DOCSLIB.ORG

70 Years of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
70 Years of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT ® Feature Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2015, Vol. 71(1) 13–25 ! The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: American scientists as sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0096340214563679 public citizens: 70 years http://thebulletin.sagepub.com of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists David Kaiser and Benjamin Wilson Abstract For seven decades, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has served as a discussion forum for urgent issues at the intersection of science, technology, and society. Born in the aftermath of World War II and a roiling debate over the control of the postwar atom, the Bulletin has been a sounding board for major nuclear-age debates, from atomic espionage to missile defense. Since the end of the Cold War, the magazine has featured an expanding array of challenges, including the threat posed by global climate change. The BulletinÕs contributors have expressed their public citizenship by helping to bring the political aspects of science into proper focus. They have stood up for the political freedom of science, and sought to harness scientific knowledge to respon- sible ends in the political arena. Such efforts are needed now, as they were in 1945. Keywords Atomic Scientists of Chicago, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Cold War history, Edward Teller, Eugene Rabinowitch, Federation of American Scientists, Hans Bethe, House Committee on Un-American Activities, Robert Oppenheimer, Ruth Adams t has been 70 years since a group The goals of their new organization and calling itself the ÒAtomic Scientists of their new journal were, as the first issue of I ChicagoÓ issued its first dispatch. At the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chi- the start, the group consisted of a hand- cago put it in December of 1945, twofold: ful of veterans of the Manhattan Project, ÒTo explore, clarify and formulate the concentrated at the Metallurgical opinion and responsibilities of scientists Laboratory at the University of Chicago. [concerning] the problems brought Thoroughly engaged with the world about by the release of nuclear energyÓ around them, deeply worried about the and ÒTo educate the public to a full under- implications of their work creating the standing of the scientific, technological first nuclear weapons, horrified by the and social problems arising from the destruction and death the bombs had release of nuclear energy.Ó In October delivered to Japan, they felt an obligation that year, at a meeting between the Chi- to act and to say something. cago scientists and three like-minded Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at Monash University on June 17, 2015 14 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1) groups from other Manhattan Project the Federation of Atomic Scientists. In sitesÑLos Alamos, New Mexico; Oak 1946, its name was changed to the Federa- Ridge, Tennessee; and New York tion of American Scientists.1 CityÑthe delegates had agreed to com- Mixing science and politics is risky bine their efforts in a united organization, business, both researchers and Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at Monash University on June 17, 2015 Kaiser and Wilson 15 politicians typically think. But, as the such limits were explored at AmericaÕs early atomic scientists knew, to pretend peril, and the worldÕs. that truth and power can live apart is to The magazineÕs title dropped the ref- misunderstand each. The FAS was an erence to its Chicago birthplace and organization of scientists dedicated to became the Bulletin of the Atomic Scien- politics, and a political organization tists in March of 1946. In those days, a dedicated to the freedom and openness single copy cost 10 cents. Its founding of science. These scientists were no editors were the Austrian-born physicist fuzzy-minded thinkers and lab-bench Hyman Goldsmith and the Russian-born tinkerers, innocent of the harsh realities chemist Eugene Rabinowitch, each a of power and policy. Far from it. They set veteran of the Chicago Met Lab. The up their shop close to the heart of the BulletinÕs day-to-day operations owed action. At the birth of the FAS, it was much to the Chicago chapterÕs 22-year-old agreed that the central office should be secretary, Ruth Adams, who would work located in Washington, DC and that at her way up through the editorial ranks in least one member from each of the four the years ahead. A specially designed cover member associations should be present first appeared in June 1947. That iconic in the capital at any given time. The FAS quarter-clock,itshandssetataboutseven central office was to function as Òan minutes to midnight, began appearing information and speakersÕ bureauÓ and monthly against a shifting palette of back- would Òhandle contacts with legislative ground colors. A couple of years later the leaders.Ó2 position of the minute hand had become Struggle and controversy lay ahead. sensitive to the state of the nuclear world. Bitter disagreement soon developed It moved ahead a few minutes in October over what should be done with AmericaÕs 1949, following the announcement of the temporary monopoly on the power of first Soviet nuclear test.5 the atom. A new congressional commit- Through endless changes there have tee had recently been formed to weigh been constants. The aim of the atomic precisely this issue. The physicist scientists and their journal had always Edward Teller, writing in the Bulletin in been dual, at once looking out to the early 1946, gave cautious support to his world while focusing inward on develop- colleaguesÕ hope of eliminating atomic ments at home. In 1945, there was the weapons for good.3 But in another article great question of international control: the following year he described his belief whether each nation, separately and Òthat if we should give way to fear and if secretively, would harness the atom, or we should fail to explore the limits of whether nuclear technologies and human power we shall surely be lost.