Comments on: 61 Years Ago Today

By: Jay Manifold

Jay Manifold — Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:53:13 +0000

Dyson pointed out in Weapons and Hope that the nuclear airplane had two problems, one minor, one major. The minor problem was that the reactor could not be adequately shielded within the weight limitations of the airplane. The major problem was that nobody could figure out what the airplane's mission was. Being able to hit a WMD depot or command bunker in the 'stans without a) killing a million people or b) spending three months and $20 billion staging the necessary hardware does not pose such problems. I expect, however, that there would be quite a tussle over the launch of a space-based weapon to be left in orbit for possible future use against targets on Earth. Practical technological advances do indeed deserve to be the big stories, but they usually aren't; see, for example, this list, on which the Wright Bros come in 4th (and looks like I'm wrong about Apollo 11 beating out the Bomb). That's a fun site -- try comparing the male and female results.

By: Richard A. Heddleson

Richard A. Heddleson — Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:05:20 +0000

“Were it not for Project Apollo, it (the first atomic chain reaction) would have been remembered as the greatest milestone of science and technology in the 20th century.”

I’d definitely rate the Wright Brothers above Apollo. Precisely because it was probably the last last milestone of science and technology to take place outside a university or industrial research lab.

Discovery of antibiotics, the Green Revolution and computing have had a much greater impact on the daily life of the average person. The discovery of DNA and mapping of the human genome have not yet made their full effect known.

With all this talk about CONUS, rapid delivery and time on target, the next thing you know people will be resurrecting the nuclear airplane to add to the list.

By: Lex

Lex — Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:34:16 +0000

Jay, I am liking all this.

I like the picture of the hypersonic troop transport very, very much.

There was an article in the Atlantic a few years ago, about how the proliferation of ballistic missiles, even with conventional warheads was going to make our overseas bases untenable. The author’s prescription: haul down the flag and retreat to CONUS. (I love that: “CONUS”. It sounds so 1950s SF — I imagine a man in a silver jumpsuit coming out of a silver rocketship, “greetings, citizens of CONUS!”). But, as John Belushi (another ChicagoBoy for our masthead?) used to say “…noooo”. Forget overseas bases — we’ll base everything here, behind an ABM shield, and be able to arrive with the whole picnic set, troops, guns, ammo, etc., with 45 minutes notice. Of course, we will precede the landing with a wave of attacks launched from our hypersonic drones, which will fling tungsten bars at Mach 4 through the roofs of all identified bad guys in the area. (It all reminds me of Starship Troopers, except EVEN BETTER.)

By: Angie Schultz

Angie Schultz — Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:29:26 +0000

And don’t forget the (apocryphal?) origin of SCRAM (emergency reactor shutdown, for those of you playing along at home).

By: Jim English

Jim English — Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:21:22 +0000

My father worked at Argonne National Lab (operated by the UC) for about 20 years. During that time he spent a number of years developing and testing nuclear reactors. It may not make me popular in the social set, but I share Jay’s pride in this incredible achievement. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is. These scientists and engineers stood in the adjacent room while the reaction occurred. I can think of few instances outside of combat where people layed their lives on the line in such a dramatic fashion to test their theories. They are true American heroes one and all (in the ballsy American sense, not necessarily in Nationality).

Jim English
Chicago