50th Anniversary Essay


syrakusos

Recommended Posts

Fifty years ago – on October 4 and October 6, 1957 – two launches hallmarked the conflict between socialism and capitalism. One was Sputnik, the first man-made satellite to orbit the Earth, sent aloft by the U.S.S.R. The second was the publication by Random House of Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, a multilayered meta-discussion, at once a romantic mystery, a philosophic detection and a book of parables.

On the surface, this is a story about business leaders who resist government intervention. At one point in the story, a director from the State Science Institute confronts the owner of a steel mill, who is guilty of an anti-trust violation: “Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. …We’re after power and we mean it. … There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. … Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.” Twenty years ago, when financial genius Michael Milken was prosecuted by Rudolph Giuliani, fans sent copies of the book to Milken while he was in prison. In the nineties, they spoke up to defend Microsoft against federal anti-trust investigations. More recently, admirers of Atlas Shrugged wrote letters of support to Martha Stewart when she was imprisoned.

Like many durable allegories, this story is framed by a quest. The questing heroine is Dagny Taggart, heiress and vice president of operations of a railroad. She begins by seeking the inventor of a motor that can covert static electricity to kinetic energy. She also takes on the search for a destructive enemy whom she knows only by small clues of physical evidence. Of course, they must be the same man for the myth to convey nuance.

Linguistic anthropologists explain that campfire stories touch us below the conscious level. However, Atlas Shrugged is explicitly rational, structured by Aristotlean logic, and presented in declarative sentences. Moreover, in traditional myth – Herakles versus the Hydra or Gilgamesh and Enkidu versus Humbaba – the existence of evil is accepted as natural. Atlas Shrugged questions the existence of evil as an independent agency and denies the efficacy of the unreal. Yet, the very image of Atlas, the titan who holds up the sky (or the world), shrugging tugs at the mind as does the tension of a “nightmare” on your neighborhood “Elm Street.”

Just as the informal inventions of preliterate people evolved into epic poems which themselves were resculpted by minstrels and novelists, the process continues in our day with cinema. Atlas Shrugged is being made into a movie. Although several previous attempts were abandoned in the 1970s and eighties, the current effort by Lion’s Gate seems on track. The starring role has been awarded to Angelina Jolie.

In addition to Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead and Anthem. She also edited several anthologies of non-fiction about philosophy, economics, and art. All of these have sold more 30 million copies with sales pacing at 400,000 a year. A literature search will return interpretive works about Ayn Rand or her philosophy of Objectivism. The Ayn Rand Society is an affiliate of the American Philosophical Association (as are the Bertrand Russell Society and William James Society).

In 1991, on behalf of the Library of Congress, the Book-of-the-Month Club polled its members on “Books that Made a Difference in Readers’ Lives.” Atlas Shrugged ranked second, behind the Bible. In online voting hosted by Random House Atlas Shrugged placed first as “the best novel in the English language.” A similar poll by the Modern Library asked for the “100 Greatest” novels. The editors cited none of Ayn Rand’s works. However, the readers placed all four of them in the top ten.

When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, it proved that it could match the USA in its ability to drop an atomic bomb on any city on Earth. Today, our civilization is threatened by different gangs of thugs, each determined to destroy all the others. Atlas Shrugged exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of all such “mystics of muscle” and glorified the individuals of achievement who make cities possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to OL, Michael, and thanks!

In 1957 I was nine years old. That year was the 50th anniversary of statehood for my state Oklahoma. There was a terrific expostition at the State Fairgrounds in Oklahoma City to celebrate the occasion. The exhibition was called "Arrows to Atoms."

My folks had bought our 2-acre lot just outside the city for $600. We were building our house ourselves. It was a ranch style of 2700 sq. ft. The lot had some outstanding large oaks. But the soil was sand, and it would grow only sandburrs until years of cultivation had passed. There was a good thing about that sand. As my brother and I would work in the soil, especially after a rain, we would find flint and arrowheads. My brother found one spear head. Apparently our lot had once been an Indian encampment.

Those were inhabitants earlier than our own Indian ancestors, who were Choctaw and who had been marched to Indian Territory from the South by the US government on the Trail of Tears. My father and my brother were dark. My father's hair was black and straight. At the US Air Force base where he worked as a civilian in War Plans, they affectionately called him Chief.