Ó4 materials would rest under the control For him (and for a growing fraction of the of an international organization. And Washington leadership), the limits of there was the recognition (as the Atomic human power were realized in an exp- Scientists of Los Alamos worded it in a anding arsenal of nuclear weapons, the newsletter from 1945) that Òthe preserva- only good insurance policy against the tion of ...secrecy on a purely national rising threat of the Soviet Union. For basis would represent the defeat of any most of TellerÕs fellow contributors to adequate program of international con- the first issues of the Bulletin, however, trol.Ó6 Without responsible domestic Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at Monash University on June 17, 2015 16 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1) civilian management and the free control over the nuclear weapons com- exchange of nuclear research and infor- plex in the United States, while another mation, the atomic scientists believed, bill, championed by Sen. Brien McMahon, there was no hope for progress and a Connecticut Democrat, called for civil- peace at the international level. ian control. The question of international Contributors to the Bulletin have control became similarly polarized. expressed their responsibility as scien- The US State Department released the tists not by ignoring or denying the Acheson-Lilienthal plan, written by a political dimensions of science, but by committee chaired by Dean Acheson, sub- comprehending and wrestling with sequently secretary of state, and promin- them. Their struggles have not been easy ent federal administrator David Lilienthal, or uncomplicated. As suggested by care- in March 1946; it aimed to head off an arms ful historical scholarship on scientists in race by establishing a new, international the nuclear age, along with a sampling of Atomic Development Authority which articles published in the Bulletin since the would own and distribute fissile materials. Cold WarÕs dawn, the atomic scientists While negotiating in the United Nations experienced a mix of success and failure, on behalf of the Truman administration, commitment and compromise, advance however, financier and presidential advi- and retreat. But the main thing is that ser Bernard Baruch introduced several they were talking. Some of the most im- important changes, each aimed at punish- portant and urgent conversations about ing other nations (especially the Soviet the science and politics of the nuclear Union) for any efforts toward nuclear pro- age have taken place in these pages. liferation, thereby perpetuating the US ÒSome among the friends of the Bulletin monopoly (Badash, 1995; Hewlett and have counseled it to quit, and to leave Anderson, 1962). mankind to its folly,Ó wrote the longtime On the matter of how to Òcontrol the editor Eugene Rabinowitch in 1952.7 We atom,Ó readers of the Bulletin watched canbegratefulthatheandhisfellowedi- the fledgling atomic scientistsÕ movement tors and writers ignored the advice. pull to a draw. Congress passed the McMahon bill in July 1946, creating a Controlling the atomÑand the new civilian Atomic Energy Commission, scientists but only after significant changes had been made to the original; almost all The earliest issues of the Bulletin were information related to nuclear weapons devotedtothechallengesandopportu- would be Òborn secret,Ó and the civilian nities of converting the wartime Manhat- commissioners would need to work clo- tan Engineer District to a postwar setting. sely with a Military Liaison Committee. Many articles focused on competing bills Meanwhile, BaruchÕs proposals for inter- that had been introduced in Congress national control gained little traction in soon after the end of the war: The May- the United Nations, leaving no clear Johnson bill (named for House Military framework in which to address nuclear Affairs Committee chairman Andrew matters among nations (Badash, 1995; Jackson May, a Kentucky Democrat, and Hewlett and Anderson, 1962; Smith, 1965).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wen Ho Lee Case Study1
    Wen Ho Lee Case Study1 In the 1990s as the Clinton administration sought to expand diplomatic and trade relations with China, Chinese espionage against US technology targets–especially nuclear weapons data at national laboratories–was getting widespread publicity in the media. As charges and counter- charges floated in the air, scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) who were studying Chinese nuclear tests concluded that a 1992 test demonstrated a sudden advance in miniaturization of the country’s nuclear warheads. They argued that the warhead was very similar to the United States’ most advanced weapon, the W-88. With this advance, the Chinese had access to the technology that provided the basis of a modern, nuclear force. Robert M. Henson, a weapons designer at LANL, believed that the only way the Chinese could have made such advances was by stealing US secrets. Henson’s view was seconded by John L. Richter, a bomb designer who specialized in creating the trigger for the hydrogen bomb. He argued that the sketchy evidence available pointed to the Chinese having acquired significant data on the trigger in the W-88. Investigators believed that the theft of the W-88 data from the national laboratories occurred in the 1980s, and that there was evidence of ongoing Chinese espionage at the increasingly open national labs in the 1990s. Counterintelligence officials report that China is aggressive at collecting information on US advanced technology. Beijing employs both soft and mostly legal as well as classic, hard-spying techniques to gain access to critical information. While the Chinese approach all scientists, they focus on ethnic Chinese, both from the mainland and from Taiwan.
