by CKR
Harold Agnew was the third director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He was a student of Enrico Fermi’s, and he took photos on the Hiroshima mission. (I can’t find a good biography.)
I irritated him something fierce at one point. I won’t say he threw me out of his office, it just seemed like a really good idea for me to get up and leave. He called me a year or so later, jolly as could be and asked me how my job was going. We chatted for maybe twenty minutes.
He was always (probably still is) a plain speaker, even on the Wen Ho Lee case. And he had (probably still has) good ideas. I think we need to look at one of them.
I’ve been involved in a discussion at Arms Control Wonk that reminded me of it. Steven Peter Rosen, in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, comes close to Agnew’s idea. You need a subscription to read the quote; it’s near the end of the article.
…it would require that all states realize that nuclear war, even with limited arsenals, would result in their own deaths. How can the point be driven home? There is historical evidence that seeing nuclear weapons tested had a powerful effect on many people in the United States and the Soviet Union…were nuclear tests to be conducted in full view again, the current generation of policymakers might realize that the use of even a small number of nuclear weapons would lead to intolerable destruction.
Agnew used to say that, every so many years, world leaders should be brought together in the South Pacific to watch a live thermonuclear test. One that would be big enough to destroy a little coral atoll. They could check things out at the atoll first, be taken on a ship to a place that would be safe enough, watch the test, and go back to see the results.
I think this is a good idea, good enough that it would balance out the damage to the ecology (goodbye, coral reef!) and the small amount of radiation it would add to the atmosphere.
It’s too easy now to watch those slick videos from the nose of a missile as it “surgically” destroys a building. As we talk about chemical and biological weapons in the same breath with nuclear weapons, we let the yuck factor overwhelm the realities of the differences in the magnitude of destruction those weapons can wreak. Probably, for a president, having that guy constantly in his entourage with the “football,” a briefcase containing all he needs to send the nukes flying, makes nuclear war seem like a bad hair day.
But it’s not.
I know some people who have been present at above-ground nuclear tests. Their voices thicken when they talk about the experience. I had a vivid imagination of such things when I was growing up, and it’s obviously worthy of every bit of nightmare I endured.
And think of what the event itself could do: Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad, Putin and Saakashvili, Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh, having an early breakfast in the mess. Prime Minister Blair could try to put some deals together, and President Chirac could volunteer that the French provide hospitality for the next event. President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Koizumi might be able to talk over that cemetery business.
The press would be confined to a separate ship, but they would be allowed to board the dignitaries’ ship immediately after the shot. They would qualify for free passage by providing the best lists of questions, and their organizations would be required to feature the story or pay up.
Oh, and no flacks or political advisors allowed.
I’ve added some bells and whistles, Harold. Hope you don’t mind.