At the base were all kinds of aircraft, including the B52's loaded with really big nuclear bombs, ready to fly to Russia and annihilate it. The name of our state's semi-centennial celebration was fitting.

On a day in October 1962, the alert reached my father at home. His face turned white. That evening they waited in the War Room as the President announced his decision to the world.

The Soviets withdrew their missles from Cuba, we returned from the brink without crossing, and a few years later I went with my father to his office. I remember a flag, pictures of the President and the base commander, and an inscription: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." (Prov. 29:18)

I read Atlas in autumn 1967.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I meant to mention that some time before he was sent to prison, I met Michael Milken. We were introduced because he was an enthusiastic fan of Atlas Shrugged, and he talked about it with great fervor and conviction. I often wondered, during the years he was in prison -- where I understand he was treated abominably -- if he realized the extent to which he was one of the great victims Rand had defended so briliantly. He was one of the men who gave so much and received only punishment in return.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I meant to mention that some time before he was sent to prison, I met Michael Milken. We were introduced because he was an enthusiastic fan of Atlas Shrugged, and he talked about it with great fervor and conviction. I often wondered, during the years he was in prison -- where I understand he was treated abominably -- if he realized the extent to which he was one of the great victims Rand had defended so briliantly. He was one of the men who gave so much and received only punishment in return.

Barbara

Those interested in Michael Milken would do well to browse to:

http://www.mikemilken.com/index.taf

and to read, in particular, the "Myths" section.

Alfonso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

[This will appear in the Fall 2007 issue of The Mich-Matist, the quarterly magazine of the Michigan State Numismatic Society.]

What is the Root of Money?

By Michael E. Marotta, MSNS 7935

Fifty years ago – on October 4 and October 6, 1957 – two launches hallmarked the conflict between collectivism and individualism: the first was Sputnik; the second was Atlas Shrugged. The continuing success of Ayn Rand’s monumental novel explains why our civilization is not collapsing any faster. Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism explained the metaphysical and epistemological requirements for political freedom and economic success. In one generation, we went from defeat in Viet Nam and economic “stagflation” to the collapse of communism and the legalization of gold. Back then, we fought a two-front war against socialism from abroad and at home. Today, we face new assaults by mystics of revelation from the Middle East and the Midwest. Whatever their alleged differences, they make a sin out of the time value of money, calling compound interest “usury.” They agree that the love of money is the root of all evil.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?”

Today, total sales of Rand’s works – four novels, two collections of short stories, and half a dozen anthologies of philosophical tracts – total over 30 million copies, and continue at more than 400,000 a year. This does not include another dozen or so books specifically about Ayn Rand, Objectivism and their places in the history of philosophy. The Ayn Rand Society is a recognized affiliate of the American Philosophical Association (as are the Bertrand Russell Society and William James Society). Profiles of Female Genius: Thirteen Creative Women Who Changed the World by Gene N. Landrum includes a chapter on Ayn Rand. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter for the Myer-Briggs Personality Type Indicator cites Ayn Rand as an iconic “mastermind” (an INTJ: Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judgmental) along with Ulysses S. Grant, and Isaac Newton.

In the autumn of 1991, the Library of Congress commissioned the Book-of-the-Month Club to poll its members on “Books that Made a Difference in Readers’ Lives.” Atlas Shrugged placed second, behind the Bible. Random House hosted an online voting that sought the best English-language novels of the twentieth century and Atlas Shrugged placed first. When Modern Library polled its editors and readers separately for the “100 Greatest” novels of all time, none of Rand’s works appeared on the editors’ list, though all of her fiction made the top ten among readers.

Among the people who have read – and claim to have benefited from – Atlas Shrugged are Steve Ditko, James Clavell, Angelina Jolie, Clarence Thomas, FedEx CEO Fred Smith, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales, and the architect of America’s greatest era of prosperity, Alan Greenspan.

Alan Greenspan wrote two essays for Ayn Rand’s anthology, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. In “The Assault on Integrity” Greenspan defended Wall Street stockbrokers in particular and business at a distance in general. The title of his other essay, “Gold and Economic Freedom” speaks for itself.

