Nukes or No Nukes?   


Other Links of Interest:

The Port Chicago Disaster

Bureau of Atomic Tourism

 The Nuclear Age Timeline






January 19, 2002


Nucular Exchange

The "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" is one of the most rabidly anti-nucular journals around.  I was looking at a website called 50 Facts about US Nuclear Weapons without knowing it was affiliated with the Bulletin.  The site had oodles of fun facts about my favorite invention, so I e-mailed this guy without knowing he is a honcho at the Bulletin.  Here is our exchange, starting with my initial e-mail.  The guy has not responded to my last eemer, which calls for an occasional nucular detonation just for the hell of it.

I bet this guy is voting for Moe Liebowitz.

First Strike:

As a rabid "nucular" weapons aficionado, your site might be considered the
equivalent of a top-flite skin site for a demented pervert.  That is to say,
an impressive quantity and quality of detailed and interesting nuclear
information, comprehensive and well presented.  An ideal of the promise and
potential of the Information Superhighway.

Dick Sheppard
Jersey City, NJ

Counter Punch:

Thank you very much.  Are you referring to the companion site for Atomic Audit or the site for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists?

Stephen Schwartz
Executive Director/Publisher
Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science/Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
World Wide Web:

Explanation and Final Offensive:

Am referring to the "50 Facts About U.S. Nucular Weapons".  Specifically, the highly detailed write-ups about the Mike, Castle, etal, H-bombadier tests.  Downright titillating stuff.  Recognizing that you are with the Bulletin (a politicized publication thoroughly out of step with innovative atomic thought), our fascination with nukers is likely diametric.  That is to say, it would be entertainment of the first order (potentially pay-per-view?) if every so often, a Big One was set off in a remote location.  Surely our grand earth can absorb such a "supra"-natural spectacle once in a while?  Even just once a year?  It's the fireworks principle, only several orders of magnitude greater

Just busting chops; but you guys were dead wrong about Ronnie Reagan, and have completely turned to dust in your thinking on missile defense.   What time is your atomic clock presently set at?  Recall when the Bulletin "dramatically" set it at "4 minutes to Midnight" during the Reagan years.  It must be now 12:01am?  Or it would be for the U.S. if America starts constructing ABMs.  And never mind "bullet-on-bullet" kill scenarios that make exo-atmospheric interception such a difficult sell.  In a real crisis, we can only hope and surmise that America's National Command Authorities will put some kilotons on the interceptors themselves, and see how many decoys get through THAT.   Takes a nuker to kill a nuker.


Dick Sheppard

Jersey City, NJ