Bombs and rockets – Page 32 – a sibilant intake of breath

Valkyrie

Last night, I watched Valkyrie with my brothers. It was most interesting at the level of historiography (a term I used to despise). It portrays a group of high-level German officers who tried to assassinate Hitler and replace his government. Based on some cursory internet research, it is a fairly accurate portrayal of the July plot. I hadn’t realized that there was such an extensive plan for replacing the German government after Hitler’s planned execution. The officers participating are portrayed as self-sacrificing heroes, basically motivated by their opposition to Hitler’s immoral actions – though the fact that they perceived Germany to be losing the war was obviously important. It is hard to imagine such a film coming out closer in history to the Second World War itself. It really seems to shift the blame for German atrocities to Hitler and the SS specifically, reducing the burden of guilt on the rest of the German armed forces and German society. While it is important to tell the story of resistance, my sense is that a film like this has more value as a partial counterargument than as an integrated whole. This made it somewhat awkward that is was obviously the first WWII film seen by a young cousin of mine, who continued asking questions about the motivations of various characters throughout the showing.

One other distinct oddity was the large number of actors with British accents playing German roles. It left you thinking: “No wonder these men are trying to kill Hitler. They are British soldiers who somehow infiltrated the German army, without anybody noticing!”

On a side note, this was the first film I ever saw on Blu-Ray and a high definition television. The resolution is certainly higher, and the motion more fluid. The latter so much so that the film often looked as though it had been sped up for comic effect. It was disconcerting more than impressive, but I am sure you would get used to it. While there are certainly benefits to working in high resolution digital as a native format for making films, it bears remembering that movies shot on actual film can be re-scanned at later dates into whatever technology becomes available. Those shot at a set digital resolution will never look better than the first format that is capacious enough to include all the original data.

Marriages and alliances

In Frank Herbert’s Dune, the character Lady Jessica is under orders from a powerful group to only bear her husband daughters. Eventually, it is revealed that the purpose of this was to ensure that her daughter could be wed to the son of an enemy clan, in order to seal the rift between them.

While such marriages have a medieval feel, it certainly seems to be the case that such unions can unite differing factions and promote the emergence of new political unions. It will be interesting to see how gay marriage changes that dynamic, especially if it spreads beyond liberal democracies. Such unions will not be able to produce biological children – for the foreseeable future – but perhaps they will still serve the role of binding groups together.

How different Dune would have been if Paul Atreides could have wed Feyd-Rautha or Glossu Rabban.

Obama’s speech in Cairo

President Obama’s speech on the United States and the Muslim world, delivered in Cairo, is worth watching:

It covers the history of Islam, the United States, and the Muslim world. It also covers Afghanistan, Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, nuclear proliferation, democracy, religious freedom, the rights of women, and economic development. Many translations are available. Climate change was not directly mentioned, despite its considerable importance for both Muslims and Americans.

At the very least, the speech demonstrates the change in tone between this administration and the last one. Whether it is the start of something more meaningful, time will tell. Slate has some commentary: relatively positive and more negative.

Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics

Tom Roger’s Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics teaches basic science principles in one of the most entertaining ways possible: by illustrating the ways in which elements of popular Hollywood films are hopelessly out of line with the physical laws that exist in our universe. Topics covered include the laws of motion, gravitation, vehicles, the behaviour of weapons, relativity, extreme weather, space travel, and more.

While the book may seem whimsical, Rogers makes the important point that movies are a form of vicarious experience for people. For most of us, they have provided most of our ‘knowledge’ about firearms, knives, the extreme operation and destruction of vehicles, the destruction of buildings, etc. By consistently misrepresenting these things, films leave people ill-equipped to understand the phenomena in the real world.

In addition to this, Rogers’ book includes a detailed debunking of two conspiracy theories partially fuelled by a poor understanding of physics. In the first, he discusses the physics of the JFK assassination, in the context of the popular film. He argues that the official account is convincing for a number of reasons, and that the film has helped to entrench a serious misunderstanding in the minds of many Americans. The second conspiracy theory – that the World Trade Centre was destroyed using explosives planted inside – is similarly based in a bad understanding of physics, and similarly damaging in terms of the way in which it colours people’s thinking.

The kind of people who take delight in outsmarting the people who make movies will probably find this book very entertaining. Those trying to teach physics concepts may also find it useful as a mechanism for engaging people and having them explore ideas in an imaginative but realistic way.

Dark Sun

The whole technical and chilling history of atomic weapons is reviewed in Richard Rhodes’ Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. Released in 1995, it is based substantially on documents that became available after the end of the Cold War, documenting the development of nuclear and thermonuclear bombs in the United States and Soviet Union, as well as delving into issues of international politics, espionage, and delivery systems.

