3 ms·

As an aside: >In 1953, a former congressional aide charged in a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the celebrated physicist was a Soviet spy.

As an aside: >In 1953, a former congressional aide charged in a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the celebrated physicist was a Soviet spy. The congressional aide's name was William Liscum Borden. If Borden's views had been adopted by the US Government, it is likely that we would have had a nuclear world war[0], instead the US built its strategy on the views of Brodie[1]. [0]: Borden's strategic views http://ethanheilman.tumblr.com/post/29405762446/there-will-be-no-time-a-review http://ethanheilman.tumblr.com/post/29405762446/there-will-b... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Brodie_(military_strategist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Brodie_(military_strate...

raldi 12y ago
I don't see how your citation 0 supports the claim it's attached to. Can you elaborate on the connection?
- EthanHeilman 12y ago
  His belief that nuclear wars would be won by the side that disarmed the other side means that: 1. There is no limit on the number of nuclear weapons that should be built, each side should always strive for more weapons than the other side. Thus, increasing the scale of nuclear wars. >Nuclear war is so fast that destroying a city does not provide any military benefits to the attacker nor any military costs to a defender. 2. Since the other side will not waste weapons on cities (by his calculus of attacking to disarm), mutually assured destruction will not work and therefore nuclear wars are inevitable and largely bloodless (low human cost). 3. Any time one side has more weapons it should immediately use those weapons to disarm the other side. That is, strike when you gain an advantage even if you have no good cause, since the other side would do the same. Unfortunately present experience suggests that while cities might not be on the initial target list, once one side started to loss heavily they would likely target the other sides cities to spoil the victors post-war advantage.
mkempe 12y ago
undermining the idea that it was all somehow a plot by evil Republicans: Borden, the scum who initiated the witch-hunt against Oppenheimer, was a protégé of Democrat Senator McMahon, who was deeply in love with hydrogen bombs. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brien_McMahon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brien_McMahon
- EthanHeilman 12y ago
  Borden himself advocated for a one-world government, which is the opposite of the Republican, Bircher, and McCarthyist positions.

raldi 12y ago

I don't see how your citation 0 supports the claim it's attached to. Can you elaborate on the connection?

EthanHeilman 12y ago
His belief that nuclear wars would be won by the side that disarmed the other side means that: 1. There is no limit on the number of nuclear weapons that should be built, each side should always strive for more weapons than the other side. Thus, increasing the scale of nuclear wars. >Nuclear war is so fast that destroying a city does not provide any military benefits to the attacker nor any military costs to a defender. 2. Since the other side will not waste weapons on cities (by his calculus of attacking to disarm), mutually assured destruction will not work and therefore nuclear wars are inevitable and largely bloodless (low human cost). 3. Any time one side has more weapons it should immediately use those weapons to disarm the other side. That is, strike when you gain an advantage even if you have no good cause, since the other side would do the same. Unfortunately present experience suggests that while cities might not be on the initial target list, once one side started to loss heavily they would likely target the other sides cities to spoil the victors post-war advantage.

mkempe 12y ago

undermining the idea that it was all somehow a plot by evil Republicans: Borden, the scum who initiated the witch-hunt against Oppenheimer, was a protégé of Democrat Senator McMahon, who was deeply in love with hydrogen bombs. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brien_McMahon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brien_McMahon

EthanHeilman 12y ago
Borden himself advocated for a one-world government, which is the opposite of the Republican, Bircher, and McCarthyist positions.