Thursday, July 16, 2009
On Nukes
And, while on the subject of BBC4, I watched a gripping documentary called The Trials of Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer, having created the atom bomb, was then persecuted because he was suspected of being a traitor, not least because he opposed the development of the 'super', the hydrogen bomb, on the perfectly reasonable grounds that it seemed a bit, well, de trop, a genocide device rather than a weapon. The doc said that, because of America's pursuit of ever more and ever bigger bombs, the Soviets had no choice but to follow suit. This was pure BBC ideology - the Soviets were just as keen on more and bigger - which weakened the show. Meanwhile, it is slightly startling to find Issey Miyake writing about nukes in the NYT. I have his clothes - they last forever and the buttons don't fall off - but I didn't know he was a Hiroshima survivor. He says he has always been reluctant to talk about this. Understandably, he wants to rid the world of nukes. Is this possible? Is it desirable? Any such agreement could be broken in secret and then those who conformed would be at the mercy of those who defected. On the other hand, that could be an argument for everybody having nukes, including assorted nutters who would definitely use them. Nukes - better with/better without?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A blog about, among other things, imaginary ideas - What ifs? and Imagine thats. What if photographs looked nothing like what we see with our eyes? Imagine that the Berlin Wall had never come down. What if we were the punchline of an interminable joke? All contributions welcome.
I am currently asking the same question on my blog but about squirrels.
ReplyDeleteA cultural aftershock of nuclear catastrophe: hard-wearing clothes with sturdy buttons? I suppose it would tend to make you lean one of two ways, careful or reckless.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if everyone has them, then it recognizes reality.
ReplyDeleteNot much point nuking Blighty if East Anglia is anything to go by. with what seems 3/4 of the population being 55 or over we will all be gone pretty soonish anyway.
ReplyDeleteBut I suppose nuking Norwich and Ipswich would get rid of 6 million caravans.
he opposed the development of the 'super', the hydrogen bomb, on the perfectly reasonable grounds that it seemed a bit, well, de trop.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the world would be like if our American cousins had a concept of a thing being a bit well, de trop.
Probably worse, over all.
ReplyDeleteGood guys with, bad guys without. Sorted. Next question...
ReplyDeleteThe Americans actually have a very well-developed concept of de trop. They apply it to anybody else in the world with more arms than they.
ReplyDeleteNukes will likely be passe in a hundred years when there's Chinese and American death stars orbiting the planet.
ReplyDeleteScarcely possible to rid the world of nukes, as any country with a civil nuclear programme and a good technological/engineering base could make 'em in six months starting from scratch. (This is the option that the Japanese are believed to hold in reserve, and plenty of other countries are equally capable of doing so.)
ReplyDeleteSo even complete, verified international disarmament would always be reversible.
People always miss this basic point. Sigh.
Don't see how we can do without them - too vulnerable otherwise.
ReplyDeleteonly a nutter would actually use them - better without.
ReplyDeleteNukes - love 'em or hate 'em you can't... live or die without 'em...
ReplyDeleteBut on a matter of accuracy, this film was made for WGBH by an American producer, and was bought in by the BBC Storyville strand.
Storyville showcases independent documentaries. Sadly the Beeb no longer makes committed political docs.
They should.
A pretty round toe wedge that nike sb is dressy enough for work
ReplyDeletebut cute enough to wear everyday, nike sb shoes Steve Madden’s
“Suzanna” is sweet and sexy! nike dunks .