Gold is an element in the plot of Atlas Shrugged. The pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld gives industrialist Hank Rearden a bar of gold as partial repayment on his income taxes. Hiding in the mountains of Colorado, the missing geniuses use gold coins for money. Their valley is illuminated by a giant gold dollar sign. When the heroine, railroad executive Dagny Taggart, works as a housekeeper, she is paid with two five-dollar gold coins. In his monologue at Lilian Rearden’s anniversary party for her looter friends, Francisco d’Anconia says:

Not an ocean of tears, nor all the guns in the world, can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

As rare, attractive, assayable, durable, malleable, and divisible as gold is, it is not the only form of money, or even the best form for a given context. Before the invention of coinage, cows were money. Right now, gold is about $650 per ounce and feeder cattle average $120 each. If Bill Gates were to exchange his $25.28 billion in Microsoft stock for gold, he would need a troop of 36,000 men, each carrying 100 lbs. If he took that in cows, he would have over 200 million head. As it is, all he really needs is a Visa card. In point of fact, America’s greatest age of capitalism was fueled, not by gold coins, but by paper stock certificates. Entrepreneurship is the practical application of human reason. Gold is an excellent store of value, but reason is the engine of wealth. Not an ocean of tears, nor all the guns in the world, can transform your gold coins into the bread you will need tomorrow. Human intelligence gives value to gold and all the gold in the world cannot bring an original idea into existence. Ayn Rand’s earlier work, The Fountainhead, demonstrated that the creator works by his own standards, for his own truth. Any social benefit – even great wealth – is only secondary to that.

Ayn Rand was a stamp collector. She wrote an essay for the Minkus Stamp Journal that speaks just as well for us numismatists:

Stamp collecting is a hobby for busy, purposeful, ambitious people. ... In collecting, every new stamp is an event, a pleasure in itself … A collector is not a passive spectator, but an active, purposeful agent in a cumulative drive. In collecting, there is no such thing as too many stamps: the more one gets, the more one wants. … Nobody can interfere with one's collection, nobody need be considered or questioned or worried about. The choices, the work, the responsibility...and the enjoyment...are one's own.

You are not responsible for the society you were born into, but you are responsible for your place in it. “Galt’s Speech” from Atlas Shrugged, outlined the proof that capitalism and constitutional government depend on rational epistemology and objective metaphysics. That speech closes with the statement that gives value to gold: “I swear by my life and by my love of it never to live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Although the Echo of Eastern Michigan University said that they would publish the essay, they have not and I do not expect them to. While we were dithering over that, I wrote a second which I submitted to the The Voice of Washtenaw Community College, where I am also enrolled. Structural problems seems to have prevented the publication of this:

50 Years Ago, Atlas Shrugged

By Michael E. Marotta

The state government of Michigan cannot afford to keep all of its promises. The president of our college worries about the long run effect that the current crisis will have on our institution. Imagine a world without public education. For some people, it would be utopia, a laissez faire capitalist society of peace and prosperity. If you find it odd that the words capitalism and peace run in the same sentence, then perhaps you have had too much public education.

Fifty years ago this month – on October 4 and October 10, 1957 – two launches hallmarked the conflict between public conformity and individual freedom. One was Sputnik, the first man-made satellite to orbit the Earth, sent aloft by the U.S.S.R, to prove that it could blow away an entire city, just as effectively as could the U.S.A. The second launch was the publication by Random House of Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, a romance of philosophical detection. Seen from the top, Atlas Shrugged is the story of heroic innovators in business and finance who resist the anti-capitalist looters and moochers from Washington D.C., whose State Science Institute has created a weapon of mass destruction to be used against the American people. On a deeper level, Atlas Shrugged is about the nature of sex, romance, integrity, and your place in the universe.

In 1991, on behalf of the Library of Congress, the Book-of-the-Month Club polled its members on “Books that Made a Difference in Readers’ Lives.” Atlas Shrugged ranked second, behind the Bible. In online voting hosted by Random House Atlas Shrugged placed first as “the best novel in the English language.” A similar poll by the Modern Library asked for the “100 Greatest” novels. The editors cited none of Ayn Rand’s works. However, the readers placed all four of them in the top ten. In addition to Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead (which was made in to a movie in 1947) and Anthem, which is in the public domain. Ayn Rand’s fiction and non-fiction have topped over 30 million volumes sold and tally about 400,000 copies each year.

