago, Teller added: "I deeply regret the deaths and injuries that resulted from the atomic bombings, but my best explanation of why I do not regret working on weapons is a question: What if we hadn't?"

    He continued to lecture and conduct research into his 90s, although ill health had slowed him some by then.

    Edward Teller was born Jan. 15, 1908, in Budapest. He received his university education in Germany, earning

  41. Re:He was the Osama Bin Laden of Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that is, untill every muslim nation in the world declares jihaad on the states, and because of america commiting crimes against humanity, they're left with no other countries helping to defend itself, the country falls to it's knees (biggest military in the world doesn't do a damn bit of good when fighting against people posed as cabbies, but with north korean nuclear bombs strapped to their chests). Not to mention the fact that mecca's in Saudi Arabia, which is not an enemy of the states. Hell, even if you discount guerrilla tactics... Machines of warfare run on petroleum (propane, petrol, diesel... doesn't matter), and when you've got the entire middle east and then some (the supply of oil) against the US alone, on US soil, pretty quick you'll be marching soldiers in to a line of fueled up Iranian tanks, sitting underneath the Pakistani airforce.

    Not that *I* have a problem with that, I just think that it'd have the opposite of the desired effect.

  42. Re:He was the Osama Bin Laden of Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have plenty of hydrogen bombs. =)

  43. from wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Edward Teller (original Hungarian name Teller Ede) (January 15, 1908 - September 9, 2003) was an Hungarian-born American nuclear physicist of Jewish descent. He was known as the father of the hydrogen bomb.

    Teller was born in Budapest, Austria-Hungary. He left Hungary in 1926 (partly due to the rule of Miklos Horthy) and received his higher education in Germany, completing his Ph.D. in physics under Werner Heisenberg in 1930 at the University of Leipzig.

    He spent two years at the University of Gottingen and left Germany in 1934 through the aid of the Jewish Rescue Committee. He went briefly to England and moved for a year to Copenhagen, where Niels Bohr was teaching.

    In 1935, Teller emigrated to the United States. Until 1941 he lectured at George Washington University, where he met George Gamow.

    In 1942, having worked with the Briggs committee, Teller joined the Manhattan Project. He was part of the Theoretical Physics division at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory during World War II and pushed hard for the additional development of nuclear weapons into a fusion based super bomb (hydrogen bomb) rather than using just the fission only atomic bomb. In 1946 he left Los Alamos to become a professor at the University of Chicago.

    Following the Soviet test detonation of an atomic device in 1949 he returned to Los Alamos in 1950 to join the hydrogen bomb program. When he and Stanislaw Ulam came up with a working H-bomb design, Teller was not chosen to head the project. He left Los Alamos and joined the newly established Lawrence Livermore branch of the University of California Radiation Laboratory in 1952. The differences between Teller and many of his colleagues were widened in 1954 when he spoke against Robert Oppenheimer at his security clearance hearings.

    Teller was Director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1958-1960) and then a Associate Director as he also taught at the University of California, Berkeley. He was a tireless advocate of a strong nuclear program and argued for continued testing and development: when the "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative was cancelled, Teller was one of its strongest supporters.

    In 1975 he retired, and was named Director Emeritus of the Livermore Laboratory and was also appointed Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

    Teller died on 9 September 2003 in Stanford, California.

    His books include Conversations on the Dark Secrets of Physics (1991), Better a Shield Than a Sword (1987), Pursuit of Simplicity (1980), and Energy from Heaven and Earth (1979), Memoirs (2002).

  44. "Perils of Modern Living" by E-prospero · · Score: 4, Funny

    An old, but good poem, originally published in the New Yorker, that makes mention of Dr Teller. RIP.
    --

    Perils of Modern Living - Harold P. Furth

    Well up above the tropostrata
    There is a region stark and stellar
    Where, on a streak of anti-matter
    Lived Dr. Edward Anti-Teller.

    Remote from Fusion's origin,
    He lived unguessed and unawares
    With all his antikith and kin,
    And kept macassars[1] on his chairs.

    One morning, idling by the sea,
    He spied a tin of monstrous girth
    That bore three letters: A. E. C.[2]
    Out stepped a visitor from Earth.

    Then, shouting gladly o'er the sands,
    Met two who in their alien ways
    Were like as gentils. Their right hands
    Clasped, and the rest was gamma rays.

    --
    [1]. Macassar oil was a popular hair dressing in the 19th century, named after the Indonesian port where the oil purportedly came from. An "antimacassar" is the decorative fabric used on chairs or sofas to protect the upholstery.

    [2]. AEC=Atomic Energy Commission, now replaced by DOE=Department of Energy. The AEC (like the DOE today) funded most of the National Laboratories, including Teller's Livermore Laboratory.

    --
    ... and never, ever play leapfrog with a unicorn.
  45. whats with the 2k3 server add up there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is it just me or does the click here button look like a a-hole

    1. Re:whats with the 2k3 server add up there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno, I set up a proxy to block advertisement servers on general principle.

      And "2k3" is shorthand for "2300", NOT 2003.

  46. The fuckers dead and good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    An accomplice to murder has past. I'll sleep well with a smile on my face.

    1. Re:The fuckers dead and good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I knew where you lived and happened to be close enough you'd die with that smile on your face.

      Sleep well.

  47. his latest book: Memoirs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reviews of Teller's book "Memoirs":

    "Panoramic and beautifully written recollections of one of the great scientific, if controversial, figures of all time."
    Publishers Weekly (starred review)

    "[A]n illuminating, personable portrayal of arguably one of the greatest physicists of modern times."
    San Diego Union-Tribune

    "An important, informative, and interesting...book that fully lives up to expectations and can be wholeheartedly recommended."
    Washington Post

    "Curiosity will impel even [Teller's] harshest critics into these memoirs, where both his powerful intellect and his imperious ego are on full display."
    Booklist (starred review)

    "Fascinating...Edward has captured the joys and the sorrows of [his life journey] in beautiful detail."
    Physics Today

    Description
    Edward Teller is perhaps best known for his belief in freedom through strong defense. But this extraordinary memoir at last reveals the man behind the headlines--passionate and humorous, devoted and loyal. Never before has Teller told his story as fully as he does here. We learn his true position on everything from the bombing of Japan to the pursuit of weapons research in the post-war years. In clear and compelling prose, Teller chronicles the people and events that shaped him as a scientist, beginning with his early love of music and math, and continuing with his study of quantum physics under Werner Heisenberg. He also describes his relationships with some of the century's greatest minds--Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Szilard, von Neumann--and offers an honest assessment of the development of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, the founding of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and his complicated relationship with J. Robert Oppenheimer. Rich and humanizing, this candid memoir describes the events that led Edward Teller to be honored or abhorred, and provides a fascinating perspective on the ability of a single individual to affect the course of history.

    Biography
    Edward Teller was born in Hungary in 1908 and educated in Germany. He came to the United States in 1935. A theoretical physicist, he worked on nuclear weapons during and after World War II, and was instrumental in the development of the hydrogen bomb. A staunch advocate of national military preparedness, Teller has been involved in several controversies, most recently the debate regarding national missile defense. He helped found Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he is now Director Emeritus, and continues as a Senior Research Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

    Number of pages: 672

  48. Re:He was the Osama Bin Laden of Science by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, Teller wasnt't the mad one, Curtis LeMay was the crazy one.

    He scared the Congress and President so much as both the head of SAC and as a loon that they instituted the Civilian Control of Nuclear Weapons so that he couldn't use them as much as he wanted to.

  49. Isten veled Teller Ede! God bless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isten aldjon jo ember!
    Mi nem felejtunk el, nyugodjal bekeben.
    Koszonet mindenert - Isten veled!

    P.L.U.R.

    Egy haza!

    1. Re:Isten veled Teller Ede! God bless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off with your hungarian.

      Teller was a god damn murderer.

    2. Re:Isten veled Teller Ede! God bless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her, her, her, her, hungarian! Fer, fer, fer, fer, fer, fer, fetch a cloth, Ger, ger, ger, ger, granville. And mind that till! It's been a funny day .....

  50. Re:He was the Osama Bin Laden of Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kapjad be, hulye fasz!

    ha kersz atomot akkor megkaphatod! :P idiota kocsog buzi fasz allat! huzz a budos picsaba, kurva anyad!

  51. Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55 by hdparm · · Score: 1

    Looks like he's here maybe a bit longer than you.

  52. We should send him off in style... by cirby · · Score: 1

    Set his coffin on top of a hundred kiloton fusion device out in the middle of the desert somewhere and give him the world's best cremation.

    "It's not a test, it's a ceremony!"

    1. Re:We should send him off in style... by another_henry · · Score: 1

      You know, that's really a pretty good idea. I can't think of many better ways to go.

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    2. Re:We should send him off in style... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as that desert is somewhere in Saudi Arabia, sounds like a great idea.

  53. Continuously amazed by clueless fatalists on /. by turbod · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I can't call you peaceniks, because you don't grasp human nature. Man's nature is to counter punch until someone falls.

    Teller realized this --- he had to move Oppenhiemer away from the state of the art to proceed with a fusion weapon, otherwise, there was the possibility that Russia would have developed and used it first.

    It seems as though most posters here don't mind dying as long as they aren't called evil. But for me, life is more than dying peacefully like a sheep to the slaughter. If I can save my nation by developing the most horrible weapon the planet has ever witnessed to balance world power and prevent a horrible attack on friends and neighbors, I'd sign up in a minute, no second thoughts or regrets. Stop being pansies, give up this old stupid game of fatalism and contrived self innocence, and do something to save your neighbors -- or at least recognize those who did exactly that.

    Teller knew that someone else would eventually build the weapon, and it may as well have been the United States of America. There was much less chance of the u.s. using it as aggressor than Russia using it as an aggressor. Even as many here people claim that he has a special place in hell reserved for his evil soul, I would argue that would not be the case. Had it not been for Teller, Russia would have pinned the United States under communist rule after debilitating fusion weapon attacks for which we would have had no equal answer too. Millions of Americans in that era could have died, and the United States, the last democratic superpower of that age, would have fell, throwing the entire world under communist rule. Teller saved them.

    Furthermore, I have never understood why people cannot grasp the concept of mutually assured destruction, and the enforced (if cold) peace it brought to a unrestful world order after WW2. The SD Initiative (whether or not we have operating hardware) bankrupted the soviet empire. If funding had not been cut, the project would have succeeded, but letting it run for a few years was plenty good to allow the Soviet Empire to spend itself into democratic oblivion (which has benefited the u.s. for the most part).

    So folks, get real. You start typing on your keyboards, and a vacuum of clues form. Please reverse the trend. Cluelessness about things this important is unacceptable. Your fatalism and contrived self innocence could very well plunge the world into the nuclear war you believe Teller created the possibility of, when all Teller did was balance the scales.

    One last point --- I'm sure replies will roll in declaring "well, the U.S. built the bomb first". Well, if you could actually devote your attention from the simplicities of computer gaming to the real world for a moment, it was pretty clear that the Germans were getting close to cracking the science behind the abomb, and they may not have stopped at a mere abomb, and possibly would have moved on to the H-Bomb. They were developing the bomber capability to drop such a weapon on NY even as Allied troops marched into Berlin. The cat was already out the bag, just that the U.S. trained it to do tricks first.

    TurboD

    1. Re:Continuously amazed by clueless fatalists on /. by cranos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Brief history lesson, Germans almost develop ABomb, Americans using German know how do finish it. Americans only people to actually use a nuclear device in anger. Soviets steal secrets of ABomb from the Americans.

      MAD isn't such a bad idea, unfortunately it relies on the premise that both sides are unwilling to risk it all in a conflict. It also relies on the fact that both sides have the same capabilities. If one side develops a technology that would mean they wont get wiped out in a world war then the balance has been thrown out of whack, and that is where things get dangerous.

      Then you get the rogue states like Israel and North Korea, those who possess nuclear weapons yet refuse to sign onto the international treaties that form the basis of the MAD doctirine.

      Teller didn't "balance the scales", if you want to get technical, the Soviets balanced the scales by stealing the Abomb.

    2. Re:Continuously amazed by clueless fatalists on /. by turbod · · Score: 1

      So you believe the Russians would not have developed fusion tech without spurring from the u.s. and used it? Or that Germany would not have finished their weapon and used it?

      Boy, I'd love to live your altered reality, unfortunately, I'm stuck out here in the real world.

      The U.S. did use the only weapon in "anger" but the truth of the matter is, if USA hadn't, many more people on both sides would have died in grueling combat. I'm not reducing the impact of the A-Bomb, it doesn't need to be reduced to still be far below the theoretical death toll of a prolonged Pacific theater conflict in ground combat.

      TurboD

    3. Re:Continuously amazed by clueless fatalists on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the same would be true if the soviet union used the bomb first. what is the difference?

    4. Re:Continuously amazed by clueless fatalists on /. by CausticWindow · · Score: 1
      many more people on both sides would have died in grueling combat

      Hehe. Truman's famous 10.000 American soldiers which later grew to millions, proportionally with his bad conscience.

      --
      How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    5. Re:Continuously amazed by clueless fatalists on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always remember that this justification for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians lives on in spirit today. The US always sees itself as acting in a moral and just manner but this belief is based on the premise that americans are superior to citizens in any other country. ie an afghan, iraqi, or any other arab for that matter are inferior to americans and therefore killing them is justified. Remember that when you define what "good" is you can ignore all basic human decency and still call your actions good.

    6. Re:Continuously amazed by clueless fatalists on /. by nusuth · · Score: 1
      You (and your replier) are wrong about German atomic bomb, they were really far away from building one when the war had ended. USA feared that they were close to building one and didn't have conclusive evidence that they weren't until after the war, but for fuck's sake, we are living more than 60 years after the end of the war and you, telling other people to get a clue, still think Germany was about the build a bomb. They didn't have science, they didn't have materials, they didn't have facilities and they didn't even have strong support from Hitler.

      Also, NOBODY knew how to go about building a fusion bomb in 40ties. Get a clue.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    7. Re:Continuously amazed by clueless fatalists on /. by cranos · · Score: 1

      Im sorry at what point did I say that Germany would not have finished the bomb if they had had the chance? Of course they bloody would have except for the small problem of the fact that they lost the war.

      As for the use of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagisaki(sp?), I think you'll find that the Japanese had actually been trying to surrender for at least six months before the bombs were dropped.

      But don't let a little thing like reality get in the way of a good right wing rant.

  54. Teller and Alaska by polarfleece · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ever heard of Project Chariot? Dr. Teller and his pals wanted to try atomic excavation by detonating 4 devices at Cape Thompson near Point Hope on the Chukchi Sea in Northwest Alaska, creating an artifical harbor.
    It was the Eskimo's against the AEC, and the Eskimo's won, Thank God.
    Teller had the support of the Alaskan business community and the University of Alaska.
    As it happens, Project Chariot ended up being subject to the very first environmental review of any federal project, and eventually they (AEC) gave up.
    Teller didn't and shot off SEDAN, one of the dirtiest shots ever and the largest cratering experiment done at NTS.
    Dan O'Neil's book The Firecracker Boys tells the whole story in fine fashion.

    1. Re:Teller and Alaska by donkeyDevil · · Score: 1

      True, but we have to remember that these people were dealing with a nascent technology under the most trying of circumstances. Good, decent, smart men (like Dr. Wood) honestly believed that it was not only useful, but necessary to continue to develop useful swords to plowshares technology for the survival of their nation and their way of life.

