Slashdot Mirror
"H-Bomb Secret" Now Online
DrDNA writes "In 1979, the US Government sued Howard Morland, Erwin Knoll and Sam Day at The Progressive Magazine for prior restraint over the planned publication of 'The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It--Why We're Telling It,' citing national security. Six months later, a Federal appeals court vacated the restraining order on publication, and the article was published. There's an interview about the case with George Stanford, of Argonne National Lab, Illinois, a technical adviser for the Progressive Magazine. After all this time, the Progressive article is now online (4Mb pdf)."
It's one thing to crush the server, but the least we can do is look at some ads while we do it.
Yawn.
Speaking of the history of the H-Bomb, a great read on the subject is the mammoth Pulitzer Prize winning book The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. He also wrote Deadly Feasts which I enjoyed even more.
Now we'll have some smartass high school student making an h-bomb in his toolshed, just to show how smart he is. Some things are better left secret, and I think this is one of them. I'm all for the freedom of information in most cases, but I do not believe my neighbors and the billions of people across the world that hate the United States should have access to this kind of information. I know everyone will have nukes eventually, I just hope it doesn't happen until my (future) children can grow up and lead productive lives. Let's not blow the planet up just yet. I happen to like it.
Of the Radioactive Boyscount who built a nuclear reactor in his shed from uranium paint you find on antiques
meridian at tha.net
GA: At the end of the trial, the Progressive magazine lost a
small fortune, even though it managed to get the Morland article
published without censor. Essentially, it was a case of limited
private funds versus a bottomless pot of Government gold
I'm not sure where I stand on the article and its attempted censorship, but I am somewhat amused that one of its authors said the above. Doesn't it sound *exactly* like a typical right-wing diatribe against the government? The article in question was in the well known *leftist* magazine "The Progressive".
Alaska Bugs Sweat Gold Nuggets
After actually downloading the article and reading the forbidden pages it seems to me that there are many things that need to be made a little clear to those who will comment without ever reading an iota of the article itself.
First off, Osama Bin Laden does not celebrate christmas. Christmas is a christian holliday in which the Muslim community does not celebrate. This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists just as it means not all catholics are repbuclicans. While Osama Bin Laden himself has been behind some of the worlds worst acts of terrorism, this should not reflect on all Muslims, and a bit of respect for other religions should be in place, but that would be a matter of decency and humanity.
Secondly the article itself states that this is in no means a "how-to". Reading this article will do nothing in comparison to going to school to learn about physics and chemistry. The article helps put in lamens terms what exactly is done with the creation of such devices. If you notice this article was supressed during the peak of the cold war. At a time when the US Government was playing shadow games by providing tidbits of information for mass consumption but never enough meat to chew on.
The government supressed this to make it seem that there was a large amount of complicated procedures and research being placed in their weapons of mass destruction and that they could load these weapons on the same rockets that sent men into space and ahniliate an entire Soviet city at will. Fair to say that creating an H-Bomb is in fact something that is not at all an easily accomplishment to undertake. While it may be possible to obtain the parts neccessary it still requires someone with a vast amount of knowledge to place all the ingredients together.
I don't think that Al Qaeda or any other terrorist faction will ever be able to design such weapons. I do however think that with the fall of the soviet union and other countries in massive recession that are in fact nuclear that they may be able to purchase said nuclear weapons of mass destruction. So did this article send us to code level orangish red? Nope, but something sure did.
I am not a sympathist by any means for terrorists or freedom fighters who surpass diplomatic measures to accomplish their goals by bringing death and destruction in its place. These people have lost a sense of equality and humanity and are in fact extremely horrible evil people. Should science be supressed because of fears, should we stop manufacturing cars because they are accessories to crimes (bank robberies, car bombs, etc.) NO.
Scientific innovations can be used for good or can be used for bad, it is a matter of the beholder of the information as to what will happen with it. This article meerly suggests that there is a procedure and massive science behind weapons of mass destruction, which is apparent that they are not meant to be used for good, yet will be used for killing and destruction. Think of the good the reasearch itself could be done if only the knowledge was used for good, and not as a weapon to bring death and destruction.
