Atomic Cafe's topics - tribe.net

JACKPOT! ATOMIC PLATTERS: COLD WAR MUSIC FROM THE GOLDEN AGE OF HOMELAND SECURITY

2006-04-20T22:02:02Z

ATOMIC PLATTERS: COLD WAR MUSIC FROM THE GOLDEN AGE OF HOMELAND SECURITY - a five CD/1 DVD box set capturing the best in vintage atomic music and film, will be released/detonated on August 6th!

http://www.conelrad.com/media/atomicmusic/sh_boom.html

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

pump up the info

2006-04-08T13:14:23Z

http://tribes.tribe.net/knowingisthekey

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

TV - Las Vegas: An Unconventional History

2005-11-21T02:06:33Z

Atomic footage and comentary in this doc. on the relationship of the atom to Las Vegas...

Las Vegas: An Unconventional History
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lasvegas/index.html

The story of Las Vegas' last hundred years is a distinctly American saga of optimism and opportunity. By 1999, it had become one of the fastest growing cities in the United States and could lay claim, in the words of one historian, to be "the first city of the twenty-first century." American Experience tells a rollercoaster story, peopled with unlikely heroes and villains, to trace the city's development from a remote frontier way-station to its Depression-era incarnation as the "Gateway to the Hoover Dam"; from its mid-century florescence as the gangster metropolis known as "Sin City" to its recent renaissance as a corporately-financed, postmodern, desert fantasyland.

Atomic Vegas...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lasvegas/sfeature/sf_atomic.html
In the 1950s the American public accepted above-ground nuclear bomb blasts just 65 miles from an American city as part of the ongoing Cold War effort. The tests became a tourist attraction for visitors. Las Vegas became "Atomic City, USA." The public's enthusiastic reaction to the tests demonstrates how well the government both downplayed the possible dangers of the tests and emphasized the patriotic mission of the program.

In 1988 the U.S. Congress passed a bill to compensate veterans whose health was damaged from exposure to nuclear tests. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah sponsored the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) that was passed in 1990, providing compensation to civilians downwind from the above-ground tests (many in his home state) and quickly amended to also apply to workers at the Nevada Test Site. As of 2001, RECA has paid out some $232 billion for 3,135 claims.

Explore the different ways in which the government presented the safety and importance of the tests to the American public in the early years of the Cold War

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

Is this available on DVD?:

2005-11-20T22:01:06Z

I remember a PBS documentary that was based on the book by Richard Rhodes, titled "The making of the atomic bomb" ..

I've collected many documentaries on the Manhattan project, and those about Robert Oppenheimer, and many others, however I've never yet found the documentary that was based on Rhodes' book and having the same title ...

Does anyone remember this particular program, and is it available ???

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

"Is this thing on?"

2005-08-06T08:28:40Z

I have posted an event , and it shows up on my personal profile, as well as showing Atomic Cafe as a "related tribe" (and presumably receiving the event post that I published) but I can't see it on this site. Can anyone else see the event notice about the Simnuke gallery show?

If not, I guess I need to contact Tribe help to see why and event I posted, and shows as published to this tribe, is not displayed?

IT'S DRIVING ME CRAZY. :-)

Ass^trid

posted in Atomic Cafe - 5 replies

Atomic Cafe PC CD?

2005-08-06T08:06:25Z

Anyone got this? It was available through Jane Loader... and of course, by the time I tried to get a hold of her, the email address was bad, etc... Or anyone got a clue where it's available from now?

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

CSPAN2 - 8/6 & 8/7 - Books on Hiroshima and the 60th anniversary of the Atomic Bomb

2005-08-06T06:59:41Z

CSPAN2 - EASTERN TIME
On Saturday, August 6 at 3:00 pm and Sunday, August 7 at 3:00 am
Books on Hiroshima and the 60th anniversary of the Atomic Bomb

Description: On the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima during World II, Book TV presents programs on books about the era. Programs include, in order of appearance: "Before the Fallout: From Marie Curie to Hiroshima" by Diana Preston. That will be followed by clips from our 2000 In Depth interview with Richard Rhodes, pulitzer prize winning author of "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." Then, "Racing for the Bomb" by Robert Norris, "109 East Palace" by Jennet Conant, "Duty" by Bob Greene, and "Shockwave" by Stephen Walker.

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

ATOMIC CAFE:HISTORY DONE RIGHT

2005-08-02T03:09:45Z

Atomic Cafe: History Done Right! ATOMIC CAFE provided the founders of this site with an exceptional roadmap of how to blend pop cultural artifacts, satire and information to form new entertainment - or in the vernacular of the Internet - "content." Atomic Cafe soundtrack LPWith a tip of the old CONELRAD fedora, then, this page gratefully acknowledges a great film, soundtrack, and book.

http://www.conelrad.com/atomic_cafe.html
CONELRAD: Atomic Cafe | Film, Soundtrack, and Book [1982]

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

Buried Suns - Harper's June 2005

2005-05-25T20:41:24Z

June 2005 issue of Harper's Magazine has a pretty good article called Buried Suns: The Past and Possible Future of America's Nuclear-Testing Program by David Samuels.

He goes and tours the Nevada Test Site and hangs out with some former employees... It's interesting and well written. Puts a bit of a human face on the proceedings there.

posted in Atomic Cafe - 3 replies

50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons

2005-05-25T01:11:25Z

http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM
50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons

- Except where noted all figures are in constant 1996 dollars -
1. Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000

SOURCES: Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World: A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Volume 1, 1939/1946 (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. AEC Technical Information Center, 1972), pp. 723-724; Condensed AEC Annual Financial Report, FY 1953 (in Fifteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, January 1954, p. 73)

2. Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

3. Estimated construction costs for more than 1,000 ICBM launch pads and silos, and support facilities, from 1957-1964: nearly $14,000,000,000

Maj. C.D. Hargreaves, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO), "Introduction to the CEBMCO Historical Report and History of the Command Section, Pre-CEBMCO Thru December 1962," p. 8; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, "U.S. Air Force ICBM Construction Program," undated chart (circa 1965)

4. Total number of nuclear bombers built, 1945-present: 4,680

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

5. Peak number of nuclear warheads and bombs in the stockpile/year: 32,193/1966

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

6. Total number and types of nuclear warheads and bombs built, 1945-1990: more than 70,000/65 types

U.S. Department of Energy; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

7. Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

8. Number of nuclear warheads requested by the Army in 1956 and 1957: 151,000

History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear Weapons, July 1945 Through September 1977, Prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Atomic Energy), February 1978, p. 50 (formerly Top Secret)

9. Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200

U.S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

10. Additional strategic and non-strategic warheads not limited by the treaty that the U.S. military wants to retain as a "hedge" against unforeseen future threats: 4,900

U..S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

11. Largest and smallest nuclear bombs ever deployed: B17/B24 (~42,000 lbs., 10-15 megatons); W54 (51 lbs., .01 kilotons, .02 kilotons-1 kiloton)

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

12. Peak number of operating domestic uranium mines (1955): 925

Nineteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, January 1956, p. 31

13. Fissile material produced: 104 metric tons of
plutonium and 994 metric tons of highly-enriched
uranium

U.S. Department of Energy

14. Amount of plutonium still in weapons: 43 metric tons

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

15. Number of thermometers which could be filled with mercury used to produce lithium-6 at the Oak Ridge Reservation: 11 billion

U.S. Department of Energy

16. Number of dismantled plutonium "pits" stored at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas: 12,067 (as of May 6, 1999)

U.S. Department of Energy

17. States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140)

William M. Arkin, Robert S. Norris, and Joshua Handler, Taking Stock: Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998 (Washington, D.C.: Natural Resources Defense Council, March 1998)

18. Total known land area occupied by U.S. nuclear weapons bases and facilities: 15,654 square miles

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

19. Total land area of the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey: 15,357 square miles

Rand McNally Road Atlas and Travel Guide, 1992

20. Legal fees paid by the Department of Energy to fight lawsuits from workers and private citizens concerning nuclear weapons production and testing activities, from October 1990 through March 1995: $97,000,000

U.S. Department of Energy

21. Money paid by the State Department to Japan following fallout from the 1954 "Bravo" test: $15,300,000

Barton C. Hacker, Elements of Controversy: The Atomic Energy Commission and Radiation Safety in Nuclear Weapons Testing, 1947 -1974, University of California Press, 1994, p. 158

22. Money and non-monetary compensation paid by the the United States to Marshallese Islanders since 1956 to redress damages from nuclear testing: at least $759,000,000

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

23. Money paid to U.S. citizens under the Radiation Exposure and Compensation Act of 1990, as of January 13, 1998: approximately $225,000,000 (6,336 claims approved; 3,156 denied)

U.S. Department of Justice, Torts Branch, Civil Division

24. Total cost of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program, 1946-1961: $7,000,000,000

"Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program," Report of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, September 1959, pp. 11-12

25. Total number of nuclear-powered aircraft and airplane hangars built: 0 and 1

Ibid; "American Portrait: ANP," WFAA-TV (Dallas), 1993. Between July 1955 and March 1957, a specially modified B-36 bomber made 47 flights with a three megawatt air-cooled operational test reactor (the reactor, however, did not power the plane).

26. Number of secret Presidential Emergency Facilities built for use during and after a nuclear war: more than 75

Bill Gulley with Mary Ellen Reese, Breaking Cover, Simon and Schuster, 1980, pp. 34- 36

27. Currency stored until 1988 by the Federal Reserve at its Mount Pony facility for use after a nuclear war: more than $2,000,000,000

Edward Zuckerman, The Day After World War III, The Viking Press, 1984, pp. 287-88

28. Amount of silver in tons once used at the Oak Ridge, TN, Y-12 Plant for electrical magnet coils: 14,700

Vincent C. Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Bomb, U.S. Army Center for Military History, 1985, pp. 66-7

29. Total number of U.S. nuclear weapons tests, 1945-1992: 1,030 (1,125 nuclear devices detonated; 24 additional joint tests with Great Britain)

U.S. Department of Energy

30. First and last test: July 16, 1945 ("Trinity") and September 23, 1992 ("Divider")

U.S. Department of Energy

31. Estimated amount spent between October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1995 on nuclear testing activities: $1,200,000,000 (0 tests)

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

32. Cost of 1946 Operation Crossroads weapons tests ("Able" and "Baker") at Bikini Atoll: $1,300,000,000

Weisgall, Operation Crossroads, pp. 294, 371

33. Largest U.S. explosion/date: 15 Megatons/March 1, 1954 ("Bravo")

U.S. Department of Energy

34. Number of islands in Enewetak atoll vaporized
by the November 1, 1952 "Mike" H-bomb test: 1

Chuck Hansen, U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History, Orion Books, 1988, pp. 58-59, 95

35. Number of nuclear tests in the Pacific: 106

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

36. Number of U.S. nuclear tests in Nevada: 911

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

37. Number of nuclear weapons tests in Alaska [1, 2, and 3], Colorado [1 and 2], Mississippi and New Mexico [1, 2 and 3]: 10

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

38. Operational naval nuclear propulsion reactors vs. operational commercial power reactors (in 1999): 129 vs. 108

Adm. Bruce DeMars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy; Nuclear Regulatory Commission

39. Number of attack (SSN) and ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines (2002): 53 SSNs and 18 SSBNs

Adm. Bruce DeMars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy

40. Number of high level radioactive waste tanks in Washington, Idaho and South Carolina: 239

U.S. Department of Energy

41. Volume in cubic meters of radioactive waste resulting from weapons activities: 104,000,000

U.S. Department of Energy; Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

42. Number of designated targets for U.S. weapons in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) in 1976, 1986, and 1995: 25,000 (1976), 16,000 (1986) and 2,500 (1995)

Bruce Blair, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

43. Cost of January 17, 1966 nuclear weapons accident over Palomares, Spain (including two lost planes, an extended search and recovery effort, waste disposal in the U.S. and settlement claims): $182,000,000

Joint Committee on Atomic Energy Interoffice Memorandum, February 15, 1968; Center for Defense Information

44. Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11

U.S. Department of Defense; Center for Defense Information; Greenpeace; "Lost Bombs," Atwood-Keeney Productions, Inc., 1997

45. Number of Department of Energy federal employees (in 1996): 18,608

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition

46. Number of Department of Energy contractor employees (in 1996): 109,242

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition

47. Minimum number of classified pages estimated to be in the Department of Energy's possession (1995): 280 million

A Review of the Department of Energy Classification Policy and Practice, Committee on Declassification of Information for the Department of Energy Environmental Remediation and Related Programs, National Research Council, 1995, pp. 7-8, 68.