      A great deal of research and technology flowed indirectly from the various bomb and missile programs into our daily lives, without---or despite---the efforts to corral and use the technology directly for "peaceful" purposes.

      Still, as an Alaskan, I'm pretty glad they didn't nuke Cape Thompson. But maybe that cesspool at the end of Cook Inlet might've been a good idea...

    2. Re:Teller and Alaska by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      Teller didn't and shot off SEDAN, one of the dirtiest shots ever and the largest cratering experiment done at NTS.

      I was able to visit the Nevada Test Site, and that very very large crater, in 1986 while I was Midshipman at the United States Naval Academy. I spent a month that summer at the Los Alamos nuclear lab and we took a trip the NTS just to check it out.

      The hole was very impressive. I suppose it was more impressive that each of us had to wear personal dosimeters, and could stay outside of the bus for only 5 minutes or so. We also drove through a town designed to test the stability of various structures against nuclear blasts. It was fascinating to drive by proposed "nuke-proof" bomb shelters that were clearly damaged by a nuclear blast.

      And the train-ride into the underground testing facility was fun too - it was sort of like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom in more ways than one.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
  55. A city here, a city there by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Note that 100% of Japanese cities were bombed flat in WWII...
    Not quite true. Kyoto was never bombed. Several others. Hiroshima and Nagasaki escaped bombing until the final attacks. Why? Certain people knew the A Bomb was coming, and they wanted to see the effect on an untouched city.

    Many Japanese still believe that Kyoto was never bombed out of respect for that city's cultural importance. One version of the story has it that there was that there was a tacit agreement between the U.S. and Japanese militaries that bombers would ignore Kyoto as long as there was no antiaircraft artillery there. The reality is that Kyoto was the very first city on the list of atomic targets, and was only spared by bad weather, which caused the attack to be diverted to Nagasaki.

    Pretty cold, I know. I think you before you get all self righteous either way ("day of infamy" versus "atomic genocide"), you have to remember that millions of people had already died on both sides. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as bad as they were, were distinctive only for the means by which they were destroyed. In terms of people killed and human suffering, they were minor affairs.

    On the other hand, the whole "was it justified" debate is rather pointless. The bombs didn't end the war (that was done by a coup in Tokyo that was already underway), nor did they raise the level of atrocity more than a notch (previous firebomb raids had killed hundreds of thousands without any atomic stuff). I find it rather ironic that Teller himself went over to the "we should have demoed the bomb first" camp just before he died. That's a cop-out. If you invent nasty weapons, they will be used.

    1. Re:A city here, a city there by Compuser · · Score: 1

      The way I heard it, Kyoto was never on the target
      list. What happened was that the Japanese military
      tortured some poor US airman into "admitting" that
      Kyoto was going to be A-bombed. The guy in
      question could not have known anything anyway but
      his little improvisation helped end the war sooner
      because it gave added ammunition to emperor and
      others to argue against continuing to fight.

    2. Re:A city here, a city there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it was Kitakyushu, a few hundred kilometres from Nagasaki on the same island of Kyushu, that was saved from bombing by cloud cover.

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as bad as they were, were distinctive only for the means by which they were destroyed. In terms of people killed and human suffering, they were minor affairs.

      More than 100,000 killed instantly and many times that number chronically ill from radiation poisoning isn't a minor affair, even given the scale of WW2. I'm not trying build up the suffering of the Japanese civilians as exceptional, but I don't think you can really downplay it as minor, either.

    3. Re:A city here, a city there by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I think I saw that movie.

    4. Re:A city here, a city there by fm6 · · Score: 1
      That's about how many were killed in the big raid on Tokyo. I'm not saying it's a good thing -- indeed, I have my doubts as to how much "strategic bombing" shortened the war. I simply question its importance.

      Some time back we had a discussion of whether it was cool to do a game based on the Vietnam war. Some people claimed that WW II was somehow a "good war" and Vietnam wasn't. Not as simple as that. Certainly America's motives for entering WW II were better (though hardly pure). But the big difference in the public mind was that Vietnam was visible: you saw it every evening on the nightly news. And the same visibility is what really separates Hiroshima and Nagasaki from all the other cities that were obliterated in the course of their war.

      You can kill 100,000 people in an instant with a single bomb, or you can kill them in the course of a day with a huge firebomb raid. I submit that the moral difference is insignificant.

    5. Re:A city here, a city there by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Compared to the 17 million people whose deaths were caused by Japanese aggression, yes, 100,000 people *is* a minor affair. Even if you scale it up a little for radiation poisoning.

      At the time Hiroshima was bombed, between 200,000 and 300,000 Asians were being killed every month by the Japanese.

    6. Re:A city here, a city there by mfrank · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to call BS on you. The only coup in Tokyo near the end of the war was the one by the "young tigers" to keep the Emperor from surrendering.

      And yes, the bombs ended the war. Even after Hiroshima, from their research into nuclear weapons the Japanese thought we couldn't have more than one bomb (they had some idea how difficult it was to enrich uranium). It was only after Nagasaki that the Emperor told the military to surrender, and even then it wasn't a sure thing they would follow his orders.

      Remember, we'd broken their diplomatic (Magic) and military (Ultra) codes. We knew what their strategy was. Up until after Nagasaki, it was to cause so much bloodshed that the US would negotiate a peace that would leave the militarists in power. After Nagasaki, they realized we didn't have to invade to kill them all.

    7. Re:A city here, a city there by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      Vietnam was fighting for (Communist) reunification/independence. The 'Tonkin Incident' which caused the US to take a more active role seems to have been staged without participation by the N Vietnamese. The US warship allegedly thought the sonar echoes of it's own rudder (while swerving around to avoid torpedoes) were from the imaginary torpedoes it was swerving to avoid.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    8. Re:A city here, a city there by fm6 · · Score: 1

      A coup isn't necessarily a military coup. But whatever you call it, there was a change in the power structure near the end of the war. And a good thing too. From what I know of the lunatics who were in charge before, they would have allowed Japan to be reduced to a radioactive cinder before they surrendered.

    9. Re:A city here, a city there by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Other than the "young tigers" incident, about the only other change in the power structure that was in the offing was the military preparing to declare martial law and moving the Emperor out of Tokyo for his own safety (and to make sure he doesn't do anything silly, like order surrender). That would have made surrender far less likely. If you think there was another change in the power structure near the end of the war, please post proof, because I *know* the military nutjobs were still running the country through the whole thing. Politicians up to and including Prime Ministers that didn't toe the military line had a bad habit of getting shot.

      Those lunatics were still in charge when the Emperor ordered them to surrender. It was *not* a sure thing that they would follow his orders. And most of them suicided before the formal surrender took place.

  56. What I want to know... by Brian+Dennehy · · Score: 0

    Was he really mute or was that part of the whole magic act?

  57. Corrections by achurch · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unless you recognize the name, you'd have no way to tell [Hiroshima] apart from any other gleaming Japanese city.

    Except for the Genbaku (Atomic Bomb) Dome sitting right squat in the middle of the city. That is still as it was 58 years ago, and is probably what the original poster was referring to. Seeing that symbol of destruction really makes you think (and if not, then with all due respect you've got problems).

    Note that 100% of Japanese cities were bombed flat in WWII, so all buildings are less than 50 years old (even without the bombing, earthquakes would keep destroying them).

    Wrong on all counts. Plenty of Japanese cities (though granted mostly smaller ones) escaped being bombed, and even the ones that were bombed were not "bombed flat"--even Tokyo has a fair number of buildings lasting from before the war. Besides, Japanese buildings are built to withstand earthquakes; one wooden temple building in Kyoto (Sanjusangendo) has been standing for over 700 years.

    1. Re:Corrections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Japanese buildings are built to withstand earthquakes; one wooden temple building in Kyoto (Sanjusangendo) has been standing for over 700 years

      Actually, the wooden buildings are designed to be reassembled after an earthquake, rather than withstand it. A subtle, but important, difference for the occupants.

      Tokyo was largely rebuilt after the 1923 earthquake. In any disaster, the wooden buildings were destroyed by fire (the so-called "flowers of Edo"). Building regulations were such until 1975 that most collapses in the Hanshin Earthquake occurred at the 4th floor.

      The Genbaku Dome reflects Hiroshima's need to make Japan appear the victim and it's visitors to feel guilt. You wouldn't know that they had foreign POWs working in the local coal mines in horrendous conditions at the time of the explosion, nor that POWs were experimented on to death in the gas and bio research facilities in the bay. In fact, you'd be hard-pushed to know they'd been a war.

      I much prefer Nagasaki's approach to its recent past.

    2. Re:Corrections by achurch · · Score: 1

      Actually, the wooden buildings are designed to be reassembled after an earthquake, rather than withstand it.

      The explanation I heard, at least as regards this particular building, was that it was built on a foundation of sand to act as a shock absorber and reduce the impact of earthquakes, and that as a result the building has actually not fallen apart once in those 700 years. Of course, it's been a few years since I was there so I might be misremembering, but I think they were pretty clear that it's been standing as is (less minor repairs) since it was rebuilt around 1300.

      This of course does not apply to your ordinary Japanese home, which was quite susceptible to both earthquakes and (as you correctly point out) fire.

      The Genbaku Dome reflects Hiroshima's need to make Japan appear the victim and it's visitors to feel guilt. You wouldn't know that they had foreign POWs working in the local coal mines in horrendous conditions at the time of the explosion, [...]

      Japan definitely needs to take a more balanced view of its own actions in that era. However, though the actions themselves are horrendous, it should be noted that Japan was ruled by the military, which effectively seized power following a coup-d'etat attempt on 1935/2/26 (the "2/26 Incident"); while the attempt itself failed, several ministers were assassinated, and the military was able to seize political power in the resulting vacuum and confusion, which it held until the end of the war.

      On the other hand, as a reminder of the damage nuclear weapons are capable of doing, I think the Dome serves as a fine example.

  58. Re:Missiles are NOT necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on guys. Ever think about this: MAYBE if it weren't for the agressive "yeah-let-make-war" position of the US (with its missiles all over the place) nothing like 9/11 would have happened. (Not that I say the this Bin Laden Ass-hole did the right thing, don't misunderstand me). I say: Ban the missiles! If no-one has them, no one needs them!

  59. Re:He was the Osama Bin Laden of Science by javiercero · · Score: 1

    Typical American geographical ignorance, so you would make 30% of the known oil reserves unusable. Jeez, great way of shooting yourself in the foot...

  60. Wrong by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    "There is no obvious good utility for an atomic weapon of any kind."

    Yes, they stopped the two great powers of the last half of the 1900's from killing each other.

    1. Re:Wrong by Alex+Reynolds · · Score: 1

      Not really. In fact, the Cuban missile crisis brought the two powers dangerously close to nuclear exchange.

      What's more, we now have to contend with former USSR nuke scientists sharing their know-how and fissile material with Muslim fundamentalists, who are *much* harder to keep an eye on.

      Let's not get started about keeping track of the cesium navigation markers floating around the backwaters of Siberia, which makes excellent dirty bomb material.

      This technology has done little good for the human race except make it cheaper and more efficient to vaporize people we don't like.

      Nuclear scientists and "rationalist" apologists have been trying to paint a smiley face on this catastrophe since its inception.

      From a cost/benefit analysis, we've lost considerably.

      -Alex

    2. Re:Wrong by selderrr · · Score: 1

      umpf... In my book, the main reason we haven't had a nuclear war is a huge amount of insanely dumbass LUCK.

      There were a kabillion ways WW3 could have started, but somehow everyone had something better to do. If one of these kabillion possibilities had happened, Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima would have made a difference. Probably even the opposite...

    3. Re:Wrong by John+Harrison · · Score: 1
      Are you suggesting that the US shouldn't have developed nuclear weapons? The USSR would have developed them eventually.

      Please imagine what the past 50 years might have been like had the USSR been the only nuclear power. Yeah, the weapons are bad, but I fail to see an alternative. Perhaps you can suggest one.

  61. My mommy says actions speak louder the words. by sideshow · · Score: 1

    So with that we can say blowing the shit out 2 Japanese cities speaks louders then blowing one up at high altitude and showing what we might do maybe.

    --

    Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

  62. I met Dr. Teller... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1, Flamebait


    I met Dr. Teller when he came into the Physics laboratory where I was working. The laboratory head described the work we were doing. We said a few inconsequential words to each other and shook hands. I think this was in 1972, or somewhere near that year.

    Dr. Teller was the most frightening person I have ever met in my life. He certainly did nothing that was threatening; he was somewhat bored with the lab tour; he was very polite.

    But, there was something about the lines on his face and his manner that was extremely unpleasant. Judging from his appearance, his inner conflict was fierce. When angry people act out their inner conflict, that makes them angrier. Unknowingly, I am sure, Dr. Teller had found a way to act out his anger, and, apparently, the destruction and unhappiness he brought to the world caused him unbelievable pain.

    My reaction to Dr. Teller was completely spontaneous. No one had told me that Dr. Teller would be coming into my laboratory, although I knew he would be visiting some labs. It was obviously him, I had seen photos, but the photos showed very little of the true intensity of his existence. I had been working on resolving my own inner conflict, and I was very aware of how inner conflict twists people's bodies. Immediately when I saw him my consciousness was flooded with information that indicated a man was in pain.

    Dr. Teller helped make the U.S. government what it is today. The U.S. government is, by some measures, the most violent government that has ever existed. The U.S. government has bombed more countries than any other, 24 since the end of the Second World War. The U.S. government has imprisoned a percentage of its citizens six times higher than other European nations or other nations of European background. The U.S. government maintains prisons of an extremely inhumane design, called SuperMax. (By other measures, other governments have been far more violent.)

    The U.S. government killed about 2,000,000 Vietnamese in the Vietnam war; I was in the Air Force in Thailand; even pilots bombing Hanoi questioned why the U.S. government was there. Even pilots who believed that killing was a way to end violence questioned the Vietnam war. Colonel Broughton, if you are reading this, help me out here.

    I know there are many people who read Slashdot for whom violence is entertainment. It is obvious that it is not pleasant to be told that when someone enjoys violence it means that person has an anger problem. But that is what I'm saying. Violence is motivated by inner conflict; inner conflict is always sickness.

    Violence is never the answer to violence, it only increases violence. Someone named Jesus Christ said something like that 2,000 years ago; you may have heard of him. I'm not a religious person; I came to that understanding by investigating human inner conflict. I became interested in studying inner conflict because I wanted to resolve my own.

    The terrorists were 100% wrong to bomb the United States. However, for years, the U.S. government has been giving more than $900 per person per year for every man, woman, and child in Israel to be used to kill Arabs. The 9/11 bombing killed 3,016 people. I don't have the figures for how many Arabs and Muslims have been killed by U.S. government policy toward Israel and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, but I'm guessing the total was a lot more than 3,016 before 9/11/2001, maybe even far more than 10 times 3,016.

    Many U.S. citizens act as though they think that the violence of the U.S. government is acceptable because the U.S. is somehow superior. Does it surprise anyone that the Arabs and Muslims don't like being killed? Does it surprise anyone that Arabs and Muslims don't always think they are inferior? Does it surprise anyone that, when Arabs see that the U.S. government thinks that violence is "justified", that reinforces in some of them their long history of belief in violence as a way to solve social problems?

