Most Helpful Customer Reviews
27 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Don't worry about nuclear terrorism, be happy?, November 3, 2009
This review is from: Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda (Hardcover)
Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?)
Ohio State professor John Mueller has his work cut out for him: in the post-9/11 world, with North Korea and Iran working toward developing nuclear weapons, and with al Qaeda's Osama bin laden and Ayman al-Zawahari still hiding in Afghanistan or Pakistan somewhere, no doubt plotting against us, Mueller argues in "Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to al-Qaeda" that nuclear weapons are expensive, largely useless, and virtually impossible for terrorists to steal or build.
He develops his analysis in three parts. Part 1 looks at the actual effect of nuclear weapons and, along the way, points out that the casual lumping of chemical and biological weapons with nuclear ones into a category of "weapons of mass destruction" is something of a hysterical overreaction; conventional weapons (bullets, bombs) are far more effective at killing than chemical or biological weapons, and thus it doesn't really make sense to classify the latter with nuclear weapons. He's very persuasive on this point. As for nuclear weapons, they're bad, but Mueller explains why the detonation of one or even two atomic bombs wouldn't destroy the country. In short, we shouldn't overestimate the damage that a nuclear weapon would cause.
In Part 2, he turns his attention to history and suggests that nuclear weapons have played very little role in international politics and diplomacy, apart from wasting colossal resources and talent. He suggests that Japan would have surrendered even without the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, points out that Argentina had no qualms about starting the Falkland Islands war with Britain despite the latter's nuclear arsenal, and argues that anti-proliferation efforts have largely failed (and if anything, pushed rogue nations toward developing nuclear weapons). Since nukes are generally useless and expensive, he finds it not surprising that countries like Canada, Japan, and others -- which could easily have them if they wanted -- haven't bothered with them.
Finally, in Part 3, Mueller suggests that we spend far too much time obsessing about what will happen if/when al Qaeda gets a hold of a nuke, and far little time thinking about how unlikely this is. Getting a nuclear nation to give up a nuke is pretty unrealistic, he argues, because no one is going to want to be identified as the nation that armed terrorists. His argument here depends critically on what he calls "nuclear forensics" -- the ability to identify where a nuclear weapon that has exploded came from. Expecting terrorists to build their own atomic bomb while hiding out in caves is silly, he contends as well.
I found this a VERY comforting book to read, for obvious reasons. It's well-argued and written with a bit of wit (example: "There is something decidedly worse than being a disgruntled Russian scientist, and that is being a dead disgruntled Russian scientist."), so that it's a fast read despite the weight of the ideas. At the same time, while this book *should* be persuasive, it didn't quite close the deal for me. First, I'll admit that it's hard to feel at ease about nuclear terrorism, because even if it's a very small chance, it seems like a really bad outcome; Mueller can argue effectively that it's virtually zero probability, but still, it's not zero. Now, his point is that we shouldn't let near zero probabilities dictate our policies, and that at least is persuasive.
However, Mueller also relies on the nuclear forensics, yet says that this field is still developing. If it doesn't develop enough -- or if nuclear states don't know about it or don't believe it -- or worse yet, simply aren't rational, then there's no guarantee that deterrence will continue to work.
So, the upshot is, this is a very important book to read, as it's swimming against the tides. You'll feel better, even if, like me, you aren't fully persuaded.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
27 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Don't worry be happy! The best 3 star book you will ever buy!, October 27, 2009
This review is from: Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda (Hardcover)
Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?)
Atomic Obsession is a book that produces contradictions. It manages to both make its case and miss its mark at the same time.
The strongest points of the book are the scientific, the evaluation of the actual damage the atomic bomb. In terms of quantitative terms he is right on the money. His evaluation of the kinds of damage an actual terrorist attack would do to the country is also pretty sober and should be required reading for those seized in panic.
His evaluation of the actual difficulties involved for either a rogue nation or a terrorist organization is also pretty good. In particular his 20 tasks that a terrorist has to accomplish in order to deliver the bomb is first rate and I certainly hope our foes ignore his cost benefit analysis on some of these issues.
The book gets weaker when it deals with certain historical and political situations. He tends toward historical revisionism in dealing with Japan and WW II and this points on the fallacy of panic over nuclear war and the soviet threat during the cold war comes chiefly through hindsight, yet he fails to notes the failures in hindsight of those who assured us that the Soviets were strong and here to stay.
His ignorance of the Soviet Unions involvement "Nuclear Freeze" movement is horrifying. Yet his information on Chemical and biological war in history are again must reads, as he soberly takes a look at them in their historical context. He gives both Reagan and Cheney some of their due and he does correctly state that rouge nations will often use the "nuclear" threat to get financial and political advantage, yet he also totally discounts the religious motivation that makes some actors less than rational today.
What I think he really undersells however is the truth that a lot of the reason why these things have failed has been the "obsessive" efforts to prevent them. The attention and the training that this threat, however small, has been given has not only discouraged those who would attempt it but has also led to the capture and neutralization of lesser deadly threats.
