How will Androids Remember Us?
(24×18″, Oil on panel. Click to enlarge. There may be a delay.)
Dear Friends in Spirit,
In preface, I offer for your consideration my 2017 Address to Davos; Avoiding the New Dark Ages, in five parts. It is ever more timely.
Coming to a World near you:
(CNN) Trump administration abruptly cancels 4 classified Iran-related briefings. Quoting,
The sudden briefing cancellations come as some lawmakers, particularly Democrats, continue to question the administration’s justification for killing Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. Senators appear likely to rebuke President Donald Trump soon in the form of a vote on a war powers resolution to limit his military actions in Iran.
There is a suspicion that the claim is invented, to circumvent the War Powers Resolution. While I cannot refute this suspicion, any similar question about Hezbollah is a special circumstance.
The English translation of “Hezbollah” is “Party of God.” Hezbollahs exist in three countries, as separate organizations of native Shiites, all organized by Iranian “missionaries.”, of whom Qasem Soleimani was the recent chief. Lebanon’s Hezbollah was the second, dating to the early 1980’s. The first Hezbollah was organized in Iran itself, in 1979. Iraq’s Hezbollah dates to about 2003.
Prior to 9/11, Hezbollah (Lebanon) was considered the most dangerous terror threat to U.S. soil. In contrast to other terror groups then extant, Hezbollah (Lebanon) was noteworthy for competent command/control, execution, and even counterintelligence. (CBS) Major CIA network unraveled by Hezbollah, in 2011. Hezbollah skillfully exploited an encryption error in the group’s secure radios.
The similarity of characters of the three Hezbollahs is the result of Iranian leadership. Opinions vary whether the 1983 United States embassy bombing in Beirut was an Hezbollah operation, disguised by the adoption of a “brand” in the form of the Islamic Jihad Organization. But there is general agreement that the attack was ordered by Iran.
The Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-1981, in which the revolutionary government of Iran seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, hints at a pattern. It continues with the 12/31 attack on the Baghdad embassy. Iran is unrestrained by diplomatic norms from attacks on U.S. embassies.
Iran wants to kick the U.S. out of Iraq. Even with no intelligence, the embassy and consulates are at risk as targets of opportunity.
This does not address whether the intelligence about 4 embassies is fabricated. If it is not, the fearsome capabilities of Hezbollah counterintelligence puts sources at risk from disclosure. (CNN) 3 detained on suspicion of leaking Soleimani’s movements to US. If informants survive Iraq’s justice, they will not survive Hezbollah’s.
Sources for this kind of intelligence must be protected by the narrowest possible distribution. To reveal which embassies are known to be targeted could be fatal to some.
(CNN) Russian government resigns as Putin proposes reforms that could extend his grip on power.
Inspired by Russia’s adversarial attitude towards the West, media coverage is almost uniformly negative. What else could be expected towards a government that has been described as a kleptocracy, with such noteworthy achievements as lending a helping hand to Assad’s use of poison gas in Syria, Novichok in Salisbury, (NY Times) Syria hospital bombings, Ukraine invasion, and nuclear cruise missiles that make mini-Chernobyls? Have I left anything out? Sure, but on the chance that Putin reads this, I won’t dig deeper.
Every leader is the product of the society he or she is trying to lead. When we study history, we encounter for the most part the biographies of rulers who, by modern Western standards, were barbarous. Passers-by of London Bridge between 1300 and 1660 remarked on the endless rows of heads impaled on stakes.
This has not blinded modern historians to the subtleties of those times. That mix was the crucible of the modern English speaking world. Putin’s Russia has the contrasts of a society in flux. While some elements of the state remain barbarous, Putin’s inner circle seems touchingly modern — provided we exclude the Kremlin’s criminal element from our view. On the occasions I have engaged Russian intellectuals, I’ve found modern minds. This is one portent of future greatness, not the shallow yearning to be a “great power.”