    Those relatively rich people wh

    1. Re:I met Dr. Teller... by delstar+dotstar · · Score: 1

      Nice story. Also: nice bait-and-switch.

  63. A Hugarian killed Dillinger! by sideshow · · Score: 1

    The woman who was the infamous "Lady in Red" pointed Dillinger out to the Feds.

    --

    Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

  64. Ding Dong the Witch is Dead!! by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

    I hope he is serving his master well in hell.

  65. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Such global dominance might protect the U.S. military, but it might exclude Americans from citizenship in the world. It would exclude real cooperation with and understanding of other nations and cultures. Paradoxically, it may actually increase the likelihood of the kind of attack that happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

    Finally an American talking sense. Read the above statement carefully over and over again, and then go and vote George W. Bush out of office dammit!

    Anon
  66. Re:Don't mess with Um! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
    Directly or indirectly [spouses or other family] better than half the original Manhattan project were Jews bud. Most of Germany's researchers had Jewish roots...Hitler started killing them and they all ran. Several used the Nobel Prize awards to get out of the country publicly. The "bomb" was originally developed to be droped on Hitlers Germany [revenge anyone], not Japan, but they surrendered first.

    Read the Bible dude...It's not wise to mess with them! Every leader that has murdered them for 5000 years has met a very ugly death..quite often by his own hand or family. Also, many of the other Arab natives share the same blessing of Abraham [thru Ishmael or Easu] to be as many as the stars in the sky or sand on the beach ...It's not an accident that they have oil, or terrorists-they will always have something that gives them power over world events. Realize that Israel/Palistine is a 4000 year old turf war! David and Goliath...same races, same turf. It's ordered not to end [David didn't finish it when told to]...there's no point in the US even trying...just get out of the way.

  67. President Bush Notes the Loss of a Great Mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..."and on this sad day, America also mourns the nucleus of creative genius..." He then made the producers of 'The Hollywood Squares' an open offer to replace Teller in the scheduled October lineup. The producers refused, citing Bush as 'not exactly the brightest light on the tree'.

  68. ATM? by dmon · · Score: 0

    Teller? So he must be the guy who invented teller machines!

  69. RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legyen neki konnyu a fold.

  70. Sure there is... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2, Informative

    > There is no obvious good utility for an atomic weapon of
    > any kind.

    Look up something called Project Orion.

    That Orion never got off the ground (pun unintended) for stupid political reasons is truely a crime against science and the human spirit.

    cya,
    john

    --
    Imagine all the people...
    1. Re:Sure there is... by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Project Orion, brought to you by the proverb "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

      (For the uninitiated, if I recall correctly, Project Orion is the idea to use nuclear bombs to propel an object hid behind a shield into deep space. I'm not a rocket scientist, but I think it's quite insane.)

      Incidently, Teller's life after he built his hammer can also be summarized under that proverb.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    2. Re:Sure there is... by StressedEd · · Score: 1

      Indeed that was the case. Even more insane was they planned to launch from the surface of the earth. That's right, about 5 thermonuclear explosions per second all the way out of the atmosphere!

      overview here

      Thankfully, beyond a chemcial powered prototype (which worked) the idea never really got off the ground..

      Sorry, I couldn't help it! ;-)

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    3. Re:Sure there is... by nusuth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you need nukes, nothing else will do. For things like building a 50 man moon base and flying it from Earth to Moon in one go or taking humans to outer planets in a few months or sending probes out of solar system that will reach their destinations in a lifetime, nothing except Orion will do. That still is the case and I don't see how that can change given the physics of propulsion. It could have worked, and it still can work. Instead of writing it off as an insane idea and staying on this planet I would rather see the technology developed and used until we have an alternative.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    4. Re:Sure there is... by moonbender · · Score: 1

      I'd rather stay on this planet, actually, although I can see how you want to get off off it - I would want to, too, after Orion's first attempt.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    5. Re:Sure there is... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      For the uninitiated, if I recall correctly, Project Orion

      Don't post about something that you obviously know nothing about. Orion was actually tested with traditional explosives and was demonstrated to work. So you most definitely are not a rocket scientist. Launching it from earth would obviously be a bad idea, but it is one of the more practical designs for an interstellar drive (although it wasn't designed for that and would need to be scaled up immensely for such a mission). It was not a stupid or "insane" idea by any means.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    6. Re:Sure there is... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do you realize how many thermonuclear detonations have been conducted as tests on this planet? Obviously not because you are clearly an idiot.

      While I don't think an earth-launched Orion would have made sense, 5 more detonations would not make our planet significantly more uninhabitable. The design itself was brilliant, far beyond anything you will ever achieve in your life.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    7. Re:Sure there is... by MrBlint · · Score: 0

      Ahem. That's 5 detonations per second.

      --
      That's very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton and rather unexpected in a G Major
    8. Re:Sure there is... by nusuth · · Score: 1
      You make it sound as if 5 detonations per second are required for Orion concept to work but there are quite a few different operating modes of Orion, with different detonation rates. Also, its ascend time is much shorter than competing designs.

      Keep in mind that dedsing of Orion requires light, directed detonation bombs, not high yield ones. So it is possible to make cleaner bombs for Orion, at least for take off. If you want shuttle missions powered by Orion concept, I concur that it is very dirty; both because competing technology (chemical rockets) is clean and because low yield bombs are dirtier than high yield bombs. However if you think big, take every kind of pollution from production to actual flight exhaust in to account instead of focusing on nuclear fallout, it is not only clean but probably (at least for big enough designs) cleaner.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    9. Re:Sure there is... by mfrank · · Score: 1

      They were planning manned missions to Saturn by the mid-70's. The specific impulse of an Orion far exceeds anything else the human race has come up with. The disadvantage is each launch would have caused an estimated ten cancer deaths somewhere in the world. Using it outside the Van Allen belts, though, would keep the radioactive by-products out in space. Something like an Orion is about the only thing we could come up with that could divert an asteroid on an intersecting orbit with Earth (and that't be about the only good reason to launch one from Earth).

      They built and succesfully tested a test vehicle that used five charges of high explosive.

    10. Re:Sure there is... by MrBlint · · Score: 0

      I was responding to "5 more detonations would not make our planet significantly more uninhabitable" which appeared in an earlier post by 0111 1110 who obviously misread the post by StressedEd who was the first to mention the 5 detonations per second figure. I don't profess to have any technical knowledge of the subject.

      --
      That's very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton and rather unexpected in a G Major
  71. Oppie was a Commie by rogersc · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Oppenheimer really was a Communist, according to a recent book. See also this NY Times article.

    A lot of left-wing scientists hated Teller for his ambiguous testimony about Oppenheimer, but Oppenheimer really was a security risk.

    1. Re:Oppie was a Commie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You won't convince /.ers. Oppie was the subject of saint hood on PBS and futher sainting by the "press." Consider them brainwashed.

      That said Teller was a right wing kook as well as a briliant man.

    2. Re:Oppie was a Commie by donkeyDevil · · Score: 1

      And so were a bunch of other government officials. It's a shame that there was no competent, professional, systematic elimination of those elements from the western security apparatus; instead we got boneheads like McCarthy...

      Enough members of the western scientific and diplomatic communities were enraptured by Leninist/Stalinist dogma to further infect and destroy two generations of leadership. Western society teetered on a brink for a lot longer than it needed to because of it.

    3. Re:Oppie was a Commie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think anybody could have done better faced with the pandemic opposition from the government and the media that constantly bombarded McCarthy? It's got to be hard to conduct an reasonable investigation when the Times keeps talking about how you're a fascist and a moron and Congress keeps attempting to torpedo the investigations.

    4. Re:Oppie was a Commie by donkeyDevil · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess not since nobody did...

      But McCarthy was an unfortunate combination of those things that make a juicy target for the opposition.

  72. Nuclear fusion by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

    If the power of the H-bomb can eventually be harnessed and used for commercial electricity generation, Teller will be remembered more fondly, I think. I hope I see it in my lifetime.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  73. The other side of the Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leo Szilard was the other side of the Force.

  74. Good riddance! by CausticWindow · · Score: 1

    Today I will celebrate the death of a man that actively participated in the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands.

    Developing the nuclear bomb was right. Advocating it's use on civillians as a deterrence, was not.

    Neither was his branding of colleuges that disagreed with him as communists and traitors. The only reason Einstein wasn't one of them, was that he was already too famous.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    1. Re:Good riddance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well with such a totally wrong view of history it's easy to see how you maintain your good "karma"" at slashdot. I bet you are frequently modded up as well. Don't let the fact get in your way.

    2. Re:Good riddance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today I will celebrate the death of a man that actively participated in the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands.

      How many people has the HYDROGEN bomb killed?

      1 hundred thousand?

      1 million?

      1 billion ?

      Try zero.

    3. Re:Good riddance! by CausticWindow · · Score: 1

      If you hadn't previously noted, it's the winners who (re)write the history. In this case, that equates to the ones with most karma. I can say whatever I want and get away with it.

      --
      How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    4. Re:Good riddance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let the facts get in the way of these idiots' emotions.

  75. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    frist pots

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > frist pots

      That's a pretty brash accusation! How do you know that Senator Bill Frist smokes pot?

  76. No mention of Ulam? by piotru · · Score: 3, Informative

    For good or bad, Teller wasn't the only father of the hydrogen bomb.
    From:
    http://www.phy.bg.ac.yu/web_projects /giants/teller .html

    ----
    Teller and his colleagues at Los Alamos made little actual progress in designing a workable thermonuclear device until early in 1951, when the physicist Stanislaw M. Ulam proposed to use the mechanical shock of an atomic bomb to compress a second fissile core and make it explode; the resulting high density would make the burning of the second core's thermonuclear fuel much more efficient. Teller in response suggested that radiation, rather than mechanical shock, from the atomic bomb's explosion be used to compress and ignite the thermonuclear second core. Together these new ideas provided a firm basis for a fusion weapon, and a device using the Teller-Ulam configuration, as it is now known, was successfully tested at Enewetak atoll in the Pacific on Nov. 1, 1952; it yielded an explosion equivalent to 10 million tons (10 megatons) of TNT.

    ----

  77. Not So Admirable Teller by neibwe · · Score: 1

    Teller and his [AEC[2]] entourage falsely propogandized that Project Chariot[3] which would have "Chernobylized our northwest Alaskan wilderness"[2] could have a controlled detonation with minimal environmental impact.

    A small group of concerned scientists, teachers, and other locals (some of which lost their jobs for resisting) fought against the popular political/civic/administrative support for the project and finally succeeded in stopping an environmental catastrophe.

    Dan O'Neill's The_Firecracker_Boys covers these subjects as well as disturbing findings that AEC claims that fish would be wholesome and edible despite evidence of fallout contamination and bioamplifcation from the Bikini[3] bomb experiments (1994).

    ___________
    [1] Atomic Energy Comission
    [2] _Kirkus_Reviews_ quote on The_Firecracker_Boys.
    [3] Atomic bomb test site which is incidentally the nominal origin of bikini swimwear.

  78. I met him, also. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    I met him once, also. Your description sounds like the person I met.

  79. Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical slashdoters.

    Teller was a Jew. To the left it's ok to be an anti-semite. So we se him called all sorts of evil suff. Statements made that have no basis in facts. Political axes ground. Nothing of substance form the leftist jew haters. Same old the US is always evil and wrong shit with a huzza! Teller is dead garnish.
    Fuck you bastards are ignorant and sick.

  80. Edward the Great by im+a+fucking+coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apparently nobody studies history anymore, but Mr. Teller should be recognized as a national hero of science.

    Oppenheimer had been closely associated with communists from his earliest relationships, had latter vigorously attempted to stop H bomb development, and the secrets of the atomic bomb were stolen from under his management. To fault Teller for bearing true witness is lunacy, nearly as crazy as it was to fault Robert for his friendships and point of view, (which he had forthrightly admitted prior to becoming admin of Los Alamos).

    Moreover, Teller had a legitimate reason to fear and despise Stalin, along with any group to which he was associated, having witnessed the terror of the Red army spilling familial blood in the streets of Hungary. He had first hand knowledge of the depths of its depravity, and was prescient in his understanding that only inexplicable horror would sate the whims of communist dictators.

    That he should love this country enough to devote the greater part of his life and mental energies to protecting US dominance and expanding our sphere of influence to cover the globe demonstrates an uncanny foresight coupled with what must have been a deeply held love for the whole of humanity. Admittedly he hid it well with gruff mannerisms, but any other conclusions are based on illogical, often hysterical premises.

    Consider the historical context: Both the Germans AND Japanese were developing nuclear weapons. Stalin killed 25 million Russians, Poles, Jews, etc. Germans killed untold millions after working them to death, and experimented on living 'subjects'. The Japanese were guilty of the Bataan death march, and countless atrocities not limited even to hacking off prisoners penises and sewing them to their lips while still alive, and easily raping and killing millions of innocent civilians. You have to be strictly ignorant of the 20th century not to realize that our obtaining first mastery of atomic structure is the only thing that stopped terrorism on a continental scale. If any of these parties had gained an unanswerable first strike nuclear capability, the untold misery of billions would have hung in the balance.

    Teller, Szilard, Oppenheimer, Rabi, Bohr, Rutherford, Einstein, and the other scientists involved in atom & H bomb development are owed a HUGE debt of gratitude by the world, by civilization itself.

    The world is a shade darker with the loss of Edward's brilliance.

    Kommando Chris

    PS: It's sad to realize the unknowing sacrifice of .25 million Nipponese saved the lives of at least 15 million. If you can coherently argue otherwise, I agree to disagree, but would encourage an indepth study of Japan circa 1920-45 rather than trade meaningless barbs. The study of radiation effects is impossible to understand humanely, but asking a million Marines to kill millions is hardly an adequate answer.
    Hirohito was powerless and mute without the shock and terror delivered to the populous, and if the destruction of Tokyo by bombardment had not produced the desired surrender (civilians were ordered to stay in their homes and try to put out the fires until dead), how many more millions should we have blown up to bring the war to an end?
    Simply put, it was the most horrible and humane way to bring a merciful end to the insanity of that war.
    PSS: Pacifists (Einstein, Szilard & Fermi(?)) hatched the idea of atomic bombs, the liberal Democrats (FDR) in government secretly commited to and funded these 'horrible' and 'inhumane' weapons, a 'communist' (Oppie) developed them, and another Democrat (Truman) dropped them. Please explain to me why I'm more intelligent, compassionate and humane as a pacifist Democratic voter again? Oh yeah, our party blew up 250,000 innocent civilians. And we freed the slaves, er... wait a minute... and we directly increased taxes to consumers by increasing taxes on the evil corporations, who only add that cost directly to their goods and services...ummmm, shit. Harakiri anyone?

    1. Re:Edward the Great by Angostura · · Score: 1
      "Oppenheimer had been closely associated with communists from his earliest relationships"

      Well there you go then. Obviously guilty.

    2. Re:Edward the Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, I'll bite your bait.

      The Japanese supposedly were developing atomic weapons. But to what extent? If you REALLY knew your history during that period, you'd know better than to seriously believe that the Japanese were anywhere even remotely close to completing an Atomic Bomb.

