Brotherhood of the Bomb

brotherhood of the bombThe subtitle of this book by Gregg Herken is “The Tangled Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Edward Teller.” Another book by the author, “The Winning Weapon” (a review was posted October 1) concluded that too much was made of Soviet espionage of the Manhattan Project. “Brotherhood of the Bomb” reaches an entirely different conclusion. A footnote on page 126 states “Near the end of the war, because of Fuchs and other spies at Los Alamos, the Russians had a precise description of the component parts of Fat Man, including such engineering details as the makeup and design of the explosive lenses use to compress the plutonium core and the exact dimensions of the bomb’s polonium initiator. The device that the Soviets exploded in their first nuclear test, in August 1949, was essentially a copy of Fat Man.” “The Winning Weapon” was published in 1980 and “Brotherhood of the Bomb” in 2002. Much was learned about the extent of Soviet spying after the first book was published in 1980. For example, the Venona Project that revealed the massive extent of Soviet spying was declassified in 1995. Both books have value to someone interested in the atomic bomb and its impact on the Cold War, and the first gives a good idea of how much of the media looked at the issue of Soviet spying in 1980.

“Brotherhood of the Bomb” gives detailed insight into the scientists who became famous as the result of discovering what could be accomplished, mostly in the form of weapons, with atomic energy. Lawrence had announced in 1932 that “…heavy particles not only disintegrated readily but in the process seemed to release more energy than it took to break them apart.” He proposed a vista of cheap, reliable, and virtually limitless energy…” His “disintegration hypothesis” was greeted with skepticism verging on ridicule. Rutherford made his now famous statement that “anyone who looked for a source of power in the transformation of atoms was talking moonshine.” Continue reading

Social Security Debt Collection

There was a recent media dust-up over the Social Security Administration seizing tax refunds to recoup over-payments that happened more than a decade ago. However, Stephen Ohlemacher of the Associated Press explained that the program would be halted at least temporarily in his article titled “Social Security halts effort to collect old over-payments.” A 2008 law allows use of a “…Treasury program to seize federal payments to recoup debts that are more than 10 years old. Previously, there was a 10-year limit on using the program.”  “The Social Security Administration says it has identified about 400,000 people with old debts. They owe a total of $714 million.” Some of the disputed benefits were paid to surviving parents or guardians of children eligible for survivor benefits or the benefits paid to a disabled child. The agency says it has already collected $55 million, and at least some of it was collected from children and grandchildren of those who were overpaid. Continue reading

The Predictable Surprise

book cvr_ predictable surpriseThe subtitle of this book by Sylvester J. Schieber is “The Unraveling of the U.S. Retirement System.” The book is neither a fun nor easy book to read (unless you are a compulsive accountant). However, you should consider the book if you want to know about the history and current status of Social Security and other retirement plans. Sadly, I must say the book does not have easy answers for how we can get our politicians to address some daunting problems. The dust cover explains, “Social Security is projected to deplete its funds in the 2030s. Pensions from previous generations have either disappeared or been completely reengineered…Americans are faced with the conundrum of how to pay for a growing retired population with dwindling financial resources.” The author believes privatizing part of Social Security would be a good first step, but has given up on that idea because politicians have made it a toxic idea.

I consider the most important part of the book to be a series of quotes made by Barack Obama at a roundtable discussion with the editorial board of the Washington Post four days before his first inauguration. “As soon as the economic recovery takes place, then we’ve got to bend the curve and figure out how we get federal spending on a more sustainable path…We are going also to have a discussion about entitlements and how we get a grasp on those…As bad as these deficits that have already been run up have been, the real problem is with our long-term deficits, actually, have to do with our entitlement obligations…So we’re going to have to shape a bargain. This, by the way is where…some very difficult issues of sacrifice, responsibility, and duty are going to come in because what we have done is kick this can down the road and we are now at the end of that road. We are not in a position to kick it any further…I have told my folks, to some consternation on their part, that we have to signal seriousness in this by making sure that some hard decisions are made under my watch and not under somebody else’s because the usual game is to say, ‘well, here’s what is going to happen but, by the way, it just happens to start in the ninth year from now.’ What we have to signal is that we are willing to make hard decisions now.”  (This passage is on pages 373-374 of the hard cover book I read. I’m providing a link to the full recorded statement.) Continue reading

Costa Rican Distrust of U.S. Foreign Policy

We were vacationing in Costa Rica when a tour guide on our bus surprised us by announcing that President Obama had refused to help Costa Rica after Nicaragua had moved large numbers of soldiers into Costa Rica for the purpose of “building a new canal.” The guide said Costa Rica has no military and had asked President Obama for help. He then said Mr. Obama’s reaction was to continue his policy of bowing to every belligerent. He emphasized the point by making a series of stiff bows in several directions.  The guide said the people of Costa Rica continue to appreciate Ronald Regan and his support for the Contras who fought against the Communist Sandinistas. The guide explained that Daniel Ortega, the Communist ruler of Nicaragua, continues to have designs on Costa Rica, and that the U.S. refused to help. “The Canadians helped and the Nicaraguans withdrew.”

I was fascinated with the story, and began searching the Internet to educate myself. President Obama visited Costa Rica for two days in May 2013. The descriptions of his visit were mostly about the extreme security measures taken for his protection. There were a few hundred people allowed to view his limousine trip through the capital city. A few dozen gathered in the city park to protest the visit. Most complied with the order to stay home and watch television coverage. This is in contrast to John F. Kennedy visiting and wading into adoring crowds. Kennedy is called the “most beloved U.S. President” based on the memories of his visit and the Peace Corp. Continue reading

Constitutionality of Obamcare

President Obama admitted at the health care summit he convened in 2010 that there would be people who would lose their existing health insurance coverage. He admitted that when he was challenged by Eric Cantor that some people would not be able to keep the policies they had selected, and he casually dismissed the question. The following is a transcript of that exchange:

Eric Cantor said, “Because I don’t think you can answer the question in the positive to say that people will be able to maintain their coverage, people will be able to see the doctors they want, in the kind of bill that you are proposing.”

Mr. Obama’s response was, “Since you asked me a question, let me respond. The 8 to 9 million people you refer to that might have to change their coverage — keep in mind out of the 300 million Americans that we are talking about — would be folks who the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office,  estimates would find the deal in the exchange better — would be a better deal. So, yes, they would change coverage because they got more choice and competition.” Continue reading

Killing or Capturing bin Laden

An article in the October 2012 edition of the ABA Journal titled “Detention Dilemma” describes legal problems created by continuing to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba. One very interesting part of the article is an argument whether “…the balance between gaining detainee intelligence and the high cost of defending detention decisions has precipitated a shift away from detentions and toward targeted killings.” The article then says, “Taking the judge at her word–that the high court hinted at the need for more killings–would be profoundly unsettling.”

The official policy seems to have accepted the “hint” given by the high court. We are killing terrorists with drones instead of trying to capturing them. Another point for that argument is given by the accounts of the night bin Laden was killed. Those accounts lead me to believe there was no intention of taking him captive. He was said to have been killed when he raised a hand and his rifle was nearby. Continue reading