I think this is a prime example of how science for the sake of death is not good, but without the nuclear program we wouldn't have nuclear power. Without a means to deliever said weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn't have a space program. How a redundant communication line for launching said weapons could be used to create the network which has become the worlds internet. There is obviously positive ramifications for the research and design of these technologies, but does that excuse the original intent of the death and destruction even if it was never used to date for such a thing?
Short of WWII with Japan there has never been a nuclear attack on anyone from anyone in the world. Yet we as americans with our democratic control are responsible for this destruction of property and life, and we did it through our research and science.
Will our children forgive us, or curse us?
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Just in time? I've had a paper copy of this article for 24 years (I bought the magazine when it was first published). Believe it or not, re-publishing something on the internet does not mean it was previously un-available.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
In fact, it was the U. S. S. R. that developed the first deliverable hydrogen bomb. However, as is often said, the devil is in the details and some secrecy is wise as it often takes a great deal of time for people to figure out the details.
One of my professors was sued by the riaa for trying to publish a paper on SDMI. When they were threatening to sue he would always joke that he should have just been a physicist and published a paper on how to build a nuclear bomb, because we all know that at least that is legal.
--aiee
Nowadays we are into multi-culturalism, and besides, there are now many immigrants from India in various walks of life in American society, and then there was George Harrison and all of that, so the comfort level with Indian culture and Hindu religious icons is much better these days. But back then, Oppenheimer was already suspect for being somewhat left-of-center in his politics and for being somewhat of an egghead (to use swing-era slang), and being Jewish in America of that time already made a person suspect of not worshipping the same God, perhaps in the way being Muslim in America does today, and gosh, quoting some obscure Hindu scripture really put a person way in left field.
But the nagging, unanswered question I have is this: isn't "I am become death" ungrammatical or am I missing some fine point. I can understand "I am death" (present tense) or "I have become death" (past perfect? -- I am not up on grammer), but I always thought "I am become death" was the result of some mistranslation on the order of "all your base."
Ah, but you forget The first amendment is only supposed to apply to those we agree with. Anyone advocating that the law should apply equally to everyone, and that those with unpopular viewpoints have a right to free speech is just unamerican.
Even reading the Bill of Rights, or The Constitution can be unamerican if you are subversive, which is why Upton Sinclair and Roger Baldwin were arrested for doing so.
That was a long time ago but in these modern times people are arrested for protesting outside of a free speech zone. And the nerve of some of these people. Can you believe that some people have been caught holding anti-Bush signs within Pro-Bush Zones? They have been rightfully arrested. It would be criminal for the president to see any evidence that people disagree with him.
Yes, we are heading into a brave new world, and those that don't like it can go to Guantanamo Bay.
Nobody died when Nixon lied.
I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
We always say security through obscurity is bogus. Case in point -- closed source software, squlching of bug/expolit reports, use of the DMCA to silence hackers instead of fixing the exploits et al.
When it comes to national security, what makes people think secrecy makes the nation any more secure?
If it wasn't for the ability to distill information about imminent danger into a series of colored lights, the government would be forced to release specific information about upcoming terrorist threats, which could eliminate the advantage they have over less important Americans in personally avoiding those threats.
Actually, the alert system matters alot.
If you are a policeman, an "Orange" alert means that you now have a nearly unlimited amount of easy overtime (paid for by Uncle Sam) available to you. These overtime hours are used to provide security for monuments, bridges, reservoirs, etc, and provide a great opportunity to grab some Z's and get away from the wife.
The alert system was put in place when idiots in the mainstream press began screaming about how the government refused to warn anyone about the 9/11 attacks. It's a great example of how stupid questions (or problems) lead to stupid answers (or solutions).
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Actually, I think we who do not believe have for too long withheld comment about religion out of politeness. Our society considers it acceptable to mock or ignore ridiculous ideas in politics or science, but to treat the ridiculous ideas of religion in a similar manner has always been another matter. The events of September 11th and the responses to them should be a wakeup call to all of us that religion is not and never has been a generally beneficial or humane institution. It's time that we spoke up and treated religion with the same scrutiny and respect (no more, no less) than we treat any other ideas.