You have heard it said that something (perhaps communism) is “good in theory” even though it does not work in practice. The heroic action in Atlas Shrugged shows why there is no dichotomy between theory and practice. Morality is practical. You have heard it said that perfect communism or ideal socialism has never existed because some dictator or other only perverted its true message. Yet you accept without question that America is a “capitalist” society – a message you heard from people whose income derives not from the productive exchange of values on the marketplace but from tax dollars. When you choose to shop here and not there, you fire one store and hire another. When you quit a job and take another, you fire one buyer of your time and seek another. Have you ever heard of a high school teacher or a college professor being fired for incompetence?

You have heard it said that perfect Christianity or ideal Islam are unachievable goals and the misery and suffering they bring are the result of human weakness. The plot of Atlas Shrugged reflects a different view of human existence, one based on reality, reason, self-interest and financial profit from compound interest in service to art and music as well as to bridges and railroads. You have heard it said that we owe respect to the different beliefs of other people. Were you raised or educated to respect Bill Gates, Martha Stewart or Donald Trump? Do you respect Oprah Winfrey because she built an empire worth over a billion dollars? Fifty years ago, Atlas Shrugged told the story of a woman who ran a transcontinental railroad.

When Atlas Shrugged was published, the threats to peace came from different schools of socialists willing to destroy the world in order to build a better future. Today, new gangs of revelationists kill each other by committing suicide. Meanwhile, those who have read and enjoyed Atlas Shrugged continue to build a better world in the only way that matters: materially. Among them are Steve Ditko, James Clavell, Angelina Jolie, Clarence Thomas, FedEx CEO Fred Smith, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, and Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales.

The state of Michigan takes money in the form over 40 separate taxes. The state lotto was supposed to be a bottomless fund for public education. The Lansing lawmakers promised a land of milk and honey and manna from the sky – all without effort. All we had to do was elect them to office and all of our wishes would be gratified. Atlas Shrugged is a story of physics and metaphysics. Fifty years ago, this mythic adventure demonstrated in terms of human action that you can evade the laws of reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fifty years ago – on October 4 and October 6, 1957 – two launches hallmarked the conflict between socialism and capitalism. One was Sputnik, the first man-made satellite to orbit the Earth, sent aloft by the U.S.S.R. The second was the publication by Random House of Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, a multilayered meta-discussion, at once a romantic mystery, a philosophic detection and a book of parables.

On the surface, this is a story about business leaders who resist government intervention. At one point in the story, a director from the State Science Institute confronts the owner of a steel mill, who is guilty of an anti-trust violation: “Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. …We’re after power and we mean it. … There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. … Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.” Twenty years ago, when financial genius Michael Milken was prosecuted by Rudolph Giuliani, fans sent copies of the book to Milken while he was in prison. In the nineties, they spoke up to defend Microsoft against federal anti-trust investigations. More recently, admirers of Atlas Shrugged wrote letters of support to Martha Stewart when she was imprisoned.

Like many durable allegories, this story is framed by a quest. The questing heroine is Dagny Taggart, heiress and vice president of operations of a railroad. She begins by seeking the inventor of a motor that can covert static electricity to kinetic energy. She also takes on the search for a destructive enemy whom she knows only by small clues of physical evidence. Of course, they must be the same man for the myth to convey nuance.

Linguistic anthropologists explain that campfire stories touch us below the conscious level. However, Atlas Shrugged is explicitly rational, structured by Aristotlean logic, and presented in declarative sentences. Moreover, in traditional myth – Herakles versus the Hydra or Gilgamesh and Enkidu versus Humbaba – the existence of evil is accepted as natural. Atlas Shrugged questions the existence of evil as an independent agency and denies the efficacy of the unreal. Yet, the very image of Atlas, the titan who holds up the sky (or the world), shrugging tugs at the mind as does the tension of a “nightmare” on your neighborhood “Elm Street.”

Just as the informal inventions of preliterate people evolved into epic poems which themselves were resculpted by minstrels and novelists, the process continues in our day with cinema. Atlas Shrugged is being made into a movie. Although several previous attempts were abandoned in the 1970s and eighties, the current effort by Lion’s Gate seems on track. The starring role has been awarded to Angelina Jolie.

In addition to Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead and Anthem. She also edited several anthologies of non-fiction about philosophy, economics, and art. All of these have sold more 30 million copies with sales pacing at 400,000 a year. A literature search will return interpretive works about Ayn Rand or her philosophy of Objectivism. The Ayn Rand Society is an affiliate of the American Philosophical Association (as are the Bertrand Russell Society and William James Society).