      An educated guess based on discoveries and declassified documents after the war would point to the fact that the Japanese got the idea and probably most of their knowledge from the Germans. They probably didn't have enough man power or even resources, or even a DESIRE to develop it any further.

      Are you aware that the Japanese were developing Jet Engine Propelled Aircraft? Yep, that's right, this was before the Americans had developed one. They also got most of the information from the Germans, who did or almost did finish building some. (For those unaware, the basic concept behind jet engines are a LOT more simple than that of an internal combustion engine.) It's a bit obscure as to whether or not the Japanese actually did finish one, but according to the plans, their design would create a plane that would fly slower than their propeller based fighters. The reason they were putting so much effort into creating the jet was because it would run on alternative fuels. Namely, vegetable oil and oil from pine tar. A jet engine will run on just about anything that burns (look it up, there are actually crazy hobbyists that have made turbo jets that run on burning LUMBER!) and that was the motivation. They were terribly short on fuel.

      So, to say that America had to developt an A-Bomb before the Japanese did is just downright stupid. There was no necessity beyond that of the political realm of the time. Now, needing to build an H-Bomb before Soviet Russia did, is probably an entirely different can of worms. Two evils don't make a right, but the only choice was probably the lesser of two evils anyhow. Ain't life a bitch? ;-)

      Oh, and by the way, if you think that Emperor Hirohito was EVER in control of Japan, you're on crack. The Japanese royal family has over a 2000 year history of inbreeding, with the occasional outsider coming into the picture every once in a while. It's an open secret that Hirohito's father was most likely mentally retarted, and thus he was rarely ever placed in a public setting. When he WAS in a public setting, it was done in as short of a time frame as possible, and as far away as possible. There are stories (not records, keeping such records was a no-no) of the Emperor rolling up documents and playing with them like a telescope.

      That said, Emperor Hirohito was rarely seen doing anything beyond waving his hand to the public. There was a rare occasion where he read a very short document for the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. He read it slooow, and seemed to have trouble reading it, even though it was short. (All he said was "I now declare the xxth Olympic Games started".) His declaration that the war was over was complete pre-recorded, so that's out of the question.

      The current Emperor is married to an outsider, (suprise suprise!) and does not appear to be retarded. (A bit slow, maybe. Mentally retarded, no.) His son, the current prince, is very capable, and the authorities in charge are taking great advantage of making him make long speaches, comments, and otherwise showing off how non-handicapped he is to the public.

      So, during WW2, the MILITARY was in charge. All the time. An attempted coup within the Military right after the MILITARY decided to surrender, is a pretty good example. They tried to steal the Emperors recording. If the Emperor really WAS in control, and was seen as a God as he supposedly was, this would be quite unlikely.

      So, there you have it.

    3. Re:Edward the Great by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      your answer addressed the wrong thing anyways..

      the 'it had to be done'(or at least researched) in the usa(from usa point of view) wasn't that japaneses were developing it(rather, the nazis could have been developing it, having had the right blocks to start with at least).

      but you didn't address at the why they were used on japan. they were available and were the better option than to invade japan forcefully(hundreds of thousands dead vs. millions, including american soldiers and great number if civilians), which was the parents point.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Edward the Great by ojQj · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Most of your post sounds plausible but I'd like to take issue with one (off-topic) point you made:

      and we directly increased taxes to consumers by increasing taxes on the evil corporations, who only add that cost directly to their goods and services

      When a tax on a good is increased, it is rarely the case that the full cost of that tax is passed on to the consumer. How much is passed on depends on the elasticity of demand (ie, taxes on cigarettes come primarily out of the consumers pocket. Taxes on little niceties nobody really needs come primarily out of the pockets of the producers. Elasticy of demand does have a mathematical representation, but I'm just trying to give you the general idea). More important: we don't tax corporations or anybody else for that matter just because they are evil. We tax them to fund projects and programs. Some projects are for the public good and wouldn't get paid for otherwise. Public education, public roads, a defensive military, and public vaccinations are all good examples of such projects.

      My (very conservative) economics professor taught this to me, and supplied the supporting mathematics. Actually deciding which projects to fund, and what an appropriate tax policy is is a much better area in which to present your arguments.

      Despite some of the over-simplified sound bytes coming out of the two parties, this is what the power struggle between them amounts to. But if we loose sight of this goal and the environment of facts through which we have to navigate to get there by repeating the sound bytes, then we aren't going to get there.

    5. Re:Edward the Great by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Apparently nobody studies history anymore, but Mr. Teller should be recognized as a national hero of science.

      Except, on closer inspection, he was also somewhat crazy. He thought nuclear bombs should be used for stuff like earthmoving. Once he proposed an idea along these lines to Greece's Queen Frederika. Supposedly she replied, "Thank vou, Dr. Teller, but Greece has enough quaint ruins already."

      Don't get me wrong; I am pro-nuclear. I just think Dr. Teller was a bit too rabid about flinging bombs around.

      Just found this link. It's a chapter from Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" that talks about Teller.

    6. Re:Edward the Great by jak163 · · Score: 1
      And we freed the slaves, er... wait a minute...

      It was the Republican Party that carried out emancipation with the Emancipation Procalamation in 1863 and the 13th Amendment in 1865, not the Democratic Party.

    7. Re:Edward the Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hirihito was assuredly not mentally retarded. He was very publicly visible and was actually a noted ichthyologist.

    8. Re:Edward the Great by im+a+fucking+coward · · Score: 1

      My sarcasm towards my political party was too subtle, my apologies.

    9. Re:Edward the Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Publicly visible my ass. I live in Japan, and am part Japanese, and get to see the imperial family on TV very often. If that's what you mean by "Visible", then yes, he was. However, take a look at the context he's put in. Almost 99% of the time he was merely waving at the crowd, almost always from quite a distance. The guy could probably barely speak cohesive words of his own, and that is why they probably used "The Emperor is a god, thus he doesn't speak to the peasants" excuse. And it's visible from old footage that it was so even before he started going senile from old age.

      Now, look further back in history and check out the Emperor from the Meiji era (sorry, can't recall his name). HE was active in politics, and was visible. There are also plenty of records of him speaking his own mind. This was an age when Japan was trying to industrialize and modernize at a pace unheard of, and were copying everything European. This included stepping down a bit from "God" status and actually talking and ruling. (Until then the imperial family had pretty much been nothing more than a religeous figure for 400 or 500 years, and probably had little trace left as a real monarch from the ages before.)

    10. Re:Edward the Great by im+a+fucking+coward · · Score: 1

      Except, on closer inspection, he was also somewhat crazy. He thought nuclear bombs should be used for stuff like earthmoving.

      Except, on even closer inspection, using blast yields that cost millions to billions of dollars to replicate with standard construction methods is perhaps only slightly eccentric. And on a philosophical level, applying destructive forces for constructive ends bring this right back around to just being logically brilliant. That anyone finds this to be anything other than a logical extension of using dynamite to create tunnels or mine ore is a little perplexing.

    11. Re:Edward the Great by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      That anyone finds this to be anything other than a logical extension of using dynamite to create tunnels or mine ore is a little perplexing.

      Well, for starters, dynamite doesn't throw radiactive particles everywhere. Someone stealing a truckload of dynamite is not as worrying as someone stealing a thermonuclear weapon.

    12. Re:Edward the Great by im+a+fucking+coward · · Score: 1

      Well, for starters, dynamite doesn't throw radiactive particles everywhere. Someone stealing a truckload of dynamite is not as worrying as someone stealing a thermonuclear weapon.

      Understandably, you're confusing the older, initial tests of the atom/hydrogen bombs with newer versions that don't 'throw radioactive particles everywhere' to which Teller would've been referring. And 'logical extension' doesn't equal 'exactly parallel to' in this case. Obviously you're not going to give five guys in hard hats a blasting cap and 10 Kg's of plutonium in a pickup truck and say "go to it fellers!", that's absurd.

  81. Teller snuffs it by jandersen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, we all go that way, don't we? Some after having lived a life in abundance, but most after a short and miserable one.

    I am shocked and deeply disturbed every time I see just how many people still have the delusion that big weapons = invincible power. Haven't you learned from the long long list of failures - just to mention a few: Vietnam, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq all show that even though you can roll all your weapons and killing machines over a nation, it doesn't mean that you have won.

    What would happen if USA turned a place into a glazed desert? Well, first of all the world would have lost whatever that area held in the form of natural riches; you might go prospecting for rarae and strange minerals there after a while if you wear a protective suit, but there would be no living things. And, believe it or not, the greatest potential value in this world lies in the living ecosystems, not in the minerals - just think of eg. new medicines.

    Secondly, every time a nation is seen to be grossly unjust - as is the case with eg. USA in Iraq, Vietnam ..., or Israel in Palestine - it creates more enemies. Just think about it; if I were to smack your face in front of a crowd of people, I would certainly turn you against me, but I would probably also generate resentment amongst the people who saw it. So, if I start with just one enemy and deal harshly with him/her, I end up with many more. It's simple, really.

    So we should all have more 'nukes' or 'nukuler atomic bombs'? Or, I assume, USA should have more. I don't think so. That kind of 'thinking' will only speed us on the way to WWIII, and I for one am not eager to get there - I can't decide whether I would rather survive that one or not. As Einstein said: 'I don't know what will be used in the next world war, but the 4th will be fought with stones.' (according to http://www.quoteworld.org/browse.php?thetext=war,f ight,battle,conflict&page=8)

    Another nice one by the way: 'He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.'

    1. Re:Teller snuffs it by philbert26 · · Score: 1
      So we should all have more 'nukes' or 'nukuler atomic bombs'? Or, I assume, USA should have more.

      Somebody had better tell the president. The USA is reducing its nuclear stockpile.

    2. Re:Teller snuffs it by donkeyDevil · · Score: 1

      Cute, but being friendly only works when you're dealing with people who have an interest in being friendly, too. When you're dealing with folks who want to destroy you, your lifestyle, your society, and the underpinnings thereof, it doesn't serve you well.

      Vietnam and "Palestine" are poor examples of "roll[ing] all your weapons and killing machines over a nation" for many reasons. The Israelis have not used all of their weapons in combating the "palestinian" terrorists who kill ruthlessly---albeit primitively---on an almost daily basis. The Americans never really committed to Vietnam. Had they, it probably wouldn't be a communist state whose residents flee at the least chance.

      While you might wish to be torn to shreds, others value the society that ensures your right not to be so torn. And a select few find themselves dying for that each day. When Hitler came calling, the British didn't offer tea, I think we're better off for it.

  82. actually, they said by Isti · · Score: 1

    Jol van, most maGYarul folytathatjuk. ;)

  83. Goodbye, Teller... by Enoch+Root · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mad scientists and evil overlords everywhere mourn your passing!

    1. Re:Goodbye, Teller... by schmedley · · Score: 1

      The rest of us dance with glee!

  84. Your truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's wonderful for you to put how you justify you pussyhood in writing for us.

    So we just let the isalmists kill all the Jews in Isreal. (They have been trying since the UN established the state) after they are done there they can come after the rest of western civilization since it pretty much conflicts with their mideval belief system and we really shold die for that. As well we should never defend our countries or their interests. Finally even better yet to make you feel OK we will just mass sucide for you. Will that make your pacifist, appeasing, surender monkey ass happy?

  85. Edward Teller at Barrapunto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spanish news site Barrapunto has a post about Teller. (Spanish)

  86. Congratulations by amorsen · · Score: 1
    If the US had an antimissile shield on the other hand, N. Korea's nukes get blown up in flight, and the ground invasion grinds on.

    You have just excellently described why the missile shield is a primarily offensive invention.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    1. Re:Congratulations by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      And, of course, the best defense is a good offense - doesn't just apply to football.

      Using your logic, though, any defensive measure that would keep us alive to keep fighting is automatically an offensive one. Perhaps we can agree that they are intertwined, but calling a defensive shield a "primarily offensive weapon" is a bit of a stretch.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:Congratulations by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Mutually Assured Destruction has served well in preventing all countries from using nuclear weapons. The only time nuclear weapons were used were when there was no risk of retaliation. The only other scenario where it makes sense to use nuclear weapons is if all is lost anyway and destruction is certain. The shield is only necessary if it is expected that some country will end up with that scenario. As such it is certainly offensive.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:Congratulations by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but the original quote was "...and the ground invasion grinds on"

      Being rational, of course nuclear weapons are a last resort - which is why we can imagine ourselves in a ground war with a nuclear power to begin with.

      Such a missile shield has no offensive capability except allowing us to continue to live. You cannot twist that into believing that simply our existence, at a time we're involved in a war, means any defense of our lives implies offense.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  87. And also read ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hiroshima Diary by Michihiko Hachiya, MD. He was the chef medical doctor at the Hiroshima hospital.

    I read 'the making of ..' before the 'diary'. Both are excellant books. But I think the latter puts the former into perspective.

  88. Re:Don't mess with Um! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Muslim coming to grips with world events and Jewish influence, I've determined one important thing. The Jewish people value education, and they are a close-knit community. It isn't surprising that they succeed to the top of any field they pursue, whether it be the sciences, the arts, peace activism, or war-mongering.

    It was said that during Islamic-rule of Spain (couple of hundred years ago), there were Jews in numerous positions of government, science, medicine, and literature, sometimes at the top of their respective fields. I think the period was from 855AD to 1146AD. After 1146AD, a more fanatical "Muslim" dynasty ruled the land and made hell for the non-Muslims.

    I truly believe that if we [Muslims and Jews] settled our differences in the Middle East, that together, we could embark on a new age of peace, prosperity and higher learning. ...Ofcourse, together with our Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc brothers.

  89. Re:I met Dr. Teller... MOD UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was flamebait, HOW? It goes a bit off track of Dr. Teller's story, but it is NOT flamebait, and it's comming from someone who (supposedly) actually met the man 30 years ago, when he was most likely a lot more active than a 95 year old man.

  90. Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thousands of cancer victims can finally rest in peace. May they see you burn in hell.

  91. Now one of the most sought after scuba sites by Angostura · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The site of that test is now a mecca for diving enthusiasts, but the person who owns the dive rights only opens the waters for very limited usage. Hence divers dream about being able to dive in the waters which now has an immensely rich biodiversity. But they know they are unlikely to ever get there. FWIW's the test was an astonishing attempt to try and see what effect the bomb would have on a real fleet. There is at least one aircraft carrier down there.

    1. Re:Now one of the most sought after scuba sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Immensely rich biodiversity" ??? Does that mean there are lots of weird glowing mutant creatures down there or what? Why would anyone dive there when they could be grabbed by a mutant 30-feet crab at any moment?!

    2. Re:Now one of the most sought after scuba sites by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      ITTTTSSSSS GoddddZzzZizilLllLlaAAAaaA!!!!!!

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
  92. Those damn dirty africans and their nukes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya those damn Africans and their nukes! They're dangerous!

    You can only trust white people to have nukes!

  93. Right to bear thermonuclear missiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nukes don't kill people, people do! Nukes for everyone! Stick it in the constitution! I want my own tactical nuclear deterrent!

  94. Rockets and Racists by TygerFish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are a lot of threads here, some of them old and ugly.

    1. With regard to the Middle Eastern Mess; it's, well, a mess. None of the Ugly anti-semitic, anti-jewish/anti-arab arguments, slurs, conspiracy theories--ancient and modern-- and what have you are anything like necesary.

