James Bennett McRae Quotes
… use of high yield nuclear weapons invariably created adverse public opinion … Greater emphasis should be placed on small atomic weapons.
Sandia is a company that has gotten almost all their business from the Federal Government for doing research and development of nuclear weapons. Based on this view and others the AEC and the military not only developed small atomic bombs with short range rockets that could be transported in jeeps, but actually developed a 51 lb. atomic bomb that a soldier carried on his back. The idea was for these solders to parachute behind enemy lines, place the bomb near an important enemy facility and escape the critical zone on foot before the bomb exploded. It was never used in combat and receded in interest except for the fact that it proved it was possible for a terrorist suicide bomber on foot to place and explode a nuclear weapon.
James Bennett McRae, * President, Sandia Corporation & National Labratory, Advice to United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1957
Sourced by: Eigen's Political and Historical Quotations
One of the many Goldwater statements that made most Americans believe he was not prudent enough to trust with the nuclear “trigger”, See {622850}.
The alternative deterrent was to maintain an army of over 2 million men overseas in both Europe and Asia, and the cost was much greater than the then perceived cost of nuclear weapons. At the time no one figured the cost of coping with the radioactive material and waste as well as the cleanup of nuclear bomb factories like Hanford. These costs were still not known byt the 21st century.
This was his last publication. He died of a heart attack as the magazine was being printed. Since this was written one other possible use of nuclear weapons has been suggested—namely, retaliation for a biological attack. From a policy point of view, maintaining an arsenal of biological weapons for retaliatory purposes is dangerous and use for retaliation of biological weapons is not very controllable and arguably less humane than a nuclear weapon. His point however still holds. We have to have a national defense policy against many threats and we have to have defense policies that handle all these without nuclear tactics is insufficient to handle any of the threats without causing more problems and we have other weapons and techniques that are just as, if not more, effective. They and systems under development have the major role in our current defense policy.
Many politicians and military thinkers disagree with Kraus. America, England, France, Russia, and Israel have all demonstrated over the years that even with great provocation they would not resort to nuclear retaliation nor have they ever threatened use of WMDs. Iran, in contrast, has repeatedly stated as one of their major objective, the total destruction of another UN member state—Israel. Further, Iran has never possessed a weapon that it did not use shortly after possession, including poison gas. Therefore America and the United Nations have all determined that a double standard is necessary with Iran.
The Booklet told people that even under an atomic attack there would be many survivors and it was everyone’s job to increase the number of survivors by taking precautions like building fallout shelters and maintaining a supply of food and water at home and ducking under desks and tables if there was an atomic attack. The implication was that despite the great firepower of the then Hydrogen Bombs there would be great survivability. The suggestions for protection ranged from minimal likely effect to absurd. The Publication also bore the imprimatur of the Executive Office of the President for credibility and many people believed it.
The Scientific Project that developed the Atomic Bomb
The Court was providing and advisory opinion at the request of the United Nations General Assembly.
