18 ms·

Teller really did become a nuclear quack after the Manhattan Project. WRT SDI, he went to White House and told Reagan there he had an X-ray laser that could des

Teller really did become a nuclear quack after the Manhattan Project. WRT SDI, he went to White House and told Reagan there he had an X-ray laser that could destroy warheads in flight. Reagan, got excited about it and encouraged Project Excalibur. The laser didn’t exist. Nor did Teller tell Reagan what would power the laser. It’s power source? A nuclear bomb. That guy really wanted to put nuclear bombs everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur

icegreentea2 3y ago
Teller's work on the hydrogen bomb (after the Manhattan Project) probably solidify his mind set. Immediately post WW2, Teller was in the minority view of believing that hydrogen bombs were feasible. But we all know how that ended up.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  You can see how that would affect a person. Advocate exploring a far out idea against resistance, then be dramatically proved correct when an unexpected advance makes the goal achievable.
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    It wasn’t a goal with achieving.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      I disagree. Nuclear deterrence has prevented direct warfare between great powers for the longest period since at least the Roman Empire.
      - jonathankoren 3y ago
        Nuclear deterrence was perfectly capable with fission bombs
        philwelch 3y ago
        I’m not sure it was. Hiroshima and Nagasaki (but especially Hiroshima) had outsized effects because of how Japanese cities were built of readily flammable materials at the time; incendiary bombing of Japanese cities was also far more effective than that of German cities. (Which is saying something because the German cities were very effectively bombed!) There’s disagreement over exactly how bad a major nuclear conflict would be, but everyone agrees that it would be significantly worse with an exchange of 500 kt thermonuclear warheads than with an exchange of 21 kt fission warheads. And the point of deterrence is to make that potential exchange as bad as possible.
        pfdietz 3y ago
        One can make larger fission bombs, but they end up being very unsafe, since they contain several critical masses of material. I believe the UK made a 500 kT fission bomb. Fusion devices are smaller and safer to handle and, most importantly, are considerably cheaper per yield.
lupusreal 3y ago
Who was more of a quack in that situation? Teller for dreaming up sci-fi bullshit powered by nukes, or Reagan for not even thinking to ask questions before buying into it? I saw something interesting recently, some short propaganda films in the style of news broadcasts created by the CIA specifically for consumption by Reagan. Apparently the man was a half-wit who disliked reading and easily mesmerized by video; a typical TV-watching zombie. https://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/03/ronald-reagan-cia-video-soviets/ https://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/03/ronald-reagan-cia-...
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  > Apparently the man was a half-wit I would say that seems to be the norm for many of our presidents since then. Maybe it always has been.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    JFK at least was reputed to be an extremely proficient reader. His reported speed reading is probably somewhat exaggerated but conservative estimates would have him reading the script of one of those CIA brief videos in a small fraction of the time it took for Reagan to watch them. Being good at reading obviously isn't a sufficient qualification to make somebody a good president, but I think it's a necessary prerequisite.
    - abecedarius 3y ago
      Don't most of us read a transcript many times faster than its video?
      - lupusreal 3y ago
        Those of us who can bear reading in the first place at least.
      - DonHopkins 3y ago
        Certainly not Trump.
habosa 3y ago
Had wacky ideas for sure but calling him a quack after the Manhattan Project isn’t fair. Besides his foresight on the hydrogen bomb, he also was one of the first major names in science to raise the alarm about climate change: https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  The hydrogen bomb is a quack idea though. The whole purpose is just to destroy cities. It has no legitimate military value. Just because it can be That is why he was controversial in the post war.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    The hydrogen bomb is why the Cold War stayed cold. Deterrence is a military value.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
    - euroderf 3y ago
      In practice, "staying cold" often involved luck. A bit of Russian roulette, one might say.
  - adonovan 3y ago
    > The whole purpose is just to destroy cities. It has no legitimate military value. Well, destroying cities was also the military purpose of the first two atomic bombs.
    - jonathankoren 3y ago
      It was the largest bomb ever until then, yes. But to equate a fission bomb to a fusion bomb is a disservice. We’re talking multiple orders of magnitude more powerful. If you want to know the difference, I suggest nukemap. To put it in perspective, we’re talking about destroying lower manhattan with the Fat Man, versus incinerating all five boroughs and shattering windows in White Plains, NY. I’m not talking about dick waving stunt like the Tsar Bomba, I’m talking about deployed weapons.