48. Ballistic missile defense spending in 1965 vs. 1995: $2,200,000,000 vs. $2,600,000,000

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

49. Average cost per warhead to the U.S. to help Kazakhstan dismantle 104 SS-18 ICBMs carrying more than 1,000 warheads: $70,000

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project; Arms Control Association

50. Estimated 1998 spending on all U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs: $35,100,000,000

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

The Cold War (follow-up)

2005-01-23T22:58:43Z

I am proud to be an American. I don't always agree with our Government. But I truly do love America.

Gov. Compensation Programs

There were over 600,000 workers involved in the production of nuclear weapons.

My father was one of the workers. My father worked at the Hanford project in Reactor Operations. My Father worked thirty years for the Department of Energy. My Father was the supervisor of the 100 area nine Reactors at the Hanford Project. The reactors produced Plutonium for nuclear weapons. My Father was an expert in Radiation Monitoring and also an expert in Reactor Operations. My Father authored many system control Operations and procedures for the start up of the Reactors.
My Father died of Whole Body Dose cumulative radiation exsposure.

Also my Mother and my Brother died from Radiation exposure.

The Government has done an excellent job of covering up the truth of Radiation Health Effects for many years.

Within the last few years The Department of Energy (DOE) has been sued so many times from past employees,and paid out millions in lost law suites. They have had to admit that they have made thousands of workers sick and or dead. They have implemented compensation programs to try and cut off the law suites.

The first program was called the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Administered by the Department of Justice Department.(RECA).www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/reca/
Radiation Exposure Compensation Program

The other program is called the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. (EEOICPA) Part D is run by the Department of Labor(DOL). www.dol.gov/esa/regs/com.....owcp/eeoicp/main.htm
Energy Employees Compensation Program Home Page.

Part B is run by the Department of Energy(DOE). .tis.eh.doe.gov/advocacy/f...st/findfacility.cfm
DOE Office of Worker Advocacy - Find Facilities.

VA Programs for Veterans Exposed to Radiation

Some 195,000 servicemembers have been identified as participants in the post-World War II occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. In addition, approximately 210,000 mostly military members are confirmed as participants in U.S. atmospheric nuclear tests between 1945 and 1962 in the United States and the Pacific and Atlantic oceans prior to the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency's Nuclear Test Personnel Review program since 1978 has maintained a database of participants in atmospheric nuclear test activities. About one-fourth of the participants received no measurable dose of ionizing radiation, with fewer than one per cent of the nuclear test participants identified as having a dose of 5 rem or higher. (The current federal guideline for U.S. workplace exposure is 5 rem per year.)

www.va.gov/pressrel/99radpgm.htm
VA Fact Sheet: 1999 VA Programs for Veterans Exposed to Radiation

With a little research on these web sites you should be able to come to the conclusion on how large of a health issue this is.I can also supply you with plenty of studies from some of the best Health Physicist in the world.

There are several several excellent books on the subject one of which is called Killing Our Own, The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation, by Harvey Wasserman and Normon Solomon, with Robert Alvarez and Eleanore Walters, 1982: You can read the full book at this web site and also find information to fill in any gaps that you might have questions about.The Health Costs of Nuclear Technology. www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/

Here is a link to one of my many web sites called The Hanford Downwinders Information Site.www.geocities.com/irradiate...ems/index.html
HANFORD DOWNWINDERS INFORMATION SITE

posted in Atomic Cafe - 1 reply

How Close Are You to a Nuclear Waste Route?

2004-12-03T06:17:00Z

http://www.ewg.org/reports/nuclearwaste/find_address.php
EWG Action Fund Report || Nuclear Relicensing

posted in Atomic Cafe - 1 reply

A Bombardier's Reflection - Dr. Strangelove

2004-11-17T21:59:49Z

A Bombardier's Reflection
The 40th anniversary of "Dr. Strangelove" prompts some Cold War reminiscences.

BY JAMES EARL JONES
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 12:01 a.m.

Jean Jacques Rousseau said that God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh. In his film "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," Stanley Kubrick, to some a "god" in the pantheon of cinema, made us laugh out loud at thermonuclear war. I am a surviving member of the cast, and in this 40th anniversary year of the film, I am pleased to share some of my experiences in making "Strangelove."

Kubrick based his initial script on "Red Alert," a tense thriller about the possibility of an accidental nuclear war written by the British author Peter George. When Stanley came to New York to scout George C. Scott for the role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, George happened to be playing in "The Merchant of Venice" at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park. So was I. Stanley recruited George, and given that Kubrick wanted to make the film's B-52 crew multiethnic, he took me too. It was my first movie role.

As the script evolved, Kubrick decided to bring in the renowned "bad boy" Terry Southern to rework the film as a satire. Among many other changes, an entirely new character was added to the story--the eponymous Dr. Strangelove (initially called Von Klutz). Southern and Kubrick gave all the characters comic-book names. Sterling Hayden's Gen. Quintin became Gen. Jack D. Ripper. Slim Pickens now played Maj. T.J. "King" Kong. Keenan Wynn was Col. "Bat" Guano, and George was Gen. "Buck" Turgidson. Of course, Peter Sellers took on three roles: Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake, a British Exchange Officer; Dr. Strangelove himself; and U.S. President Merkin Muffley.

My character, the B-52's bombardier Lt. Lothar Zogg, took his name from Mandrake the Magician's sidekick, a black and bald-headed man who provided Mandrake with muscle power when prestidigitation failed. In the original script, the bombardier's role included pointed questioning of the authenticity of Gen. Ripper's command-orders to nuke Russia. But as "Dr. Strangelove" evolved into a satire, Zogg's voice of reason shrank to essentially a single question: "Sir, do you think this might be some kind of loyalty test or security check?"

In spite of having been stripped of the lines that made the role attractive to me in the first place, I felt very fortunate to be working with Kubrick, one of the most brilliant and innovative directors of our time. He was unique--the only man I have ever known who spoke in the manner, if not the accent, of an English lord and chewed gum at the same time. Stanley was unfailingly polite and even-tempered on the set. After every take that didn't work, even the 100th, he would say nothing more than "Let's try that again."

Of course, it was also true that Stanley was a control freak of the highest order and ran his set more like a dictator than a director. He treated actors as if they were technical elements in his design, not as creative professionals like himself.
I had decidedly uncomfortable moments as an actor under Stanley's direction. One day, hours before I was scheduled to be on the set, I was hustled into costume to shoot a scene full of Air Force techno-jargon. I had learned the lines. But in the weeks of waiting around to shoot the scene I had forgotten them, and Kubrick said, "You mean you don't know your words?" He momentarily stopped chewing his gum and then said very coldly, "Let's move to the next set." I felt uncomfortable with him afterward.