    Really, save yourself the energy; borrow a page from Witgenstein and, instead of making meaningless statements, why not just say that sickening generalizations aren't worth your time? Really, they aren't and can't be when playing with a yo-yo for the time it took to think up the biggot-stuff would at least have the fact that it built motor coordination to recommend it.

    2. Concerning the star wars/anti star wars arguments, it's a nasty can of worms to have opened. Now that that it's in the world, the people who like it seem to hold it in a similar light to that which is usually reserve for questions of religious faith. Star wars just won't die and that's too bad, considering how short life is. I obviously fall on the 'anti' side when it comes to the issue and I think my reasons are good.

    Long thoughtful books have been written on just what crap the whole notion of missle defense is. Missile screens are vastly expensive and, like the Maginot Line, limited by their specialization. Worse still, If nothing else, the September 11 attacks clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that the traditional 'nuclear deterrent' enjoyed by the great powers is itself ineffective and is rapidly becoming less so because every small nation that gets nuclear arms and aims them at anything important get to thumb its nose at the great powers that have them. Current affairs in North Korea, suggest that if Saddam Hussein had had them, he'd be smoking a cigar in Baghdad right now.

    Real, effective, missile defense is decades and tens, if not hundreds of billions away and even if it had been up and running, running perfectly, from some spotless control center two years ago, it would have been meaningless against 20 guys in the right place armed with ten bucks worth of boxcutters.

    In the world of fantasy and need, a simple, single solution like star wars is a magic bullet. Magic bullets aren't like the real world's compromises and partial successes; magic bullets solve all known old problems and create no new ones. When people imagine a magic bullet, hope blows away common sense, in this case, at an unimaginable cost.

    Star wars is expensive. Boxcutters are cheap, but real, sustainable peace is cheaper still.

    --
    To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
    "Yeah. It smells, too..."
    1. Re:Rockets and Racists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but real, sustainable peace is cheaper still

      Hmmm... sustainable peace.. cheaper...soundbite..

      You are joking, right. Sustainable peace has one distinction over every other option that has been tried, namely it's obviously impossible, at least the other ideas have some possibility of working.

    2. Re:Rockets and Racists by TygerFish · · Score: 1

      ...but real, sustainable peace is cheaper still...

      Yes, I'm quoting myself. I think the point was missed the first time.

      I believe that there exist one or more sets of circumstances which can be brought about by human effort which would allow a sustainable peace in the Middle East. That is an article of faith with me.

      I personally do not know what those actions are (I'm not a diplomat) however, I am certainly not stupid enough to believe the solution to the current problems are, 'tie up two thirds of your armed forces to invade a country other than the one in which the enemy leader is hiding,' and then 'build a complex, untested and untestable machinery, and bet your lives and the lives of your children that it will defend you against threats for which it was in no way designed.

      I guess I'm just a wild and crazy thinker in that respect.

      You write, 'at least the other ideas have some possibility of working,' and by this, I can only assume you mean, star wars (see 'religious faith' in my previous note).

      IF this is the case please explain to me how a multibillion-dollar, space-based missile defense system can defend against:

      a) A truckload of explosives.
      b) more guys on planes with weapons that get past metal detectors.
      c) someone in an important place with thirty sticks of dynamite strapped to his chest.

      If you can do this with an answer that sounds sane and cogent, I will not only concede your point, but I will take out a small personals ad in the New York Times to proclaim the triumph of your reasoning.

      You come up with the jaw-slackening act of genius and I'll provide you with an object that you can show your grandchildren.

      --
      To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
      "Yeah. It smells, too..."
  95. Why should some disagree? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Only because this man clearly stated he did not care about the moral consequences of his endaevours, was willing to sacrifice anything (like Alaskan wilderness or poor Pacific islanders homes) in the pursuit of his deadly devices or because for 50 years humanity was held hostage of these paranoids (and their soviet counterparts)?

    Why should anybody disagree with your praise, specially you being a military man (which clearly in your mind makes you something different or even better than the rest of poor uncamouflaged us).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Why should some disagree? by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Only because this man clearly stated he did not care about the moral consequences of his endaevours, was willing to sacrifice anything (like Alaskan wilderness or poor Pacific islanders homes) in the pursuit of his deadly devices or because for 50 years humanity was held hostage of these paranoids (and their soviet counterparts)?

      First, we and the Soviets were not held hostage by weapons. In fact, Teller's work is directly responsible for ending the cycle of terrible wars that would sweep across Europe every 20-50 years. His work has assured us that war would be reserved to smaller areas where the most powerful nations did not have a strong enough stake to threaten distruction on themselves.

      Think of this: what if the US and the western European nations never had the hydrogen bomb - and a tolitarian state did. That would be truley being held hostage. Teller guaranteed our freedom and wrote the check that ensured that large-scale wars between superpowers would never again be feasible.

      --
      -- $G
    2. Re:Why should some disagree? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Right, now we a single superpower, who doesn't mind waging war against anybody it perceived going against its interests. I'm not talking solely about Iraq & Afghanistan, look up what else the US have bombed in the last few decades.

      Now third world countries have wised up to that. Why do you think North Korea is so interested in developing its own nuclear weapons?

      And that promotes peace all over the globe how exactly?

    3. Re:Why should some disagree? by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Now third world countries have wised up to that. Why do you think North Korea is so interested in developing its own nuclear weapons?

      This is not surprising. It is only surprising that it has taken 50 years.

      And that promotes peace all over the globe how exactly?

      Peace is relative. Compare the last 50 years to the prior 50 years. The last 50 have been relatively uneventful in comparison.

      Study history and you'll find all kinds of various military interventions. What is impressive is that war has not spread like wildfire as it would of 50 years ago. Wars just don't escalate anymore.

      --
      -- $G
    4. Re:Why should some disagree? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

      It's not surprising it took 50 years. The dvp of nuclear weapons is still a hard task.

      > What is impressive is that war has not spread like
      > wildfire as it would of 50 years ago. Wars just
      > don't escalate anymore.

      They are not the same wars. WWI and II were between the superpowers of the time.

  96. There's a plus side.... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    If Nortk Korea takes out California, would that end the RIAA bullshit?? (And the MPAA!)
    And just think, no recall election!

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  97. Thought you all got me again.... by ellem · · Score: 1

    First I thought, "Oh no that guy who doesn't talk is dead!"

    Then I thought, "Oh no, this is like that time I read S King was dead here told everyone and then everyone called me a doody-head for lying to them."

    Now I think, "Who?"

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  98. Teller also quite the kook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was a kook. Make no mistake.

    1. Re:Teller also quite the kook by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's funny how people who've actually lived under tyranny really, really, really hate it.

  99. For those who don't agree with the parent post: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    It seems that some people who read Slashdot don't like the parent story, since it was immediately modded as flamebait, when it is clearly not that. For those who think Dr. Teller should be respected, consider this:

    TELLER MEMORIES

    Letters of condolence: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is accepting letters of condolence on behalf of Teller's family. Letters may be sent to Teller Family, c/o Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, L-1, Livermore, CA 94551. Faxes can be sent to 925-422-8554 or e-mail to houghton3@llnl.gov

    Memorial gifts: Edward Teller's family has asked that in lieu of flowers, tax-deductible donations be made to the Fannie and John Hertz Foundation. Further information on the foundation is available by contacting Barbara Nichols at 925-373-1642 or barb@hertzfoundation.org or John Holzrichter at jfh@hertzfoundation.org.

    Memorial services: Plans are not yet finalized.

    For more information: visit Edward Teller Memorial Information.

  100. Ahh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Their main task is to never be used, to just sit there and look evil.

    Then you won't mind if everyone else has them too.

  101. The Guy Who Destroyed Oppenheimer by aswang · · Score: 1

    Didn't Teller lead the crusade to strip Oppenheimer of his security credentials by insinuating that Oppenheimer was a pinko commie for opposing nuclear proliferation? And that this effectively destroyed Oppenheimer's career?

    1. Re:The Guy Who Destroyed Oppenheimer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES! and worst than that, he lead the movement for the greatest buildup in human history and this has left us with TONS of plutonium. That's right, TONS of refined plutonium sets in caskets outside of Amarillo in piles just less than critial mass separated by a few meters. And it will be ready to make nuclear weapons for millenia.

      AND Teller was the architect of the "Star Wars" program. He was a good friend of President Reagan and got him on board with his greatest wet dream - popup X-ray lasers in space. This beastie is a one shot device that uses a nuclear explosion that is focused by a crystal array into a tight beam of massive X-rays just before it is vaporized.

      He was Kubrick's model for Dr. Stranglove. I am damn glad he is gone!!

  102. Re:Don't mess with Um! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because they were not called Israelis and Palestinians doesnt mean the conflict hasnt been going on, moron.

    Ever hear of the Philistines?

  103. Two more views by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    He was definitely more than a kook, as the parent post says. Two more views of Edward Teller:

    Passion, patriotism marked Teller
    (He was important, but single-minded about nuclear weapons.)
    Quote: "He had these sort of blinders where he couldn't see the costs, he could only see the benefits of nuclear weapons," Gusterson said. "He was sort of a one-eyed genius in that way."

    My own opinion: I met Dr. Teller...
    (He influenced the world to be more violent.)

  104. Thanks for correction by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 1
    Thanks (to you and others) for the correction. It's been nine years since I spoke any Hungarian.
    but slashdot doesn't allow accents
    I noticed And it doesn't allow HTML entities either. It is a pity because
    sz\'arba s\"okik
    isn't the same with out the accents
    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    1. Re:Thanks for correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa there! You're a pretty advanced (non-native, I gather) appreciator of Hungarian if you can see the humor in that.

      For those who don't:
      sz\'arba sz\:okik = (plant) grows flowers
      szarba szokik = (somebody) gets used to shit
      or even
      szarba sz\:okik = (prisoner) escapes, only to arrive into shit

      -----------------------

      Hmm. I never thought I'd make a comment like this on a Teller Obit topic. I once saw the man deliver a lecture to a general audience on advanced nuclear power plants. 'twas good, and he even defused some attending anti-nuclear protestors on the fly. (He took a gulp from his glass of water and said "That's my cooling water!")

      He was quite a mind and a character. Rest in peace, Dr. Teller.

  105. Was it Szilard? by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 1

    I don't know. It could have been von Neumann. I don't even know if the story is true. I've heard it several times, but it might by apocryphal.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
  106. To bomb or not to bomb? Reductio ad absurdum by amightywind · · Score: 1

    Here is a summary of the arguments made whenever the subject of Hiroshima comes up:

    • The U.S. did not need to nuke an already defeated enemy.
    • 100,000 U.S. invasion troops are thankful that they did.

    Repeat until bored

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  107. About crude devices by BigGerman · · Score: 1
    Don't forget that Trinity explosion in July 1945 was the test of the _plutonium_ device. The Hiroshima bomb was uranium. So the _untested_ device was used first in the battlefield conditions.

    This tells us how design can be reliable even if it is not tested and crude.

    1. Re:About crude devices by niteshad · · Score: 1

      The reason that the Uranium-235 gun-type bomb, used on Hiroshima, was never tested prior to use, was that its workings were generally regarded as simple, and virtually fool-proof. In contrast, the Plutonium core implosion bomb design detonated at Alamagordo and over Nagasaki, required a great deal of high-precision engineering, and a lot of tricky physics regarding the implosion shockwave generated by the conventional explosives surrounding the plutonium core. With so many potential points of failure, the Army wanted a test of the design, prior to including it in the arsenal.

      --
      To email me,subtract my nick from my email address, starting with the second character. (hint: adto.uiuc.edu is wrong)
  108. NPR Coverage... by johnwyles · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I heard NPR cover this story yesterday and they had stated that he was very careful about what he said, and did not want to be taken out of context; so much so, that he would time his response to questions with a stopwatch!

    --
    [[ the only 15 letter word that is spelled without repeating a letter is uncopyrightable: it may soon be, however. ]]
  109. You're kidding! by mraymer · · Score: 1

    I just saw the the standard "some sad news, $name died" troll yesterday while metamoding... and it was Edward Teller's name. So you mean, for once this troll was true?! Now I have to question the vitality of Stephen King, BSD, and our own Wil Wheaton!

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

  110. Teller dead...good! by Simonetta · · Score: 1, Troll


    One by one the monsters of the 20th century are leaving us for their own little special place in hell.

    This guy was directly and primarily responsible for creating hydrogen bomb.

    The world is a better place now that he's dead.

    Thank you,
    Simonetta

    1. Re:Teller dead...good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be a better place if his knowledge had died with him.

    2. Re:Teller dead...good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh spare me the drama.

      Ted Kennedy's killed more people in his car than have been killed by exploding hydrogen bombs.

    3. Re:Teller dead...good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simonetta, you ignorant slut,

      Hydrogen bombs have never been used on people.

    4. Re:Teller dead...good! by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 1

      An AC wrote:

      > Hydrogen bombs have never been used on people.

      Correction: they have never on purpose been used on people. Accidents do happen, and Cold War secrecy made this one worse:

      On March 1, 1954, a 15 megaton hydrogen bomb, code named Bravo, was exploded on the Bikini Atoll. Outside the restricted zone, 125 miles to the east was the inhabited Rongelap Atoll, and 100 miles to the east a Japanese fishing boat, the Lucky Dragon, was operating.

      The explosion kicked up a violent nuclear hurricane, which hit Rongelap and the Lucky Dragon. The inhabitants of Rongelap and the crew of the Lucky Dragon were heavily dosed with radiation from both the hurricane and from the radioactive ash that fell like yellow snow. These caused deaths, badly deformed babies, and many cancers.

      On September 23, 1954, Aikichi Kuboyama, the Lucky Dragon's radioman, died, the first victim of the hydrogen bomb. Headlines in Japan declared Bravo to be "The Second Atomic Bombing of Mankind".

      The Japanese made movie, in part so that Bravo's victims would not be forgotten. Released on November 3, 1954, it featured first the radioactive destruction of ships at sea, and then a destructive force visiting an island during a hurricane. Finally, for the first time in history, Godzilla, Son of Bravo, appears in Tokyo Bay.

      "Our people.. stricken with disease.
      You.. you played with the fires of the gods.
      And you dare to come here and ask us for help!
      You betrayed us! You expect us to trust you after what you have done?"
      Infant Island Chief, "Godzilla vs. Mothra" (US Version), 1964
      (Released near the 10th anniversary of Bravo, featuring the defeat of Godzilla by Mothra, goddess of peace.)

    5. Re:Teller dead...good! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      You may disagree with his post, but it's far from a troll. Teller's obit mentions that there are many people who consider his work in perfecting and promoting nuclear weapons as evil.

      Expressing an honest opinion (even if it is rather caustic) is not a troll.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  111. Re:I met Dr. Teller... MOD UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because of this: The U.S. government is, by some measures, the most violent government that has ever existed.

    It's just brainless US bashing. His "evidence" for that statement is a joke. Anyone who even glances at 20th century history in an unbiased way can see that that statement is clearly not true. I don't agree that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, but I think any other country in that position would have done the same and more. If you think Germany or Japan *wouldn't* have done even more with such an invention you are an idiot.

    With the exception of the Arabs, who would do a lot worse to us if they could, we don't particularly like going to war. The US has always stood for capitalism and business, not war, even in the 19th century. The US is now in a sort of cold war with the arab/islamic world for obvious reasons.