icegreentea2 3y ago

Teller's work on the hydrogen bomb (after the Manhattan Project) probably solidify his mind set. Immediately post WW2, Teller was in the minority view of believing that hydrogen bombs were feasible. But we all know how that ended up.

pfdietz 3y ago
You can see how that would affect a person. Advocate exploring a far out idea against resistance, then be dramatically proved correct when an unexpected advance makes the goal achievable.
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  It wasn’t a goal with achieving.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    I disagree. Nuclear deterrence has prevented direct warfare between great powers for the longest period since at least the Roman Empire.
    - jonathankoren 3y ago
      Nuclear deterrence was perfectly capable with fission bombs
      - philwelch 3y ago
        I’m not sure it was. Hiroshima and Nagasaki (but especially Hiroshima) had outsized effects because of how Japanese cities were built of readily flammable materials at the time; incendiary bombing of Japanese cities was also far more effective than that of German cities. (Which is saying something because the German cities were very effectively bombed!) There’s disagreement over exactly how bad a major nuclear conflict would be, but everyone agrees that it would be significantly worse with an exchange of 500 kt thermonuclear warheads than with an exchange of 21 kt fission warheads. And the point of deterrence is to make that potential exchange as bad as possible.
        pfdietz 3y ago
        One can make larger fission bombs, but they end up being very unsafe, since they contain several critical masses of material. I believe the UK made a 500 kT fission bomb. Fusion devices are smaller and safer to handle and, most importantly, are considerably cheaper per yield.

lupusreal 3y ago

Who was more of a quack in that situation? Teller for dreaming up sci-fi bullshit powered by nukes, or Reagan for not even thinking to ask questions before buying into it? I saw something interesting recently, some short propaganda films in the style of news broadcasts created by the CIA specifically for consumption by Reagan. Apparently the man was a half-wit who disliked reading and easily mesmerized by video; a typical TV-watching zombie. https://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/03/ronald-reagan-cia-video-soviets/ https://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/03/ronald-reagan-cia-...

SoftTalker 3y ago
> Apparently the man was a half-wit I would say that seems to be the norm for many of our presidents since then. Maybe it always has been.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  JFK at least was reputed to be an extremely proficient reader. His reported speed reading is probably somewhat exaggerated but conservative estimates would have him reading the script of one of those CIA brief videos in a small fraction of the time it took for Reagan to watch them. Being good at reading obviously isn't a sufficient qualification to make somebody a good president, but I think it's a necessary prerequisite.
  - abecedarius 3y ago
    Don't most of us read a transcript many times faster than its video?
    - lupusreal 3y ago
      Those of us who can bear reading in the first place at least.
    - DonHopkins 3y ago
      Certainly not Trump.

habosa 3y ago

Had wacky ideas for sure but calling him a quack after the Manhattan Project isn’t fair. Besides his foresight on the hydrogen bomb, he also was one of the first major names in science to raise the alarm about climate change: https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

jonathankoren 3y ago
The hydrogen bomb is a quack idea though. The whole purpose is just to destroy cities. It has no legitimate military value. Just because it can be That is why he was controversial in the post war.
- adastra22 3y ago
  The hydrogen bomb is why the Cold War stayed cold. Deterrence is a military value.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
  - euroderf 3y ago
    In practice, "staying cold" often involved luck. A bit of Russian roulette, one might say.
- adonovan 3y ago
  > The whole purpose is just to destroy cities. It has no legitimate military value. Well, destroying cities was also the military purpose of the first two atomic bombs.
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    It was the largest bomb ever until then, yes. But to equate a fission bomb to a fusion bomb is a disservice. We’re talking multiple orders of magnitude more powerful. If you want to know the difference, I suggest nukemap. To put it in perspective, we’re talking about destroying lower manhattan with the Fat Man, versus incinerating all five boroughs and shattering windows in White Plains, NY. I’m not talking about dick waving stunt like the Tsar Bomba, I’m talking about deployed weapons.