Category Archives: History

Social Security’s History and Future

Posted on by

Social Security WorksRecently I reviewed a book because I hated the premise. I read this book because I like the premise. The title says it all (with an exclamation point): Social Security Works! Why Social Security Isn’t Going Broke and How Expanding It Will Help Us All. I wanted to see the proof offered by authors Nancy J. Altman and Eric R. Kingson.

With an average of five stars from over three hundred reviews on Amazon, the book has a following. Altman and Kingson aren’t Social Security’s only champions, as this article on slate.com shows, there was anger over Obama’s willingness to “give away the store…[and] cut spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security In exchange for a modest tax hike of $100 billion over 10 years—targeted at the wealthiest Americans… an outrageous deal.”

Some 54 million Americans receive benefits today, with the “average retiree’s checks roughly equal to the gross pay of someone working fulltime at the federal minimum wage.”

The authors seek to debunk “a three-decade-long, well-financed campaign [that] has sought to dismantle Social Security… [and been] successful in undermining confidence… The mainstream media has aided and abetted the campaign by uncritically accepting and advancing a panoply of misconceptions, while largely ignoring the facts.”

I must admit to being swayed by the anti-Social Security campaign. Since I started my career, I have assumed I would never receive any Social Security and used to joke that my tax went to my own grandmother. Yet, here I am, nearly forty years later, and Social Security looks secure for the next 20 years (assuming Congress doesn’t damage it.)

From the beginning, many opponents called Social Security socialism. “These same opponents rarely, however, express disgust with, or seek to privatize, America’s socialized police, fire, and prosecution services or our socialized system of roads, canals, and national parks, not to mention our socialized military.”

I found it interesting to read that President Eisenhower thought the opposite. In a message to Congress, he called Social Security “a reflection of the American heritage of sturdy self-reliance which has made our country strong and kept it free.” Continue reading →

The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate

Posted on by

spread-of-nuclear-weaponsThis book written by Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz is interesting because the two authors, as is indicated by the title, take radically different positions on the threat from the spread of nuclear weapons. I’ll let the authors explain further from the Preface. “What are the likely consequences of the spread of nuclear weapons? The answer is by no means certain or simple. Indeed, the readers will discover we disagree about the central issue. Kenneth Walsh argues that the fear of the spread of nuclear weapons is exaggerated: ‘More may be better’ since new nuclear states will use their weapons to deter other countries from attacking them. Scott Sagan argues that the spread of nuclear weapons will make the world less stable. ‘More will be worse’ since some new nuclear states will engage in preventive wars, fail to build survivable forces, or have serious nuclear weapons accidents.” That’s a good summary of what they say in the book, although I didn’t find out what the “fail to build survivable forces” has to do with the debate.

Kenneth Walsh takes the lead with his proposal that “More May be Better.” He points out that the world had “…enjoyed more years of peace since 1945 than had been known in modern history, if peace is defined as the absence of general war among the major states of the world.” He argues that, “War becomes less likely as the costs of war rise in relation to possible gains.” The incentive for the major nuclear powers to begin an exchange makes it clear to even the most insane leader that there will be little to gain since each side has sufficient nuclear stockpiles to destroy the other. That easy to understand fact has prevented World War III for seventy years while there have been nuclear weapon stockpiles in the many tens of thousands of weapons. “Deterrence is achieved not through the ability to defend but through the ability to punish.” Walsh writes, “Early in the Cold War, the United States deterred the Soviet Union, and in due course, the Soviet Union deterred the United States.” He observes that he believes “The presence of nuclear weapons makes war less likely…Nuclear weapons have not been fired in anger in a world in which more than one country has them.” Continue reading →

Secret Empire: Eisenhower, The CIA, and the Hidden Story of America’s Space Espionage

Posted on by

secret-empireThis book by Philip Taubman introduced me to a fascinating world of spying by the United States on the Soviets during the high-stakes era of the Cold War when both the U.S. and the Soviets desperately wanted to learn everything they could about their adversaries. “In a brief period of explosive, top-secret innovation, a small group of scientists, engineers, businessmen, and government officials rewrote the book on airplane design and led the nation into outer space.” That refers to the U-2 and the Corona projects. Corona was a capsule containing cameras and new types of film launched to circle over the Soviet Union before reentry, deployment of a parachute, and recovery by a plane. It is an incredible story of repeated failures before the first success. The persistence in the face of all the failures is a tribute to the people who worked on the project and the desperation for information that politicians providing funds even when it seemed the scheme might never work. I learned much about both Corona and U-2, and more than I really cared to know about the people involved. I also learned about Eisenhower who was willing to commit huge sums of secret money and take great political risks to learn more about what was going on behind the Iron Curtain.