    [Show full text]
  • The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons As Jus Cogens
    CMT 4 - THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS - NORMILE (DO NOT DELETE) 10/22/2019 4:56 PM The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as Jus Cogens Gaela Normile* ABSTRACT As a result of the Manhattan Project, a secret nuclear weapons program in 1946, the United States became the first nation in the world to secure a nuclear weapon. Although the United States’ nuclear weapon resulted in an international desire to attain similar capabilities, the leading scientists of the Manhattan Project released a somber statement that first reflected the destructive nature of nuclear weapons. The Manhattan Project scientists warned that a “grave danger lies ahead” if the issues associated with the weapon were not “carefully analyzed and discussed with competent authorities.” The statement released by the Manhattan Project scientists was the first express statement made about the dangers that accompany nuclear weapons and, incidentally, nuclear proliferation. The scientists’ grave prediction came to fruition one month later, when two nuclear bombs killed over 250,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. After the World War II nuclear bombings, the Soviet Union secured a nuclear weapon followed by the United Kingdom, France, and China. Fearing further proliferation and possible catastrophic results if the nuclear bomb fell into the wrong hands, the international community began to heed to the Manhattan Project scientists’ warnings by carefully analyzing and discussing nuclear non-proliferation. International discussions led to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1970. Currently, the NPT is the largest binding arms and limitation agreement as 191 out of 193 States are party to the treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Physics Instrumentation in Norway: 1933–1955
    The Global and the Local: The History of Science and the Cultural Integration of Europe. nd Proceedings of the 2 ICESHS (Cracow, Poland, September 6–9, 2006) / Ed. by M. Kokowski. Roland Wittje * Nuclear physics instrumentation in Norway: 1933–1955 THROUGH THE LATE 1940s and the 1950s, nuclear scientists, technologists and administrators in Norway were deeply split about the nation's goals, organisation, politics, and — essentially related to this — research instrumentation for nuclear science. One faction was determined to build Norway’s first nuclear reactor, while another did not want a reactor at all. Whereas the first faction consisted of statesmen of science and research technologists, the second comprised academic scientist, most of whom had started their research career in nuclear physics in the 1930s. In order to understand this conflict, I will follow the development of research and instrumentation in nuclear physics both inside and outside Norway from the early 1930s to the mid-1950s. This period covers the time when scientists and engineers started to develop large-scale research instrumentation for nuclear physics research, followed by wartime experience and the American, British and German nuclear weapon projects, and ends with the beginning of the Cold War. The onset of the Cold War was characterised by secrecy in nuclear technology, the rise of the military-industrial-academic complex, particularly in the USA, and the beginning of European large-scale scientific co-operations. My overview will begin with early design and construction of particle accelerators by Odd Dahl and Rolf Widerøe, and follow the building of the first accelerator in Trondheim in the mid-1930s, the involvement of Norwegian scientists and engineers in wartime research and nuclear espionage and the post-war accelerator programs at the Norwegian universities.
