"H-Bomb Secret" Now Online 502
DrDNA writes "In 1979, the US Government sued Howard Morland, Erwin Knoll and Sam Day at The Progressive Magazine for prior restraint over the planned publication of 'The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It--Why We're Telling It,' citing national security. Six months later, a Federal appeals court vacated the restraining order on publication, and the article was published. There's an interview about the case with George Stanford, of Argonne National Lab, Illinois, a technical adviser for the Progressive Magazine. After all this time, the Progressive article is now online (4Mb pdf)."
Is it just me.. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's one thing to crush the server, but the least we can do is look at some ads while we do it.
A Good Read (Score:5, Interesting)
damnit, some people just can't shut up. (Score:2, Interesting)
This reminds me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting -- from the interview (Score:4, Interesting)
small fortune, even though it managed to get the Morland article
published without censor. Essentially, it was a case of limited
private funds versus a bottomless pot of Government gold
I'm not sure where I stand on the article and its attempted censorship, but I am somewhat amused that one of its authors said the above. Doesn't it sound *exactly* like a typical right-wing diatribe against the government? The article in question was in the well known *leftist* magazine "The Progressive".
Interesting Timing (Score:5, Interesting)
Alaska Bugs Sweat Gold Nuggets [alaska-freegold.com]
usually I dont feed the trolls ... (Score:5, Interesting)
After actually downloading the article and reading the forbidden pages it seems to me that there are many things that need to be made a little clear to those who will comment without ever reading an iota of the article itself.
First off, Osama Bin Laden does not celebrate christmas. Christmas is a christian holliday in which the Muslim community does not celebrate. This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists just as it means not all catholics are repbuclicans. While Osama Bin Laden himself has been behind some of the worlds worst acts of terrorism, this should not reflect on all Muslims, and a bit of respect for other religions should be in place, but that would be a matter of decency and humanity.
Secondly the article itself states that this is in no means a "how-to". Reading this article will do nothing in comparison to going to school to learn about physics and chemistry. The article helps put in lamens terms what exactly is done with the creation of such devices. If you notice this article was supressed during the peak of the cold war. At a time when the US Government was playing shadow games by providing tidbits of information for mass consumption but never enough meat to chew on.
The government supressed this to make it seem that there was a large amount of complicated procedures and research being placed in their weapons of mass destruction and that they could load these weapons on the same rockets that sent men into space and ahniliate an entire Soviet city at will. Fair to say that creating an H-Bomb is in fact something that is not at all an easily accomplishment to undertake. While it may be possible to obtain the parts neccessary it still requires someone with a vast amount of knowledge to place all the ingredients together.
I don't think that Al Qaeda or any other terrorist faction will ever be able to design such weapons. I do however think that with the fall of the soviet union and other countries in massive recession that are in fact nuclear that they may be able to purchase said nuclear weapons of mass destruction. So did this article send us to code level orangish red? Nope, but something sure did.
I am not a sympathist by any means for terrorists or freedom fighters who surpass diplomatic measures to accomplish their goals by bringing death and destruction in its place. These people have lost a sense of equality and humanity and are in fact extremely horrible evil people. Should science be supressed because of fears, should we stop manufacturing cars because they are accessories to crimes (bank robberies, car bombs, etc.) NO.
Scientific innovations can be used for good or can be used for bad, it is a matter of the beholder of the information as to what will happen with it. This article meerly suggests that there is a procedure and massive science behind weapons of mass destruction, which is apparent that they are not meant to be used for good, yet will be used for killing and destruction. Think of the good the reasearch itself could be done if only the knowledge was used for good, and not as a weapon to bring death and destruction.
I think this is a prime example of how science for the sake of death is not good, but without the nuclear program we wouldn't have nuclear power. Without a means to deliever said weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn't have a space program. How a redundant communication line for launching said weapons could be used to create the network which has become the worlds internet. There is obviously positive ramifications for the research and design of these technologies, but does that excuse the original intent of the death and destruction even if it was never used to date for such a thing?
Short of WWII with Japan there has never been a nuclear attack on anyone from anyone in the world. Yet we as americans with our democratic control are responsible for this destruction of property and life, and we did it through our research and science.
Will our children forgive us, or curse us?
Re:Just in time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Smart student can already do this. (Score:2, Interesting)
What to publish... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:damnit, some people just can't shut up. (Score:2, Interesting)
-But you need guns to protect yourself and your family, why not rocket launchers and atomic weapon. Heaven knows that nothing protects you better than some heavy duty atomic weapons.
Oh, and for the rest of the world, you don't think they could come up with these sorts of things themselves... Remember, most people involved in rocketry and nuclear innovation didn't even grow up in US. US only importet people after the second world war.... Or did you forget?