The book begins with an interesting description of a Strategic Air Command (SAC) bomber crew violating Soviet air space to collect pictures of military installations. The plane was attacked by a new MiG and suffered damage but was able to make it back to base. The book provides some disturbing information about the costs of such spy flights. “Hundreds of men in the Air Force and Navy risked their lives flying along or across the Soviet frontier in an effort to learn more about Russian air defenses and military forces…At least 252 air crewmen were shot down on spy flights between 1950 and 1970, most directed against the Soviet Union…It is certain that 90 of these men survived…But the fate of 138 men is unknown. It is possible, even likely, that some of them survived for years in captivity while Washington made little effort to determine if they were alive and make arrangements for their repatriation.”The human costs and political risk of such flights prompted Eisenhower to approve secret funding through the CIA to develop reconnaissance techniques through development of the U-2 spy plane and the Corona project. Continue reading →

Nobody’s Perfect

Posted on by

Abraham Lincoln is the American president I admire the most. He led America through our Civil War, the bloodiest war in out history. Throughout, he showed remarkable sympathy for his opponents and tremendous political agility, while enduring personal tragedies and mental illnesses that would incapacitate most people. He seemed to maintain a sense of humor and, despite the difference in 19th century speaking styles, his words resonant today. He stood at a pivotal point in American history – before Lincoln, we said “the United States are'” but after Lincoln we say “the United States is.”

But the Great Man wasn’t above a little corruption. Continue reading →

Facing Nuclear War

Posted on by

facing-nuclear-warI’ve heard many arguments about the morality of nuclear weapons, and I decided to read this book that presents a Christian viewpoint. The book (published in 1982) opens with the statement that, “Nuclear War has emerged as the chief moral issue of our time.” The author states that he is a social scientist, but he “…wrote this primarily as a Christian pacifist…I simply plead for God’s children to come halfway from wherever they are and at least agree on nuclear pacifism.” I appreciated the upfront declaration of where the author stands.

There is a question about why the author thinks this time is crucial, since it was more than three decades from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to when the book was published. He answers that the huge increases in stockpiles of nuclear weapons and deliverable weapons with the Multiple Independently-Targetable Reentry Vehicle (MIRV) had changed everything. The Soviets were soon also “MIRVing” their missiles. The MIRVs allowed the targets for U.S. missiles to increase to 1650 cities and military targets from the previous 550 targets without adding more missiles. Perhaps even more troubling to the author was that the missiles had become much more accurate. The U.S. missiles were said to be able to hit a target within 300 feet, which would equate to a bull’s eye with a nuclear weapon. That increased accuracy, the author believed, might lure one side into making a first strike with the hope of wiping out the others silos and missiles. Such a first strike could therefore overcome the restraint imposed by Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). “The U.S. policy of a counterforce or first-strike option gradually emerged over several years and was confirmed by Presidential Directive 59 issued by President Carter in August 1980.” Instead of MAD, planners began to talk about “…fighting small or limited nuclear wars.” Vice-President George H.W. Bush “…said a nuclear war could be fought and won.” Continue reading →

Now it Can be Told

Posted on by

now-it-can-be-toldThis book was written, as stated on the cover page, By Leslie R. Groves, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Retired. I’ve read several books about the Manhattan Project, and I would put this on at the top of the list to someone who has just developed an interest in the subject. It describes in no uncertain terms the complexity and difficulty of what was being sought and the remarkable achievements that resulted. To General Groves’ credit, he dedicates the book, “To the men and women of the Manhattan Project, and to all those who aided them in their yet unparalleled accomplishment.” I was impressed by the number of times Groves wrote about something going wrong because of something he had done. He shied away from blaming others for problems and gave credit to those who suggested some insight or approach that he had not considered.  My “personal review” of the book that I prepared for use in a new book I’m researching about the history of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant covers twenty-three pages. I promise to impose a much shorter version in this review.

Groves was in charge constructing the Pentagon when he was told he had been selected by the Secretary of War for an important project, and that his selection had been approved by President Roosevelt. I was surprised that Groves knew about what he called “…the atomic development program…,” and responded unenthusiastically, “Oh, that thing.” He met with his commanding General who told him, “The basic research and development are done. You just have to take the rough designs, put them in final shape, build some plants and organize an operating force and your job will be finished and the war will be over.” Groves admits in his book that it took weeks before he had a comprehension of, “…how overoptimistic an outlook he had presented.”

Groves describes the research by physicists that led some to conclude an atomic bomb was possible. Lise Meitner explained to Otto Hahn that the results of his research in Germany indicated the uranium atom could be split and that the resulting fission (a term developed by Meitner and her nephew) would release enormous amounts of energy. The genesis of the Manhattan Project was initiated by scientists Hitler drove out of Germany. Many came to America, and they feared what would happen if the Germans were the first to develop the bomb. One of the problems they faced was that the “…American-born scientists, in the main, did not have so acute and appreciation of the danger…” The process that resulted in Franklin Roosevelt approving research is described in numerous sources, but the Groves account is, in my estimation, adequately complete and to the point. Continue reading →