George C. Scott had some really difficult experiences with the director. George was headstrong by nature. It is what fueled his particular talent. Stanley was very much the same kind of man. The irresistible force met the immovable object when Stanley asked George to do over-the-top performances of his lines. He said it would help George to warm up for his satiric takes. George hated this idea. He said it was unprofessional and made him feel silly. George eventually agreed to do his scenes over-the-top when Stanley promised that his performance would never be seen by anyone but himself and the cast and crew. But Kubrick ultimately used many of these "warm-ups" in the final cut. George felt used and manipulated by Stanley and swore he would never work with him again.

George and I had some dinner conversations, usually quite heated, about the growing American presence in Vietnam. George, who later starred in "Patton," said he had become a hawk the minute bomb shelters started being built. By the time I met him, he had a very broad wingspan. I was not a dove, as I believed some wars, like World War II, are justified and necessary. But I was not in favor of fighting in Vietnam.

"You're an American, aren't you?" George would goad me. "Doesn't that obligate you to support the war?"
"Yes, I am a black American," was how I felt at the time. But as long as black Americans were being treated like second-class citizens, that left me free to question the war's morality.

The issue was complicated for me. I had served during the Korean conflict as a member of the first fully integrated officer corps in U.S. military history. There were fellow officers I encountered, from the unreconstructed South, who couldn't quite bring themselves to shake my hand.

My father, a protégé of Paul Robeson, had asked me not to fight in Korea. For Paul it was wrong for black people to kill yellow people for the benefit of white people. I told my father that I was no patriot but that I was a citizen, and that I planned to wear my uniform (even in Paul Robeson's presence) and do my duty as a soldier.

Amazingly, the Cold War ended without a nuclear war. Even more amazingly, the former antagonists who once amassed enough nuclear weapons to kill every man, woman and child on earth seven times over have become "good friends," even to the extent of signing the nonproliferation treaty. The 9/11 attacks have given a greater sense of urgency to the goals that the treaty set about to accomplish. Although the Cold War has ended, it is the pilfering of nuclear materials from former Soviet stockpiles, and their potential sale to terrorists, that has become one of our greatest threats. Today, more than ever, we are still not safe from the dangers lampooned in "Dr. Strangelove."

Human history offers little evidence that we can learn to stop fighting wars. But we cannot stop trying. As Stanley would say after every take that didn't work, even the 100th, "Let's try that again."

Mr. Jones, a winner of the Tony Award and the Golden Globe, will be returning this spring to Broadway in "On Golden Pond." He wrote this article with the assistance of Lewis Eisenberg.

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

Theodore Taylor Dies; Tried To Redirect Nuclear Power

2004-11-03T01:43:29Z

washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17358-2004Nov1.html

Theodore Taylor Dies; Tried To Redirect Nuclear Power

By Joe Holley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 2, 2004; Page B06

Theodore Brewster Taylor, 79, a nuclear physicist and maker of bombs who came to despise the devices of death and destruction that he created, died Oct. 28 at the Forest Glen Skilled Nursing and Rehab Center in Silver Spring. He had coronary artery disease.

Dr. Taylor worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1948 to 1956, where he designed atomic weapons. Although they were never used, they were stockpiled, and he felt anguish, his daughter Kathy Robertson said, that someday they might be used.

"He was famous in the community of bomb experts as the most creative and imaginative of the designers," said Freeman Dyson, a physicist, author and retired Princeton University professor who was a friend of Dr. Taylor's. "His bomb designs were the smallest, the most elegant and the most efficient. He was able to draw his designs freehand, without elaborate calculations. When they were built and tested, they worked."

At the time, Dr. Taylor believed his efforts were helping to prevent the world from erupting into a nuclear World War III, but he began to have deep misgivings about his life's work. He told his daughter that at the time she was born, in 1950, he was working at the Pentagon on plans to annihilate Moscow. The stark juxtaposition of those two experiences -- literally life and death -- compelled him to begin redirecting his scientific expertise.

In 1956, he left Los Alamos to work on peaceful applications of nuclear energy at General Atomics, a division of General Dynamics founded in San Diego in 1955. He helped design the TRIGA reactor, used mainly to produce short-lived isotopes for medical diagnosis in hospitals.

In response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, he worked with others on a project at General Atomics to design a spaceship called Orion that would be propelled by nuclear bombs. He led the project for six years, until 1964. Orion, he hoped, would allow mankind to explore the solar system while reducing nuclear stockpiles.

"The project was technically promising and politically hopeless," said Dyson, who worked for a year on the project. The 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty made testing Orion impossible, and the project came to an end.

"With it died Taylor's dream that nuclear bombs could be used for a better purpose than killing people," Dyson said.

Ted Taylor was born and raised in Mexico City, where his father was director of the YMCA. He received a bachelor's degree from the California Institute of Technology and pursued graduate studies at the University of California at Berkeley and at Cornell University. He received his doctorate in theoretical physics from Cornell in 1954.

He was on active duty with the Navy from 1943 to 1946 and was honorably discharged from the Naval Reserves in 1954.

After his years at Los Alamos building bombs and with General Atomics building reactors, he began looking for ways to, in Dyson's words, "kill the monster that he had helped grow."

From 1964 to 1966, he was deputy director of the Defense Atomic Support Agency of the Department of Defense, responsible for the care and maintenance of the nuclear stockpile. He resigned from the government in 1966 and for the next two years served as a consultant to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, hoping to establish safeguards to protect nuclear materials from being diverted to clandestine weapons programs. He served as a visiting professor at Princeton and the University of California at Santa Cruz and co-authored three books on nuclear proliferation and renewable energy.

"Many of the people in the bomb business got to where they wanted nothing to do with it," Dyson said, "whereas, generally speaking, those working with reactors still believed in nuclear energy. Ted was unusual in that he became opposed to nuclear energy in general as too risky, too dangerous."

"Sooner or later, a terrorist group or a psychotic working alone will build a nuclear device," Dr. Taylor told The Washington Post in 1983. What the terrorist wants is attention, he said, and a nuclear threat is "an instant display."

The dangers of nuclear proliferation remained a lifelong obsession, particularly in recent years when Dr. Taylor felt that neither governments nor individuals were doing enough to address the threat.

A resident of Wellsville, N.Y., for the last 12 years, he lived in Montgomery County from 1964 to 1987, in Bethesda and Damascus.