  112. Autographs and "The Question" by krysith · · Score: 1

    Yesterday my grandmother sold her autograph collection, gathered over a lifetime of meeting famous people. She saved two for me - Teller and Oppenheimer. She had met Teller in Dallas, via some Hungarian friends, and drove him to the airport. She was planning on giving me the two physicists' autographs (because I am a physicist), and it was just coincidence that she gave them to me the day he died.

    I had always hoped to meet Dr. Teller. Firstly, because meeting famous scientists can often be interesting, and secondly, because I wanted to tell him about "The Question". "The Question" is a sci-fi novel written by Dana Barbour. The villian in the novel is a fictional character named Edward Teller, who happened to have a dominant role in the creation of the Hydrogen Bomb. The disclaimer at the front of the book declares that all characters are fictional, and any resemblance to people living or dead is completely coincidental. In the book, Edward Teller tries to destroy the world by getting people to launch H-bombs at each other. I don't remember the exact plot, but it involved an underground secret lair. I always wondered what Dr. Teller would have made of it.

    1. Re:Autographs and "The Question" by UberNerd · · Score: 1
      it was just coincidence that she gave them to me the day he died.


      Uh-huh.
  113. Just because you don't agree with it by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
    You attack the author for lack of knowledge, yet it appears you haven't heard of Isodor Isaac Rabi.

    Prof. I.I.Rabi worked with Niels Bohr, Wolgang Pauli at Hamburg and Zurich, and Werner Heisenberg. He won the 1944 Nobel Prize for work on the magnetic properties of atomic nuclei. It was Rabi who declared
    "He's a danger to all that is important. I really do think it would have been a better world without Teller".

    1. Re:Just because you don't agree with it by Mordant · · Score: 1

      I know precisely who Rabi is, and he's an ignoramus, too.

  114. Stanford by frooyo · · Score: 1

    is a univeristy not a city.

  115. An Alternative To Orion by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1
    When you need nukes, nothing else will do.

    Well, there's at least one other possibility.

    Mind you, an Orion launched from orbit, outside the Van Allen belts, would pose essentially no risk to the inhabitants of Earth, and is fairly cheap and well-studied. The best description of it is in Project Orion by George Dyson, Freeman Dyson's son. A fascinating read.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:An Alternative To Orion by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      The Orion design has actually never been demonstrated to be practical for an interstellar mission. The amount of nuclear "fuel" that could be stored practically would likely mean at least a 5,000 to 10,000 year trip to Proxima Centauri.

      However it certainly has the potential to be the fastest spacecraft design to date based on current technology. Obviously, chemical rockets are a complete waste of time when it comes to interstellar travel. I was already familiar with the link you posted. It is an intriguing idea, although I don't have the technical knowledge to verify its practicality.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    2. Re:An Alternative To Orion by nusuth · · Score: 1
      Interesting concept. It looks something between NERVA and Orion. I'm not sure how exactly they can use the trust without a pusher plate, a la Orion, if the bulk of fission occurs outside reaction chamber. I'll look into it when I have time.

      The anti-nuclear lobby will so to that it shall never be used though. Sad, really.

      I agree with you that Dyson's book is excellent read. I went from "what an insane idea" to "hmmm, interesting and very promising concept, only if it was feasible" to "damn, we humans are fools, how can we NOT build that thing."

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

  116. 'H' not 'F' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I first heard of his death, I thought that he was the guy who invented the 'F-bomb'.

    The man, who without, we would never have had Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Eminem, MTV Celebrity Cribs, etc....

    RIP Teller

  117. Google for 'Teller-Ulam' by alispguru · · Score: 1

    ... and you'll see that the two of them were responsible for the core design of the H-bomb. H-bombs are a lot more complicated than just setting off an A-bomb in a barrel of deuterium. He wasn't called the "Father of the H-bomb" for his political clout alone.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  118. Dark and Light in New Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Oppie was a great man. Please stop trashing him more than what Eddie "The Asshole" Teller did.

    DARK AND LIGHT IN NEW MEXICO
    by House of Freaks

    Dark and Light in New Mexico and everyone was there
    To watch the great experiment of Robert and his heirs

    The city and the desert, the dirt and the stone
    Turn humans into ashes and cattle into bone

    A ball of tape and metal was lifted into place
    And Fat Boy dug a hole in the ground
    Big enough for the whole human race

    The radiance of a thousand suns in one cataclysmic blast
    Shattered every dreamers hopes from the first down to the last

    Well I wish we were sorry now
    I wish we were sorry...
    I wish we were sorry now

    Poor Robert

    Showed up like a government man: the bowties and white shirts
    But Acheson and Strauss were there to put his face down in the dirt

    Strung him up and left him while everybody slept
    And laid a bloody sacrifice on the White House's front steps

    Well I wish we were sorry now
    I wish we were sorry...
    I wish we were sorry now

    Poor Robert

    It's Dark and Light in New Mexico
    You'll hear these words til the day you die

    Point a gun to the head of a drum and everyone takes aim
    To shoot you off your pedestal and make you live in shame

    Well I wish we were sorry now
    I wish we were sorry...
    I wish we were sorry now

    Poor Robert

  119. And the important lesson is: by stox · · Score: 1

    If nothing else, Edward succeeded in teaching the human race that it could destroy itself. Our eyes were opened. Do you think that humanity would have realized that pollution, global warming, etc. could destroy our planet if we didn't have the bomb first? Personally, I don't think so.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  120. Re:Hiroshima and the lesson of history by tgibbs · · Score: 1
    Truman and his cabinet debated the merits of various approaches and concluded that the best approach was the one they followed. I think history has shown them to have been right.

    Well, certainly the events of 9/11 have confirmed the effectiveness of large-scale attacks directed at innocent civilian populations. Or was that what you had in mind?

    I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki (along with similar, if non-nuclear attacks on Dresden and Tokyo) forever impaired our moral standing to oppose terrorism. It was worse than embarrassing watching our leaders trying to come up with a definition of terrorism that would not include Hiroshima ("Well, it's not terrorism if it's done in the context of a decleared war by a legitimate government authority." Uh, yeah. That sounds like a moral imperative to me).

    Perhaps a demonstration wouldn't have worked. But it wasn't even tried (we would still have had a city-buster in reserve). We didn't even give them much time to absorb the lesson of Hiroshima before hitting Nagasaki.

  121. newsforge plagiarism? by SgtXaos · · Score: 1

    The phrases in the "interview" on newsforge are eerily similar to, in fact exactly copied from earlier story dated 1999 in Sci Am.

    --
    -- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!
  122. Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie by Chaltek · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rather than just reading about them, view actual footage of many nuclear tests as well as extensive interviews with Teller in Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie
    It is a very moving documentary chronicling the development of atomic weaponry.

  123. That's Why You need a Piper Cub Offense by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1
    --
    It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

    -James Baldwin
  124. Upon learning of his death by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    I told a friend of mine about it over the phone.

    His response:

    "So, Tellers dead, eh? Finally..."

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  125. Teller Is Dead, Long Live Planet Earth! by schmedley · · Score: 1, Troll

    My complete disgust at the avalance of positive news stories regarding Teller's life cannot begin to erode my absolute GLEE at his demise.

    Teller was, to quote former Lawrence Livermore, Sandia and Los Alamos collegues of his, "a very, very bad/evil man."

    I heard first-hand Teller explain at a small dinner party when I was but a child, his life mission:

    "I was put here on Earth", Teller explained, "to bring about Armageddon and the second coming of Christ." He went on, and on, and on, to the horror of the other weapons engineers and the living nightmare of their present children ( self included ). He wanted to bring about THE END, it was his life mission. He was not talking like the Nazis did at Wansee about plans to exterminate an entire people, Teller wanted to exterminate ALL people, ALL species. He dreamed of the destruction of Earth to fulfill his demented fanatical religious fantasy.

    If you, dear reader, happen to agree with his sick dream, I must also state that beyond this black hole in his soul, Teller was also a vicious boss and a scientific tyrant. He also destroyed a wide array of very succcessful alternative energy programs in order to sweep up the engineers for his non-viable SDI/StarWars program that he sold Reagan on.

    Many years later, when I saw Dr. Strangelove, it was obvious who the title character was modeled after. Unfortunately, even Peter Sellers brilliant acting didn't come close to the horror of the man that was Teller.

    Teller was extremely intelligent and probably even a genius. The fact that he won the genetic brain lottery does not in any way excuse what he did and, worse, what he wanted to do.

    Teller was a deeply evil soul. I cannot begin to describe my relief that he is finally dead.

    Long live planet Earth,
    Schmedley

    1. Re:Teller Is Dead, Long Live Planet Earth! by alizard · · Score: 1
      Got any independent sources to verify his statement about bringing Armageddon?

      It's a shame you got modded down to troll, there isn't a lot here with any sort of insights into the guy deeper than his media image.

  126. polarized opinions by witts · · Score: 1

    Rare to see a single person raise the feathers of so many here, seemingly equal numbers of supporters and detractors. Says a lot about a man that died at 95 that so many people still hold opinions about him, good or bad. So many people die nearly forgotten at such an old age...

    The other point that I think is valid is to address people who think he was a monster for creating the H bomb. I want to know, do you really think someone else would not have created the H bomb if Teller had not worked on it? Stop thinking of him as the man who let the genie out of the bottle, and realize the genie was coming out of the bottle anyway, it was just a matter of time.

    --
    pot.kettle(black);
  127. Peace Brother! by RevSmiley · · Score: 1

    You are right. Sustainable peace my ass.

    I just saw a bunch of muslims dancing in the street with knives shouting death to america in arabic on TV. Exactly how do you suggest we make peace with these people? Last time I looked US citizens are not out in the streets with gun/knives waved in the air screaming in hate death to islam or for the down fall of any nation. It seems to be the other way around. They want me dead. They want to destroy my nation. It seems that the media in the middle east and the imams there have the people they reach convinced I and my country am their oppressor. I want to know how this is? I would love to be at peace with these folks but they blame the US for every ill in their societies.
    Please tell me how to have peace with these people?

    I don't respond to ACs

    --
    As you can see I don't care about my karma.
    1. Re:Peace Brother! by TygerFish · · Score: 1

      One of the main problems conducting any discussion is speaking at cross purposes but it is often difficult to establish a common ground. Without a common point of reference, what might otherwise an intelligent examination of the issues suffers 'death by epigram.'

      In really intense capsule form, this is where I'm coming from.

      First, the personal: inasmuch as societies spring in part from religions, Islam sucks as a religion for existing in the modern world. From the sheer attention to ritual that orthodox Islam demands, to its views on lending and borrowing at interest, to its treatment of women, Islam is a tremendous impedence to any society's striving towards wealth and safety and the proof is in the history: societies under Islam have produced no real genuinely wealthy societies nor democracies in the six decades since the withdrawal of direct colonial control by the west began.

      Second, there is the history. When you mention people in Islamic societies dancing in the street with knives, they probably mean that they want to kill one of your near or distant forefathers.

      After a period of conquest, during and immediately following the life of the prophet Mohammad, which spread islam over the course of centuries creating an empire that included all of India and Afghanistan (once, part of a great Buddhist empire) and north into parts of Eastern Europe (Chechnya, Slavic genes, moslem culture) and even a large part of Spain where you can still find Arabic-based words in the language.

      Islam saw periods of rise and decline. The crusades, in which Europe invaded and occupied parts of Middle East, are filled with images or horrible European barbarism that the Islamic World has never forgotten including well-documented mistreatment of prisoners, massacres and even cannibalism--imagine, if you can, how the word, 'Crusade,' sounds to Moslem coming out of Bush's mouth.

      Jump ahead a few hundred years, and you see the rise of the Turkish Empire. The Turk's military success terrified Europe and this terror helped give form to European history on innumerable levels (read up on the history of the French croissant). Jump ahead to the end of the nineteenth century and you see the Turkish Empire at the end of its arc as a great power as well as the end of its control over the lands to the south of Turkey, including the moslem holy lands where Islam began its rise.

      After decades, if not centuries of decline, Turkey had worked hard to modernize, especially in the military area, but the end of first world war saw them on the losing side in the conflict and largely dissappearing from any meaningful role on the world's stage (watch the movie, 'Lawrence of Arabia' and/or read T.E. Lawrence's book, 'The Seven Pillars of Wisdom.')

      The period following the first world war sets the stage for the problems we see today. After world war one, the British and French divided up the territories that the various Arabic-speaking people's had fought guerilla wars of independence against the Turkish state, drawing largely arbitrary lines on the map, often throwing together people from vastly different societies who had despised one another for centuries (Iraq: Kurds to the north, Sunni moslems in the middle, Shiite Moslems--the majority population both in Iraq and in Iran--to the south, with a smattering of Christians and Jews.)

      After the end of the second world war, the process by which the Zionist movement had long been settling in the Middle East accelerated rapidly as European Jews who had survived the holocaust settled in Palestine in ever increasing numbers, coming into conflict both with their Arab neighbors and with the British colonial administration (hint: among the first terrorists hanged in the M.E. after WWII were jews who fought for independence from the British).

      Eventually, the British gave the territory to the Jews and the U.N. established the state of Israel which rapidly received massive amounts of military aid, covert at first and then more and more openly as Ara

      --
      To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
      "Yeah. It smells, too..."
  128. Thank you Mr. Teller. by pclminion · · Score: 1
    Thank you for creating the only piece of technology we currently possess which can be used to deflect or destroy an incoming asteroid.

    Don't listen to the fools who claim you were a monster; they're just short sighted. One day, all of humanity may have you to thank for our survival.

  129. Use the preview luke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corr: The anti-nuclear lobby will never let it be used though. Sad, really.

  130. McCarthy did his best by rogersc · · Score: 1

    McCarthy didn't know about the Venona Project, and did well with what he had. He did a great job exposing govt tolerance for disloyal commies.

  131. DOGMA by hellfire · · Score: 1

    Before you start spouting off about who was developing nuclear weapons, please try louding the man as a scientist. You sound like Bush, putting loosely related facts together into a great speech for the glory of the United States. Was Edward great? Sure, fine whatever, but 3/4th of your article justifies why Japan should have been bombed and blasts democrats. Stay on topic for crissake!

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  132. OT: Imperatives of War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Don't forget: the declaration of war was supposed to be delivered hours before Pearl Harbor. This never happened, and the diplomat responsible for the failed delivery committed ritual suicide in disgrace for causing his nation the dishonor.

    Ignoring the purported 'good intentions' (e.g. "we tried!") of the Nipponese was a highly effective method of stoking political response in the US. Pearl Harbor ended up being a sneak attack, and the US profitted from the propaganda (as well they should have).

  133. Re:Don't mess with Um! by mfrank · · Score: 1

    I believe it's the oil wealth that is a corrupting influence. The theocracies and tyrannies of the Middle East countries are propped up by oil money. The same thing happened with Catholicism in Spain when they were exploiting all the unearned wealth of the New World.

  134. Oppenheimer was a commie by rogersc · · Score: 1
    Teller did not say that Oppie was a commie. Oppie lost his security clearance because of repeated lies about his contacts with Communist agents. You can find the official documents here.

    That said, Oppie really was a commie. Letters were released last year that prove that he was a member of the Communist Party.

