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?

14 comments:

  1. I am currently asking the same question on my blog but about squirrels.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe if everyone has them, then it recognizes reality.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not 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.

    But I suppose nuking Norwich and Ipswich would get rid of 6 million caravans.

    ReplyDelete
  5. he opposed the development of the 'super', the hydrogen bomb, on the perfectly reasonable grounds that it seemed a bit, well, de trop.

    I wonder what the world would be like if our American cousins had a concept of a thing being a bit well, de trop.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Probably worse, over all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good guys with, bad guys without. Sorted. Next question...

    ReplyDelete
  8. The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nukes will likely be passe in a hundred years when there's Chinese and American death stars orbiting the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Scarcely 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.)

    So even complete, verified international disarmament would always be reversible.

    People always miss this basic point. Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Don't see how we can do without them - too vulnerable otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  12. only a nutter would actually use them - better without.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nukes - love 'em or hate 'em you can't... live or die without 'em...

    But 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.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A pretty round toe wedge that nike sb is dressy enough for work

    but cute enough to wear everyday, nike sb shoes Steve Madden’s

    “Suzanna” is sweet and sexy! nike dunks .

    ReplyDelete