Patterns of history cannot be refuted and should not be ignored. They can rarely be avoided. Russia is a PITA, but there is more going on in Russia than can be expressed in short-form journalism. Much of it can be viewed vicariously, through the eyes of a ruler. If we are open to seeing with the ruler’s eyes, to experiencing the peculiar bond between the ruler and the ruled; and the fears for the role and for the nation, we get something vastly additive to the boilerplate dished out by think-tanks.
In March ’17, I decided that Putin deserved an “apology”, which in the original Greek means , not “I’m sorry”, but something like the defense a trial lawyer provides for a client. In comparison with the unknowable facts, it could be true, false, or a mix. The only requirement of this apology is that it be favorable to Putin, and not definitively refutable.
In Alexei Navalny, Poisoned?, I wrote,
Putin’s bargain with the Devil, by which it can be argued that he saved Russia from chaos, involved co-opting all the elements of Russian society, and he has never found a way to pay it off. But there is also a political reason of some legitimacy why Navalny must not be allowed to rise.
(Moscow Times) ‘Not Everything Works Out’: Medvedev’s Career, in Photos.. Quoting,
As Medvedev resigned, Putin thanked him for what he had achieved, adding: “Not everything worked out of course — but then, nothing ever works out totally.” The newly resigned prime minister will now serve as deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, which Putin chairs.
Putin’s remark, and dismissal of the government is incompletely explained by the desire to hold onto power. It offers the possibility that he will now try to pay down that unholy bargain. The price of failure is a system so entirely dependent on his character, it cannot survive his passing. Most autocrats don’t appreciate this point. Putin may be the exception. Perhaps the wisdom of Vladimir Bukovsky holds meaning to him:
“The movers and shakers of today have little interest in digging for the truth. Who knows what one may come up with? You may start out with the communists, and end up with yourself.”
But first, let’s see where he has been, the visceral Russian experience of decay and stasis, the rescue of a state in collapse, while viewing the West from a remote point of view.
To be continued shortly.
(CNN) Ukrainian Boeing plane crash in Iran, investigators hunt for clues. Former NTSB manager Peter Goelz remarks on the startling appearance of the fireball.
The estimate is that Iran shot it down by accident.
The main hypothesis that avoids a hostile act is an uncontained engine failure. This occurs when a rapidly rotating fan or turbine explodes from centrifugal force on a defective part.
The instantaneous appearance of a fireball has not been a feature of previous engine explosions. Of the 13 that have occurred since 1973, three have featured large fires:
Both of the above occurred on takeoff rolls that were successfully aborted. They featured large wing fires that could have resembled the Ukraine accident if seen at altitude.
In the other 10 incidents, fire did not occur, or was minimal.
A large fire requires a lot of fuel. The 737 has a tank in each wing, and one or two belly tanks along the center. Cellphone videos of the crash may be important, since it is unlikely Iran will release the black boxes before erasing them. Photometric analysis of a video, measuring the brightness of individual pixels, may indicate a belly tank fire. Since the belly area has not in the past examples been impacted by engine explosions, it may indicate:
This is ground for mere suspicion, an atypical accident on an unusual day. But there is a separate factor that allows laying odds.
(NY Times 6/22/2019) U.S. Carried Out Cyberattacks on Iran on 6/20. Quoting,
An additional breach, according to one person briefed on the operations, targeted other computer systems that control Iranian missile launches…Officials have not publicly outlined details of the operation. Air defense and missile systems were not targeted, the senior defense official said, calling media reports citing those targets inaccurate.
But targeting air defense was technically possible. (Times of Israel) US cyber attack on Iran exploited flaw in heavily guarded network, experts say.
Citing US official sources, American media last week reported that the Army Cyber Command had crippled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s air defense units that shot down a sophisticated drone on June 20.
I take the denials stated to the Times at face value. Someone said, “we could have”, and it morphed by human exaggeration into “we did this.”
For Iran, the nut is not whether air defenses were in fact disabled. It is the fact that the U.S. can jump into air-gapped Iranian networks with ease. (An air-gapped network has no electronic connection to other networks.)