In his work on energy alternatives, he focused on ways of producing hydrogen from solar photovoltaics, cooling from ice ponds and heating from solar ponds. He also worked on energy conservation in buildings and water purification from the natural freezing of water spray. In Montgomery, he put together a nonprofit organization called Damascus Energy that promoted energy efficiency in the home.

He loved magic tricks, music -- Bach, especially -- and the outdoors, which nurtured his belief that it was his duty to help care for the environment.

Dr. Taylor's marriage to Caro Dwight Arnin ended in divorce in 1992.

Survivors include five children, Clare Hastings of Washington, Kathy Robertson of Davis, Calif., Chris Taylor of Colorado Springs, Bob Taylor of Rockville, and Jeff Taylor of Brooklyn; two half brothers; 10 grandchildren; and nine great-grandchildren.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

Nuc.News

2004-10-31T04:45:01Z

If you want to be up to date on Nuc. News join me at,

Cold War Survivors

http://coldwarsurvivors.tribe.net/

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

Empire

2004-10-24T22:52:55Z

Assume that planet Earth is too dangerous with nuclear weapons in the hands of states. American ascendancy cannot go on forever unless other states continue to pay for it. Is Kerry being elected to preside over American imperialism and benefit Japan and China?

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

Hundreds Of Thousands Of Nuclear Weapons In 60 Countries Coming?

2004-10-06T05:09:38Z

"At the end of 2003, there were more than 3,700
metric tons of plutonium and highly enriched
uranium -- uranium enriched to 20 percent or
uranium-235 -- enough for hundreds of thousands of
nuclear weapons, in about 60 countries,'' Albright
and Kimberly Kramer wrote in an article to be
published in the next issue of the Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists [ http://www.thebulletin.org ].

Albright and Kramer are not optimistic: ``Civil
plutonium stocks are not expected to decrease in
the next 15 years.''

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-nuclear-arms.html

Global Stocks of Nuke Bomb Material Growing -
Survey
By REUTERS

Published: October 3, 2004

Filed at 8:32 a.m. ET

VIENNA (Reuters) - The world's stockpiles of
plutonium and highly enriched uranium useable in
atomic weapons are growing, despite increasing
fears about the security of nuclear materials, a
U.S. based think-tank says in a new report.

The estimates of civilian and military stocks of
plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) --
information treated by most governments as
classified -- were prepared by the Institute for
Science and International Security (ISIS), run by
former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright.

Advertisement

``At the end of 2003, there were more than 3,700
metric tons of plutonium and highly enriched
uranium -- uranium enriched to 20 percent or
uranium-235 -- enough for hundreds of thousands of
nuclear weapons, in about 60 countries,'' Albright
and Kimberly Kramer wrote in an article to be
published in the next issue of the Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists.

Most of the weapons-useable material is in Russia,
followed by the United States.

In response to intelligence reports that
terrorists are interested in acquiring nuclear
weapons, the United States and Russia are working
with the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) to recover and secure all U.S. and Russian
bomb-grade material spread across the globe.

Other states with some plutonium or HEU include
the other declared nuclear powers -- Britain,
France and China -- as well as Belgium, Italy,
Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland and former nuclear power South Africa,
ISIS says.

North Korea, which withdrew from the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) last year, had some
15 to 39 kg of plutonium and two to nine nuclear
weapons at the end of 2003, according to a table
in the article.

The article says that military plutonium stocks
are also growing in Israel, Pakistan and India --
countries known to possess nuclear weapons but
which have not signed the NPT and are therefore
not subject to IAEA safeguards.

The fact that states outside the NPT continue to
make bomb material highlights the need for ``an
international ban on the production of fissile
material for nuclear weapons,'' it says.

Albright and Kramer are not optimistic: ``Civil
plutonium stocks are not expected to decrease in
the next 15 years.''

WORRIES ABOUT SECURITY

It takes around 10 kg of plutonium-239 or 16-25 kg
of HEU enriched to around 90 percent uranium-235
(U-235) to fuel a weapon. ISIS estimates that at
the end of 2003 there was a total of 1,855 tonnes
of plutonium and 1,900 tonnes of HEU globally.

Most of the plutonium was in civilian hands, while
the HEU was mostly in military stocks.

Some of the weapons-useable nuclear material
produced around the world is disposed of, but the
total amount keeps growing, Albright and Kramer
say in their article, an advance copy of which was
provided to Reuters.

``This is worrisome not only because the world has
yet to come up with an accepted method of
plutonium disposition but also from a security
standpoint -- how safe is that plutonium and
HEU?''

Coastal countries like Ireland, New Zealand and
Peru complain about the security of transporting
nuclear materials through their territorial
waters. These countries say that dangerous
shipments of fissile or highly radioactive
materials are often moved through their waters
without their knowledge.

The environmental pressure group Greenpeace says
on its Web site that 140 kg of plutonium -- enough
for at least 14 weapons -- is now en route to
France, where it is to be converted into nuclear
reactor MOX fuel.

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

Scientists renew search for lost nuclear bomb

2004-10-01T10:26:46Z

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 Posted: 1:00 PM EDT (1700 GMT)

Bomber dumped H-bomb off Georgia coast 46 years ago
SAVANNAH, Georgia (AP) -- Spurred by what appear to be unusual radiation readings offshore, the U.S. government is sending a team of 20 scientists to try to find a hydrogen bomb lost off the Georgia coast in 1958.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/29/lost.bomb.ap/index.html

posted in Atomic Cafe - 1 reply

Anti-Nuclear Activists?

2004-09-20T21:29:45Z

Nuclear Free Great Basin
Fall Gathering – Oct. 8-10th 2004
Skull Valley Goshute Reservation, Utah

Private Fuel Storage (PFS) wants to site a “temporary” above ground nuclear waste dump for over 40,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste on the ancestral and Reservation land of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians. The Reservation is located about 45 miles South-west of Salt Lake City, Utah.

This proposed project continues to enflame controversy within the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes, and between various governmental and citizen non-governmental entities.

This issue is at critical stage. At the request of Margene Bullcreek, a Goshute activist, and Corbin Harney, Western Shoshone Spiritual Leader, Nuclear Activist and founder of The Shundahai Network, and the Shundahai Network Board, and staff have begun preparation for 3 days of events in Skull Valley October 8-10th 2004. The purpose of these events is to educate, to demonstrate opposition to this project and to give concerned interests an opportunity to offer public testimony on this issue.

Please join us at the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation to support Margene Bullcreek and all those who oppose the Private Fuel Storage nuclear waste dump site on the Goshute Reservation. We will hear presentations by Indigenous speakers, including Corbin Harney, Margene Bullcreek and other groups working on these issues.