In short his book could just as surely be an advice book to our foes against the allure of Nuclear attack as it is warning us of panic and a poor use of resources. As we have more resources the status quo would seem to be better as their resources represent a larger percentage of what they can spare than ours ever will.
To sum up on basic facts he is excellent, on political points and historical revision not so well. The odd thing is I don't think the author was trying to be ideological at all, in fact reading the book it is impossible to think that it was deliberate.
I've never had such a hard time rating a book. The book is so well written and the parts that are correct are SO good that it is a must read, but the parts that are wrong are just so wrong I can't believe the same author wrote them! I think this author should go on the road with his critics debating these issues a lot of good would come of it.
My judgment: There are too many issues with this book to give it more than 3 starts, but it is worth buying due to the important arguments that should not be ignored.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent discussion of nuclear weapons but less than thorough on some political situations from history and today, December 14, 2009
This review is from: Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda (Hardcover)
Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?)
John Mueller writes this book with a fascinating premise---those nuclear weapons we've been concerned about all of these years? Well, you can stop worrying---they aren't as big a danger to the world as you thought.
I likely would not have bought this book as I figured it was a screed against the perceived obsession with war on the right, and perhaps an anti-atomic book. I was pleasantly surprised to find some well reasoned discussion on atomic weapons and their respective place in this world. I have come away from the book not entirely clear on the author's politics, just that he feels both Democrats and Republicans have equally used the atomic fear to funnel more power to themselves (which would likely put him in Ron Paul's camp on foreign policy, but I did not read anything to indicate that).
While I may not agree with its every conclusion, the general premise is a sound one and one that we hear in public policy all the time. Can nuclear weapons kill a lot of people? Yes---but so can airplanes, bombs, bullets, etc. The firebombing of Dresden killed far more than the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. The premise is that as a weapon of war, nuclear weaponry takes far more maintenance and money than it is worth as a strategic weapon. A great comparison is made to Hitler's V-weapons, large scary looking rockets that diverted his resources and did not do appreciable damage. The author says that just as Hitler would have been better off building more airplanes and fewer rockets, so would modern militaries find other conventional investment more useful and damaging in war. Did you know that the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima didn't even take out the bridges? Much of the death was caused by flash fires on old dry wooden huts that made the city a tinderbox. Newer buildings suffered broken glass, but not instant "vaporization".
The danger of terrorists setting off a nuke? Why use a nuclear weapon when 19 guys with box-cutters could do so much more damage. The steps to actually setting off a nuclear device are so complex that there are easier ways to kill. And a dirty bomb? Leaving the area in a slow and methodical manner is a lot safer, and dangerous fallout levels are greatly exaggerated by our EPA. Every city has a certain level of background radiation, and a slight rise over normal is considered dangerous, even when that slight rise is LESS than other cities in the world where people live normally. For instance, a city with a normal background radiation of 4mSv rising to 5mSv is considered uninhabitable due to radiation damage, but there are cities that normally sit at 7, and even 15+ mSv with no ill effects.
The author argues persuasively that our mania over controlling nuclear weapons just makes them more desirable. Nuclear weapons mean a country is world leader, hence tin-pot dictators seek them. My own analogy--college kids often drink more beer when under 21 than over 21 (being illicit makes things seem cool). Plus, just because a country has nuclear weapons, doesn't mean they will be used. The same warnings were issued on China going nuclear (bet you forgot China has nukes) that are issued today on Iran. And the charge that with nukes, Saddam would control the middle east? The US has nukes, and we can't even control Baghdad! Israel used its nukes during 1973 as a threat to the US (support our defensive war, or we will have to resort to nukes). North Korea has developed Nukes, but similarly just uses them to blackmail the US for aid.
I do have some qualms with the book. Mostly, I do believe that in his zeal to allay fears over nuclear weapons, he glosses over the genuine threat posed by Iran. The point should be that it is not the weapon we should fear, but Iran itself, nuclear or not. Ditto for Al Qaeda. He tries to say that 9/11 shocked the Arab world and destroyed support for Al Qaeda. I think US predator drones shooting at their leaders likely hurt them far more than a general "loss of support in the Arab world". He basically says Ahmandinejad is a wind bag. This may be true, but those behind him have been planning Iran's rise to power for years. There is also quite a bit of revisionist history---assuming that Japan would have surrendered without the nuclear bomb (when even after Nagasaki, some elements wanted to keep fighting), and assuming that the Soviet Union was destined to fail (many said the Soviets would be here forever). He is correct in his assertion that the Soviets didn't want armed struggle with the US proper---they did operate through subverting society. To that extent, America's singular focus on the nuclear arms race made policy makers miss the more insidious infection of culture with communist ideas.
In summary, I am glad I read the book and feel I gained an appreciation for the fact that the nuclear threat itself is rather overblown. The central thesis that mere possession of nuclear weapons is not easy and not as important as general military power is well proven. The book is an important addition to the world scene, but augment your reading with books such as "The Devil We Know" on Iran, and others the present a more contextual and thorough treatment on WWII and the Cold War.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