In 1991, on behalf of the Library of Congress, the Book-of-the-Month Club polled its members on “Books that Made a Difference in Readers’ Lives.” Atlas Shrugged ranked second, behind the Bible. In online voting hosted by Random House Atlas Shrugged placed first as “the best novel in the English language.” A similar poll by the Modern Library asked for the “100 Greatest” novels. The editors cited none of Ayn Rand’s works. However, the readers placed all four of them in the top ten.

When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, it proved that it could match the USA in its ability to drop an atomic bomb on any city on Earth. Today, our civilization is threatened by different gangs of thugs, each determined to destroy all the others. Atlas Shrugged exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of all such “mystics of muscle” and glorified the individuals of achievement who make cities possible.

But, most importantly, Steve Colbert took it out of his Halloween basket last night on his show! Lol. Ahh, we have arrived!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

.

Follow-On to Posts #5, #6, and #7

I have learned of a very good program on the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was produced by the Discovery channel and is available on YouTube. It is in six parts, each about eight minutes.

1 2 3 4 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crises is approaching. It remains only yesterday to me. PBS will be airing a couple of new documentaries on the Crisis on October 23 at 8:00 p.m. ET. Press release for the program is here.

. . .

In 1957 I was nine years old. That year was the 50th anniversary of statehood for my state Oklahoma. There was a terrific expostition at the State Fairgrounds in Oklahoma City to celebrate the occasion. The exhibition was called "Arrows to Atoms."

My folks had bought our 2-acre lot just outside the city for $600. We were building our house ourselves. It was a ranch style of 2700 sq. ft. The lot had some outstanding large oaks. But the soil was sand, and it would grow only sandburrs until years of cultivation had passed. There was a good thing about that sand. As my brother and I would work in the soil, especially after a rain, we would find flint and arrowheads. My brother found one spear head. Apparently our lot had once been an Indian encampment.

Those were inhabitants earlier than our own Indian ancestors, who were Choctaw and who had been marched to Indian Territory from the South by the US government on the Trail of Tears. My father and my brother were dark. My father's hair was black and straight. At the US Air Force base where he worked as a civilian in War Plans, they affectionately called him Chief.

At the base were all kinds of aircraft, including the B52's loaded with really big nuclear bombs, ready to fly to Russia and annihilate it. The name of our state's semi-centennial celebration was fitting.

On a day in October 1962, the alert reached my father at home. His face turned white. That evening they waited in the War Room as the President announced his decision to the world.

The Soviets withdrew their missles from Cuba, we returned from the brink without crossing, and a few years later I went with my father to his office. I remember a flag, pictures of the President and the base commander, and an inscription: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." (Prov. 29:18)

. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Soviets unlike the Jihadi Muslims had no intention of killing themselves just to kill us. Which is why off scene diplomacy worked, Krushchev was thoroughly pissed off by our missiles in Turkey and he took steps to urge use to remove them. It worked. The real danger was if one of the Soviet field commanders had an itchy button finger he could have released a nuclear weapon toward the east coast. I don't think Kruschev had any intention of attacking the U.S. I think he wanted to show some muscle and be taken seriously.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the exhibition Arrows to Atoms, at age nine, in 1957, I remember another grand event from about that time. It was an outdoor assembly our family attended. It was the Billy Graham crusade. What a preacher. And there was the winning hymn How Great Thou Art sung by Shea. Very moving. Hundreds were saved. I still remember some of the sermon of that stellar evangelist. It was about the prodigal son, for one thing. And for another thing, God is the story. Your relationship with God is the deal, the only deal. Repent and accept Jesus as your personal savior or you will burn forever in hell.

The other evening, I saw a note that the Billy Graham organization had removed an identification of Mormonism as a cult (false prophet) from their website. Since my childhood, it was always identified as grotesquely false Christianity, not only by low church such as Baptist or Nazerene, but by high church too if they still had any substance. On account of Romney being a Mormon, the cult note was washed away. Once upon a time, these churches were much more about God and worship. They knew the first commandment and meant it.

