Slashdot Mirror
Feds Attempt To Censor Parts of a New Book About the Hydrogen Bomb
HughPickens.com writes: The atom bomb — leveler of Hiroshima and instant killer of some 80,000 people — is just a pale cousin compared to the hydrogen bomb, which easily packs the punch of a thousand Hiroshimas. That is why Washington has for decades done everything in its power to keep the details of its design out of the public domain. Now William J. Broad reports in the NY Times that Kenneth W. Ford has defied a federal order to cut material from his new book that the government says teems with thermonuclear secrets. Ford says he included the disputed material because it had already been disclosed elsewhere and helped him paint a fuller picture of an important chapter of American history. But after he volunteered the manuscript for a security review, federal officials told him to remove about 10 percent of the text, or roughly 5,000 words. "They wanted to eviscerate the book," says Ford. "My first thought was, 'This is so ridiculous I won't even respond.'" For instance, the federal agency wanted him to strike a reference to the size of the first hydrogen test device — its base was seven feet wide and 20 feet high. Dr. Ford responded that public photographs of the device, with men, jeeps and a forklift nearby, gave a scale of comparison that clearly revealed its overall dimensions.
Though difficult to make, hydrogen bombs are attractive to nations and militaries because their fuel is relatively cheap. Inside a thick metal casing, the weapon relies on a small atom bomb that works like a match to ignite the hydrogen fuel. Today, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States are the only declared members of the thermonuclear club, each possessing hundreds or thousands of hydrogen bombs. Military experts suspect that Israel has dozens of hydrogen bombs. India, Pakistan and North Korea are seen as interested in acquiring the potent weapon. The big secret the book discusses is thermal equilibrium, the discovery that the temperature of the hydrogen fuel and the radiation could match each other during the explosion (PDF). World Scientific, a publisher in Singapore, recently made Dr. Ford's book public in electronic form, with print versions to follow. Ford remains convinced the book "contains nothing whatsoever whose dissemination could, by any stretch of the imagination, damage the United States or help a country that is trying to build a hydrogen bomb." "Were I to follow all — or even most — of your suggestions," says Ford, "it would destroy the book."
Though difficult to make, hydrogen bombs are attractive to nations and militaries because their fuel is relatively cheap. Inside a thick metal casing, the weapon relies on a small atom bomb that works like a match to ignite the hydrogen fuel. Today, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States are the only declared members of the thermonuclear club, each possessing hundreds or thousands of hydrogen bombs. Military experts suspect that Israel has dozens of hydrogen bombs. India, Pakistan and North Korea are seen as interested in acquiring the potent weapon. The big secret the book discusses is thermal equilibrium, the discovery that the temperature of the hydrogen fuel and the radiation could match each other during the explosion (PDF). World Scientific, a publisher in Singapore, recently made Dr. Ford's book public in electronic form, with print versions to follow. Ford remains convinced the book "contains nothing whatsoever whose dissemination could, by any stretch of the imagination, damage the United States or help a country that is trying to build a hydrogen bomb." "Were I to follow all — or even most — of your suggestions," says Ford, "it would destroy the book."
That sort of censorship is just going to blow up in their face!
when people try and censor stuff that is already public. We see it here, we see it with snowden (im not talking classified stuff) but if this person got the information without looking at classified materials, who do they think they are to tell him to not publish?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The problem isn't the bureaucrats in question, rather the culture of fear and secrecy in which our government had steeped these last several decades. This problem needs to be addressed at its cultural roots, starting with your family and friends -- Tell them fear will do infinitely more harm than the things we're, as a society, afraid of.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
war is ugly
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
wait until the IRS audits your publication profits.
How dare the government abridge our 2nd amendment rights. Who will join me in a Hydrogen Bomb Open Cary campaign?
