Teller's strategic initiatives, many of which to this day are secret, as much as Von Neumann's and his implementation of technical suggestions managed to tip the balance that made the peace between the powers. This was also part of an initiative that is even deeper which led to co-operation despite the possibility of misinformation from a very early stage, without which Salt II and III would not have worked and precipitant war thus avoided. "Brink negotiation" otherwise could not have avoided possible war. It is a vital lesson that deadly enemies despite their seeming need to conquer may need to co-operate, as strange as it may sound.
This deep analysis, led to a cool manoeuvering and to an eventual good resolution to what we once felt were intractable problems and deep philosophical divide. Readers of these posts have knowledge of some of the technical components of this struggle at least from some microscopic level, and these evidentiary bits point to some piece of the larger puzzle.
Oppenheimer's resistance to implementation to key pieces of the strategy, the necessary technical components of the grand strategy, and his pacifistic philosophy would ultimately led to a greater danger. It isn't that nice guys finish last, but you cannot send soldiers into the field with pop guns nor let the enemy know that is all they have. There is an old Arabic saying, "show the enemy your gold and your sword". Implementation of this philosophy with the requisite guarantees of security led to defusing of tension in what people used to think was an endless state of unbreakable tension. Many had to misunderstand the greater truths. The justification of these truths is the situation we have today. Oppenheimer, Pauling and Russel's path, no matter how well intended would not have led us to that solution. You have to see the end of the game. It is not enough to just say there is some danger of failure in this path or that. You have to have as the Supreme Court often had to say to plaintiffs, a workable redress of the provable wrong, not just a complaint about the status quo..
I am cursed with an unique but irrelevant knowledge of this from long ago. I side with Teller for reasons that I cannot really usefully transcend. The only thing I can suggest to you is that there are actually four doors, and what is behind that quantum door is neither a goat nor a cadillac.
BTW Von Neumanns game theory applies to poker, which is more like the game nations play, than chess or checkers. Bluff and imperfect information require a strategy from the standpoint of one player, but some co-operation and rules are required that both must recognize.
In the end if we disagree about everything else, we can agree about we play poker for. Wealth, women and world domination. If we are not playing for that I am taking the cards and going home.
EC<:-} |