Of Witch Doctors and the Bigot-Vote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha. Yes, I'm remembering Billy Graham when he toured South Africa (about '73) when

he gave a sermon to a full rugby stadium in Durban. I mean full; I've since hardly

seen so many (hushed) people in one place. Even the field was crammed. Shades of rock concerts yet to come our way, he was alone on a platform in the middle. I was a rooky photographer for the local paper, and at some point, after a stirring address and prayers, amid the reverent crowd, and the jostle of

the less-reverent press attention, I got close and he smiled directly at me. The man had charisma, alright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuban Missile Crisis – Three Men Go to War, which aired three days ago, is excellent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1959 Soviet Nuclear Missile Base North of Berlin

I imagine another reason for withdrawal of the base as things got hotter over Berlin was fear of losing possession of those missiles to the West or to the East Germans. Soviet nuclear weapons were always kept under the control of Russians.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following is an excerpt from my 1985 essay “Is Nuclear War Inevitable?” published in Nomos.

“Peace becomes the sturdy child of terror.” A few years before penning that metaphor, Winston Churchill had gotten first-hand experience in the deadly game of terror-bombing. Hitler had been deterred from bombing cities by fear of retaliation in kind, but he did bomb powerless Rotterdam. After that bit of savagery, Churchill began bombing in the Ruhr Valley, Germany’s great industrial complex. So Hitler bombed the London perimeter airfields, and a lost bomber unloaded in the heart of London. In return, Churchill bombed Berlin. Believing that retaliation in kind was the only way to get the enemy to desist from terror-bombing of German cities, Hitler ordered the blitz of London. But that was a level of bombing that London could endure for a while.

Similarly, Hamburg, the second-largest city in Germany, survived more than 130 raids, until the summer of 1943, when the Allies perfected their bombing techniques and destroyed it. The great concentration of incendiary bombs created a fire-storm. “Thousands of individual fires merged into one great all-consuming blaze. The wind drew fleeing people irresistibly into the fire. In the air raid shelters all the oxygen was sucked out and the occupants suffocated, or were baked alive by the heat of the fires raging overhead. Thousands of people simply disappeared” (Stokesbury 1980, 285).

During the first half of 1945, General Curtis Lemay demonstrated the “strategic” powers of his Air Force by burning down Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya, Kobe, and Osaka—the five major cities of Japan. On August 6 President Truman dropped his atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Within one second 80,000 people died. Stalin was impressed.

The most important thing to understand about nuclear weapons is the great economy of their destructive power and the consequent impossibility of effective defense.

[i should stress that when I wrote "defense" in this essay, I meant that literally, not in some larger sense that includes deterrence. The latter is a “defense” that has succeeded so far with nuclear weapons. I should add also my answer today to the essay question: I think deterrence, defense, and disarmament will ultimately fail, and human kind will be ended by nuclear war. That is no excuse for failing to protect, for failing in nuclear wisdom, so far as we can reach into the future.]

By the 1960’s the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were spinning their wheels in MUD, Mutual Unacceptable Damage. After the stunning success of Sputnik in 1957, the U.S. went to work on rocketry in a big way and was soon ready to post solid-fueled Polaris ballistic missiles under the cover of the sea and land-based Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s) in underground silos hardened to withstand a blast overpressure of up to 100 psi. The Soviets continued to show off in outer space (first man in space, first rocket to the moon), but in the development of ICBM’s they fell behind.

Sergei Korolev’s design for the Soviet’s first operational ICBM, the SS-6, was suspiciously similar to his designs for space rockets. As a weapon for sobering the American imperialists, it had its drawbacks It was so large that it had to be transported by rail and based near a railroad line. Filling it with its highly volatile liquid fuel required 20 hours before launch. It received its guiding radio signals from ground stations that could be easily jammed or destroyed. It could only reach the northeastern corner of the United States.

Nonetheless, the U.S. could be deterred by even a very marginal Soviet nuclear capability for retaliation upon the American homeland. During the 1961 Berlin crisis, the Kennedy administration “instituted a top-secret high-level study of a possible ‘counterforce’ strike against Soviet military targets. The [study] group revealed that conditions were ideal for such an attack. The United States would, at a stroke, be able to knock out almost all of Russia’s nuclear-war-making potential. Soviet retaliation would be extremely limited, killing probably no more than 3 million Americans—at worst no more than 15 million” (Cockburn 1983, 303–4). The Kennedy team was aghast; this option was no option at all as far as they were concerned. We had already gotten stuck in the nuclear MUD.

. . .

We have made plans for using nuclear weapons to achieve levels of destruction less than our full capability. . . . By going nuclear at a low level we hope to demonstrate our resolve in the conflict. We hope to persuade the Soviets that we are willing to step up to higher levels of nuclear destruction if necessary to get results favorable to us. Since the enemy might still reasonably think we are bluffing about stepping up to the higher nuclear levels, how does entering the lower nuclear levels make our higher-level threats more credible?