The only way to ensure our freedom and safety is that every man woman and child has the comfort of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Interesting book, and awesome FREE MARKETING courtesy of the Feds! There's really nothing in this book that countries like Iran, NK, etc don't already have. He should publish both, one censored "inside" the US, and an uncensored version outside the US. Then people might even buy both of them...
then you must not be sleeping well, since this info is pretty easily found on the net already...and available from people like Abdul Qadeer Khan who also will help you build it. This genie is LONG out of the lamp...so this whole censorship thing is nothing but fear-mongering, and you totally bought into it.
as a real secret any more, if there ever was. If the "secret" is based on scientific research, it's been published and is reproducible and all the relevant people already know about it. If it's engineering, anyone can figure it out. Probably the only thing that's "secret" any more is the Coca Cola formula.
They're specifically making the point that Hiroshima was an atomic bomb, and stating the devastating effects of it. They're doing this to paint a mental picture of how much additional power is in a hydrogen bomb.
they already have access to FAR better instructions than this. ISIS controls whole universities, and has chemical engineers, physics doctorates, etc in their ranks. Abu Malik may be dead, but there are many others we don't know about.
So, the take away from this is... what? Any author gets to decide what information does or does not constitute a breach of national security based on what the effect of its deletion on their book sales would be? I for one would sleep more soundly knowing that that information wasn't in his book than I would knowing he was going to get a big fat royalty check.
The take away is that the first amendment exists.
I got two of his books ("The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and "Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb") and have read them both a few times. Lots of really good information in there, but both were written pre-9/11. He's written two books since which I literally ordered a few minutes ago while reading about this.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. The author would have to be inciting imminent lawless action. Reporting on the history of the hydrogen bomb is neither inciting nor likely to produce imminent 'safety' effects.
That single act of 'murder' probably saved more American and Japanese lives than any other single thing done during the war. It took major balls to make the decision to drop the bomb and it was fucking heroic.
No, it's not.
In addition, our Constitution lets the author make that decision, not the government. We have a whole theory concerning "prior restraint" that cannot simply be tossed away because "why make it any easier for a would-be terrorist bomb maker to find it and make use of it." You only get to challenge the author for allegedly disclosing critical secrets after they're published. That helpfully prevents the government from suppressing embarrasing, non-secret information by fiat.
Nonsense. The US dropped the world's first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, a military base . That was because they wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.
"TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
"U.S murdered"
No. Killing the enemy is not murder.
Quite a few years back, Tom Clancy wrote a book called "Sum of All Fears" about a bunch of terrorists building an H-bomb using Pu they recovered from an Israeli bomb lost during the '73 war.
Clancy's Afterward included this:
BLOCKQUOTE>It is generally known that nuclear secrets are not as secret as we would like - in fact, the situation is even worse than well-informed people appreciate. what required billions of dollars in the 1940s is much less expensive today. A modern personal computer has far more power and reliability than the first Eniac, and the "hydrocodes" which enable a computer to test and validate a weapon's design are easily duplicated. The exquisite machine tools used to fabricate parts can be had for the asking. When I asked explicitly for the specifications for the very machines used at Oak Ridge and elsewhere, they arrived Federal Express the next day. Some highly specialized items designed specifically for bomb manufacture may now be found in stereo speakers. The fact of the matter is that a sufficiently wealthy individual could, over a period of from five to ten years, produce a multistage nuclear device.
Based on what I learned about the subject as a young man, I see no particular reason to doubt him...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The design of the bombs is not the problem. Getting fissile material to build the trigger is the problem. Even a large corporation could probably not enrich uranium without attracting attention. Unless the book contains some method that Joe Sixpack can use to leach highly-enriched uranium from tailings or something, it's not a threat.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Actually one seriously has to question how much Truman knew about what he was authorizing, and what was Groves and his ilk overstepping their bounds. Truman's diary has repeated mentions that he doesn't think it should be used against civilians, and people who he talked to at the time reported similar.
(Truman's first public statement after the bomb was dropped, said while the second bomb was being dropped on Nagasaki).
The next day, Truman receives the first reports and photographs related to the bombings, and the scale of what was done becomes clear.
.