    [Show full text]
  • China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S
    Order Code RL30143 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Secrets Updated February 1, 2006 Shirley A. Kan Specialist in National Security Policy Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Secrets Summary This CRS Report discusses China’s suspected acquisition of U.S. nuclear weapon secrets, including that on the W88, the newest U.S. nuclear warhead. This serious controversy became public in early 1999 and raised policy issues about whether U.S. security was further threatened by China’s suspected use of U.S. nuclear weapon secrets in its development of nuclear forces, as well as whether the Administration’s response to the security problems was effective or mishandled and whether it fairly used or abused its investigative and prosecuting authority. The Clinton Administration acknowledged that improved security was needed at the weapons labs but said that it took actions in response to indications in 1995 that China may have obtained U.S. nuclear weapon secrets. Critics in Congress and elsewhere argued that the Administration was slow to respond to security concerns, mishandled the too narrow investigation, downplayed information potentially unfavorable to China and the labs, and failed to notify Congress fully. On April 7, 1999, President Clinton gave his assurance that partly “because of our engagement, China has, at best, only marginally increased its deployed nuclear threat in the last 15 years” and that the strategic balance with China “remains overwhelmingly in our favor.” On April 21, 1999, Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George Tenet, reported the Intelligence Community’s damage assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Espionage and Intelligence Gathering Other Books in the Current Controversies Series
    Espionage and Intelligence Gathering Other books in the Current Controversies series: The Abortion Controversy Issues in Adoption Alcoholism Marriage and Divorce Assisted Suicide Medical Ethics Biodiversity Mental Health Capital Punishment The Middle East Censorship Minorities Child Abuse Nationalism and Ethnic Civil Liberties Conflict Computers and Society Native American Rights Conserving the Environment Police Brutality Crime Politicians and Ethics Developing Nations Pollution The Disabled Prisons Drug Abuse Racism Drug Legalization The Rights of Animals Drug Trafficking Sexual Harassment Ethics Sexually Transmitted Diseases Family Violence Smoking Free Speech Suicide Garbage and Waste Teen Addiction Gay Rights Teen Pregnancy and Parenting Genetic Engineering Teens and Alcohol Guns and Violence The Terrorist Attack on Hate Crimes America Homosexuality Urban Terrorism Illegal Drugs Violence Against Women Illegal Immigration Violence in the Media The Information Age Women in the Military Interventionism Youth Violence Espionage and Intelligence Gathering Louise I. Gerdes, Book Editor Daniel Leone,President Bonnie Szumski, Publisher Scott Barbour, Managing Editor Helen Cothran, Senior Editor CURRENT CONTROVERSIES San Diego • Detroit • New York • San Francisco • Cleveland New Haven, Conn. • Waterville, Maine • London • Munich © 2004 by Greenhaven Press. Greenhaven Press is an imprint of The Gale Group, Inc., a division of Thomson Learning, Inc. Greenhaven® and Thomson Learning™ are trademarks used herein under license. For more information, contact Greenhaven Press 27500 Drake Rd. Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535 Or you can visit our Internet site at http://www.gale.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, Web distribution or information storage retrieval systems—without the written permission of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reevaluation of the Damage Done to the United States by Soviet Espionage April Pickens James Madison University
    James Madison Undergraduate Research Journal Volume 4 | Issue 1 2016-2017 A Reevaluation of the Damage Done to the United States by Soviet Espionage April Pickens James Madison University Follow this and other works at: http://commons.lib.jmu.edu/jmurj Recommended Chicago Citation Pickens, April. “A Reevaluation of the Damage Done to the United States by Soviet Espionage". James Madison Undergraduate Research Journal 4, no. 1 (2017): 56-64, accessed Month day, year. http:// commons.lib.jmu.edu/jmurj/vol4/iss1/5. This full issue is brought to you for free and open access by JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in James Madison Undergraduate Research Journal by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JMURJ Popular opinion and many historians portray the effects of Soviet espionage on the ABSTRACT United States as disastrous. Although covert Soviet efforts undeniably harmed America, their extent and gravity has been greatly exaggerated. This paper evaluates primary and secondary sources on the subject to strike a delicate balance between minimizing and inflating the effects of Soviet activities. It acknowledges that espionage did some damage, but questions the legal status, extent, and effect of much of the Soviets’ “stolen” information, ultimately arguing that most Soviet espionage was actually more harmful to the Soviet Union than to the United States. RUSSIAN COLONEL IS INDICTED Any argument downplaying covert Soviet endeavors HERE AS TOP SPY IN U.S.1 must begin with an admission that some espionage unquestionably led to detrimental consequences for CHIEF ‘RUSSIAN SPY’ the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • (CUWS) Outreach Journal # 1280