During the 3 days there will be many events, including:
Traditional Sunrise Ceremonies, by Corbin Harney
Sweat Lodges open to all persons (there are certain protocols for sweat lodges and ceremonies, if you are unsure of what these are, please ask an organizer when you arrive at the site.).
People’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing
Traditional Native Dancers
A Benefit concert by David Rovics
A raffle with lots of great items to win
And much, much more!

The Shundahai Network would also like to thank the following organizations for their support of this gathering: HEAL Utah, People for Peace and Justice, Western Shoshone Defense Project, JEDI for Women, Honor the Earth, Center for Energy Research, Nanish Shontie- Inter-Tribal Intentional Community, and Poo-Ha-Bah- Center for Indigenous Healing.

The Shundahai Network is the organization supporting Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia Awareness (“ODGA”), the Goshute Organization hosting this event.

Please join us for this historical event! You can come for a day or camp for the weekend! Registration is $10 per person/per day, but no one will be turned away for lack of funds. All meals and events are included with registration. There will be both meat and vegetarian options provided.

For more information, to donate or volunteer, please contact the Shundahai Network office at:

Shundahai Network
P.O. Box 1115
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Phone: (801) 533-0128
Fax: (801) 533-0129
Email: shundahai@shundahai.org
Website: www.shundahai.org

Thank you, and we hope that you will support our action in creating a Nuclear Free Great Basin, and Nuclear Free World!

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

Bert the Turtle says...

2004-08-05T10:39:28Z

Just duck! And cover! That's right kids, when you see the flash, just duck and cover like Bert the Turtle, and maybe the Russkies won't getcha...

This is creepy.

http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=prelinger&collectionid=19069

~Sam

posted in Atomic Cafe - 6 replies

Movies

2004-06-28T12:26:39Z

I just saw "Goodbye Lenin" at the local landmark theater this weekend. It's a German movie about a Berlin family in '89. The mother (who's a believer) falls into a coma. As she is out-of-it the wall falls and their world has changed. After she emerges from her coma her son attempts to protect her from this news by creating a little East German bubble for her to live in.

It made me think of another cold-war influenced movie by Billy Wilder based in Berlin as the wall was going up called "One, Two, Three." The movie is hard to find but I can't recommend it enough. Especially for tribe members here who are interested in cold war politics. James Cagney stars in it and I think you can only find it on VHS but it is my favorite movie of all time. Just brilliant.

Can anyone else recommend good "Atomic Cafe" type movies?

posted in Atomic Cafe - 5 replies

High Energy Weapon Archive

2004-06-12T06:31:10Z

This is a great site for all things nuke-related, with some good history on both nuclear research and testing as well as Cold War nuclear politics:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

~Sam

posted in Atomic Cafe - 2 replies

The Cold War

2004-06-11T21:41:26Z

I Thought We Won The Cold War?

Subject The Cold War
Message I Thought We Won The Cold War?
Nuclear Weapons:
Still High Costs and Huge Stockpiles

110 Maryland Ave. NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 543-4100
www.clw.org/control/nucl$.html

From the end of World War II until the late 1980s, the Soviet threat was the primary driver for the U.S. nuclear weapons program. U.S. policy focused on building a strong nuclear arsenal both in terms of the latest technology and large numbers. According to Atomic Audit, a 1998 study focused on nuclear weapons costs published by the Brookings Institution, the U.S. has spent $5.5 trillion on the research and development, testing, construction, and maintenance of nuclear weapons since the dawn of the atomic age.

The end of the Cold War has eliminated the primary rationale for maintaining high levels of nuclear weapons. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has lost its main competitor in the nuclear weapons arms race. The U.S. is in a position to reduce drastically its massive nuclear stockpile. However, while there has been some progress in U.S.-Russian warhead elimination, the U.S. still maintains an excessive and costly nuclear arsenal. While Russia deploys many thousands of nuclear weapons, they pose a different threat than they did during the Cold War: accidental launch and diversion or theft of nuclear weapons and material. Russia's economic problems are forcing reductions of its operational nuclear forces. The new situation makes massive nuclear buildup even less prudent and rapid reductions of these dangerous weapons even more logical. These developments provide the U.S. the need and the opportunity to take bold steps to deactivate and eliminate thousands of nuclear weapons.

WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?

At a time when the U.S. has the opportunity to save money by streamlining its nuclear arsenal, the Brookings Institution's U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project estimates that the U.S. is still spending up to $35 billion annually on nuclear weapons and related programs-- 14% of all U.S. military spending. The Department of Defense and Department of Energy are spending $19.2 billion and $5.6 billion respectively on the operation of nuclear forces. Annual costs for environmental restoration and waste management resulting from nuclear weapons research, development, and production total $5.9 billion. Taxpayers also support related programs such as storage, elimination of fissile materials and arms reduction.

Besides these expenditures, there are many less obvious costs. For example, the Department of Energy spent $97 million between 1990 and 1997 fending off lawsuits filed by workers and citizens relating to irresponsible nuclear weapons production activities, and the Department of Justice has settled claims totaling $225 million as of January 1998, under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990.

WHAT IS IN THE NUCLEAR STOCKPILE?

Despite the progress resulting from the START I treaty, the U.S. still maintains an excessive nuclear arsenal. Currently, the United States has approximately 12,500 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, both strategic (long range) and short range weapons. When START II goes into force, the number of active strategic warheads will be reduced to 3,500, and the START III negotiations could bring those levels down to between 2,000 and 2,500 strategic warheads.

There are three primary classifications of nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile: active warheads, contingency warheads, and weapons awaiting dismantlement. The U.S. currently has approximately 8,500 active warheads in its nuclear arsenal along with 2,500 contingency or backup warheads. As of mid-1998, there were about 1,500 warheads that were retired and awaiting dismantlement.

The weapons are spread across 14 states. Seventy percent of the weapons are deployed or stored in New Mexico, Georgia, Washington, Nevada, and North Dakota. Other states with nuclear weapons are Wyoming, Missouri, Montana, Louisiana, Texas, Nebraska, California, Virginia, and Colorado.