One really has to question what sort of information Truman was given and what exactly he thought he was authorizing. Hiroshima was anything *but* a military base. It was one of the least militarized cities in Japan, which is why it had been so little touched by conventional bombings. Its war industries were on the periphery and were little damaged by the explosion. Groves' targeting committee prioritized it precisely for the reason that it would visibly kill so many people and because it was largely untouched thusfar; the committee ruled out purely military targets (what Truman actually wanted) as they didn't consider them to be showy enough as demonstrations of the weapon's power.
Truman's underlings were mixed on the subject of the bomb as well. Bard (undersecretary of the navy), for example, was adimant that the US should not use the bomb on cities. He thought it not only morally abhorrent, but totally unnecessary, as he and many others felt Japan was already on the verge of surrender (the post war Strategic Bombing Survey would later back him up on this point).
But, it ended as it ended.
"TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
Years ago, I remember reading about some dude who designed an A-bomb for his senior thesis.
His last stumbling block was the proper explosives for the implosion. So he called up the sales arm of some manufacturer, said he was a building contractor, and that he would need an explosive with $CHARACTERISTICS.... and that he was ready to buy in quantity.
The sales guy fell all over himself providing the exact info the dude needed.
He turned in his thesis, and then when no grade was published, he went to see his professor, who told him that DOE was considering classifying it.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Brief overview of this: http://www.universitypressclub.com/archive/2013/02/the-a-bomb-kid-and-hows-your-senior-thesis-going/
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Building a simple working atomic bomb is trivial given some expertise. The gun type design basically requires some uranium, a strong pipe and explosives. However:
. manufacturing the right fissile material is hard, expensive and very slow using a nuclear reactor that is hard to hide
. extracting the same material from the spent reactor fuel requires a huge amount of expertise (some of which isn't published), materials resources and time
. learning how to handle the material will take time
I don't think we'll have to worry about that scenario unless ISIS can maintain control of a large area for several decades.
I know how suspension bridges work. I probably could build a small one, but any lengthy span would be well beyond me.
I know how internal combustion engines work. It would take a year of training on the tools before I'd be able to make one that even sorta worked, and then it would be at 1900s-level functionality.
I know how nuclear weapons work. Several types, in fact. But I cannot make them.
1) I could build a gun-type weapon, given the material (200lbs of 90% pure U-235, a 76mm artillery barrel, and some regular explosives), but I could not create the equipment to refine uranium.
2) I could probably build a reactor to generate plutonium, with massive effort and a significant risk of poisoning myself, but I could not build a working implosion bomb with it. It would take a year's training in explosives just to be able to build an existing design, and those designs are tightly secured.
3) With the materials, I might be able to upgrade an unboosted fission weapon into a boosted one. Maybe.
4) A fusion weapon is completely beyond me. You could stick me in Lawrence Livermore with all the parts in front of me, and without some Ikea-like instructions you aren't going to get anything.
We are protected from homemade gun-type weapons by the scarcity of uranium and the immense difficulty in refining it. Remember, this is something that was beyond the capabilities of most nations a scant 70 years ago. A dedicated nation-state or perhaps certain multinational corporations could pull it off, but not without detection.
We are protected against homemade implosion-type weapons by the complex engineering necessary, the esoteric nature of the specific engineering knowledge needed (nuclear physics and shaped explosives are not a common dual-major), and by the absolute need for testing before use. The former prevents fringe groups from succeeding; the latter prevents the non-suicidal from trying.
We are not protected by lack of general knowledge on nukes, because no such lack of knowledge exists. I learned half of this stuff from school textbooks, and the other half from Wikipedia. Anyone driven to find more can easily do so.
Many feel the Japanese would have surrendered anyhow.