So prior to the missile attacks in the early hours of 1/8, the Iranians did what is prudent in the face of a cyber superpower: they air-gapped their air defense computer network, breaking it into local pieces, reliant on human-to-human communication.
The three notorious shoot-downs of our time, KAL007, MH17, and Iran Air 655, were mistakes. Mistakes happen because radar doesn’t show all the features or paint job of a plane. Now we can work out what I think happened:
The cost: 82 Iranian lives. At Soleimani’s funeral, 65 died in a stampede. This is the cost exacted by fate, or your deity if you have one, for the privilege of killing one American contractor.
At times like these, even the most devout wonder if God is on their side.
(CNN) Some administration officials believe Iran intentionally missed areas with Americans.
This possibility depends upon:
These are the tells:
Only the first is a good demo. Here “near” and “far” are relative to the CEP, the average error. Large CEP = bad guidance system. Small CEP = good guidance system. But how can we tell if the missile was bad, or the aim was deliberately off? From years of watching missile tests, the CEP of a missile type is known to the intelligence community.:
Now imagine you are Khamenei, and you want to prove to the Great Satan that you can put U.S. forces at risk, while avoiding retaliation. You want a demo:
Al Assad Airbase is in the Syrian Desert of western Iraq, where almost nobody lives.
Iran had to be careful with the U.S. consulate in Erbil, which is at the northern edge of the built-up area. (Google Earth, 36°14’08.21″ N 43°59’20.86″ E ). An impact south of that has high risk of civilian casualties. An impact 1500 feet north of the consulate, just north of an irrigation channel, would impact farmland, avoiding subdivided but vacant lots south of it. This is the strongest indication of a demonstration.
We can’t draw this conclusion if the impact clusters are loose. For a good demonstration of strength, they have to be tight. If the clusters are loose, aim-to-hit cannot be excluded.
Why did Iran choose this, if it was a choice?
Khamenei stated that he wanted the response to come from inside Iran, and be directed against military targets. This was to satisfy the national urge to revenge. The need is shown by the 65 Iranians who died in a stampede at Soleimani’s funeral. Martyrdom was on display.
The Iranians reflected on how well deniable actions have worked for them: damaging the enemy while mostly avoiding reciprocation. With the death of a U.S. contractor, they discovered a level of conflict that triggered a U.S. response. They will now try to estimate what that level is in general terms, and stay below it.
The Soleimani killing has a different meaning for us and for them. To us, it is the lawful killing of a combatant who was out to kill U.S. forces. We drew a red line. Iran has drawn a reciprocal line: an attack on Iranian notables in Iraq is an attack on Iran.
Besides expanding the idea of Iran to include Iraq, the demonstration is intended to restore immunity from U.S. attack of Iranian commanders, continuing superior leadership of Iraq/Iran militias.
The use of proxies to shield the aggressor is not new. It was used with partial success in the Vietnam War, and most recently by Russia in eastern Ukraine. International law is blind to proxies like it is to undeclared war. This is the drawback of a voluntary code that recognizes the “nation” as a basic division of humanity.
This assertion is unrepresented in the polemics surrounding the strike:
The killing of Soleimani does not significantly bias the future. It does not improve or worsen the U.S. position to a measurable or predictable degree. The effect on future events is limited to detail. This includes the total number of U.S. casualties, although attempts at specific, high profile people are more likely.
This option, “no change”, is typically ignored in debates, because it is no basis for approval or criticism. Yet the claims in favor of “+change” or “–change” are severely flawed:
Claim: Soleimani’s killing aborts or interferes with attacks on U.S. forces. While Iran’s plans in the short term may have been disrupted, Iran has a deep bench in Quds Force leadership. To be effective, a decapitation strike has to knock off most of the bench, which this strike did not do.