    Issue No. 1280 8 September 2017 // USAFCUWS Outreach Journal Issue 1280 // Feature Item “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues”. Written by Amy F. Woolf, published by the Congressional Research Service; August 8 2017 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33640.pdf Even though the United States is in the process of reducing the number of warheads deployed on its long-range missiles and bombers, consistent with the terms of the New START Treaty, it also plans to develop new delivery systems for deployment over the next 20-30 years. The 115th Congress will continue to review these programs, and the funding requested for them, during the annual authorization and appropriations process. During the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear arsenal contained many types of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. The longer-range systems, which included long-range missiles based on U.S. territory, long-range missiles based on submarines, and heavy bombers that could threaten Soviet targets from their bases in the United States, are known as strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. At the end of the Cold War, in 1991, the United States deployed more than 10,000 warheads on these delivery vehicles. That number has declined to less than 1,500 deployed warheads today, and is slated to be 1,550 deployed warheads in 2018, after the New START Treaty completes implementation. At the present time, the U.S. land-based ballistic missile force (ICBMs) consists of 400 landbased Minuteman III ICBMs, each deployed with one warhead. The fleet has declined to 400 deployed missiles, while retaining 450 launchers, to meet the terms of the New START Treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • Section Ii Espionage and Diversions
    SECTION II ESPIONAGE AND DIVERSIONS Several incidents of Chinese nuclear espionage--all reported by the press--have come to light in recent years. The most recent has been the theft of information describing the small, sophisticated W-88 thermonuclear warhead. Investigations in the past have focused on the theft of laser information useful for simulating nuclear explosions and on the theft of the secrets of the W-70 nuclear warhead, known as the neutron bomb. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, China has also managed to obtain sensitive information during officially-sanctioned visits by its scientists to U.S. nuclear weapon laboratories. In addition to espionage, China has benefitted from diversions. Chinese companies have diverted machine tools, high-performance computers and controlled materials from civilian to leaded guilty to charges that it illegally exported DEC computer equipment to China without first having obtained the required exprt control laws. Presented here are cases that have come to light recently. They may be a small fraction of the total number of thefts and diversions that have occurred. PART A - ESPIONAGE Case #1: Theft of information about the W-88 nuclear warhead The report of a select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, chaired by Representative Christopher Cox, indicates that China stole secret nuclear weapon design information from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the mid-1980s. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the information described the W-88 nuclear warhead, which tops the U.S. Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile. The information is said to have included general, but secret information about the warhead’s weight, size, explosive power, and internal configuration.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons New Questions for Command and Control, Security and Strategy
    Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies Occasional Paper Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons New Questions for Command and Control, Security and Strategy Andrew Futter Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons New Questions for Command and Control, Security and Strategy Andrew Futter RUSI Occasional Paper, July 2016 Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies ii Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons Over 180 years of independent defence and security thinking The Royal United Services Institute is the UK’s leading independent think-tank on international defence and security. Its mission is to be an analytical, research-led global forum for informing, influencing and enhancing public debate on a safer and more stable world. Since its foundation in 1831, RUSI has relied on its members to support its activities, sustaining its political independence for over 180 years. London | Brussels | Nairobi | Doha | Tokyo | Washington, DC The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s), and do not reflect the views of RUSI or any other institution. Published in 2016 by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial – No-Derivatives 4.0 International Licence. For more information, see <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/>. RUSI Occasional Paper, July 2016. ISSN 2397-0286 (Online). Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies Whitehall London SW1A 2ET United Kingdom +44 (0)20 7747 2600 www.rusi.org RUSI is a registered charity (No. 210639) Contents Acknowledgements v Introduction: Hacking the Bomb 1 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Russian Bomb from Stalin to Yeltsin