I call BS. Before the atomic bombs, Japan's strategy was to basically arm every citizen and make the invasion of the mainland such a bloody, costly quagmire for the Allies that they would negotiate favorable peace terms. Even the Wikipedia article on Surrender of Japan has a deeper understanding of the issue than whatever you're making up. Even after Hiroshima, the Supreme Council voted against surrender. They thought that maybe the U.S. only had one bomb, or that it lacked the will power to use it again. After Nagasaki (and the Soviet invasion), the Supreme Council still didn't want to surrender, so they tortured a captured U.S. P-51 pilot, and he told them that the U.S. had at least 100 atomic bombs (he was lying). But the cabinet still split on whether to surrender. It took the emperor basically begging the cabinet, for the sake of the millions who were about to be slaughtered, to persuade them to vote in favor of surrender.
Modern navel-gazing revisionist historians really don't appreciate how truly warlike and blood-soaked the entire Japanese culture was before 1945. They were obsessed with killing and torture. The Japanese surrender and subsequent disarmament fundamentally transformed the entire nation.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
And they would have had that if Doc Emmet Brown hadn't hoodwinked them.
Not very fucked at all actually.
Women and children are valued more because they are worth more.
Women can have kids in the future and may even be pregnant now, and children can grow up into adults.
It was one of the least militarized cities in Japan, which is why it had been so little touched by conventional bombings.
Not exactly. There actually was an important military base in the city (headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters.), as well as many industrial targets, and it was an important port city. Keep in mind that Japan had converted most private enterprises and even many homes into places of war materiel production. There was no such thing as a non-militarized city in Japan at that time. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and several other cities had not been bombed only because they had been taken off the bombing list some time before. The idea was to keep some prime targets "pristine", so accurate bomb damage assessment could be done afterwards. Everyone was well aware there would be massive civilian casualties.
Truman knew exactly what he was doing, incidentally. It was true he had moral qualms, but it was reported his Secretary of State told him "What will you say, Mr. President, at your impeachment proceeding, when the American people learn that you had a weapon which could have ended the war and did not use it?" The US leadership also feared the planned invasion of Japan by the Soviet Union, with the real threat of Japan being split into a communist and democratic zones similar to Germany. The bombing was seen as the quickest and surest way to end the Pacific war
Many in the US leadership and military brass had also been wildly optimistic about the "imminent collapse of Nazi Germany", after which the fighting had gone on for half a year still. History is fairly clear that the Japanese were unlikely to surrender before the bombing. Even after the two atomic bombs were dropped and the Soviet Union joined the war, the Japanese military leadership was still evenly split about whether to continue the war. It took the emperor to make the final decision. Even after the emperor publicly surrendered (without ever using the word 'surrender' or 'defeat' in his speech), a small group of Japanese officers actually mutinied and invaded the palace, fortunately not succeeding.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
That their culture was steeped in something does not mean that every individual is obsessed with it. American culture is obsessed with a bunch of people named Kardashian, but all I know about them is that there are several of them, and I think one of them is named Kim or something.
And racist or not, yes, Japanese culture was obsessed with killing and torture. It had been for a very, very long time.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Truman had to make one of the toughest calls ever made in human history. It's easy to second guess today. But put yourself in his shoes. I believe he weighed the information that he had and made the decision that he thought best, knowing full well that history would both praise and condemn him.
No one could possibly be happy about the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But no one is happy about all the lives that WWII claimed before that time and would have claimed had the war gone on. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of Enola Gay, famously said (rough quote) "I deeply regret the loss of life, but I do not apologize."
This was/is not a simple issue with a simple answer.
Cheese it, it's the Feds!
Everyone hide your Beryllium-Pollonium detonators and your K-alpha reflector cavities, and act natural, for God's sake!
Yeah, we used the Bomb, twice, against an enemy that fought tenaciously, and far beyond any reasonable chance of victory. The death toll, while still horrific, was a tiny fraction of the alternative.
Have you ever heard of Operation Downfall? It was the planned invasion of the Japanese homeland. The basic gist was to, ultimately, march into Tokyo and dictate surrender terms to Emperor Hirohito, personally. The planned amphibious landings were double the size of D-Day, and would have extended the war well into 1946, with casualty estimates into the millions. Additionally, the Japanese defensive plan (Operation Ketsugo) called for the all-out mobilization of the civilian population.