The solution was first seen with crystal clarity by the brilliant strategist Thomas Schelling. The crucial role of the threat that leaves something to chance is perhaps his greatest insight. “The key to these threats is that, though one may oar may not carry them out if the threatened party fails to comply, the final decision is not altogether under the threatener’s control. . . . Where does the uncertain element in the decision come from? It must come from somewhere outside the threatener’s control. Whether we call it ‘chance’, accident, third-party influence, imperfection in the machinery of decision, or just processes that we do not entirely understand, it is an ingredient in the situation that neither we nor the other party understand, it is an ingredient in the situation that neither we nor the party we threaten can entirely control. An example is the threat of inadvertent war” (Schelling 1960, 188).

In essence, then, the plans of players stuck in MUD contain low-level nuclear strike options because such strikes . . . can show the enemy that one’s resolve in the conflict extends to the limit of the ex ante risk of continued escalation multiplied by the destruction of thermonuclear war. . . .

We must bear in mind that when it comes to biting, as opposed to barking, threshold nuclear war-fighting plans that could actually generate no risks of nuclear escalation are pointless. One of the limited nuclear options presented to Dr. Henry Kissinger (no nuclear greenhorn) for countering a postulated Soviet invasion of Iran called for exploding an atomic demolition mine on one of the two main roads leading from Russia to Iran and for firing two nuclear weapons at the other main road. “What kind of nuclear attack is this?” asked the Professor. He said that if he were Brezhnev pondering this attack, he would conclude that the American President was “chicken.” Earlier, Kissinger had been presented with a plan for dropping nearly two hundred nuclear bombs on Russian military targets near the Iranian border. Kissinger: “Are you out of your minds? This is a limited option?” (Jervis 1984, 36–37). Without the risk of unspeakable destruction, limited nuclear options are useless, and a limited use had better be worth the risk.

. . .

The theory known as Mutual Assured Destruction, MAD, says that what is needed on both sides for stable nuclear deterrence is a force of invulnerable offensive nuclear weapons capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on the society of the enemy. This theory of deterrence by threat of retaliatory strike was declared U.S. policy for many years for the sake of public relations. The difference between the myth of MAD and the reality of MUD is danger. . . . In a crisis there are and always have been real advantages to striking first . . . .

. . .

Between ourselves and the Soviets, we can cultivate a relation of stable deterrence, or we can let things get out of hand and fly away. . . .

(Sorry about the link on the name Yokohama. It appears automatically. I am unable to eliminate it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

At the turn into the present century, I glanced back and noticed three great social things that had been accomplished in my country in my life (b. 1948):

  1. Putting a man on the moon (emblematic of American technological advancement).
  2. Avoiding nuclear war.
  3. Advancement in recognition of racial equality.

Concerning that last one, an event and the local response to it the other night at Ole Miss is emblematic of the progress in the last fifty years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Happy Birthday, this day, Michael Marotta!

Many more happy returns!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, thanks for the links.

I note that the changes from 1962 were not gradual nor of a the same movement. The deregulaition came as a result of the Reagan Revolution. First, interstate trucking and the other modes were deregulated. Judge Bell's Modified Final Judgment came in 1984. The draft, of course, is still with us in that young men are still required to register, only that they are not called up.

The noise at Ole Miss has its echo here where so-called "libertarians" say that you have a right to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity or "race" or whatever. But you also have a "right" to become a heroin addict and no one advocates for that or defends it actively. Objectivism is not libertarianism because Objectivists pursue a eudaimonic good life which libertarians cannot identify through their haze of subjective experience. To be direct: Objectivism speaks against the discriminations which libertarians insist that we tolerate. The root of course is epistemological. Many of the Ron Paul crowd are religious conservatives. They are intolerant of many differences in ascribed status and are still openly anti-gay. But their homophobia is only an expression of a deeper fear of other people, which, of course, is rooted in personal psychological problems.

Objectivist psychology got off to a bad start, but leveled out. Unfortunately, like Rand herself, many Objectivists - and most libertarians - are outwardly-focused and unaware of themselves. So, based on their blanked out and represssed self experience, they expect that anyone else could be a violent criminal. The real problem is psychological projection. As a result these people need guns (they say) because "other people" are dangerous.