Claim: Killing not justified. (CNN) Skepticism mounts over Trump’s claims of an imminent threat. The language of skeptics derives from:
These arguments are viable only in the moment of time. It is natural for the public to focus on the moment, but we need to expand the moment into the present, and the present into histories that encompass both the past and the future.
(Reuters) Inside the plot by Iran’s Soleimani to attack U.S. forces in Iraq presents imminence in the form of a good story, revealing prior intent. Reliant on unnamed sources, one might suspect it was “cooked”. I don’t think it was. Delving into the past substantiates it. From U.S. Debacle in Iraq? Part 1,
Missile attacks were anticipated in Iran warns U.S., Israel of revenge after parade attack; Missile Attack on U.S. Forces? Attacks did not immediately result, though supply of missiles to militia occurred around that time. (Reuters) Exclusive: Iran moves missiles to Iraq in warning to enemies.
The above implies a defensive intent, which may have been justified by John Bolton’s demeanor. But Iranian Missile Movements; Open Source Versus Technical Intelligence quotes (NBC) U.S. officials: Iran official OK’d attacks on American military:
…the Iranian regime has told some of its proxy forces and surrogates that they can now go after American military personnel and assets in the region, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence.
which is good for intent. What was missing at the time was a final sign-off on the attacks, a date stamp on these operations. A documented date stamp is the focus of skepticism for some.
The past of 8 months corroborates the present. The more past is included, the more difficult it is to suspect that the story is cooked.
Nota bene: Except for occasional products of the CIA history division, “proof” provided by the intelligence community never satisfies legal rules of evidence. In law, the prosecution is required to produce the evidence, based in the main on witness testimony. With spy work, the greater obligation is to conceal the witness.
Both political parties have attempted manipulation of intelligence. Successful manipulation depends upon the character of the intelligence community. That of the senior IC component, the CIA, has changed several times since formation in 1947. It has at times been susceptible, or resistant, to political pressure. Consider:
Quoting from What is Intel Proof?,
“At this time, the U.S. Intelligence Community has not identified any information from the recovered weapon systems used in the 14 September attacks on Saudi Arabia that definitively reveals an attack origin.”
This is very conservative, absent bias favorable to the administration position. I said I would go further, with circumstantial evidence:
We are not done expanding back in time from the moment.On May 8, 2018, the U.S. withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, subjecting Iran to paralyzing economic sanctions. But the pot didn’t really begin to boil until, on April 22, 2019, sanction waivers were allowed to lapse. (NPR) U.S. Won’t Renew Sanction Exemptions For Countries Buying Iran’s Oil.
This, not the killing of Soleimani, is the real driver of events. Now let’s complete the picture by expanding back to a date that will live in infamy, December 7, 1941. The Imperial Navy of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor with carrier based aircraft, the missile of the day.
It was called a surprise attack. Yet going even further back reveals the ultimate cause. Japan was already an expansionist, militaristic power. Almost devoid of natural resources, petroleum was critical. No one can say that war in the Pacific could have been averted, though when F.D.R. cut off oil exports to Japan in Japan 1941, it became mechanically certain. From Attack on Pearl Harbor,
Japan’s final proposal, delivered on November 20, offered to withdraw from southern Indochina and to refrain from attacks in Southeast Asia, so long as the United States, United Kingdom, and Netherlands ceased aid to China and lifted their sanctions against Japan.[37] The American counter-proposal of November 26 (November 27 in Japan), the Hull note, required Japan completely evacuate China without conditions and conclude non-aggression pacts with Pacific powers. On November 26 in Japan, the day before the note’s delivery, the Japanese task force left port for Pearl Harbor.[citation needed]
So the events of the moment are anticipated by the Hull Note of 1941. History gives us the driver, which is not the killing of an Iranian notable.
George Santayana is reputed by some to have said, “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” Maybe, maybe not. I would put it another way. If you’re going to drive your adversary into an unbearable corner, if you’re going to have a Rumble in the Jungle, make sure you really are Ali, and the other guy is Foreman.
And don’t lead with your chin.