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nowadays we are into multi-culturalism, and besides, there are now many immigrants from India in various walks of life in American society, and then there was George Harrison and all of that, so the comfort level with Indian culture and Hindu religious icons is much better these days. But back then, Oppenheimer was already suspect for being somewhat left-of-center in his politics and for being somewhat of an egghead (to use swing-era slang), and being Jewish in America of that time already made a person suspect of not worshipping the same God, perhaps in the way being Muslim in America does today, and gosh, quoting some obscure Hindu scripture really put a person way in left field.
But the nagging, unanswered question I have is this: isn't "I am become death" ungrammatical or am I missing some fine point. I can understand "I am death" (present tense) or "I have become death" (past perfect? -- I am not up on grammer), but I always thought "I am become death" was the result of some mistranslation on the order of "all your base."
Re:*Awesome* editorial in this article (Score:3, Interesting)
Even reading the Bill of Rights, or The Constitution can be unamerican if you are subversive, which is why Upton Sinclair and Roger Baldwin were arrested for doing so.
That was a long time ago but in these modern times people are arrested for protesting outside of a free speech zone. And the nerve of some of these people. [newsoutpost.com] Can you believe that some people have been caught holding anti-Bush signs within Pro-Bush Zones? They have been rightfully arrested. It would be criminal for the president to see any evidence that people disagree with him.
Yes, we are heading into a brave new world, and those that don't like it can go to Guantanamo Bay.
Double Standards? (Score:3, Interesting)
When it comes to national security, what makes people think secrecy makes the nation any more secure?
Don't make fun of the alerts system! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:usually I dont feed the trolls ... (Score:2, Interesting)
My understanding is that the weapon itself is not immensely complicated to design. What is complicated is the precision machining of the parts, the acquisition of the fissionable material, and the delivery mechanism. This last is probably the most complicated, and the reason why Soviet technology may not be such a threat. Even if you have a working machine, it takes some level of skill to get it to get it off the launch pad.
In the end nuclear weapons appear to be a means to diplomacy. The cost to benifit ratio for them are just not so good. Countries with nuclear capability must be taken serious. Countries without are not. Parties that actually want to destroy things and impose fear do what terrorist organizations of all stripes do. They go in an bomb with conventional weapons. No one knows where the next hit is going to be. The more convectional bombs you have or can contrive, the more powerful you are.
Re:FYI (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are a policeman, an "Orange" alert means that you now have a nearly unlimited amount of easy overtime (paid for by Uncle Sam) available to you. These overtime hours are used to provide security for monuments, bridges, reservoirs, etc, and provide a great opportunity to grab some Z's and get away from the wife.
The alert system was put in place when idiots in the mainstream press began screaming about how the government refused to warn anyone about the 9/11 attacks. It's a great example of how stupid questions (or problems) lead to stupid answers (or solutions).
Re:Don't make fun of the alerts system! (Score:4, Interesting)
What I don't find fair (to the public) is the indignant way Mr. Ridge handles the press. His responses serve to propagandise and/or scare the public, IMO. To wit:
OK. Back to our regularly scheduled topic....
Stop Respecting Religion (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually, I think we who do not believe have for too long withheld comment about religion out of politeness. Our society considers it acceptable to mock or ignore ridiculous ideas in politics or science, but to treat the ridiculous ideas of religion in a similar manner has always been another matter. The events of September 11th and the responses to them should be a wakeup call to all of us that religion is not and never has been a generally beneficial or humane institution. It's time that we spoke up and treated religion with the same scrutiny and respect (no more, no less) than we treat any other ideas.
The respect our society gives the barbaric Bronze Age text of the Old Testament/Torah is unjustifiable. If you don't think it's barbaric, read about how the Jews first conquered Israel at the command of God; review the murders, rapes, and genocide, all committed under the direct command of God. While Jesus could have had a moderating effect on Western monotheism, Paul quickly effected a division in the new sect and Christianity was born from his division, not from the Jews in Jerusalem led by the Apostles. Christianity's history follows the lessons of the Torah and Paul far more often than not. While there are words of peace in the Koran, there are words of war too, and we cannot overlook the wars that Mohammed waged during his lifetime and the tremendous Arab conquests led by the Caliphs, his successors, after his death.
I'm not saying that terrorists are motivated solely or even primarily by religion, but that religion is an effective and dangerous method of dividing people into groups and motivating them to act as groups on a mutual hate inflamed by such divisions. Without the Abrahamic religions, the current problems in the Middle East would not exist. There would be no Israel because there would be no religious motivation to create such a state; indeed, there would be no distinct group called Jews as they would've intermarried during the Diaspora without religion prohibitions against such. There would've been no Islamic conquests of the ancient Persian and Roman (Byzantine) civilizations. There would've been no Crusades to attempt to counteract those conquests.
Re:usually I dont feed the trolls ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The bombs did force an unconditional surrender, but more importantly, it stopped Stalin dead in his tracks, who we had recognized as a grave threat who was now moving aggressively toward Japan. The worst-case scenario here was that Stalin, weakened but holding far more control of Europe and Asia than he could have hoped, could move for a year-round port city on the Pacific. He was clearly willing to commit his citizens to the last man - his ability to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers, including women to their deaths scared the hell out of the other ally leaders. Stalin could move against Japan from the north and take territory from Japan that would be extremely valuable to Russia against a US enemy (Russia entered the war against Japan on Aug 8 by easily invading Manchuria). Stalin realized that the US was the only other power to escape WWII with any resources, and that the two would be in conflict.
Stalins best scenario was to move against Japan after a successful US invasion - both US and Japanese forces would be weak and the US would not be prepared for an invasion from the north. Russia could more easily bring forces to the location than the US, and Russia could win most or all of the island. Stalin realized that the US would buckle under the scale of the Russian army, particularly since the US public would oppose defending real estate given that the real enemy (Japan) was defeated.
The US position was difficult. We couldn't afford to invade given that scenario - Japan could be lost to Russia regardless of whether we defeated Japan or not. Quite possibly the bombs were viewed as the solution to both problems - first, we could quickly end the war with Japan without giving Russia time to become entrenched, and avoiding any further invasions. Second, we send a message to Stalin that we can defeat his armies without committing US soldiers, and that we can bring resources to bear much more quickly than he can (how long does it take to hopscotch a B-29 across the Pacific vs. mobilizing hundreds of thousands of troops). Stalin knew nothing about the bombs until they were dropped but FDR certainly made it clear to him throughout the war that US resources were as limitless as the US wished them to be, so he had to assume the worst. Stalin made it clear to FDR that the number and commitment of his troops were as limitless as he wished them to be, so we had to assume the worst as well.
It's not pleasant to think that the bombs were used against the Japanese as a demonstration to the Russians, but that's quite likely to have been the case. The only possible upside to this is that Japan had a much brighter future not being an iron curtain nation.
Re:FYI (Score:3, Interesting)
While I do not necessarily disagree with your view of politicians, there are other uses. It may confuse/distract/prevent some actions from happening. It may create some voice traffic and give them some information. It may not. But it does serve more that just cover ass for politicians, or at least it _can_.
Re:FYI (Score:2, Interesting)
It's nice to know politicians when you're a poor college kid looking for some cash.
Re:I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a few French verbs that conjugate this way in the past tense (the Passe Compose tense to be precise). The rest are closer to our Perfect tense.
I'm just taking a guess on the French thing, but there was a good deal of French influence on English at one point.
Re:Where we've gone from there (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is fundamentally perceptual. The H-Bomb article, being a journalistic work, is easily understood to be "speech" by the citizenry and government. Source code is a somewhat more ephemeral concept that your average FBI agent or federal judge, let alone your average citizen, will have a much harder time relating to conceptually.
To practitioners of the art, I think it is plainly self-obvious that source code is speech, as it is the creative work of a talented (or at least skilled
Re:"The H-Bomb Secret" (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. We still don't know for sure if that detonation in the South Indian Ocean on September 22, 1979 was a South African nuclear test, an Israeli nuclear test, or what. Whatever it was, somebody got away with it.
Re:Head in the Sand (Score:2, Interesting)
That would be a garage doomsday device, it would spread world-wide and noone would be the wiser for at least a few months.
This is my fear, not nuclear, but biological weapons using viri made by a lunatic in the woods, far worse than the Unibomber, but with the same motives.
Re:usually I dont feed the trolls ... (Score:1, Interesting)
What a nonsense.
If anything, ww2 taught us that resolving problems quickly and decisively is a much better alternative when dealing with people like Hitler or Saddam.
Believe it or not some people are just not interested in any sort of meaningful agreement and will treat anything but a brute force as a sign of weakness.
BTW. You little theory doesn't make sense at all - for example Poland which lost 1/6 of its population and saw 80% of its infrastructure destroyed during ww2 stood firmly with US - same for Czech Republic and host of other nations.
The divide over Iraq had nothing to do with lessons from ww2 but everything with national interests and global struggle for power.
Censoring Bomb Info on the Internet (Score:3, Interesting)
- When you talk about the First Amendment and the Internet and bombs, people like DiFi say "Oh, no, the First Amendment doesn't protect dangerous information, it's about things like pornography."
- When you talk about the 1st, the Internet, and pornography, they say "Oh, no, it's not about that, it's about protecting non-obscene speech".
- When you talk about tobacco advertising, they say "Oh, no, it's not about commercial speech, it's about protecting *political* speech."
- But when you talk about campaign finance reform, they say "Oh, no, elections are *way* too important to let anybody actually fund the political speech they believe in, why that would let *money* corrupt politics."
And all that was just with liberals in charge - wonder what Ashcroft will come up with next.