    MAKING THE RUSSIAN BOMB FROM STALIN TO YELTSIN by Thomas B. Cochran Robert S. Norris and Oleg A. Bukharin A book by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Westview Press Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford Copyright Natural Resources Defense Council © 1995 Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................. List of Tables ................................................... Preface and Acknowledgements ..................................... CHAPTER ONE A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SOVIET BOMB Russian and Soviet Nuclear Physics ............................... Towards the Atomic Bomb .......................................... Diverted by War ............................................. Full Speed Ahead ............................................ Establishment of the Test Site and the First Test ................ The Role of Espionage ............................................ Thermonuclear Weapons Developments ............................... Was Joe-4 a Hydrogen Bomb? .................................. Testing the Third Idea ...................................... Stalin's Death and the Reorganization of the Bomb Program ........ CHAPTER TWO AN OVERVIEW OF THE STOCKPILE AND COMPLEX The Nuclear Weapons Stockpile .................................... Ministry of Atomic Energy ........................................ The Nuclear Weapons Complex ...................................... Nuclear Weapon Design Laboratories ............................... Arzamas-16 .................................................. Chelyabinsk-70
    [Show full text]
  • Spying on America Courtney Hatfield Harding University, [email protected]
    Tenor of Our Times Volume 3 Article 7 Spring 2014 Spying On America Courtney Hatfield Harding University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.harding.edu/tenor Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Hatfield, Courtney (Spring 2014) "Spying On America," Tenor of Our Times: Vol. 3, Article 7. Available at: https://scholarworks.harding.edu/tenor/vol3/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Humanities at Scholar Works at Harding. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tenor of Our Times by an authorized editor of Scholar Works at Harding. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPYING ON AMERICA By Courtney Hatfield B.A. It is a well-known fact that the Soviet Union and the United States of America shared little trust with each other during the Cold War. In fact, the lack of trust between these two countries almost led to nuclear disaster. However, the depths of that mistrust have only recently been revealed. With the releases of Alexander Vassiliev’s notes on old Soviet Union Secret Police records and the Venona transcripts has come the shocking revelation of just how severely Josef Stalin mistrusted America. Before the Soviet Union and the United States were on hostile terms, before the Cold War began, and even before the start of World War II, the Soviet Union had spies in America. When the Communist Party gained popularity in the United States in the early twentieth century, the Soviet Union created networks of spies, informants, couriers, and American sources to inform Moscow of any intelligence gathered on the American government.
    [Show full text]
  • NPR10.1: Chinese Responses to US Missile Defenses
    JING-DONG YUAN Chinese Responses to U.S. Missile Defenses: Implications for Arms Control and Regional Security JING-DONG YUAN Dr. Jing-dong Yuan is Senior Research Associate in the East Asia Nonproliferation Program (EANP) at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies of the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Dr. Yuan writes on Asia-Pacific security, Chinese defense and foreign policy, and arms control and nonproliferation issues. He is the co-author of China and India: Cooperation or Conflict? (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003).1 resident George W. Bush’s December 17, 2002, nuclear modernization high on its policy agenda. Indeed, announcement of initial U.S. missile defense de- improvement of its aging strategic nuclear force—the Pployment by 2004 received a moderate response liquid-fueled, silo-based Dong Feng 5A (East Wind, or from China. Instead of vehemently criticizing the U.S. DF; NATO designation CSS-4)—over the past two decision for its potential to trigger an arms race, a decades has been slow and measured, in effect leaving Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson merely com- China extremely vulnerable to a decapitating first strike.3 mented that the “development of the missile defense sys- Owing to its small size and its current deployment tem should not undermine global strategic stability, nor mode—in which nuclear warheads and the liquid-fueled should it undermine international and regional security.”2 ICBMs are separately stored and launch preparation takes Beijing’s rather muted reaction, however, understates its several hours—a limited U.S. missile defense system could deep concern over the serious security challenges it is neutralize China’s strategic nuclear deterrent.
    [Show full text]