COLD WAR SPENDING

According to Atomic Audit,there has not been a dramatic decrease in federal spending on nuclear weapons research and development, production, and operation since the end of the Cold War. At the peak of the nuclear weapons stockpile in 1966, the U.S. maintained 32,200 active warheads at a cost of $4.2 billion*. At the height of the Cold War, the Reagan Administration jacked up spending on all military forces, including nuclear weapons, so in 1985, the U.S. spent $5.8 billion on its nuclear weapons stockpiles. In recent times, spending on nuclear weapons research and development, production, and operation has been named Stockpile Stewardship and Stockpile Management, and in 1998, the U.S. spent $4.3 billion on these programs.

*all figures in 1998 dollars

From the end of World War II until the late 1980s, the Soviet threat was the primary driver for the U.S. nuclear weapons program. U.S. policy focused on building a strong nuclear arsenal both in terms of the latest technology and large numbers. According to Atomic Audit, a 1998 study focused on nuclear weapons costs published by the Brookings Institution, the U.S. has spent $5.5 trillion on the research and development, testing, construction, and maintenance of nuclear weapons since the dawn of the atomic age.

The end of the Cold War has eliminated the primary rationale for maintaining high levels of nuclear weapons. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has lost its main competitor in the nuclear weapons arms race. The U.S. is in a position to reduce drastically its massive nuclear stockpile. However, while there has been some progress in U.S.-Russian warhead elimination, the U.S. still maintains an excessive and costly nuclear arsenal. While Russia deploys many thousands of nuclear weapons, they pose a different threat than they did during the Cold War: accidental launch and diversion or theft of nuclear weapons and material. Russia's economic problems are forcing reductions of its operational nuclear forces. The new situation makes massive nuclear buildup even less prudent and rapid reductions of these dangerous weapons even more logical. These developments provide the U.S. the need and the opportunity to take bold steps to deactivate and eliminate thousands of nuclear weapons.

WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?

At a time when the U.S. has the opportunity to save money by streamlining its nuclear arsenal, the Brookings Institution's U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project estimates that the U.S. is still spending up to $35 billion annually on nuclear weapons and related programs-- 14% of all U.S. military spending. The Department of Defense and Department of Energy are spending $19.2 billion and $5.6 billion respectively on the operation of nuclear forces. Annual costs for environmental restoration and waste management resulting from nuclear weapons research, development, and production total $5.9 billion. Taxpayers also support related programs such as storage, elimination of fissile materials and arms reduction.

Besides these expenditures, there are many less obvious costs. For example, the Department of Energy spent $97 million between 1990 and 1997 fending off lawsuits filed by workers and citizens relating to irresponsible nuclear weapons production activities, and the Department of Justice has settled claims totaling $225 million as of January 1998, under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990.

US Spending on Nuclear Weapons and Programs

FY 1998 (Estimated)

In Billions
*Source: The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
Department of Defense

Strategic Nuclear Forces $7.5

Tactical Nuclear and Dual-Capable Forces $1

Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence $6

Operation/Maintenance $4

Research/Development $0.4

Defense Special Weapons Agency $0.3

Defense Environmental Restoration Account $0.5

National and Theater Missile Defense $3.8

Cooperative Threat Reduction $0.4

On-Site Inspection Agency $0.04

Total- $23.94
Department of Energy

Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program $4.3

Defense Programs $0.968

Naval Nuclear Propulsion $0.335

Environmental Restoration/Waste Management $5.4

Total-$11
Additional Sources

Department of Justice

(Radiation Exposure Compensation Act) $0.03

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency $0.035

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board $0.02

International Atomic Energy Agency

(U.S. Payments) $0.05

Congressional Oversight $0.05

Total-$0.19

WHAT IS IN THE NUCLEAR STOCKPILE?

Despite the progress resulting from the START I treaty, the U.S. still maintains an excessive nuclear arsenal. Currently, the United States has approximately 12,500 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, both strategic (long range) and short range weapons. When START II goes into force, the number of active strategic warheads will be reduced to 3,500, and the START III negotiations could bring those levels down to between 2,000 and 2,500 strategic warheads.

There are three primary classifications of nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile: active warheads, contingency warheads, and weapons awaiting dismantlement. The U.S. currently has approximately 8,500 active warheads in its nuclear arsenal along with 2,500 contingency or backup warheads. As of mid-1998, there were about 1,500 warheads that were retired and awaiting dismantlement.

The weapons are spread across 14 states. Seventy percent of the weapons are deployed or stored in New Mexico, Georgia, Washington, Nevada, and North Dakota. Other states with nuclear weapons are Wyoming, Missouri, Montana, Louisiana, Texas, Nebraska, California, Virginia, and Colorado.

Active US Nuclear Stockpile - July 1998
Warhead (Weapon) Number in Stockpile
Bombs

B61-7
300
B61-11 50
B83 480
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles

W62 (Minuteman III)

610
W78 (Minuteman III) 915
W87-0 (MX)

525
Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles

W76 (Trident I C4)
3,200
W88 (Trident II D5) 400
Air-Launched Cruise Missiles

W80-1 (ALCM)
400
W80-1 (ACM) 400

Non-Strategic Forces
B61- Tactical Bomb 750
W80-0 (SLCM)

320
TOTAL - 8,350

*Source: Natural Resources Defence Council
<The weapon used to launch the warhead appears in parentheses.>

COLD WAR SPENDING

According to Atomic Audit,there has not been a dramatic decrease in federal spending on nuclear weapons research and development, production, and operation since the end of the Cold War. At the peak of the nuclear weapons stockpile in 1966, the U.S. maintained 32,200 active warheads at a cost of $4.2 billion*. At the height of the Cold War, the Reagan Administration jacked up spending on all military forces, including nuclear weapons, so in 1985, the U.S. spent $5.8 billion on its nuclear weapons stockpiles. In recent times, spending on nuclear weapons research and development, production, and operation has been named Stockpile Stewardship and Stockpile Management, and in 1998, the U.S. spent $4.3 billion on these programs.

*all figures in 1998 dollars

Comparative US Nuclear Spending

Atomic Energy Commission
Energy Research and Development Administration
Department of Energy

*Data Source: The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

IS RUSSIA STILL A THREAT?

Due to its large number of nuclear weapons, Russia remains the other main nuclear power, but it does not present a military threat to the U.S. because of its current economic situation. Russia is suffering from a rapid devaluation of the ruble, and the country is defaulting on its loans. The Russian government is using its limited resources to bail out its failing banks. In addition to these problems, Russian industrial production has declined dramatically, so about 50% of its consumer goods and services are imported.

A country faced with these economic problems has neither the time nor money to invest in maintaining its nuclear arsenals or building new weapons. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, last year Russia had 70 strategic bombers, but due to a lack of funding, many were not operational. Furthermore, Russian submarines cannot go to sea. Due to the severity of the financial situation, the U.S. is assisting former republics of the Soviet Union to destroy nuclear weapons and safeguard its nuclear materials under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program.

