Slashdot Mirror
I Am Not Doctor Strangelove
Amoeba Protozoa writes "Here is an amusing and well written interview with Edward Teller, atomic science history's own real-life Dr. Strangelove." It's in Scientific American. And at one point, Teller threatens to throw the interviewer out of his office if he mentions Dr. Strangelove "three more times."
How crazy was Project Chariot? Consider the fact that Bikini Atoll is now one of the best sites for skin diving and sport fishing on the planet. (Read that as "lots of shipwrecks in pristine condition" and a nearly-undisturbed environment for the past 40 years.) The most serious radiological contaminant on Bikini is Cs-137, and the main reason it's a problem is because the local vegetation picks it up in place of potassium. It's a land problem, not a sea problem. Since a putative Alaskan harbor isn't a likely site for crop-growing, and since it would have been excavated with high-yielding thermonuclear devices designed to maximize explosive yield and minimize heavy radionuclide production, the residual radiation levels around the site would have dropped to habitable levels relatively quickly. (Of course, whether it would have cooled off in time to be economically viable compared to conventional construction, or even whether or not a harbor would have benefited the Alaskan economy is a question for economists, not physicists :)
IMHO the best use for nuclear explosions would have been Project Orion; a nuclear pulse engine. Another cool project killed by the ignorance of the public when it comes to things nuclear.
Teller has every right to be bitter. It appears from the article that many people are unable to separate the man from the device he helped build. In an age in which the public is so frightened of the word "nuclear" that they argue to ban space probes like Cassini due to their RTGs, and in which people prefer the cyanide in apricot pits to chemotherapy "because it's the natural way to fight caner", it's not surprising that Teller's vision of the application of technology to build a better world is viewed as hubris, and his contributions are held in low esteem.
Back to nukes. Anyone interested in the history of atomic weaponry should consider a visit to the National Atomic Museum in New Mexico. The timing is great - the first weekend of October also marks the date on which White Sands Missile Range opens up the Trinity Site to the general public, allowing tours of the site of the first fission explosion.
Finally - whatever your opinions on the horror of the bomb's use - the physics behind it was still beautiful. Anyone wanting more detailed information on the design is highly encouraged to read Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ - a 14-part document also available at the FAS High Energy Weapons archive.
Notice NONE of his ideas for peacetime use of the hydrogen bomb were remotely useful.
The Soviets built a hydrogen bomb only because they knew the US was doing the same. While it's possible that building up a vast arsenal to wipe out all life may indeed have been the reason for the USSR's collapse, "vindicating" Teller's observation that we would all be speaking Russian and he would be in a concentration camp, it still seems that there could have been a more effective way to win the cold war then build up a vast arsenal capable of wiping us all out many times over.
And the threat isn't over yet.
Personally, I got the impression Teller was suffering in part from cognitive dissonance in an attempt to justify that his life wasn't completely wasted.
"The bomb WAS good."
"I thought of it, not Ulam."
"Alaska would be much improved if we blew up half a dozen hydrogen bombs just off shore."
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
- When Oppenheimer opposed the "Super" on the grounds that it was an unnecessary weapon of genocide, Teller skewered him. This was a very organized and deliberate maligning of another scientist only because he held an opposing opinion. Teller's words were used to undermine Oppenheimer's veracity in front of the AEC. In an era dominated by HUAC and Senator McCarthy, and in spite of all that Oppie had accomplished for the country, that was enough to destroy a very important person's life, career, etc. The impact of these events is incalculable.
- Teller's version of the Super probably would not have worked--it was a likely dud. So say the other physicists surrounding the project, including Hans Bethe.
- Teller wanted control of the Super project at Los Alamos, but nobody wanted to work with him. Norris Bradbury, the lab's director, had a choice. It was either Teller or two-thirds of his division leaders. Teller had to go. He refused to work under anybody and resigned in a huff in Sept., 1951 when Norris appointed Marshall Holloway to direct the project. This was right when the project got going. Teller wasn't even directly involved in development of the Super from that point on.
- In March, 1951, Ulam saved Teller's design with his staged implosion design. In spite of these facts, Teller continues to take sole credit. How many people have heard of Stanislaw Ulam?
- The Russians had a more advanced A-bomb on the drawing boards when they exploded their first A-bomb, a copy of the Nagasaki device. If spies hadn't turned over the design to the Russians they would have soon had an A-bomb anyway. They were working on the Super soon after their first atomic test in 1949.
Teller is almost totally driven by his hatred of the Russians. This is a hideous concept on which to base one's existence. In my opinion, Edward Teller deserves his reputation as the much maligned enfant terrible of science. Dr. Stranglove, indeed.References:
Rhodes, Richard. Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. 1995. Simon and Schuster.
Rhodes, Richard. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. 1986. Simon and Schuster. Pulitzer Prize winner. A great book.
Goodchild, Peter. J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds. 1985. Fromm International Publishing Corp.
Teller has been treated extremely poorly by history and by the press. Just look at this interview for crying out loud! The fact of the matter is that he is a brilliant man. A lot of his proposals would work, and could really help our society if it wasn't for the fact that the general public is too afraid of something they don't understand to take advantage of it.
And if you're so concerned about nuclear weapons, here's a thought: nuclear weapons have saved far, far, more lives than they have taken. The only time they were actually used in combat was at the end of WWII, and while it is true that many were killed, and actual invasion would have cost many more lives on BOTH sides. And the conflict between the US and the Soviet Union were caused by political differences, not nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the reason it was a COLD war, if it wasn't for nuclear weapons it may very well have been WWIII between the two most powerful nations in the world. The death toll would have made WWII look like a day in the park.
I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.
"That's right, I'm quoting myself."
-Upsilon
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.