Most people are likely to find some aspects of the book tedious, while others are fascinating. For instance, I noted all the descriptions of design details of nuclear and thermonuclear issues with interest, but found a lot of the minute descriptions of espionage activities tedious (especially descriptions of nearly every meeting between the atomic spies and their contacts). That said, the book will certainly offer good rewards to anyone with an interest in some aspect of nuclear weapons or the Cold War.

The last few pages really ought to be read by everyone. They document the shocking behaviour of Curtis LeMay and the Strategic Air Command (SAC) in the period prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as during it. At the time, LeMay and some of his commanders could use nuclear weapons without presidential authority; they were also obsessed with striking first, and generally convinced that war with Russia was inevitable. Perhaps the most shocking actions detailed are LeMay’s strategy of flying nuclear-capable bombers over targets like Vladivostok, in the Soviet Union. They were running drills and taking photos, but it looked to the Russians exactly like an atomic attack. I don’t think Rhodes is wrong to suggest that, had the Soviets done something similar in America, the SAC would have launched an all-out attack against them. Rhodes marshals compelling evidence that LeMay did, at times, seek to provoke a nuclear war through initiatives like these flights and the provocative American ballistic missile test undertaken during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The book’s closing also laments the enormous amounts of sacrifice made to build up these massive, threatening stocks of weapons. The Oak Ridge and Hanford complexes, producing fissile materials, used more energy than the Tennessee Valley Authority, Hoover, Grand Coulee, and Bonneville dams could produce together. One year of expanding the facilities required 11% of US nickel production and 34% of the output of stainless steel. All told, Rhodes estimates that the arms race cost America over $4 trillion, which could have otherwise been put to productive uses. On the Soviet side, the story is far more appalling: with thousands of slaves being terrorized and irradiated in the drive to match the American weapons complex. The irony is that, while generals and arms manufacturers clamoured for ever-more warheads, politicians on both sides of the Iron Curtain had already come to understand that the weapons could never be used. Indeed, Rhodes’ account provides a nice counter-argument to the view that all politicians are short-sighted and lacking in wisdom.

All told, Rhodes’ account is an excellent one: historically rigorous, but alive to the human issues raised inevitably by the subject matter. It’s a book that is deeply relevant in a world where US-Russian tensions are growing, weapons are proliferating, and a terrifying number of bombs are still deployed on 15-minute hair-trigger alerts.

Building fission bombs

As recommended by a fellow attendee at the unofficial summer ‘grill thrill’ barbecues, I am currently reading Richard Rhodes’ Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. While the book can be detailed to the point of exhaustion sometimes, it does contain a lot of interesting information, on everything from atomic bomb design to the differences in governmental structure and operation in the United States and Soviet Union.

One thing the book has definitely done is diminish my concerns about terrorists building nuclear weapons. Even the ‘simple’ gun-type configuration uranium bomb is a lot more complicated that many of the diagrams and descriptions I have seen would make you believe. A plutonium implosion device is far more complex still. Getting from a sufficient quantity of fissile material to a working bomb is an extremely complex undertaking, requiring a lot of equipment and expertise. It also requires a lot of exotic materials and manufacturing processes. It is certainly easier now than it was for the Russians in 1949 (largely because more information is available), but the degree may not be as great as most people think. Because of espionnage, the Russians actually had the plans for the American bombs while they were building their own. Even under intense pressure from Stalin and Beria and with considerable resources (including access to industrial facilities and thousands of forced labourers), it took the Soviets four years to copy them. That makes it seem unlikely that terrorists without significant support from a state, access to industrial facilities, and high degrees of technical knowledge could emulate them.

Another interesting topic covered in the book is the hasty abandonment of Los Alamos at the end of the war. It would make interesting reading for those who saw the advent of atomic weapons as an immediate sea change in warfare. As it happened, there was apparently a long period after the war where no usable weapons were assembled and available, and the teams of people who would be required to make them so were dispersed around the United States, doing other things. The first bombs definitely weren’t designed with simplicity or shelf-life as a top priority. As a consequence, most of the deterrent effect of the bombs in the immediate post-war period was based around faulty information.

I will write a full review of the book when I have finished it.

[Update: 12 April 2010] My full review was online quite a while ago: Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb.

Lockheed Martin’s green advertising

One page 51 of the March 7th issue of The Economist, I noticed an unusual advertisement for Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defence contractor by revenue:

When you read the text at the bottom, the error in the ad is obvious. Somehow, the advertising firm they hired failed to include any actual Lockheed Martin products. It is all well and good to express your firm’s sincere support for reduced consumption and increased conservation, but it seems important to include some evidence of the concrete actions your firm takes.

With that in mind, I took it upon myself to add one of their quality products, the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile:

These are the missiles that make up the deterrent force of the United Kingdom, another entity sincerely committed to environmental protection. Lockheed also manufactures fighter jets, munitions, missile defence systems, and satellite-launching rockets.

I encourage others with a bit of Photoshop skill to add other Lockheed products to the ad. Here is my original photo. If someone could produce a higher-quality scan, that would be excellent.

