The line between the productive and destructive use of nuclear energy is one that deserves special attention. A serious question that we need to grapple with is if we are unable to make clear, consistent decisions concerning the productivity of and security issues related to the use of nuclear energy is this route truly a feasible option?

As a idealistic youth considering the state of the current world as well as the future, I am interested in learning more about this issue because I think it is pressing on so many fronts. For me, this issue is especially pertinent to peace and conflict as well as the clean energy revolution. Which resources should interested listeners pursue to explore both positive and negative perspectives of the subject of use of nuclear energy?

Thanks for the program.

Why did U.S. government try to stop Danny Stillman from publishing?

hi I am enjoying the show. Just to set the record straight
my wife Marianna Holzer’s uncle was Klaus Fuchs. her mother
Christel Fuchs Holzer always said that Klaus knew what he was doing and felt as many scientist , that the bomb was too great of a power for one country to hold, so he felt that if other countries had the bomb that it would act as a counter balance and it would not be used.

Bes wishes,
rik Palieri

Klaus Fichs was German, he went to East Germany to help rebuild the country. He believed socialism would be better for the people.
He never tookmoney for the info he gave the Russians. He felt very strongly that the bomb should never be used

Great show!
I have always thought that there are many countries with the knowledge and materials to produce a bomb that do not. Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Norway and many more come to mind. Is that true?

Hi!

Jack Beatty says the Iraq War was “most imprudent foreign policy act in US history”.

With all due respect, the Iraq War is far from the worst. During the US-Mexican War, the US basically stole New Mexico and California. The Vietnam War accomplished less and resulted in far more casualties. Hesitating to enter World War II arguably was a huge mistake.

Jack’s line is a direct quote from Al Gore and Harry Reid, and not does constitute a balanced viewpoint.

-Jon

With all due respect, the Iraq war, unlike a straight land grab of New Mexico, or an honest (though foolhardy)attempt to stop Soviet expansionism was proposed to the people of this country as a dire emergency of nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein. That makes it the worst one of all, since we were lied to in the most shameless manner in history!

From my understanding, one of Oppenheimer’s early failures was his inability to convince the US government to pursue a policy of international openness in terms of nuclear advances. This policy of openness, he thought, was the only way to ensure a safe outcome. (Was this inspired by Bohr? Anyone know?) That window of opportunity quickly closed, but I felt the idea of openness as a diplomatic route (potentially more safe than secrecy) was lost on this show. ON POINT seemed, instead, to dwell on nuclear proliferation solely as a secretive genie-in-a-bottle effort. But this notion, if I remember my history, did not arrive right away. There were many in the scientific community who thought that the bomb should be an international issue, monitored by an international coalition. In other words, the genie was out – so let’s deal with it on those terms and not pretend we can keep it secret.

I gather that many of Oppenheimer’s contemporaries in Washington thought this was a naive approach, but it worth spelling out in what ways diplomatic openness was naive in this case and in what ways it may have meant a better present and future.

We can’t turn back now, but can we learn from it? Would Oppenheimer’s path have resulted in a stronger international effort to monitor nuclear weapons? Would this have held? As it stands now, our greatest salvation seems to be one that the gun lobby often trots out… if everyone has a gun, we are more safe because the threat of being shot is always present. This is not very appealing, either with guns or bombs, in my opinion.

Tom Ashbrook seems to be the official voice of the main US stream (hiding behind a liberal tone). We did not hear about Iraq in your show, is it because you were asked not to talk about it by your bosses?

Also Mr. Ashbrook, where were you when George W. Bush said 2 weeks ago: that he was misinformed about the nuclear capability of Iraq by his intelligence. Did not we know about the UN inability to find such a nuclear research program? Are you part of this gigantic lie?

According to these WBUR guests, we invented the “atom” and the rest of world copied on us. Just like we invented the internet and now are being attacked by the rest of the world (as if we do not initiate the cyber attack abroad ourselves, – and again we did not hear much about this in your latest show on cyber-terrorism).

A good approach to this nuclear issue of mass destruction (targeted essentially to civilians in order to influence their rulers) would have been to see how eager the US WWII administration was to use these weapons immediately, and how slow the other countries are to develop them. Of course, it is not because they are not as smart as we are; it is most likely because they are nowhere near as brutal and inflexible as we are!

PJ

I posted the comment earlier, apparently without the proper e-mail address, that on Tom Ashbrook’s program January 9, after Alice read the passage in the book saying that her grandfather, I.I. Rabi, “presumably” received payment as trustee of the Weizmann Institute, the discussants, including Mr. Ashbrook, failed to mention what the authors had actually done. They had suggested that Professor Rabi, a Nobel Prizewinning physicist whose advice had been sought and deeply respected by Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy, had in effect been bought. They imply that he told the Kennedy Administration that nothing untoward was going on at Dimona because he was being paid by the Israelis. This is a libel against someone to whom this country is deeply in debt.