Slashdot Mirror
Edward Teller: Father of the Hydrogen Bomb
pigrabbitbear writes "Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, had a thing for nuclear bombs. He wanted them bigger, smaller, faster, used in ways that no one had thought of before or since, and always more of them. He suffered no fools, and though he would be more vilified than any other American scientist in the 20th century, he always dismissed his critics as lacking in common sense or patriotism. Amid Cold War paranoia and fears of the Soviet nuclear program, the stakes were simply too high: for the free world, building the most powerful weapon in history was a matter of life and horrible death."
Now that Iran wants to have nuke, what would the opinion of Mr. Teller be?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Teller destroyed the career of Robert Oppenheimer for no damn good reason, after which his own graduate students shunned him.
I have no interest in anything to do about him.
...Paul Teller taught at UC Davis in the 80's and 90's(maybe still does). When I took his philosophy of science course(PHI 108), on the first meeting with the TA, he said "Don't ask him about his father".
Not necessarily. Suppose Iran used a nuke against North Korea? Would the world approve or disapprove? China would disapprove, but America might not. The UK probably would approve. Who would retaliate against Iran? Who would be allowed to bomb or even nuke Teheran? Overall, the question is difficult to answer, and that means there's a shade of gray.
Now let's say Iran used a nuke on some slightly less evil place, but still evil. Would that turn the *whole* world against Iran, or would the support be divided, with slightly more countries against than if it was North Korea?
At what point would the *whole* world unanimously support wiping Iran off the map? If Iran attacked America? If Iran attacked one of the former Soviet states? What if Iran attacked Zimbabwe?
As early as 1944 the Japanese began sending out feelers for peace, a conditional surrender were the Japanese terms. The big mistake was sending their envoy's through the Soviet union which wanted no peace between the Allies and the Japanese.
I highly doubt it would have come to a prolonged attack on the Japanese home islands before a conditional surrender was hammered out. Japan had no desire to become part of the greater Soviet Union and would have surrendered to the Americans before that happened and the Americans did not want the casualties from a prolonged fight. Also, the Soviets were very reluctant to get involved in China. The Soviets only began their campaign against parts of Japanese held China and Mongolia on 8 August 1945, a major part of this was that it was a requirement for the Soviets to join the Pacific war in order to keep territories annexed in Eastern Europe (agreed to by Stalin, Churchill and Truman at Yalta, they cut up Europe before the war ended), The Instrument of surrender was signed on 8 September 1945, less then a month after the Soviets joined the war.
Not that I question the decision of the US at the time, The soviets prevented the Americans from even knowing that Japan was talking of surrender but the Soviets would never have been a real part of the Japanese invasion, for no other reason then logistics most of the transports the Soviets had were American Liberty ships and no landing ships to speak of.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Revisionist crap. The Japanese were hellbent on taking the pacific to a lesser extent, a large chunk of China. They managed to capture its east cost pretty well. Now that I think about it. Diplomatically, I really wonder how the Chinese government thinks of America in this regards. We bloody well saved their ass!
Nationalism keeps people from saying that other countries saved them, and before long no one remembers.
How many people in the USA remember that the French made the American revolution possible? Lafayette St in Durham NC is named after the French general who volunteered to travel from France to Virginia to fight the British at his own expense. In the height of the build-up the Iraq war, I was in a restaurant a few blocks away from that street. People at another table made a big show of ordering "freedom fries".
Rules of MAD don't apply to Islamic regimes the same way that they did to Communists. Sure, the Communists (Soviets & Chinese) were evil, but they were at least rational about it - while they undoubtedly wanted to wipe out their enemies, they themselves wanted to survive. Which is why deterence worked during the Cold War. During that time, there were a lot of espionage & terrorist acts pulled off by the NKVD/KGB, but how many suicide bombings does anybody remember that the Soviets did?
This does not apply to Islamic states. If they get hold of nukes and have the confidence that they can destroy their enemies, they'd be only too happy to do it, even if it means a nuclear retaliation. The entire phenomenon of suicide bombers makes it clear that they'd be happy to pay the price if they can have some guarantee that they'll wipe out their enemies - like Israel or India. The only reason Pakistan hasn't done it as yet is that they don't have enough nukes to wipe out India, and their long range missiles don't cover even most of India. The reason Iran hasn't done it to Israel is that they've not completed it as yet.
It's bad enough that Pakistan has nukes, and the only reason they're not a threat to the US is that they don't have the ICBMs that can get anywhere even close. Iran getting them would be just as ugly. Also, just like Muslims hate Infidels, within the ummah, there are the various sectarian divisions, like the Shia vs the Sunni. Saudi Arabia can't stand the idea of a Shia Iran having the bomb, because that's the sort of power it needs to convert entire Sunni populations to Shia (like in the case of Lebanon). So Iran's getting nukes will start an arms race where oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, et al will pay Pakistan to give them a part of their arsenal. Even in Iran vs Israel, the Saudis won't want the Shia to look like heros of the Islamic world for wiping out the Jews.