Going Nuclear

The Times reviews “The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and its Proliferation”, a book which details the spread of the secrets of making an atomic bomb.

Thomas C. Reed, a veteran of the Livermore weapons laboratory in California and a former secretary of the Air Force, and Danny B. Stillman, former director of intelligence at Los Alamos, have teamed up in “The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and its Proliferation” to show the importance of moles, scientists with divided loyalties and — most important — the subtle and not so subtle interests of nuclear states.

“Since the birth of the nuclear age,” they write, “no nation has developed a nuclear weapon on its own, although many claim otherwise.”

Among other things, the book details how secretive aid from France and China helped spawn five more nuclear states.

It also names many conflicted scientists, including luminaries like Isidor I. Rabi. The Nobel laureate worked on the Manhattan Project in World War II and later sat on the board of governors of the Weizmann Institute of Science, a birthplace of Israel’s nuclear arms.

"The Bomb: A New History" covers similar ground.  This, from the Times, is a howler:

Dr. Younger notes how political restraints and global treaties worked for decades to curb atomic proliferation, as did American assurances to its allies. “It is a tribute to American diplomacy,” he writes, “that so many countries that might otherwise have gone nuclear were convinced to remain under the nuclear umbrella of the United States.”

And he, too, emphasizes the importance of political sticks and carrots to halting and perhaps reversing the spread of nuclear arms. Iran, he says, is not fated to go nuclear.

“Sweden, Switzerland, Argentina and Brazil all flirted with nuclear programs, and all decided to abandon them,” he notes. “Nuclear proliferation is not unidirectional — given the right conditions and incentives, it is possible for a nation to give up its nuclear aspirations.”

OK, time for some SAT prep:  Of Argentina, Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland and Iran, which does not belong and why?

Comments

[kim]

I think a weapon of mass destruction just went off in Chicago.
======================================

[clarice]

Let me take a stab at piercing the Maguire veil--nuclear non proliferation treaties and programs may be of use only with respect to those countries unlikely in any event to misuse nuclear weapons.Answer:Iran

[kim]

Obviously Switzerland. Who needs Da Bom when you have railroad tunnels hostage?
===============================

[JM Hanes]

"Of Argentina, Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland and Iran, which does not belong and why?"

That's a real puzzler, TM. Is there a time limit on this test? Why, yes, I believe there is!

[matt]

MAD was the key to nuclear policy for 50 years until the Pakistanis got theirs. I tend to trust the Indians a bit more, but the Russians and Chinese were both fostering their client states under Stalinist/Maoist principles rather than realpolitik.

The danger is fanaticism. Just pray that Chelsea never get one or Manchester will be wiped from the earth.

[JM Hanes]

What absolutely, positively, astonishes me, is something that virtually no one has pointed out. The putative cross border connection between Shia in Iran and Iraq -- you know, the one that the BDS folks keep issuing apocalyptic warnings about -- could ultimately turn out to be the best tool in our kit. Too bad the Democrats have never showed any interest in turning Iraq into a real U.S. ally -- with diplomatic treaties, and maybe even a random U.S. base and such.

Yet everyone seems to be at a total loss. If Obama really didn't know that the U.S. and Europe have been aggressively pursuing the diplomatic options and had no clue who's been putting up the roadblocks, surely someone has filled him in by now. Can he possibly think little Susan Rice is going to bring Russia and China to heel in the Security Council?

Iraqis are the only ones who could bring something new to the table, outside of actual military action which only Israel appears potentially willing to undertake -- with the odds of success this time around pretty well stacked in the Iranians favor.

[Pofarmer]

Would it be too much to point out that the Iranians WERE under our nuclear Umbrella, till, oh, about 1979?

[JM Hanes]

You could give it try, Pofarmer, but unless yer smoking that corncob pipe and consuming vast quantities of spinach arugula, why go through pickin' yerself up and dustin' yerself off again?

[Soylent Red]

JMH:

I think this really hits the nail on the head. Iraq was never solely about Iraq. Our current machinations in Central Asia have nothing to do with promoting eco-tourism in Kazakhstan. It's about surrounding and containing your enemy in order to gain negotiating power.

And for the record, Obambi knew exactly how and why the multilateral negotiations were going down. Just like he knew that McCain didn't want troops in Iraq for 100 years, etc. There was no road to Damascus moment. He's not a stupid man. Just a despicable liar and con man.

The answer to Tom's question is, I believe, Iran, who has not yet built a nuclear weapon, as have all of the others before bowing to political pressure and dismantling them.

[PDinDetroit]

I believe we should give them a nuclear program...

See LUN starting at 1:42 in...

[skeptical]

There certainly was a time when Argentina would have wanted nukes, and as France, the U.S., USSR/Russia, Pakistan, and England figured out, in addition to global strategic muscle, nukes are hugely profitable, whether your clients build them or just start to look like they are.

That's an incentive for Sweden, et al., to have invested.

I love how the new meme of our disastrous adventure in Iraq is to isolate Iran. Yes, having permanent bases in Iraq would be perfect if we wanted permanent war in Iraq, permanent destabilization of Iraq, and the gift we've given Iran of a friendly government in Iraq. Makes perfect sense to waste a trillion dollars there so that projecting American power looks so awesome.

Now that our supply lines into Afghanistan are subject to terrorists in Pakistan, it makes even more sense to put more resources into Iraq. That'll show Iran we mean business.

Does someone here think we got bin Laden in Tora Bora? Sheesh! How many more missed opportunities do we get? I don't know if Susan Rice will kick Russian and Chinese ass, but I know Condoleeza Rice, supposedly an expert on Russia/USSR, sure hasn't, nor has managed anything about Putin/Medvedev, nor Mullahs in Iran with any kind of authority.

Do you honestly think Kazakhstan is our ally? Or that former Soviet nukes spread through countries run by dictators are safe because they aren't in the hands of Soviets? We had treaties and process to facilitate and monitor the decommissioning of those, oh, about the time the current administration dropped the ball on just about everything.

[Soylent Red]

Oh skeptical...

The Iraq about Iran "meme" has been around since 2002. We've been commenting on it here since about April, 2003. Hardly new. And hardly confined to these spaces. Grownups elsewhere talk about it too.

And if you think "getting" Bin Laden means dick in the GWOT, you've obviously not been paying attention. Having his movement discredited and forcing him to live in a hole while his organization is run by others is probably better than martyring him for the sake of mollifying the knucklehead Left (who never really wanted to go into the original "quagmire" of Afghanistan in the first place).

If you think the -stans are not important, you are also greatly mistaken. They are, right now, being pulled in three seperate directions. They may not be our allies, but they are probably the most important battleground in limiting the expansion of our two nearest peer competitors. K-stan was an example, but all of them are key to regional military and resource strategy.

BTW, breakup of the Soviet Union, while precipitated by Reagan and Bush I, actually happened on Clinton's watch. And he was too busy diddling the interns to notice proliferation threat.

[kim]

Please don't anyone try to tell me Hillary will do a better job than Condi. Fling Susan Rice and Samantha Powers together with her and ugly ol' al in the corner, and it's is a well staged, but not pretty, scene.
===================================

[sophy]

I do not know how to use the wakfu money ; my friend tells me how to use.