Self-experience was another of the cutlural movements of the 'Sixties. It found re-expression in the mid-80s as "the Me generation" which also brought an expansion of Nathaniel Branden's published works, along with many other "gurus" but nothing actually took hold culturally, certainly not on the political right. Perhaps the legalization of marijuana points to this direction, but I do not expect to see Ron Paul saying - as Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley did - that he knows that pot is not dangerous because he smoked it. Whether that or yoga or whatever else, we do not have a rich dialog on self-discovery. Those do exist in the wider world, but not within the political right. Like abandoning discrimination and the perceived need for guns - in fact tied to them causally - the self-experience of political conservatives is somewhat retarded.

I do see another trend not mentioned: the demise of the nation-state. Yesterday's news frrom CNN.com was about the taxes not paid to the UK by Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon. Technology is not kind to politics. We are coming into a century when global corporations dominate. As in the 19th century when socialists and aristocrats allied against business, the new nationalists are political "progressives" post modernist leftists and "critical" sociologists who believe that policing and military must be government functions and who decry the rise of private entites in these areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Chin up!

--some good sense from David Frum, including comparison of freedom in America 1962 v. 2012.

No kidding.

In a narrow sense, this was a very good article, but it disregards another metric of freedom from that same time period: between 1960 and 2010, entitlements exploded from 28 percent to 66 percent of federal spending. By 2010, more than 34 percent of households were receiving means-tested benefits. Notice, also, that Frum did not address the issues of our country being 16T in debt, or the 46T in unfunded entitlement liabilities, or that our debt to GDP ratio is on track to hit 200% in roughly 25 years.* So not all of the bed wetting going on is frivolous.

*Greece is at about 150% right now.

This is math, not opinion. I might even be so bold as to call it "objective reality."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

From my experience talking to people, they hear terms like 16T, but, just like when people being warned that a hurricane is coming don't leave, I don't think they grok what it means.

I mean this on a very deep level. Something like normalcy bias. When the airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers, some people running in hallways to get away went back to their offices to turn off their computers and things like that. People live in the story of their everyday routines and seeing that story no longer relevant is simply inconceivable to them.

I believe most people think this 16T thing is something for the rich and powerful to worry about--probably some game to make more money and they're just fighting over it because each wants the pie. For these folks, if they need more stuff, they simply go to the store and get more stuff. That's where stuff comes from for them, like trees that come from the ground.

The idea of there being no more stuff is only within their comprehension as a part of a dystopian movie or something like that. They believe it has nothing to do with their reality and never will.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

From my experience talking to people, they hear terms like 16T, but, just like when people being warned that a hurricane is coming don't leave, I don't think they grok what it means.

I mean this on a very deep level. Something like normalcy bias. When the airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers, some people running in hallways to get away went back to their offices to turn off their computers and things like that. People live in the story of their everyday routines and seeing that story no longer relevant is simply inconceivable to them.

I believe most people think this 16T thing is something for the rich and powerful to worry about--probably some game to make more money and they're just fighting over it because each wants the pie. For these folks, if they need more stuff, they simply go to the store and get more stuff. That's where stuff comes from for them, like trees that come from the ground.

The idea of there being no more stuff is only within their comprehension as a part of a dystopian movie or something like that. They believe it has nothing to do with their reality and never will.

Michael

I have three responses:

1. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.

2. I am glad my brother in law has an "off grid" 300 acres tract in an undisclosed location on the West Coast--sort of a poor man's Galt's Gulch, with wood rats.

3. I hope said brother in law doesn't forget that he owes me money when I show up at his gate after the shit hits the fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

At the turn into the present century, I glanced back and noticed three great social things that had been accomplished in my country in my life (b. 1948):

  • Putting a man on the moon (emblematic of American technological advancement).
  • Avoiding nuclear war.
  • Advancement in recognition of racial equality.

1. Yes (but emblematic of a lot more than "technological advancement")

2. So far (x-1945)

3. Not black on white racism or auto racism of white on white (negative and positive) or black on black (negative and positive), etc.

The best cure for racism is money and freedom especially including free trade (and no welfare for anybody, for that's money going in the wrong direction with the opposite result).

("Racial equality," BTW, means moral equality [and political (combined with moral) as in the Declaration of Independence]. It does not mean that whites are capable of being 80% of the professional basketball players in this country if they'd only try as much as blacks.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now