  135. Re:Don't mess with Um! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite honestly, as soon as they run out of oil, I can't see any reason anyone in the developed world would give a rat's ass about the Middle East.

  136. What Teller most wanted to be remembered for. by SeanAhern · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the laboratory that Teller and E. O. Lawrence founded back in the 50s. Teller still came into the lab every few days or so up the point of his death. Periodically, he would give Q/A sessions with summer students and other interested parties.

    On July 24 of this year, I attended one of these. I can write a lot about what he had to say, but what has come to the fore of my mind since the news of his death was one question in particular. Someone asked him what he most wanted to be remembered for. He responded that his discovery of the "Jahn-Teller effect" was the work that he was most proud of. It involes crystal symmetry arising from interactions between elecrons and nuclei, and turned out to be very important for material science.

    This was work that he did to help unravel certain energy configurations of the benzene molecule. I'm not a chemist, so I only have the vaguest notion of what the Jahn-Teller effect entails. But it involves calculating the electron distribution of a molecule, coupled with its vibrational energy. If I am understanding it correctly, Jahn and Teller first demonstrated that the two energy states can be coupled, allowing for a lower, most stable energy state than if each were considered separately. It's still studied to this day.

    Teller got very animated while he was talking about his work on this. I find it a shame that none of the writeups and obituaries I've read have mentioned this work. This is my small contribution.

  137. Re:SLASHSNOT MODS SUCK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny thing. I submitted this story TUESDAY when Teller died, and it was REJECTED. Guess I just dont give GOOD HEAD.

    Probably because you USED ALL CAPS and included some sort of OVERTLY POLITICAL sentiment, and besides, your GIRLFRIEND says you're not worth CRAP IN THE SACK anyway.

  138. Some other whitewashed obituaries for /. by ziriyab · · Score: 1
    Edward Teller, one of the 20th Century's greats in physics, died Tuesday afternoon at his home in Stanford. He was 95.

    Adolph Hitler, one of the 20th Century's greats in ethnically-centered tourism and transportation, died today at his suite in Berlin of projectile trauma to the head. He was 56.

    Osama Bin Laden, one of the 21st Century's greats in aviational planning, died today in his cave in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. He was 46.

    Pol Pot, one of the 20th century's greats in pro-illiterate advocacy, died today near Anlong Veng. He was either 70 or 73.

    We can go on, of course. This criminal makes something that kills hundreds of thousands of people and we're supposed to mourn that he died comfortably at the ripe age of 95?

  139. Re:Don't mess with Um! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, David and Goliath were *completely* different races. There were no closer blood ties between Philistines and Hebrews than Inca and Filipinos.

    The Arabs themselves never considered themselves to be descendents of Abraham (through Ishmael or Esau) until Christian missionaries started teaching them that in the 19th century. Actually, there's no historical basis for it, since the western Europeans (the only people who kept a written history outside of China between about 400 A.D. - 800 A.D.) left the scene for several centuries until a bunch of Bedouins (who are not Arabs) were subjugated by Mohammed (who wan't a Bedouin) and attacked Jerusalem. In pre-Christian times, some of the people living on the *East* side of the Jordan were descendants of Ishmael, Esau, Moab, etc., but they were dispersed, same as the Israelites by the series of invasions that scattered most of Israel (Hittite, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babalonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Arab, European, Mongol, etc.

    The "Jews" by Christ's time were a small remnant of Israel that came back after Babylon and Persia took their turns at conquest. Many were converted or assimilated from other people in the region. And shortly afterwards, they were kicked out. The area was largely populated by Asian Greeks, Hellenized Hittites and others, and Caucasians (from the Caucauses) such as Parthians.

    The majority of non-Jewish natives in Palestine at Christ's time were Samaritans, or Israelitish people who had mixed with the other local peoples (including Philistines) after splitting off from Judea after Solomon's reign. Many other ethnic groups occupied the region as well, due to the many conquests.

    There were other Hebrew peoples in the Middle East as well. Abraham did come from Ur, which is in Iraq, and there was much migration to the north (into Turkey) by his people, but by the rise of Babylon the people in Iraq were significantly different from the Hebrews in Israel.

    After the Israelites had been in Egypt, many other Hebrew people (not descended from Abraham) were in the region, but were forcefully removed by the Israelites. There was some mixing of course, and other groups that may have been descended from Israel (such as the Midianites in Sinai) who were not in Egypt populated the area.

    The point is, if you read the Bible (or any other history book) that you'll realize there wasn't ever a "turf war" between the two groups you describe. The closest thing to it is when Jacob (Israel) came back home after working in Anatolia (Turkey) for a while, that his brother "almost" didn't welcome him back.

    There were always minor conflicts with other minor kingdoms such as Moab (descendents of Esau) who lived east and south of Dead Sea, but the same sort of thing happened *everywhere* else in the world throughout history.

  140. The Jury Is Still out on Science by jak163 · · Score: 1

    If nuclear weapons do indeed destroy life on earth, then earth would have been better off not only without science, but without homo sapiens. Teller is a clear illustration of the dialectic of Enlightenment. See chapter 18 of The Tangled Wing by Melvin Konner.

  141. You are an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a fanatical idiot. Probably most of the "communists' are more intelligent than you.

  142. Re:Hiroshima and the lesson of history by mfrank · · Score: 1

    They knew it was a nuke that hit Hiroshima. A well respected general went there, looked around, and came back and gave an accurate report to the Emperor and the military leaders. They didn't care. They didn't think we had more of them. The military was raring to keep fighting even after Nagasaki; only when the Emperor told them to surrender, and explicitly gave the bomb as the reason for surrendering, did the military leaders order the surrender. And Truman knew exactly what they were doing and thinking, because we had all their codes broken.

    The Emperor was completely OK with the Japanese strategy of trying to kill enough Americans in an invasion to force a negotiated peace; he changed his mind only after Nagasaki. If it weren't for the fact that he came in handy to make the occupation run smoothly, he'd have been hung for war crimes.

  143. Re:Hiroshima and the lesson of history by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    Initial reactions aren't particularly relevant. Three days simply is not enough time to absorb or respond to an enormity like the mass slaughter of a civilian population by a nuclear attack.

  144. I also met him once... by orichter · · Score: 1

    I met him in a similar situation to yours, and asked a similar question (though not in quite such an accusatory tone), but I got a quite a different response. I met him in 1995, and I wonder if, perhaps he had simply refined his views since he met you, but he said something that always will stick with me and for which I have not yet found a good rebuttal:

    "Knowledge is always preferable to ignorance" - Edward Teller, 1995

  145. Umm... just who is crushed? by bpetal · · Score: 1

    Most of the people I see everyday on the street and in their homes, at the beach, in the overstuffed grocery store, at the baseball games, climbing mountains, buying houses, praying to God, praying to any god, and giving generously of their time and money don't appear crushed.

    Selfish, many may be, self-righteous narcissistic brats, perhaps. But I doubt their character was affected by economics and corporations. It was probably formed by beliefs regarding their soul, the existense or not of deity, the nature of such a deity (personal god, impersonal god like technology, nothingness, etc) and what it means to live well in light of that. Which of course is informed by close people in community such as parents, friends, benefactors, teachers, religous leaders, etc. Hardly a faceless corporation.

    Corporations can't change your mind, only beliefs can.

    1. Re:Umm... just who is crushed? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Let's see the rest of the world share in the American Dream, then.

      Two cars per Chinese or Indian family. What do you say to that? Have you noticed what happened (on Slashdot) when a few Indian companies decide to compete for American jobs? Unfair do you say?

      The US way of life is not sustainable. Of course if you are on top of the economic ladder will you say that the system is wonderful.

    2. Re:Umm... just who is crushed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I doubt their character was affected by economics and corporations.

      I never implied the corporations were the ones to blame for their character. Most likely, it's the other way around.

      A bunch of greedy people, raised to believe that greed is good and success means trampling your fellow man at every opportunity.

  146. F@ck you Commie!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hydrogen bombs like ALL inanimate objects are morally neutral

  147. One correction by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    North Korea and terrorist states could develop ICBM capabilities

    Um, North Korea is developing ICBMs.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:One correction by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yes, North Korea is developing ICBMs but not Iran, Iraq (at the time), and other terrorist supporting nations. My point is that building ICBMs is not the most efficient means of delivery of a nuclear strike for those nations. It's a scary thought that the US is spending almost 100 billions dollars trying to shield defend itself from a threat that the most imminent.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  148. God given talents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ok, we have god-given talents that apparently drive all of us to outperform anyone/everyone, so we can say "I am the greatest", and it would be true. Not everyone can work on a project that is basically good, such as research to increase food production and quality, for instance. Do you suppose someone somewhere has an idea for a horrible weapon and has chosen to keep quiet about it? Probably not, as the very engine that drives one to success will also have no boundaries. God made us that way, unfortunately, and in the case of the development of the H-Bomb, and it's subsequent testing on Earth, probably has God wondering what he has in fact, done.

    Only time will tell (no pun intended) what he intends to do about it, if anything.

    It's entirely possible that the Creator has started all of us on our fantastic journey, and gone off somewhere else in the Universe to stir up something else,not bothering to look back. You know, the Dinosaur experiment of 100 million years might have provided God with enough data to come up with other creatures that have become modern man. Sorry about that Asteroid busting up the entire Dino world, and leaving only an occasional gecko or gator to remember them by.

  149. Books that put Teller's role in perspective by gvc · · Score: 2, Informative

    I recommend two books that detail the wartime and postwar efforts to build the bomb. Teller's roles, both in the technology and the politics, are covered. So are the roles of many other players, including Germans and Russians.

    The making of the atomic bomb and Dark Sun - The making of the hydrogen bomb, by Richard Rhodes.

    Rhodes won a Pulitzer for the first volume and I daresay it is the better. Both are not without fault (in particular the second was not universally acclaimed in the physics community), but I found them intriguing.

  150. Not his name by Deadstick · · Score: 1

    His name wasn't Edward Teller. Don't you read the media? It was Edward Tellerfatherofthehydrogenbomb.

    rj

  151. Re:ANTI-DOGMA by im+a+fucking+coward · · Score: 1

    Sure, fine whatever, but 3/4th of your article justifies why Japan should have been bombed and blasts democrats. Stay on topic for crissake!

    Once you've said mega ton blast yield, I don't think it's necessary to go into the minutae of Dr. Teller's astounding achievements, especially with this audience. But they're shoved under a rock that only scientists and engineers crawl under, and that's the sad result of the wildly innacurate claims of my political party, and are entirely baseless. See all the posts titled 'burn in hell'. When was the last time you saw a post about Einstein with that kind of subject line?

    This is my insignificant attempt to begin to rectify the man's deserved place in history. I'm sorry you find it inappropriate.

  152. Re: your sig by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    Excellent sig, is that true or did you make that up?

  153. [OT] Re: your sig by achurch · · Score: 1

    It's true--screenshot here.

  154. Re:Interesting off-topic. by im+a+fucking+coward · · Score: 1
    I am a Democratic business owner, and in the real world, this sound byte plays out in tragic fashion.

    When a tax on a good is increased, it is rarely the case that the full cost of that tax is passed on to the consumer.

    Apparently your economics prof., and perhaps yourself don't operate businesses. In my admittedly subjective experience it gets passed to consumers, though you are correct if your inference is that business men have to find creative ways to pass it on, because we sure as hell don't operate at a loss for long. But this process is never a virtuous cycle. Here's why:

    Immediately I have to cut down on areas that don't directly contribute to product manufacture, like research and devolpment, or better yet, move it off shore where I can do it for less.

    Then I have to analyze the cost of moving manufacturing off shore while increasing employee output so I can lay more people off while producing the same #'s.

    Then I have to look at using cheaper components, whereby I can speed up my TTF, or Time To Failure on each unit, above warranty but well below where it used to be.

    Finally, once I've maximized my business 'efficiency', I get drunk and try to forget that I'm supporting foreign governments with policies I abhor, turning out crap for my customers, and generally get ready to declare bankruptcy the next time some idiot listens to his favorite economist.

    Conversely, if the government assists in increasing my efficiency through better educated employees, helps me sell more products and/or lowers my taxes, I can expand R&D, hire more employees, more products and employees equates to more taxes to government coffers for needed infrastructure and social programs, and production dollars stay within the country for at least one more generation of spending, which enriches the country and my employees paychecks. It's certainly not instant or perfect, but it's far more effecient and virtuous than directly raising taxes on my corporation.

  155. Great? Great Idealogue NOT scientist. by inicom · · Score: 1

    He backstabbed Robert Oppenheimer for one, and was a nasty man who was largely responsible for Star Wars under Reagan. Morally reprehensible, and with seemingly no concern for anyone on the planet except for himself. I state my opinions as one who met him in the early 80's.

    --
    -a.e.mossberg
  156. Re:Interesting off-topic. by ojQj · · Score: 1
    That's ridiculous. You base your entire argument on the erroneous idea that you are already selling everything at cost and not making a profit. If that were the case then you really would be forced to pass everything on to the customer. But that's not the case, so you are in fact forced to pass only part of that to your customers, and the other part of those costs to your investors. (If you're a sole-proprietor that means you alone).

    If your argument were true, no investors would ever be effected by financial policy change. No stock price would ever change in response to changes in financial policy. But the market very vividly illustrates the opposite.

    I would love to explain the mathematics to you myself, but for that I need graphics, so try checking out this page: Indirect Taxes and Subsidies If you don't understand basic economics 101 principles, then you have room to improve your business practices to greater benefit yourself *and* your customers. So I suggest you look into it.

  157. Re:He was the Osama Bin Laden of Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could use clean bombs. And, United States has to break its dependency on foreign oil anyway, right?

    Right.

  158. Re:Missiles are unnecessary by frankie · · Score: 1
    Re-read this thread. The whole premise is a "rogue nation" that already has nuclear capability wants to blow up a US city. If they can smuggle a couple fist-sized blocks of U235, the rest of the bomb can easily be built on-site.

    Or you could build the whole bomb back home and send it over via personal boat, mexican fruit truck, magnet stuck to the bottom of a cruise liner, etc. Using a missile is a distant 10th place at best.

  159. Thermonuclear (aka H-bomb) Test Yields by niteshad · · Score: 1

    The yield of the largest Soviet Thermonuclear test was 50 Megatons. However, the US, which was estimating Soviet bomb yield via analysis of fallout particles, estimated the yield at 57 Megatons. Since the Cold War was on, the Soviets weren't about to tell the Americans that they overestimated.

    The yield of the largest US test was 15 Megatons, this was the Castle Bravo shot, detonating the first "dry Hydrogen" bomb on the Southern end of Bikini in 1954. Previous thermonuclear bombs needed to be filled, and topped off during the bomber flight, with liquid deuterium. The bomb used in Castle Bravo, named Shrimp, used Lithium Deuteride, a dry powder, instead of liquid deuterium. This made it much easier to store, transport and arm than earlier thermonuclear bombs.

    --
    To email me,subtract my nick from my email address, starting with the second character. (hint: adto.uiuc.edu is wrong)
  160. Teller Bio Review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't mess around in Texas. Antidote to hero worship

  161. Re:Hiroshima and the lesson of history by mfrank · · Score: 1

    Again, we were decrypting all their military and diplomatic traffic. They knew it was a nuke. They thought it unlikely we'd have more than one. They were going to continue fighting. And the US leaders knew it.

