"the close relationship between Atoms for Peace and Atoms for War is no accident"

[bananas]

Martin Hellman points to an interesting article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

http://nuclearrisk.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/atoms-for-peace-atoms-for-war/

Atoms for Peace, Atoms for War
Posted on May 1, 2011 by Nuclear Risk

Atoms for Peace always seemed like an oxymoron to me. A number of today’s nuclear-armed nations got their start under either the US or Soviet versions, and Iran’s supposedly peaceful nuclear program will soon make it a virtual nuclear power – meaning that, if it so desires, it will be able to rapidly produce a bomb by turning its commercial uranium enrichment to military use. A recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists suggests that the close relationship between Atoms for Peace and Atoms for War is no accident:

In 1955, told a reporter: “… In any combat where these things can be used on strictly military targets and for strictly military purposes, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else.” When Eisenhower suggested to Winston Churchill’s emissary Jock Colville that “there was no distinction between ‘conventional’ weapons and atomic weapons: all weapons in due course become conventional,” Colville recalled, horrified, “I could hardly believe my ears.”

… Europeans were terrified that the United States would start a nuclear war, which Eisenhower threatened to do over Korea, over the Suez Canal, and twice over the Taiwan Strait islands of Quemoy and Matsu. European allies begged Eisenhower to show restraint.

Public revulsion at the normalization of nuclear war threatened to derail the Eisenhower administration’s plans. The minutes of a March 1953 meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) stated: “the President and Secretary Dulles were in complete agreement that somehow or other the tabu which surrounds the use of atomic weapons would have to be destroyed. While Secretary Dulles admitted that in the present state of world opinion we could not use an A-bomb, we should make every effort now to dissipate this feeling.”

Eisenhower decided that the best way to destroy that taboo was to shift the focus from military uses of nuclear energy to socially beneficial applications. Stefan Possony, Defense Department consultant to the Psychological Strategy Board, had argued: “the atomic bomb will be accepted far more readily if at the same time atomic energy is being used for constructive ends.” On December 8, 1953, Eisenhower delivered his “Atoms for Peace” speech at the United Nations … pledged to spread the benefits of peaceful atomic power at home and abroad.

The article is:

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/japans-nuclear-history-perspective-eisenhower-and-atoms-war-and-peace

Japan's nuclear history in perspective: Eisenhower and atoms for war and peace
By Peter Kuznick | 13 April 2011

Article Highlights
- The United States heavily promoted nuclear energy in Japan after World War II, and, despite an initially reluctant public, the industry eventually flourished.
- President Dwight Eisenhower's promises of peaceful nuclear energy applications masked a huge increase in the US arsenal, as well as an increased reliance on nuclear weapons in war planning.
- The catastrophe at Fukushima could lead to a reassessment of nuclear energy in Japan that leads the country to reject the perceived necessity of the US nuclear umbrella.

<snip>

[madokie]

1. Safe nuclear energy was a lie from the get go

One of the Manhattan Project mathematicians retired and moved near us back in the early '50s and he and my dad became good friends as he came to my dads church. I remember them talking about the use of atomic energy and he was terrified of the thought of using atomic energy for generating our electrical needs. I was just a kid, born in 'march of 48 but I remember the worry dads friend showed. At the time of his time working on the bomb he was never aware that what they were doing was to build the bomb as it was kept secret from everyone except a few but it payed well. He was given mathematical problems to solve and at the time it seemed all so innocent but after the dropping of the bombs on Japan in August of '45 they all were made aware of the nature of the job they were doing. In other words even then he was being lied to just as we are today when anyone says that nuclear energy is safe.

For the record my dad was never a preacher and never claimed to be he only gave the land for and built the church that still stands today. He quite his drinking and became religious around the time I was born and they moved to the neighborhood where I was born and there was no churches nearby so dad started one. He never profited from it in any way

I'd like to add this wiki link to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
and to say that I was at a very impressionable age when the nuclear stand off with Russia in Cuba was happening and its still very clear in my head as to that scary time.
I was maybe a little bit more aware of it than other kids of my age at the time because of the many conversations my dad and his friend had that I overheard concerning atomic energy. Dads friend died still upset that he was mislead concerning what he was a part of. When I returned form Vietnam and Public Service fo Oklahome decided to build a nuclear power plant up wind of where I was raised it was only natural that I protest that as I too had been lied to and lost 15 months of my early adulthood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Fox_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[Kolesar]

2. "Defense Department consultant to the Psychological Strategy Board"

Our defense and energy policy is a big PR game.