As for other threats, no other nation has an arsenal that compares to the size of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenal. United Kingdom, France, and China maintain fewer than 500 warheads, and therefore do not justify maintaining U.S. stockpiles at the current 12,500 warhead level.

CUMULATIVE COSTS

Since World War II, the cumulative amount of money that the U.S. has spent on nuclear weapons is extremely high. According to the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project, the U.S. spent $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and related programs between 1940 and 1996. In comparison to other governmental obligations during that time period, that expense rated third behind general national defense costs, which were $13.2 trillion, and Social Security costs, which totaled $7.9 trillion. Cumulative spending for other government programs fell far short of nuclear spending. For example, $2.3 trillion was spent on Medicare, $1.8 trillion was spent on veterans' benefits and services, and $1.7 trillion was spent on health services.

From 1940 until 1996, the U.S. spared no expense in building up an arsenal that would ensure its place in the front of the arms race. The avowed purpose of pursuing such an extensive nuclear arsenal during the Cold War was deterrence; possessing the nuclear capabilities to destroy a country that threatened U.S. security with nuclear warfare.

Despite the end of the Cold War, U.S. nuclear policy still remains geared towards deterrence. Edward L. Warner, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March of 1998 that "nuclear deterrence remains an essential element to deal with the gravest threats... we believe that the knowledge that the United States has a powerful and ready nuclear capability poses a significant deterrent to proliferators."

It is time for the U.S. to rethink this policy of deterrence which was the cause of the massive build up of nuclear weapons. Outside of Russia, no country threatens U.S. security, so deterrence cannot be justified. In a February 2, 1998 speech, retired General Lee Butler, who formerly commanded the U.S. nuclear forces, warned of the risks of deterrence stating "Only now are the dimensions, costs and risks of these nuclear nether worlds coming to light. What must now be better- understood are the root causes, the mindsets and the belief systems that brought them into existence. They must be challenged, they must be refuted, but most importantly, they must be let go."

On November 17, 1998 in his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) proposed U.S. unilateral nuclear weapons reductions. He argued that as we maintain our current arsenal, Russia struggles to do the same. If we reduce our nuclear warheads, they may do so as well. The Pentagon has also reportedly proposed that the U.S. should reduce its number of nuclear warheads below the 6,000 strategic warhead START I level.

CONCLUSION

In this post-Cold War world, it is time to re-evaluate the level of nuclear stockpiles and the money spent on nuclear weapons. The U.S. is still spending $35 billion dollars on its nuclear arsenal despite the fact that its major threat has disintegrated. This amount is difficult to justify in light of both the current threat and other needs both domestically and in the Pentagon.

The contents of this page may be reproduced in whole or in part without further permission with proper credit given.
www.clw.org/control/nucl$.html
Nuclear Weapons: Still High Costs and Huge Stockpiles

Comment from Richard:

I beleive American's will be paying for the cold war for many generation's to come. Our Government has told us that, we won the cold war. What they have not mentioned is the high price that United States has payed and continues to pay. Also the many Hundreds of Thousands of American Nuclear Workers who our dead or are dieing. The Uranium Miners, and Urainium Ore Transporters, Millers,and Reactor Workers. And also hundreds of thousands of Veterans,and on Site Particapints,also all the thousands of Downwinders and family members of the workers that unknowingly brought the chemical poisons and radiation home to their families members. These were real people. Hard working Americans. Most workers and their familys were as patriot as they come. They have given their lives for this country. Their familys have suffered from the loss of their loved ones.And medical bills. They have emotional issues from the lack of trust in our Government. These Workers and their families have made the ultimate sacrifice,so that the Department of Defence and Department of Energy employees and millions of Americans could live a long and prosperous life. But We Won the Cold War.This coming from the same group that has stoped at nothing to sell to the American public that we are safe.The Radiation is not going to harm you.

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

The End

2004-02-28T01:31:30Z

http://members.cox.net/impunity/endofworld.swf

posted in Atomic Cafe - 1 reply

cold war art?

2004-01-30T05:15:37Z

Heya,

This is an artist whom I find intriguing by name of Tom Jennings. His work is heavily influenced by cold war era artifacts and culture. Not for everyone, surely. Dig deep on the site, though. Some of the best work hides amongst more banal stuff.

See the artist's statement here

www.wps.com/about-WPS/WPS/artist-statement.html

and the front door at www.wps.com

~cheers

posted in Atomic Cafe - 0 replies

Project Orion

2004-01-22T21:43:32Z

So, I'm reading Dyson's Project Orion, and the one thing that stuns me is the real-world naivete that the project members seemed to have about what they were building. The basic premise is to build a big ship that drops nukes behind it, and it rides the shockwave. Roughly.

It amazes me that they seriously thought that they would be able to launch it safely. Oh, sure, the ship itself probably would have gotten out of the atmosphere, but the residue it left behind would have been incredibly radioactive pollution. And I sincerely doubt that they could have made good enough shielding that the crew could have been that close to that many nuclear bomb detonations for that long without them eventyally dying of radiation exposure within a few weeks.

Plus, the scientists thought that they themselves would be the pilots. There just seemed to be a "well, we built it, so we're thinking of going maybe to saturn for a few years" attitude that seems so cavilier compared to the space program that actually happened.

Anyone else read the book? It really emphasized the attitude difference between big science/big engineering then and now, not to mention what sounds like a dangerously naive notion of the harmful effects of radiation and the assorted difficulties of living in space. But it definitely showed a lot of audacity.

posted in Atomic Cafe - 2 replies

perfect fuel source?

2004-01-22T17:43:31Z

Have any of you heard about this "fuel source" helium 3 isotope?
How viable is it?
In how many years?
Just curious...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20040118/sc_nm/space_weapons_dc

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20040118/sc_nm/space_weapons_dc

The moon, scientists have said, is a source of potentially unlimited energy in the form of the helium 3 isotope -- a near perfect fuel source: potent, nonpolluting and causing virtually no radioactive byproduct in a fusion reactor.

"And if we could get a monopoly on that, we wouldn't have to worry about the Saudis and we could basically tell everybody what the price of energy was going to be," said Pike.

Gerald Kulcinski of the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison estimated the moon's helium 3 would have a cash value of perhaps $4 billion a ton in terms of its energy equivalent in oil.

posted in Atomic Cafe - 3 replies