    Mass slaughter of civilians by firebomb attack didn't sway them, why would a nuclear attack? The only reason the Emperor surrendered was because he was afraid the Japanese people would rise up against him if it became obvious to them that cities could be destroyed on a regular basis by one bomb. The deaths of innocents didn't bother him; fear of them revolting terrified him.

    If we'd waited a few weeks before dropping the second bomb, they'd have been *less* likely to surrender; they wouldn't mind losing a city every few weeks. That had already been going on for months. But losing one every few days, they would fear the people would revolt.

  162. Re:Hiroshima and the lesson of history by tgibbs · · Score: 1
    Again, we were decrypting all their military and diplomatic traffic. They knew it was a nuke. They thought it unlikely we'd have more than one. They were going to continue fighting. And the US leaders knew it.
    That may have been what they were saying. The question was whether they had had time to absorb the impact. They might well have changed their minds, given a little time.
    Mass slaughter of civilians by firebomb attack didn't sway them, why would a nuclear attack? The only reason the Emperor surrendered was because he was afraid the Japanese people would rise up against him if it became obvious to them that cities could be destroyed on a regular basis by one bomb. The deaths of innocents didn't bother him; fear of them revolting terrified him.
    Yes, the argument in favor of terror is that it often works. I'm sure that was bin Laden's reasoning as well.
    If we'd waited a few weeks before dropping the second bomb, they'd have been *less* likely to surrender; they wouldn't mind losing a city every few weeks.
    That's pure rationalization. Nobody knows what they would have done if given time to absorb the impact. Perhaps a civilian revolt would have materialized and forced the emperor's hand. The bottom line is that the US at that point was not willing to accept any risk of prolonging the war and losing more troops. And we were willing to kill a huge number of innocent "enemy" women and children rather than risk our own soldiers.
  163. Re:Hiroshima and the lesson of history by mfrank · · Score: 1

    The "Big Eight" leaders of Japan (one of which was the Emperor) learned about Nagasaki at about noon, the Emperor told the military leaders to surrender about 12 hours later. Hell of a lot less than three days. Didn't take them long to absorb *that* impact.

    WTF does bin Laden have to do with anything? Is there now a 21st century equivalent to Godwin's Law? You *do* know that the Japanese had caused the deaths of about 17 million people, right? They needed to be put down like the mad dogs they were. If the only way to do that was to make the Emperor shit his pants, so be it.

    And as far as risking prolonging the war, by early August it had become obvious to the US military leaders in the Pacific that an invasion would cost too much in blood, and that firebombing and blockade would utterly destroy Japan, even without atomic bombs. King and Nimitz had already agreed to counsel Truman against invasion. Just bombing Japan's railways would have caused millions of deaths from famine that winter (as it was, with an early end to the war and massive food aid from the US, several hundred thousand Japanese died from famine that winter). BTW, that would have been unintentional; the US military didn't know the Japanese were that bad off for food; they just wanted to keep the Japanese from moving troops and weapons around.

    Of course, I never fail to notice how the people on your side of the argument never mention the 200,000 to 300,000 Asians dying at the hands of the Japanese military each month towards the end of the war. Or over a hundred thousand POWs starving to death or being used as test subjects for biological and chemical weapons. 40,000 Japanese died in Nagasaki. That many people died from Japanese atrocities in Asia every four or five days.

  164. Re:Hiroshima and the lesson of history by tgibbs · · Score: 1
    WTF does bin Laden have to do with anything?
    I think that the fact that the US has itself been guilty of attacks intentionally directed at civilians--and far worse, continues to try to justify those attacks to this day--cripples our moral authority in the fight against terrorism. It is worth noting that bin Laden cited Hiroshima as precedent for the 9/11 attacks. I believe that our ability to fight terrorism would be enhanced if we had the courage to acknowledge that what we did was wrong, even though it may have been understandable given the sentiment of the times.
    You *do* know that the Japanese had caused the deaths of about 17 million people, right? They needed to be put down like the mad dogs they were.
    I was not aware that the Japanese civilians whom we targetted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 17 million people. In a democracy, the public might reasonably be said to bear some responsibility for the actions of the leaders they chose, but that hardly seems applicable to WWII Japan.

    And as far as risking prolonging the war, by early August it had become obvious to the US military leaders in the Pacific that an invasion would cost too much in blood, and that firebombing and blockade would utterly destroy Japan, even without atomic bombs. To characterize the "Japanese" (as opposed to their rulers) as "mad dogs" seems racist.
    And why was an invasion such an immediate necessity? And how was it so certain that a blockade would harm Japanese civilians more than two nuclear attacks. Seems like alternatives could be tried--especially if time was needed to build more bombs, if perhaps bombing a non-urban target was insufficient to convince the Japanese to surrender.

    Of course, I never fail to notice how the people on your side of the argument never mention the 200,000 to 300,000 Asians dying at the hands of the Japanese military each month towards the end of the war. Or over a hundred thousand POWs starving to death or being used as test subjects for biological and chemical weapons. 40,000 Japanese died in Nagasaki. That many people died from Japanese atrocities in Asia every four or five days.
    I am certainly willing to stipulate all of these things, if you will explain in turn how women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were responsible for these atrocities. The argument is not that the bombings were wrong because of the exemplary conduct of the rulers of Japan--it is that there is never any justification for deliberately targetting civilian populations, no matter how evil the behavior of their leaders.
  165. BET isotherm- Thanks Teller! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BET isotherm has no connection with nukes or nuclear physics. It is used everyday in thousands of labs all over the world to measure the specific surface of porous media. For example, oil companies use it to monitor the activity of heterogeneous catalysts. No quality gas for you without BET! Thanks Teller!

  166. I think von Neumann was not Jewish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'von'? As far as I know the Jews were not knighted in Germany or Hungary.

    Only in the UK a few Jews became 'Sir', but this started to happen in the late 19th Century, not before.

  167. Re:Hiroshima and the lesson of history by mfrank · · Score: 1

    So, according to you, the only moral way to deal with tyranny is to only attack the tyrants. I'm sure that there are millions of dead that are soooo impressed with your moral values. Maybe you can tell me how the Allies could have defeated the Axis nations without killing innocents?

    Even in a tyranny, the people are responsible for their nation's actions. They could have overthrown their leaders. They could have abandoned the cities and the factories. "I was just following orders" is not a morally acceptable excuse for participating in atrocity. Or is it your belief that it is?

    Allied troops forced German civilians to go through the death camps and bury the dead, because they thought those civilians bore some responsibility. Would you have absolved those civilians of all responsibilty?

    If the US hadn't dropped the bombs, millions more would have died. What reason do you have to think otherwise? You think the Japanese military leaders would all of a sudden go "me bad" and surrender?

    And if you think it's worth noting that bin Laden cited Hiroshima as precedent for the 9/11 attacks, and you can follow and agree with his chain of reasoning, you're fucking insane.

  168. Re:Interesting off-topic. by im+a+fucking+coward · · Score: 1

    That's ridiculous. You base your entire argument on the erroneous idea that you are already selling everything at cost and not making a profit.

    That's curious, I never show a profit if it can be avoided! I own the business, as CEO my 'paycheck' and payment for production seems to be greatly affected by taxes, not so much my profit margin. I'm drawing a basic 101 picture so anyone can follow along, which is obviously my mistake here.

    With fewer than 200 employees and no public debt, it's clear my particular situation doesn't apply to a model which takes the entire product supply as a model. I will concede your assertion may well be correct for scales of economy I have no experience with, and thank you for the link and constructive criticism.

    Kommando Chris
    PS: It's all infinitely more complicated than I've presented. From the linked example it should be obvious that as taxes are raised, and consumers buy less if the price per unit increases, my relative amount of taxes per unit increases as unit sales decrease. So now I have to expend more on accountant and lawyer hours to try to defray higher taxation (something that doesn't seem to be included in the economy scale model), which is a calculated risk and siphons more of the 'profit' to non productive areas, away from base unit production, advertising, etc.
    The model would be completely correct if I had a pile of extra 'profit' laying around or sales were increasing enough to compensate for the increase. Particularly in a difficult market, my increased taxation is wholly unwelcomed.

  169. Re:Hiroshima and the lesson of history by tgibbs · · Score: 1
    So, according to you, the only moral way to deal with tyranny is to only attack the tyrants. I'm sure that there are millions of dead that are soooo impressed with your moral values. Maybe you can tell me how the Allies could have defeated the Axis nations without killing innocents?
    Many wars have been fought without intentionally targetting civilians.

    Even in a tyranny, the people are responsible for their nation's actions. They could have overthrown their leaders.
    This is precisely the moral justification advanced by terrorists. By acclaiming its validity we promote terrorism worldwide. But I still don't quite understand how women and children were supposed to overthrow their leaders.
    "I was just following orders" is not a morally acceptable excuse for participating in atrocity.
    For participating in an atrocity, no. Are you prepared to offer evidence that the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki personally participated in atrocities?
    Allied troops forced German civilians to go through the death camps and bury the dead, because they thought those civilians bore some responsibility. Would you have absolved those civilians of all responsibilty?
    I would not have them blown up, burned alive, or exposed to radiation to die a slow, painful death, no.
    If the US hadn't dropped the bombs, millions more would have died. What reason do you have to think otherwise? You think the Japanese military leaders would all of a sudden go "me bad" and surrender?
    Diplomacy? Something less than an unconditional surrender? Blockade? Some combination of the above? We don't know if any of these would have worked because they were never seriously tried. I question the "lack of ingenuity" justification as an excuse for terrorism. You can't think of a way to conduct a war to avoid what you regard as excessive casualties to your own troops, so it is OK to slaughter innocent civilians?

    Yes, if you forego terrorism, it is much harder to achieve your political and military ends. That is why Hamas is unwilling to make such a pledge. And given that we were unwilling to do so when it was our military goals at stake--and unwilling, even decades later, to acknowledge that our actions were morally wrong--we are in a poor position to tell them that they should.

    And if you think it's worth noting that bin Laden cited Hiroshima as precedent for the 9/11 attacks, and you can follow and agree with his chain of reasoning, you're fucking insane.
    You and I may not agree--after all, his goals are not ours. But much of the Muslim world clearly does. And they can point to us, and say--when it was your military and political goals at stake, you too did not hesitate to slaughter civilians.
  170. Re:Hiroshima and the lesson of history by mfrank · · Score: 1
    Diplomacy? Something less than an unconditional surrender? Blockade? Some combination of the above? We don't know if any of these would have worked because they were never seriously tried. I question the "lack of ingenuity" justification as an excuse for terrorism. You can't think of a way to conduct a war to avoid what you regard as excessive casualties to your own troops, so it is OK to slaughter innocent civilians?
    That's the whole point. We *do* know they wouldn't have worked. The military would not have surrendered without being ordered to by the Emperor. The Emperor would not have ordered surrender unless he thought the people were going to rise up against him, and that wasn't going to happen unless the people were pushed to the wall. The Emperor was fully complicit with the military leaders and their goals up until that point he became convinced that a revolt by the people was the likely outcome. The Americans had been fighting the Japanese for four years. We had developed an extremely accurate picture of the Japanese military culture, which totally ruled Japan. You can pooh-pooh all you want and claim that they would have found Jesus and surrendered rather than have the population starve, but that was most definitely not the case.

    Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai, one of the four military leaders of Japan, later called the atomic bombs "a gift from heaven" because it led to the surrender. Army Minister Korechika Anami obviously didn't agree, he disemboweled himself and slashed his own throat on August 15th.

    We didn't try? We offered them the Potsdam Declaration (which is the terms they eventually accepted). It required Japan be occupied by Allied troops until a new Japanese government was established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people. According to these terms, they could have easily kept their emperor. They rejected the offer outright, and mocked it in the Japanese press.

    We never formally asked for unconditional surrender. The Potsdam Declaration was the formal terms. There was no doubt in their minds that they could have kept their Emperor. Or are you arguing that an acceptable conclusion to the war would have been a cease fire, with the Japanese military leaders still in power? Like North Korea after the Korean War or Iraq after the first Gulf War?

    And blockade would have definitely killed millions of Japanese, and probably tens of millions, from starvation. Even if they'd have surrendered in late August, millions would have starved. It was that close. Hundreds of thousands starved as it was.

    BTW, Hiroshima was an army city The entire NE and E sidtes of the city were miiitary zones, including an Army division headquarters. About 43,000 soldiers were in the city; giving Hiroshima about the highest density of servicemen to civilians among Japan's large urban areas. Nagasaki was also a major military city; the Mitsubishi factory there is where they designed and built the torpedoes capable of running in shallow water that were necessary to attack the fleet at Pearl Harbor. Maybe the Japanese should have put their military facilities away from civilians. Or I guess we could have just blockaded them for forty years until we got GPS guided bombs perfected.

    Achieving *our* military and political goals in WWII saved vastly more innocent lives than they cost, in fact, ending Japanese aggression was our goal in the Pacific. Why do you think Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? Because we embargoed them and they could no longer get the resources they needed to continue their war. Why did we embargo them? Because we didn't like the fact they were killing millions of Chinese. Even in your most fevered dreams Hamas and Al-Quada can't make the same claim. They kill innocents for the same reasons the Japanese did. They *like* it. Their goal *is* the death of innocents. Hamas' goal isn't a Palestinian state, unless it's a state that used to be called Israel and is built on the graves of millions of Jews.

  171. Re:Hiroshima and the lesson of history by tgibbs · · Score: 1
    It is hard to argue that there was a serious attempt to work out a negotiated surrender, when the Pottsdam Declaration (which did not even mention that the Allies had and were prepared to use nuclear weapons) was July 25 and the bomb fell on August 6. Framing it as the bomb vs. invasion offers a false dichotomy. Perhaps a demonstraton of the bomb, or a few months of blockade would have made Japan more willing to negotiate, or caused the Emperor to fear a popular uprising. Certainly there were many things that could have been tried short of a full-scale invasion. The key point is that none of these alternatives were seriously tried.

    The notion that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were targetted at military facilities and that the civilians just happened to be in the way is absurd rationalization. While modern precision-guided weapons did not exist at the time, existing, nuclear bombs were hardly the state of the art when it came to minimizing collateral damage. The US had tested the nuclear bomb, and knew that it was a city buster, not a muntion suitable for attacks on factories.

    It is comforting to believe that it is OK for us to kill innocents because we are the good guys and are doing it for noble reasons, but wrong for others to do the same because they are evil and kill because "they like it." Unfortunately, this does not provide a persuasive basis for convincing others to forego terrorism, because, oddly enough, almost everybody believes themselves to be the good guys. A recent Pew survey of international attitudes found that in Palestine, bin Laden is the world figure most trusted "to do the right thing" (71% approval rating). He is the 2nd most trusted in Pakistan, Kuwait, and Jordan, and the 3rd most trusted in Indonesia.

  172. Re:Don't mess with Um! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I truly believe that if we [Muslims and Jews] settled our differences in the Middle East, that together, we could embark on a new age of peace, prosperity and higher learning

    Ha! The only peaceful Muslim is a dead Muslim.

    This reminds me of the old joke about the random middle east ambassador that comes to the U.S., watches some TV and wonders why there are no Muslims on the Enterprise. The President's reply was that Star Trek is about life in the future, implying that sometime between now and the 23rd century we'll rid the world of all sand-nigger humanoid cockroaches.