We continue from U.S. Debacle in Iraq? Part 1.
The situation has rapidly evolved. (CNN) Trump orders killing of key Iranian commander in Baghdad airport strike, killing Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani and PMF leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.
I tend agree with the implication of Peter Bergen’s op/ed, The killing of Iran’s General Soleimani is hugely significant; the decision to target was the consequence of Trump’s temperate response to previous aggression, most notably the Aramco attacks of 9/14/2019. Sadly, a temperate response can encourage aggression. Would I have made this choice? After hearing about how U.S. forces have for years been Soleimani ‘s victims, I might be unable to say no.
Events are racing ahead in this situation, which has no close historical parallel. There is some resemblance to the ethnic fragmentation of Europe which occurred in periods of Europe. Before World War I, ethnic tension existed in the disintegrating Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and Bismarck’s design on Alsace-Lorraine. which he obtained in the Franco-Prussian War.
To the above, add an Iranian belief of “entitlement” to Iraq. In each case, there is a weak empire or state, with segments and layers like an orange, and a power that wants to do some peeling. In the present case, Iran’s deeply complex peeling strategy has been complicated by U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Nothing quite like this has come before, but it’s still useful to note some of the historical strategies used by great powers:
These are patterns, so few they are worth noting. They do not apply to Iraq because the country is enmeshed in hyper-acute politics, reminiscent of the early French Revolution. Ethnic groups whose relative positions were formerly defined by Saddam now haggle it out in a feverish tribal system with trappings of democracy. Those who buy into it are participants in various “rewards programs.”
The fervor of Iraq is nothing like the quiet that followed the 2003 invasion. Then, as in Japan in 1945, a fresh start was possible. In Iraq today, the structure can’t be dismantled; Iran owns a good part of it. The most telling part of the U.S. Embassy attack was the aftermath. On leaving, the attackers cleaned the area. Iran’s message: We have total control. You have nothing.
The disaffected Shiite young, who have been left out of the rewards program, are last on the list. The movement may have started in Basra, a town with especially miserable municipal services, and spread north. If it were possible to develop this group, it would be a counterbalance to Iran. But they are not organized. An organization can be enabled; a mob cannot.
Nothing besides the possibilities of disaffected youth is remotely suggestive of methods to improve the hospitality of Iraq towards U.S. forces. There is a parliamentary initiative, which Iran is trying to rig, to expel them. Although the embassy cannot be seized, Iran can make it useless.
As before, the opponent is Machiavellian. Iran’s retaliation will involve urban sanctuary for weapon emplacement. U.S. retaliation resulting in collateral casualties would be very helpful to Iran. Attempts by the U.S. to develop domestic allies would be met with assassination.
The cause of unwanted war is the failure of one or both sides to apprise the core interests of the opponent, and the amount of pain it is willing to take. Even though Qasem Soleimani deserved the ultimate sanction, Iran’s ultimate fuel is not oil; it’s martyrdom. It is central to Shiism, and their religious myth: Ali ibn Abi Talib died in battle, the first martyr of this branch of Islam. The declaration of martyrdom of Soleimani gives Iran’s religious establishment a powerful tool to sell war to the recently demonstrating Iranian youth. It also gags criticism.
Since in Shiism, a life is more valuable once martyred, while a sunken tanker is worthless, I might have argued for a material, deniable response. And if I seen a list of U.S. dead at Soleimani’s hands, I might have changed my mind again.
We shall soon see if each side understands what the other is capable of. Iran may commit ground forces to Shiite urban areas, from which they cannot be removed except by ground assault and urban warfare, including:
From the Vietnam War on, the chief adversarial assumption has been that the U.S. cannot accept casualties even on what might be a favorable exchange ratio. We might ask an analogous question of Iran’s infrastructure.
The swarming small boat naval threat, with ship-borne missiles, and Silkworms near the Strait of Hormuz, have been long anticipated. Does Iran anticipate that their naval forces and oil infrastructure would survive retaliation?