The respect our society gives the barbaric Bronze Age text of the Old Testament/Torah is unjustifiable. If you don't think it's barbaric, read about how the Jews first conquered Israel at the command of God; review the murders, rapes, and genocide, all committed under the direct command of God. While Jesus could have had a moderating effect on Western monotheism, Paul quickly effected a division in the new sect and Christianity was born from his division, not from the Jews in Jerusalem led by the Apostles. Christianity's history follows the lessons of the Torah and Paul far more often than not. While there are words of peace in the Koran, there are words of war too, and we cannot overlook the wars that Mohammed waged during his lifetime and the tremendous Arab conquests led by the Caliphs, his successors, after his death.
I'm not saying that terrorists are motivated solely or even primarily by religion, but that religion is an effective and dangerous method of dividing people into groups and motivating them to act as groups on a mutual hate inflamed by such divisions. Without the Abrahamic religions, the current problems in the Middle East would not exist. There would be no Israel because there would be no religious motivation to create such a state; indeed, there would be no distinct group called Jews as they would've intermarried during the Diaspora without religion prohibitions against such. There would've been no Islamic conquests of the ancient Persian and Roman (Byzantine) civilizations. There would've been no Crusades to attempt to counteract those conquests.
The terror alert system is just a way for politicians to protect themselves.
While I do not necessarily disagree with your view of politicians, there are other uses. It may confuse/distract/prevent some actions from happening. It may create some voice traffic and give them some information. It may not. But it does serve more that just cover ass for politicians, or at least it _can_.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Not so. As I type, my little brother is making $25/hr to sit in a running pickup truck next to a public water supply and play starcraft on his laptop.
It's nice to know politicians when you're a poor college kid looking for some cash.
The problem, and even calling it a problem is a subject of some debate, is that currently in American jurisprudence (and in many other jurisdictions, from what I understand) the status of source code in relation to speech is ambiguous at best. If source code is speech, then it is entitled to first amendment protections (as interpreted and understood through the framework of the various and sundry opinions of the Supreme Court, of course). Even what "speech" consists of in the traditional 1st amendment sense is ambiguous, from literally acoustic utterances, to the printed word, to potentially inflammatory apparel choices.
;)) individual meant to acheive some action, in much the same way that an artful poem or editorial is written to acheive a conveyance of meaning. If only this was understood, many actions undertaken in the name of the DMCA et. al. would be invalidated by the 1st amendment...
The problem is fundamentally perceptual. The H-Bomb article, being a journalistic work, is easily understood to be "speech" by the citizenry and government. Source code is a somewhat more ephemeral concept that your average FBI agent or federal judge, let alone your average citizen, will have a much harder time relating to conceptually.
To practitioners of the art, I think it is plainly self-obvious that source code is speech, as it is the creative work of a talented (or at least skilled
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Not really. We still don't know for sure if that detonation in the South Indian Ocean on September 22, 1979 was a South African nuclear test, an Israeli nuclear test, or what. Whatever it was, somebody got away with it.
I think at the rate technology is advancing in 30 years it would be possible for someone to create a strain of HIV that is airbourne.
That would be a garage doomsday device, it would spread world-wide and noone would be the wiser for at least a few months.
This is my fear, not nuclear, but biological weapons using viri made by a lunatic in the woods, far worse than the Unibomber, but with the same motives.
- When you talk about the First Amendment and the Internet and bombs, people like DiFi say "Oh, no, the First Amendment doesn't protect dangerous information, it's about things like pornography."
- When you talk about the 1st, the Internet, and pornography, they say "Oh, no, it's not about that, it's about protecting non-obscene speech".
- When you talk about tobacco advertising, they say "Oh, no, it's not about commercial speech, it's about protecting *political* speech."
- But when you talk about campaign finance reform, they say "Oh, no, elections are *way* too important to let anybody actually fund the political speech they believe in, why that would let *money* corrupt politics."
And all that was just with liberals in charge - wonder what Ashcroft will come up with next.Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks