Abstract
It's later than you think
Last February the Doomsday Clock was reset from nine to seven minutes to midnight, reflecting, as I understand it, the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, among other factors. But I do not think this small change truly reflects the things the Bush administration has said and done. The American public apparently is unaware of the increased risk of nuclear war, as it was not even discussed during the recent national elections.
For the reasons listed below, I believe the Bulletin would be doing a great service to humanity if it were to reset the clock to three–or even two–minutes to midnight:
President George W. Bush's “Nuclear Posture Review” explicitly asked the military to consider ways that nukes could be used, which clearly indicates a willingness to escalate a conflict to nuclear war.
Under the deal reached between Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin this year to reduce the number of deployed warheads, no warheads will actually be destroyed. In addition, the language of the agreement (which smacks of theater) makes it easy to cancel.
Public statements by Bush administration officials do not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against “nuclear have-nots,” which clearly cuts the ground out from under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The proposal by the National Nuclear Security Administration, by direction of the White House and Congress, to proceed with a facility to make plutonium pits for nuclear bombs, can only be justified by the desire to develop new types of warheads for use in initiating nuclear war.
The specific proposal by the Bush administration to develop a so-called mini-nuke to be used to destroy subterranean chemical or germ warfare facilities is a clear indication of the willingness to escalate a conflict to nuclear war.
The administration has stated its willingness to strike preemptively–something past administrations have equated with acting as the aggressor.
The idea of going nuclear is popular among U.S. leaders today. Yet the American people seem not to believe what their leaders are clearly telling them. The public must be jarred, somehow, into the reality of the now-increased threat of nuclear war.
Aiken, South Carolina
Fueling the grid
In his article, “Energy: Wasted at the Wellhead” (September/October 2002), author Paul Gretton-Watson mentions uses for natural gas such as fuel for vehicles, aluminum smelting, desalination, feedstock for chemical production, and even fuel for launching large payloads into space.
Another important potential use is not mentioned, however: generating electricity for the electric power grid. This could be done using either conventional combustion-based generators or fuel cells. While some infrastructure would have to be built, generators, power lines, and connections all use established technologies.
The author's suggestions also require either locating a facility near the natural gas source and transporting the product out and perhaps raw materials in, or transporting the natural gas to where it can be used, often on the electric grid. The use of natural gas in rocketry would require substantial research and development. Some oil wells are in very remote areas, but others are close to the electric grid.
To consider the feasibility of generating electricity at these wellheads, we can look at the use of landfills as a source of methane. Electricity is being generated from methane at several landfills, with more facilities planned or under construction. For more information on methane, I suggest: www.eren.doe.gov/cities_counties/landfil.html.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
No Nazi bomb program
The myth of the non-existent Nazi A-bomb defies all common sense, but continues to surface in the media, most recently in William Sweet's article “No More Uncertainty,” in the May/June 2002 issue of the Bulletin.
In September 1941, no one in Germany thought that nuclear weaponry might decide the war. There was no serious bomb project after German scientists' initial investigations showed that there was no possibility of producing a nuclear weapon in time to be used in the war.
But German industry saw nuclear energy as a great opportunity for profit after the war, and a use for all the uranium that had accumulated as waste products from the production of radium.
According to what Bohr told my colleagues when he visited us at the Weizmann Institute in Israel in May 1958, Heisenberg's message to Bohr during his famous visit to Copenhagen was: “You know that we are going to win the war. Why don't you join us?” The clear implication was that he was being asked to collaborate in developing nuclear energy, not weapons.
Several years ago, after seeing the play Copenhagen, I checked with my friend Abraham Pais, whose description of Heisenberg's visit in his biography of Bohr was suspiciously vague. Bram would neither confirm nor deny my story about the visit. He said that Bohr had been very angry at Heisenberg (presumably around the same time he visited us in Rehovot), and had written him an angry letter. Bram said he had seen the letter, but was not at liberty to reveal its contents because the Bohr family insisted on keeping it confidential.
The recent release of Bohr's letters by his family tends to support this version–once the reality of the nonexistence of a German bomb project is taken into account.
Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU
Send them to:
Letters to the Editor
The Bulletin
6042 South Kimbark
Chicago, IL 60637
fax: 773-702-0725
e-mail:
Be sure to include your mailing address and phone number.
Update
During the congressional debates over the 2000 Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act, which compensates workers who were made sick building the country's nuclear weapons, the legislation was criticized for not covering those suffering ailments related to exposure to toxic substances like mercury, arsenic, and nickel. Instead, the legislation ordered the Energy Department to set up advocacy offices to help workers file state compensation claims. But according to New Mexico Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, this fix has helped almost no one. In an October 24 letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Bingaman wrote that there were 12,000 outstanding claims, and “It is only in the past month, two years after passage of the law, that [Energy] has referred any claimants to a physician panel. If [it] continues at its present pace of six per month (72 cases per year), it will take 166 years to clear the backlog. “
In the July/August 2002 Bulletin, Glen Milner reported on the lawsuit against the navy filed by peace and environmental organizations that challenged the deployment of Trident II (D-5) missiles at the Bangor naval base in Washington state. Of main concern was the effect the D-5s might have on the environment. But in October, the judge ruled the plaintiffs had “failed to demonstrate any unlawfulness in the navy's refusal to produce an [environmental impact statement] which documents the possible impacts of the D-5 backfit program.” An appeal is likely.