Blue Tango. Inspired by the (Cairo Opera Orchestra) Leroy Anderson classic. 48X36″, oil on canvas.
Scenery inspired by the corner of Doyers and Pell Streets, Chinatown, NYC, USA, Planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way.
If we’re being watched by hyper dimensional beings, please put your hands or tentacles together for us. We made it!
This might eventually be followed by, “How the Giant Got His Foot Caught in the Door.” (CNN)US strikes 5 facilities in Iraq and Syria linked to Iranian-backed militia and (CNN) Iran warns of ‘consequences’ after US strikes in Iraq and Syria.
Missile attacks were anticipated in Iran warns U.S., Israel of revenge after parade attack; Missile Attack on U.S. Forces? Attacks did not immediately result, though supply of missiles to militia occurred around that time. (Reuters) Exclusive: Iran moves missiles to Iraq in warning to enemies.
In Trump wants U.S. military in Iraq to ‘watch Iran’: CBS interview, I wrote,
The far west locations of the bases provide some insulation against sectarian strife. But how Iraq will fall apart is as hard as predicting how a goblet will shatter when dropped.
This is the evolving threat. In anticipation, Plan to Defeat ISIS Part 3; 1000 Troops to Kuwait; New Doctrine proposes the Doctrine of Ephemeral Deployment. A legitimate objection is increased cost, for less force projection, than fixed support and fire bases.
But these issues are tactical to the Game of Nations, which involves every aspect of diplomacy, threat and use of force, with overt and covert strategies.
Our play of the game of nations has been a complicated mish-mash of strategies and tactics. With the notable exception of the Marshall Plan, U.S. foreign policy was neither driven nor fettered by moral considerations, which were drowned out by “Communism versus the Free World” . This began to change with the (full text pdf) Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, (Wikipedia summary) Foreign Assistance Act.
This legislation was motivated by a Cold War foreign policy in the 1950’s with highly immoral or amoral notes, which continued with only mild abatement until the Iran-Contra affair. A separate law, (CRS, pdf) “section 2008”, further restricts aid to governments that assume power by coup.
The curtain on how things worked was lifted by CIA plank owner Miles Copeland Jr., in his book The Game of Nations. It’s expensive now, but a hint of its value is given by the question surrounding publication: Why did the CIA allow it?
Some express nostalgia for those days, while others note that the major “successes” that shared Copeland’s amoral mindset boomeranged badly:
The Vietnam war is not listed here because, although an enormous waste of blood and treasure, it left a remarkably slight trace in the current world. The same goes for other misadventures, such as the Bay of Pigs. Neither does this list include numerous clandestine programs, which include small successes and small failures.
Even the short list is an important reminder. Headline news is a problematic informer. Without context, the headlines offer little more than a punch in the gut, eliciting instinctive reaction, which variously draws from politics and morality. The media characterize our opponents as rivals. This is wrong. Rivals vie for the same cup, usually called “influence.” This, too, is a worthless term. Today’s world is a collision of interests, which are different for each power.
In what follows, I do not advocate an amoral or immoral foreign policy. But it is a game. This has been understood since the year 1513, when Niccolò Machiavelli published The Prince. PDF here. Your opponents play according to his rules, not yours. You have three choices:
In (Nov. 2016) Is Iraq Headed for Another Civil War? I wrote,
The Shiite Iraq that follows the passing of Sistani will not be a permissive setting for American operations. Other parts of it, such as the Kurdish area, might be. But the kinds of cultural shift and political combinations that would make a viable rump state are prohibited by the strange-to-us cultural animosities. Iran, a unified and disciplined state, would steamroller it.
I didn’t write this stuff to be oracular. Maybe we can beat the odds, maybe not. What does it take?
To be continued shortly.
From Part 3, we have a hint at an activity that might utilize Godsend’s skills. To explore further, we need to understand more than the famous milestones highlighted by histories. That focus will never get us the place of a figure as minor as Godsend. We have to look at the mistakes, dead ends, and activities that, while useful and supportive, did not leave much of a mark in time.
The number of dead ends explored by Manhattan was huge, a much larger story than the choices that worked. The entire uranium bomb effort, was, in retrospect, a wasteful duplication — if the far more complex plutonium “Fat Man” bomb could have been assumed to work. But it could not. Hence, 100% duplication, in the form of “Little Boy”, an inferior weapon of great expense.
Heavy water, which contains heavy hydrogen, a.k.a. deuterium, has been romanticized in movies and by historians. Lacking crucial purpose to the Manhattan project, it was almost a dead end. It was recognized early to be useful for the production of plutonium, but was never used by the U.S. for that purpose. (Neither is it of use to the Iranians for a uranium based program, one root of my suspicion that they have a second, completely hidden plutonium program, or an interest in the H-Bomb.)
Although it became crucial to the H-bomb that came later, it never served a crucial role in the Manhattan project. Yet it kept Los Alamos busy between 1942-1944.
For the A-Bomb, heavy water is intriguing but unnecessary shortcut to obscure goals. It takes roughly a pound of natural uranium enriched with U-235, dissolved in heavy water, to make a nuclear reactor. In 1944, at Enrico Fermi’s instigation, a sphere of this liquid, which was named the “water boiler”, gave Los Alamos an experimental atom-splitting reactor to study. With enrichment with about 58 grams (about 2 ounces) of U-235, it went critical, meaning that the chain reaction could grow without bound. This was much less U-235 than required by solid-metal experiments. Unlike the massive reactors at Hanford used to make plutonium, the homely water boiler could be easily reconfigured by changing the uranium-water solution.
(A joke of record: the “water boiler” did not boil water, and it is unrelated to boiling water reactors.)
The concentration, determined by experiment, is analogous to the critical mass of a bomb. The solution could be drained, dried, and analyzed for fission products. The result is an average of all the ways the cookie crumbles, the Fission Product Yield.
The water boiler reactor was tangential to the main effort. At best, it was a distant relative of the Bomb. The ease of construction may have inspired continued interest in Oppenheimer’s “hydride bomb”, which was actually tested years after the war, and fizzled twice. The chain reaction was produced by “thermal” neutrons, slowed down by the water. The Bomb, which has no moderator, uses fast neutrons.
But these were desperate times, and it gave the Los Alamos group something with which to test their pencils. What does this have to do with the fourth spy, Godsend, who ran Calutrons and mass spectrometers at Oak Ridge?
Godsend’s job at Los Alamos was similar to his job at Oak Ridge. The fission products produced by the water boiler could not be properly analyzed by wet chemistry, but would yield to the mass spectrometer, at which Godsend was expert at operation and maintenance.
At Trinity test, Robert Oppenheimer’s memorable quote, from the Bhagavad Gita, was “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” But there was also a minor act of creation, of isotopes and elements. What were they? The day after Trinity, Enrico Fermi and Julius Tabin drove to ground zero in a lead lined Sherman tank. Through a trap door in the bottom of the tank, they sampled a new radioactive material, a green glass dubbed “trinitite.”
Fresh trinitite was dangerously radioactive. But the risk, as then understood, was reduced acceptably by the minuscule quantities required by the mass spectrometer. Godsend was in business again, and busy for another half year at least, profiling the first instance of nuclear fallout.
The mass spectrometer also revealed how much of the bomb material was wasted, showing up as unreacted uranium or plutonium. This and the distribution of atomic splits facilitates calculation of total energy release.
All of this information was soon in the hands of Lavrentiy Beria, master of the security apparatus of the Soviet Union, a human monster and brilliant administrator who directly supervised both the Soviet atomic effort and all related espionage.
As before, the above is not a documented history of Godsend’s role. It is an alternative approach, complimentary to the efforts of historians, providing insight that may not be available from archives.
This is a sad note for the end 2019. It must not stand. There should be dancing in the streets! I’ll do my best.
(click to enlarge)