Let's clarify something technical here.
Thermonuclear refers to the use of fusion to gain more energy. It can be used for two things:
a) To make a really humongous bomb. High-yield more than 5MT.
b) To boost a pure fission bomb to get the same amount of energy in a smaller package.
Almost all modern nuclear weapons are of the b) sort. They are all thermonuclear but they are small. A pure fission device (Little boy, for instance) is physically large for the boom you get.
That said, most of the weapons do not use thermonuclear energy as a main source. The thermonuclear reaction produces copious neutron which boosts the fission part. The weapon is still primary a boosted fission device.
Type (a) high-yield weapons are scarce things. The US, for one, does not have any, the Russians not many and they have a specific bunker-busting role. They are also physically large devices and hard to steal.
(b) type weapons are much more common. This is the threat, but they are still thermonuclear.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
"one of the least" != "no military component". You're absolutely correct that "There was no such thing as a non-militarized city in Japan at the time". Hiroshima had been a city that refugees had been fleeing to. It is simply true that for its size it was one of the least militarized cities in Japan at that time.
In something that's rather sickening, and one *hopes* was accidental but suspects that it wasn't, the US had been leafletting Japan in the weeks leading up to the atomic bombings, warning them to evacuate "Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga" There was no mention of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Anyone who listened to the US leaflets walked into the bomb zone.
Byrnes (claimed source of your quote) was an atomic bomb radical within the government. He wanted to threaten to bomb the Russians to get better success in the postwar negotiations too. But if you search for your quote online you'll find only half a dozen hits. It appears to be an urban legend. Claims that "The US leadership also feared the planned invasion of Japan by the Soviet Union" are somewhat true. The US had been trying for a long time to get the Soviet Union involved, but started having misgivings. Various people were concerned to varying degrees about the potential of Soviet involvement.
You're free to disagree with the US military's own postwar analysis of the Japan situation (the Strategic Bombing Survey). But that would be what most people would call "revisionist history".
The fact that there was a coup attempt after the emperor tried to surrender just drives home how little effect the atomic bombings had. The War Cabinet had steadily been shifting more to the side of the doves but was split down the middle, three-three on whether to accept an unconditional surrender. The emperor had been working in secret to negotiate an unconditional surrender, including making preparations to send his son to offer it, but had been delayed by Potsdam. After the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, there was literally no change in the view of any of the members of the War Cabinet, it remained a three-three split. The hawks considered it just another entry in the list of horrors that Japan was experiencing. The Potsdam declaration had been made just two weeks earlier. There hadn't been an imperial conference since the Potsdam Declaration to discuss it. The Imperial Conference on the 9th-10th. It was at this conference that the emperor made clear that he had wanted to accept the Potsdam terms. But it is clearly documented that he already had by that time supported accepting the Potsdam terms, even before the bombing.
"TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
For some perspective, in preparation for Operation Downfall, 500,000 Purple Hearts were made. They made so many that we were still using that same batch in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s.
THAT'S how many people were expected to be wounded, let alone killed, and that was just the American side of the conflict.
BS. Utter BS. Here is the one documented fact about the end of the PTO war that everyone in your country who spews this BS about a necessary invasion of the Japanese homeland islands wants to conveniently forget ...
The Japanese had made it clear through diplomatic channels by June of 1945 that were willing to completely surrender and end the war with one condition ... the Emperor (alone) would be immune from any war crimes charges. Military generals etc were fair game, but the Emperor gets off without any war crimes charges brought against him. (Remember that until May 1947 when the Japanese Constitution was changed, Hirohito was considered by many a "living god" and remained even afterwards "a descendent of the Sun Goddess".)
The United Sates refused to accept this single condition for surrender and carried on with the plans to use atomic weapons so that they could dictate the surrender terms.