Threats from war and climate change

Some threats to society strike people as so severe they justify employing large numbers of people, at taxpayer expense, to mitigate them. Chief among these is probably the danger that foreigners will try to kill us. Largely to combat this, Canadians pay for 65,251 active military personnel and 24,300 reservists. We also contribute a bit more than 1% of our gross domestic product.

At best, the operation of these institutions will leave us as well off as we are now. The money spent on bombs and military vehicles is primarily expended so as to minimize the risks associated with being attacked (though domestic industry and humanitarian concern are also factors).

Now consider climate change: probably the greatest threat facing humanity in the foreseeable future. I can’t tell you exactly how many taxpayer-funded agents are working on the problem, but it is certainly a very small fraction of the armed forces total. Should that number not be increased, so as to bring the allocation of resources more closely in line with the suite of threats we face? The case becomes even stronger when you recognize that climate change workers (say, people performing free building retrofits) have all the advantages of soldiers, plus additional benefits. Climate change mitigation is a humanitarian activity – the faster we bring emissions down to a sustainable level, the less suffering will occur in future generations worldwide due to the effects of climate change. Climate change mitigation and adaptation can have domestic economic benefits: not only do efficient buildings have lower year-on-year costs for heating, cooling, and lighting but they may also make those who live and work in them happier and more productive.

The idea of employing, say, 10% as many people to fight climate change as to fight foreigners is not entirely unproblematic. Providing free retrofits might undercut the businesses that perform such operations for profit now. That being said, I am sure careful policy design could minimize such problems. The biggest hurdle to overcome is the psychological block between facing the threat of climate change and employing people to combat it. Actually, rather than a block it might be more accurately referred to as the absence of a connection, between where our likely societal problems lie and where our societal resources are being directed.

Admittedly, you could achieve many of the same outcomes through market liberal climate strategies, such as carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes. The potential advantage of doing it through government labour is that the market liberal policies are hard to implement: firms often oppose them tooth-and-nail and convince voters that they will cause economic harm to them personally. Given the strength of entrenched interests, it would take remarkable political will to deploy the kind of market mechanism that would produce the required change at an acceptable pace.

Some outstanding questions jump to mind. Would a public climate change service be sensible or useful? What would such a service do? How could unfair competition with the private sector be addressed? Is there a politically feasible way to achieve the same outcomes with fewer problems or lower costs? All of these seem worth debating.

Note also that if you extend the 10% logic to the United States and China, you are talking about huge numbers of mitigation workers. The American armed forces comprise about 1.5 million people, with that many again in reserves. The US spends more than 4% of GDP on them. China has 2.25 million active personnel and 800,000 reservists. They spend about 1.7% of their GDP on them.

Rebuild the Orbiting Carbon Observatory

A week ago, NASA’s carbon dioxide (CO2) tracking satellite was destroyed en route to space by a faulty booster. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was intended to produce large numbers of measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in different parts of the atmosphere. In so doing, it would have helped to identify major CO2 sources and sinks – deepening our understanding of the carbon cycle under human influence. Given the destruction of the original instrument, I think the only sensible course of action is to rebuild it as quickly as can be managed and place it into orbit.

The original mission cost about US$280 million and took about nine years to reach a launch attempt. That being said, it stands to reason that building a second unit would cost less, given that the design and concept testing has already been done. We might also hope that a second unit could be assembled, tested, and launched more quickly. Even if a replacement would cost as much as the original, it would be less than $1 per American, far less per human being, and some tiny fraction of the cost of wars and bank bailouts.

As IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has said: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.” Satellite images of the ozone hole helped to propel international action to restrict the emission of CFCs. There is reason to hope that similar data on greenhouse gasses might generate an equivalent political push. Even if it doesn’t, and the data from the OCO remains under the exclusive scrutiny of geeks, it should give us a deeper understanding of how the basic chemical, physical, and biological systems of the planet function – and how human beings are researching them. That is information worth $280 million.

One could do as some have and point to the US$$400 million that NASA was granted in the American stimulus package, specifically for climate change research. One could also point to the fundamental wastefulness and irrelevance of manned spaceflight, given our current problems. Either way, the United States should scrape together the cash for a new satellite, and put it on a more reliable rocket this time.

Dealing with space junk

Junk in space is an increasingly severe problem, as both the quantity of useless debris and the number of useful satellites increases. Aside from international censure, there isn’t especially much that can be done at present to punish those who make the problem worse, as China did when they blew up one of their satellites in 2007.

A good international approach to mitigating the problem might resemble the following: an international agreement among space-faring states to avoid the production of such debris, coupled with a penalty system for situations in which it occurs. The money from the fines could be put into an insurance fund. Then, when collisions take place between unmanned satellites or manned space vehicles, some level of compensation could be paid out of that fund.

Setting up such a system would require the support and goodwill of quite a number of states. Nonetheless, it might help make the regions of space closest to our planet somewhat more orderly and well-governed.