Customer Reviews

With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I read Scheer's book when it first came out many, many years ago and was struck by the preposterous, but adamant, assertion by one of the lesser players: Richard Perle. Facts are not facts, but rather confirmation of a "world-view" of reality. A nugget of the book, and partly where the title comes from, is that Perle claimed that satellite photos of the Soviet Union showed mass-shoveling outside major cities. True enough. This meant--indeed was entirely inscrutable for any other reason unless--according to Perle, the Soviets believed that if the population dug shallow ditches and covered each other with dirt, then the Soviets would withstand the fall-out from nuclear conflagration. Such shoveling must therefore be practice for nuclear conflict, according to Mr. Perle. Thus, "With Enough Shovels" . . . I had never heard of Perle, but I graduated with a political science degree in the mid-70s. In studying the Soviet's failed economy, we learned of the failed food production and how the "masses" were harnessed to harvest potatoes and other root food stuffs to stave off food shortages [you need shovels to dig for such]. Perle knew nothing of what he was talking about. But that little slowed him from fantastic claims. Political quackery posing as incisive analysis of the evil empire. Amazing. Amazing. Nothing has changed.

I happened on this book in January 2003 when we were not sure "if" and "when" we were being lnto Iraq, the week PBS replayed the 1996 Gulf War video in which Colin Powell said nuclear power was an option there. Suddenly this book sounds very scary, especially as the author emphasizes that he had reason to think from preelection interviews with Bush when he was running for president against Reagan, that Bush believed nuclear war was winnable. I have not checked out all of the facts, and the other reviewer here who questions them may have a point, but if the younger Bush is in fact heavily influenced by his father now, then we may be in for some frightening days ahead, and I a not happy to see Bush the son with the hand on the nuclear trigger.The book is facinating, especially written as it was just barely into Reagan's two terms."Evil empire""Axix of evil"Similar, aren't they ?

Scheer shows how Reagan and Bush supported the small fringe of scientists who thought nuclear war winnable and actually bought into their theories. Let's be glad the Soviets started getting competent leaders like Gorby just as we were having a decline in our leadership talent. Scheer does a good job of utilizing information from the majority of the scientific community to show that nuclear war is just not "winnable" and thus should never be attempted. I guess following the ideas of an Einstein go against Reaganism.

"I read Scheer's book when it first came out many, many years ago and was struck by the preposterous, but adamant, assertion by one of the lesser players: Richard Perle. Facts are not facts, but rather confirmation of a "world-view" of reality. A nugget of the book, and partly where the title comes from, is that Perle claimed that satellite photos of the Soviet Union showed mass-shoveling outside major cities."

I'm looking at an image of the hardcover book dust jacket on another page, you can google it if you like... it reads, "Dig a hole, throw two or three doors on top of it, and then cover it with three feet of dirt. It's the dirt that does it. If there are enough shovels around, everyone is going to make it". T.K. Jones, Dept. Under Secretary of Defense for Strategic and Nuclear Forces.

That is where the title of the book comes from. The thesis of this title which was originally published in 1982 (that is important, this was EARLY in the Reagan era), was that the US Government under Reagan had adopted an aggressive policy of promoting fear among Russians that the United States thought we could survive a nuclear exchange with Russia. The Russians weren't the ones digging trenches to survive a nuclear war. We wanted the Russians to believe that this was OUR plan. The goal was to convince them to enter into an arms race that they couldn't possibly win, which would cause their economy to collapse and make them reform their Communist system of Government.

That loony neocon Mr. Reagan... what a crazy cowboy. How could he ever have thought that this plan could have worked...

What... what is that? The Soviet Union suffered an economic collapse and embraced a more democratic society? You don't say...

Oh... *nevermind*... Let's focus on Bush W. and what a rotten guy HE is, in that case...

The value of this book is that it the author got it ALL right. Reagan was in a staring contest with the Soviet Union, and he made them blink. He convinced them that he and his administration was crazy, and they were so caught up in that - they bankrupted themselves, causing the collapse of soviet communism. Now... the laughable thing is that the author painted Reagan and his administration as lunatic conservative warmongerers with an irresponsible plan that didn't have a chance at success and that was more likely to result in a horrible nuclear exchange between Russia and America.

Yup... hindsite is 20/20... and I bet this author doesn't like to discuss this book, or doesn't have much political credibility. I suppose that is the danger in writing history books before the history has occured.

It has been over a decade since I read Scheer's ill-informed diatribe against defense in general and Reagan in particular. I don't normally pan books that I read, but I make an exception in this case because it is so awful -- deserving zero stars were such a measure available.

Having worked in the defense industry for years, being patronized by a liberal Clintonist flak does not increase my appreciation for the author's arrogant nonsense. His "facts" are uniformly wrong and his conclusions unfounded. But _Shovels_ does reveal a characteristic of liberal "journalists" that was refreshing -- the author includes his interview with Reagan in which he repeatedly interrupts the then-candidate for president. In particular I recall Sheer's moral equivalism between occidental republics and Marxist tyrannies and dismissal of the Soviet GULag. Since I have relatives who perished there, my sentiments to those who find socialist utopian fantasies enlightening is one of disgust.