DaveyJJ
Note that the atomic bombs saved the lives of millions of Japanese by removing six cities from the "bomb these places into the stone age list". Apparently, the people making the bomb wanted to get a good idea of the effects without having to take into account the effects of prior bombings. This included Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were spared the years of bombings (and their attendant casualties) that other cities had to endure.
Note further that the death tolls of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined were lower than that of the firebombing of Tokyo.
Note, finally, that when generals talk about saving lives, they're generally (if you'll excuse the pun) talking about the lives of their men, not their enemy's men. Saving the lives of the enemy is someone else's job....
Addendum: just curious - where in Japan would you be finding "plenty of uninhabited or low population areas"?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Two things:
1. One night of fire bombing in Tokyo killed more people and did more damage than the atomic attack on Hiroshima did. The difference was it took an armada of bombers to do it, rather than just one plane with one package to drop off.
2. Truman wasn't just looking to end this war, but prevent the next conflict that was already brewing up - one with the Soviets. By showing Stalin that he was not only incredibly vulnerable to an attack that he couldn't bog down by throwing millions of people at like he did with the Nazis, and that the person on the other side was capable of using that kind of weapon, that war never came.
Was dropping those two bombs the right decision? Maybe, maybe not. However, it is world history, and seeing the devastation of two cities from these comparatively small weapons compared to what the 1950s and 1960s brought, it might have brought pause to anyone looking to use them later in the coldest days of the cold war.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
No, the alternative was to wait.
It should be noted that:
- The Japanese, like the Germans, had their own nuclear weapons program in progress. (That was how they were able to recognize the nuclear bombs for what they were: Bombs were SOME of the possibilities they were pursuing.)
- While they thought nuclear-reaction bombs were hard but doable, they were actively working on the immanent bombardment of the West Coast of the Untied States with radiological weapons - "dirty bombs" spreading fatal levels of radioactive material. (Remember that much of the US war infrastructure, including nuclear laboratories such as Livermore and the Navy's Pacific fleet construction and supply lines, were on or very near the west coast. The prevailing winds are from the west and able to carry fallout blankets to them.)
- The primary reason for using TWO bombs, only a few days apart, was to create the impression that the US could keep this up. The Japanese had an idea that making the bombs took so much resource that the US could only have a very few. And they were right.
As I understand it went something like this: There was enough material for no more than two or three more, then there'd have been about a year of infrastructure construction and ramp-up, after which the US could have started with monthly bombs and worked up to weekly or so. If the US could have gotten to that point unmolested, Japan was doomed. But a LOT can happen over that time in a total war - and big projects can get hamstrung when the bulk of the industrial output and manpower has to be used to fight off conventional attacks meanwhile. The idea was to give the Japanese the impression the US was ALREADY that far along.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Hiroshima was anything *but* a military base. It was one of the least militarized cities in Japan, which is why it had been so little touched by conventional bombings.
One quarter of the casualties from the direct bombing were soldiers. The city served as the headquarters for second general army, the 59th army, and two divisions. Aside from the aforementioned 20,000 military casualties, the bomb also beheaded each of those commands. The city population was approximately 345,000 and there were 40,000 soldiers stationed within the city for a total of 385,000. The bomb killed 20.7% of the people inside the city, 17% of the civilian population, and 50% of the military population.
Another militarily significant feature of Hiroshima that is often overlooked is its status as a transportation hub. Destroying facilities in Hiroshima would greatly impede Japan's ability to move soldiers and material around the mainland. This is one of the things we learned very quickly from the bombing campaign against Germany. Going after transportation targets was a very good way to take down the enemy's ability to produce war material as well as move troops around to defend against offensives and the USAAF general in charge of the atomic bombing was Carl Spaatz who was a huge supporter of transportation bombing who was transferred to the Pacific Theater after the war in Germany was concluded.
Say what you will about the other criteria for target selection, Hiroshima had plenty of military strategic benefits to bombing and it's rivers made it unsuitable for LeMay's firebombing,
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork