HSTM 31212 • HSTM 31712
THE NUCLEAR AGE
Hiroshima to Nuclear Terrorism
Semester 1, 2013-2014
Classes: Wednesdays, 11.00-12.50
Dover Street, Basement Lecture Theatre
Lecturer: Dr Jeff Hughes
Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine
Room 2.56, Simon Building
[email protected]
0161 275 5857
Office hours: Wednesdays 13.30-15.30
Summary course schedule
Note: it’s occasionally necessary to change the order or contents of the timetable. Announcements
will be made electronically and/or at lectures. Please listen out for announcements and check your
blackboard and email regularly.
Week 1
29 January
Introduction: Making Nuclear Weapons
Week 2
5 February
Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the End of the
Second World War
Reading: Weale + Fussell
Week 3
12 February
From Few to Many: Nuclear
Proliferation and Nuclear Culture,
1945-1965
Reading: Zubok
Week 4
19 February
The Hydrogen Bomb and Nuclear Fear,
1955-1965
COURSEWORK 1 DUE
Week 5
26 February
From the Bay of Pigs to Armageddon:
The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962
Reading: Scott & Smith
Week 6
5 March
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH WEEK
Week 7
12 March
Ideologies of the Nuclear State: Civil
Defence and CND
Reading: Shaw
Film screening: The War Game (1965)
Week 8
19 March
Meltdown and Broken Arrow! Nuclear
Accidents and Nuclear Risk
COURSEWORK 2 DUE
Reading: Henriksen
Week 9
26 March
Film discussion: Doctor Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and
Love the Bomb (Stanley Kubrick, 1964)
Week 10
2 April
MAD, MIRVs and Minutemen: Nuclear
Systems at the End of the Cold War
Reading: Gusterson
Optional film screening: Threads,
subject to demand, time & venue tba
EASTER BREAK 7-27 April
Week 11
30 April
Nuclear Britain
Reading: Stoddart
Week 12
7 May
Overview and Conclusion: New Nuclear
Threats?
COURSEWORK 3 (essay) DUE
HSTM31711 PROJECT DUE
2
Contents
Course schedule .................................................................................................................. 2
Contents .............................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4
Aims ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Intended learning outcomes ............................................................................................... 4
Contacting me ..................................................................................................................... 5
Course communications ..................................................................................................... 5
A note about plagiarism ...................................................................................................... 5
Disability support ................................................................................................................ 6
Teaching .............................................................................................................................. 6
Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 6
How to find sources to read ................................................................................................ 7
General reading................................................................................................................... 8
Useful websites ................................................................................................................... 9
Coursework assignments .................................................................................................. 11
Essay .................................................................................................................................. 12
Project (HSTM31712 students only) ................................................................................. 15
Markscheme for essays and projects ............................................................................... 16
Lectures and coursework assignments, week by week ...............................................18
Going further in the history of science, technology and medicine .................................. 46
3
Introduction
From the detonation of the first nuclear weapons over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, nuclear
weapons, nuclear energy and the culture surrounding them have shaped our lives and the world in
which we live. The explosions inaugurating the nuclear age transformed international military and
political relationships. They also transformed popular culture and social life: art, literature and film as
well as politics and military doctrine have all reflected and embodied the traumas of nuclear culture.
In the Cold War the “mushroom cloud” became the terrifying icon of the nuclear age and imminent
destruction. After the break-up of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, fragmentation of
accountability and responsibility in the newly independent states’ nuclear security arrangements led
to a significant traffic in smuggled fissile material. In the wake of 9/11, fears of radiological weapons
(“dirty bombs”) were rife, transforming the domestic and international security environment. Now,
in the twenty-first century, some commentators argue that we are in a second nuclear age, in which
the threat is not from an arms race between competing superpowers, but from terrorists, “rogue
states” and renewed nuclear proliferation with unforeseeable consequences. And where civil nuclear
power had once sustained a high modernist dream of “energy too cheap to meter,” the 2011 disaster
at Fukishima Daiichi threw the future of the nuclear industry – and national and international energy
security – into doubt.
Accessible to scientists and non-scientists, this course explores the origins and development of
nuclear culture, and seeks to shed light on the interactions of science, technology, politics and
cultural production in the nuclear world. It confronts the methodological and political problems of
acquiring a properly historical understanding of nuclear matters. As we face claims of nuclear
proliferation in the Middle East, the ongoing threat of nuclear terrorism and a potential energy crisis
for which some argue nuclear power is the only sustainable solution, the course also asks: does
history offer any guidance in understanding our present predicaments, and can it offer guidance as to
where we go next?
Aims




To provide an introduction to the history and politics of nuclear weapons and to the culture of
the nuclear age.
To explore the interactions of science, technology, politics, gender and cultural production in
the nuclear world.
To examine and assess the impact of the nuclear age on human affairs.
Additionally, the 20-credit version of this unit (HSTM 31712) gives students the opportunity to
explore in detail some aspect of the nuclear age through an individually supervised project.
Intended learning outcomes
Students successfully completing this course will:
 understand the origins of nuclear weapons and have an appreciation of the debates
surrounding their use in 1945
 appreciate the diverse reasons for the proliferation and control of nuclear weapons and the
relationships between science, politics and state formations in the Cold War and afterwards
 be able to analyse the cultural phenomena associated with nuclear weapons, including film,
literature, television and the media
 be aware of the effect of nuclear weapons on military strategy, both in general terms and in
specific instances, e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis.
 Students taking the 20-credit version of this unit (HSTM 31712) will also extend and develop
their research and writing skills through an individual research project.
4
Contacting us
This course is organised by the Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine (CHSTM).
CHSTM is part of the Faculty of Life Sciences, and is based in the Simon Building on Brunswick Street.
See http://www.manchester.ac.uk/chstm for full details.
Your lecturer is Dr Jeff Hughes. I can most easily be contacted by
[email protected] Alternatively, you can phone me on 0161 275 5857.
email, on
I have regular tutorial hours in my office, 2.56 Simon Building, on Wednesdays, 13.30-15.30. If you
can’t make these times, email me for an appointment, suggesting times when you’re available.
Course communications
The course has a blackboard site. All announcements and communications will appear on the
Blackboard site, and will be sent to students’ University email addresses. You should therefore check
your University email and blackboard pages regularly while registered for this course. You are
responsible for ensuring that you check regularly for course announcements.
The unit blackboard site has a student discussion facility. You are encouraged to use this to discuss
course classes and assessments, circulate information about relevant materials (e.g. websites) you
have found etc.
A note about plagiarism
Plagiarism is a very serious offence, comparable to cheating in exams. It consists of passing off others’
work as though it were your own (e.g. lifting passages – either word-for-word or closely paraphrased
– from books, articles, online sources; unacknowledged use of sources etc.). Even ‘recycling’ your
own work, which has previously been submitted for assessment at this University or elsewhere, is
defined as plagiarism.
It is not difficult for academic staff to recognise instances of plagiarism. Likewise, software for
detecting material lifted from internet sources is regularly employed in this regard: all coursework
will be run through turnitin before marking.
Ignorance of the rules on plagiarism will not be accepted as a defence. It is your responsibility to
familiarise yourself with the University’s policy on plagiarism before you prepare and submit any
coursework so that you do not inadvertently commit this offence. All students should look at the
following websites for information:
http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=2870
http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/academicsupport/plagiarism/
Since academic writing typically draws on the work and specific language of other writers, it is vital
that you understand the (often subtle) distinctions between ethical use of others’ texts and unethical
appropriations of the work of others. The penalties for plagiarism range from being required to
resubmit the piece of work in question (with a maximum possible mark of 40%) for minor instances
to expulsion from the University in serious ones.
5
Disability support
The University of Manchester is committed to providing all students access to learning in the way
most beneficial to them. It is important to tell us about any additional support that you need. If you
have a disability, a learning difficulty or any condition that you feel may affect your work, then you
might want to tell me about it. Please feel free to approach me to discuss any additional needs that
you have. You may wish to email me, or we can arrange a meeting. Any discussion we have will be
confidential. If you wish, you can also inform the Disability Support Office, based on the lower ground
floor of the John Owens Building. You can drop in, or for appointments/enquiries telephone 0161 275
7512 / email [email protected]
Teaching
This course unit will be taught in a single weekly two-hour class, on Wednesdays at 11.00, in the
Dover Street Basement Lecture Theatre.
The classes will consist of diverse lecture,
seminar/discussion and audio-visual elements. There will usually be a break in the middle of each
class, except when the material (e.g. a film) dictates otherwise.
Lecture elements will guide you through the essentials of the topic. The lectures form a connected
sequence in which later lectures build on materials presented in earlier ones. You should take notes
to help in preparing coursework. The classes will often include discussion of the coursework –
requirements, planning your work, presentational and submission guidelines etc. Students are
therefore **required to be able to attend for the full two hour class each week**.
Each class will be informed by, and will usually contain an element of discussion of, a set reading or
viewing. You must read or view the required material indicated in advance, and come to the class
prepared to discuss it. The success of class discussions will depend on everyone being prepared and
willing to engage.
You may ask questions at any time in a lecture or seminar. Feel free to interrupt if there’s anything
you would like to clarify. Classes are meant to be informal sessions where you can raise any
difficulties or points of interest with the week’s material; you should make full use of them, and not
be afraid to contribute.
Assessment
The 10-credit version of this course (HSTM31212) is assessed through two short assessed coursework
assignments and an essay. The credit distribution is as follows:
Coursework assignment 1: Hiroshima review
Coursework assignment 2: mini-research project
Essay
25%
25%
50%
The 20-credit version (HSTM31712) is assessed through the same two short assessed coursework
assignments and essay, plus a longer research project. The credit distribution is as follows:
Coursework assignment 1: Hiroshima review
Coursework assignment 2: mini-research project
Essay
Individual research project
12½%
12½%
25%
50%
6
How to find sources to read
All required readings will (whenever possible) be made available via Blackboard.
This is a Level 3 course, so you are expected to undertake a significant amount of independent
reading for the essay (and, in particular, for the HSTM 31712, project). ‘Significant’ implies at least
familiarity with the key literature on the topic you choose (i.e. grasp of the general arguments and
debates in the field). Remember that each of the suggested readings will contain numerous further
references from which you can follow up arguments of interest to you. Remember also that you will
not necessarily have to read the whole of each book suggested, just those parts relevant to the essay
you have chosen. If in doubt, check with the lecturer.
Most of the material you will need to look at is available online, either on the open web, or through
services subscribed to by the John Rylands University of Manchester Library (UML in the reading lists
that follow). This is particularly true for journal articles. Bear in mind, however, that some of the
most important sources are still only available on paper – particularly books. You will be expected to
visit libraries to access paper sources if necessary. Though I will try to make resources electronically
available wherever possible, do not form the impression that you can rely solely on websites and
electronic media!
The most useful library for this course is the Main Library. In the lists that follow, readings in the
main shelf collection are designated UML; readings in the High Demand Collection are designated HD.
You may also find some readings in the Precinct Library, or in the Joule Library in the Sackville Street
building. The catalogues of both of these are integrated with the UML online catalogue. Details of all
University of Manchester library locations are available at http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus
A useful additional library resource (e.g. for background reading, essay and project research, local
newspaper sources, etc) are Manchester’s city libraries. For information and holdings, see
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200062/libraries
IMPORTANT: you will need to allow considerable time for reading around your subject, and for
planning and writing coursework. Other students will be working on similar topics and there will be
considerable demand for books. You should therefore start work on your essay (and, for
HSTM31712, project) early. If you have difficulty in accessing relevant sources, contact the course
lecturer as soon as possible.
7
General reading
There is no single textbook for the unit, but the following provide a useful and accessible introduction
to and more detail on some of the themes of the unit:
G. DeGroot, The Bomb: A History of Hell on Earth (Pimlico, 2005) [UML 623.45119/DEG].
J. Newhouse, The Nuclear Age. From Hiroshima to Star Wars (Michael Joseph, 1989) [UML
355.43/N43].
M. Mandelbaum, The Nuclear Revolution. International Politics Before and After Hiroshima
(Cambridge UP, 1981) [UML 341.67/M61].
L. Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (Macmillan, 3rd edition 2003) [UML and HD
355.43/F46].
J.L. Gaddis, We Now Know. Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford, 1997) [UML 327/G79].
M.J. Hogan (ed.), Hiroshima in History and Memory (Cambridge University Press, 1996) [UML
940.97144/H11].
S. Weart, Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (Harvard University Press, 1988) [UML 621.039/W8].
J. Isaacs and T. Downing, Cold War (Bantam Press, 1998) [UML HD 909/I7].
J. Simpson, The Independent Nuclear State. The United States, Britain and the Military Atom
(Macmillan, 1983) [UML 355.43/S78, 81].
W.E. Burrows, Critical Mass. The Dangerous Race for Superweapons in a Fragmenting World (Simons
& Schuster, 1994) [UML 355.43/B135].
J. Schell, The Fate of the Earth (Cape, 1982) [UML 575.322/S17].
J. Schell, The Unfinished Twentieth Century (Verso, 2001) [UML 341.67/S52].
J.L. Gaddis, P.H. Gordon, E.R. May and J. Rosenberg (eds.), Cold War Statesmen Confront the Bomb
(Oxford University Press, 1999) [UML 327.09/G8].
A useful and detailed attempt at an overall assessment of the nuclear age from a US perspective is:
S.I. Schwartz, Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of US Nuclear Weapons Since 1940
(Brookings Institution Press, 1998).
The journals Cold War History, Journal of Cold War Studies, International Security, Journal of Strategic
Studies and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [UML Periodicals; available electronically via the UML
website as e-journals] contain many useful articles and much essential information on the nuclear
age.
8
Useful websites
A few words of warning: most of the print sources you’ll find on reading lists or in the Library are
reliable and potentially useful, but standards are a lot more difficult to enforce online. Watch out for
the obvious dangers of inaccuracy, plagiarism, undisclosed bias and amateurish writing, and
remember that many sites – including some perfectly accurate and apparently relevant sites
(including Wikipedia) – won’t be useful for the kind of work you will be assessed on in this course.
Above all, DON’T assume you can use the web exclusively, avoiding the Library altogether. There just
isn’t enough good analytical material online, and the result is unlikely to impress the marker.
Feel free to contact your lecturer about the content of individual sites. Be warned now that you are
entirely responsible for what you produce: if you’re led astray by poor online material, it’s deemed to
be your fault for failing to check it out properly.
With that said, here’s a list of sites which you might find useful as starting-points for research:
Atomic Bomb Museum http://www.atomicbombmuseum.org/ Japanese site including the
testimonies of bomb survivors.
Atomic Archive http://www.atomicarchive.com/ Key documents and reports on the Manhattan
Project, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Oppenheimer investigation, the Cuban Missile Crisis and
beyond. Also includes images and footage of many nuclear tests.
Trinity Atomic Web Site http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/index.html Plenty of archive
documents and photographs.
Nuclear Weapon Archive http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/ Information on weapons systems,
national nuclear programmes, with useful images.
The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Truman Library site)
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/ Excellent background
information on early nuclear policy-making, with lots of original documentation, including White
House minutes.
Nuclear History at the National Security Archive
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/NC/nuchis.html Scholarly essays and a wealth of original source
material
Cold War International History Project
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.home&topic_id=1409 A superb collection
of archival documents from US/NATO and USSR/Warsaw Pact: very useful to use in coursework.
Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch explores the dual
histories of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and includes lots of digitised original documents.
Nuke Pop http://www.wsu.edu/%7Ebrians/nukepop Beautiful collection of images charting pop
culture’s response to the nuclear age — record sleeves, films, comic-books and more.
A useful list of nuclear accidents involving nuclear weapons from 1950-1980 is at:
http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_81010001a_n22.pdf
9
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/ A useful and authoritative
selection of nuclear data, including information on nuclear stockpiles and deployments and nuclear
testing. There is also a reliable and comprehensive guide to other (mostly US-focused) nuclearrelated websites at http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nuguide/guinx.asp
Global Security http://www.globalsecurity.org/ A range of useful information on security and
intelligence matters, including up-to-date information on weapons of mass destruction.
Federation of American Scientists http://www.fas.org/ authoritative and up-to-date information on
nuclear issues; especially useful for new weapons developments and non-proliferation issues. Also
has nifty fallout and weapons effects calculators.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an advocacy group founded by scientists and engineers
concerned about the potential effects of nuclear technologies, maintains extensive information about
stockpiles, deployments and nuclear weapons facilities: http://www.thebulletin.org/
Box of Broadcasts (http://bobnational.net/, log in via UoM and Shibboleth) and YouTube
(http://www.youtube.com/) are very useful resources for finding TV programmes and films with
nuclear themes, and well worth a browse. The British Pathé site (http://www.britishpathe.com/) is
brilliant for historical newsreel footage, and we’ll be using it during the course.
10
Coursework assignments
The coursework assignments are designed to allow you to explore aspects of the course in detail, and
to help you to develop your analytical, writing and communication skills. The assignments are spread
out over the course to help you manage your workload.
All coursework is marked anonymously, so please use your student registration number rather than
your name on the first page of your documents.
Late coursework assignments will not be marked, and will not receive credit (unless there are
mitigating circumstances with appropriate documentation: either a formal medical record of illness,
or a note from your Personal Tutor addressed directly to me).
Coursework 1: Hersey Hiroshima review, due 19 February (Week 4)
For this assignment, I would like you to read John Hersey’s classic and, in places, horrifying, account
of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. I would then like you to produce a historically-informed review
of the work, analysing its message, situating it in the context of its time and evaluating its impact. In
addition to the chosen work, you will need to read some appropriate historical commentaries
(‘secondary texts’) to give you the background understanding you need for your contextual analysis.
More detailed instructions, including a list of suggested works, secondary readings and
presentational guidelines, will be circulated early in the course, and class time will be devoted to
discussing the coursework in advance. You are advised to read Hersey in good time, so as to be able
to take advantage of class discussion of the coursework.
The coursework should be submitted via the unit blackboard site by 10.00am on 19 February and a
paper copy must be submitted to the lecturer in class that day. The coursework will be returned as
soon as possible with annotations, an individual mark and an assessment sheet explaining the mark
awarded. The mark given at this stage is provisional only; it does not become final until approved at
the examiners’ meeting in June.
Coursework 2: mini-research project, due 19 March (Week 8)
This assignment is designed to give you the opportunity to explore source materials from the nuclear
age at first hand, and to develop your transferable communication skills. I would like you to explore
some aspect of the nuclear age of interest to you via the huge range of original (primary) historical
materials now available online. You will relate the primary sources to the existing historical
literature, and write them up in a form which might be accessible to wide audiences. I hope that this
work will be made available on the web as a public record of the research you have carried out.
The coursework should be submitted via the unit blackboard site by 10.00am on 19 March and a
paper copy should be submitted to the lecturer in class that day. More detailed instructions,
including a list of suggested topics, secondary readings and presentational guidelines, will be
circulated early in the course, and class time will be devoted to discussing the coursework.
The coursework will be returned as soon as possible with annotations, an individual mark and an
assessment sheet explaining the mark awarded. The mark given at this stage is provisional only; it
does not become final until approved at the examiners’ meeting in June.
11
Essay, due 7 May (Week 12)
All students are expected to produce an essay of about 2000 words (1800 to 2200 words acceptable,
inclusive of footnotes). The essay is to be submitted in class and on blackboard on 7 May (Week 12).
Details of how to submit follow.
Late essays will not be marked, and no credit will be given. If you have any difficulty producing an
essay on time – if you cannot decide which question to answer, if you have difficulty obtaining
readings, or if you have any other problems – please contact the lecturer as soon as possible for help.
Essay topics
Topics and suggested readings will be distributed in the first few weeks of the course. We will spend
some time in class discussing the essay topics, essay writing, presentation guidelines etc. For this
reason it is important that you be able to attend both hours of all classes.
Essay writing guidelines
These are the basic guidelines: more detailed guidance will be available from the course lecturer;
class time will be devoted to discussion of essay preparation.
1. Presentation

Type or word-process your essay.

Leave margins (left, right, top and bottom) of 2.5cm for marker’s comments.

Use double or 1.5-line spacing (eg, 12-point text on 18-point spacing is acceptable).

Use one side of the paper only.

Number the pages.

Include the essay title at the top of the first page, along with your student number (not your
name: all coursework is anonymously marked).

Essays which ignore these guidelines will lose marks.
2. Planning the essay

Prepare an outline of your argument. The outline should list in abbreviated form (e.g. on one
side of A4), the points you wish to make, and the kind of evidence which you will cite. Once
this outline is coherent, then draft the essay from it.

You should plan your essay before you begin to write. Based on your reading and any notes
you have made, jot down on a single piece of paper what you consider to be the main points
you need to make in order to answer the question.

Think very carefully about the order in which you put these points. Remember that you have
to present a clear and cogent argument, and that essay structure is important both in helping
12
your argument along and in holding the reader's attention. Then flesh out your basic plan with
more details and examples, selected from the lectures or your reading.
3. Writing the essay

Typically, the first paragraph should introduce the overall aims of the essay, and the final
paragraph should briefly summarise your conclusions.

In order to help the reader, your paragraph structure should mirror the structure of your
argument. Avoid a succession of very short paragraphs (one or two sentences) or long ones
(more than one page).

Although your essay may refer briefly to required readings or lectures, your argument will
need to go beyond these sources. Simply re-iterating points from the minimum required
content will not gain you much credit.

It’s important to remember that history is not like science. You are not being tested directly
on your knowledge, but on your ability to apply knowledge to present an argument. It’s
important to back up your argument with plenty of examples to clarify and illustrate what you
mean. Credit will be given for presentation, originality, careful use of historical evidence and
for clarity of expression. Credit will not be given for paraphrasing other authors.
4. Citing sources

If you use an author’s argument or evidence, you must cite the author and title of the work
you have used, whether you quote directly or not. You may cite these sources at the bottom
of the page (footnotes), at the end of the essay (endnotes) or in the text in brackets (…). Since
the full reference will be in your bibliography (see below), you need only use an abbreviated
form of reference, e.g. ‘Pickstone, Medicine and Industrial Society, p.123’, or Edgerton,
‘Science and Technology’.

Only quote an author directly if his/her particular phrasing is important for your argument.

If you do take text directly from a work, however, you must signal that fact. Failure to do so
constitutes plagiarism (see “A note about plagiarism” above). Quotations of three lines or less
should be enclosed with inverted commas; longer quotes should be indented as a bloc. In
addition you must cite the author’s name, title and the page where the quote appeared.

Attach a bibliography at the end of your essay. List all works used in preparation of your essay
in alphabetical order of author surname. Include only those sources you have used, following
a standard scholarly model (ask the lecturer if you are unsure) such as the following:
[for books]:
John Pickstone, Medicine and Industrial Society. Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1985.
[for articles:]
David Edgerton, “Science and Technology in British Business History”. Business History, vol.29
(1987), 84-103.
13
[for chapters in edited books:]
Langdon Winner, “Do artifacts have politics?” In Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman (eds.),
The Social Shaping of Technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1985, 26-38
[for websites:]
Perry Willett, ed., Victorian Women Writers Project. <http://www.indiana.edu/~letrs/vwwp/>.
Accessed 15 January 2014.
Use your sources critically. Simply reproducing what an author says does not impress markers.
Noticing where an author’s argument is weak does.
Submitting your essay
Please submit:


One copy of your essay electronically, via the unit blackboard site, by 10.00am on
Wednesday 7 May;
one paper copy in class on Wednesday 7 May.
The electronic copy will be archived for the external examiner to review, and we apply plagiarism
detection software to it as part of routine monitoring. The electronic copy also serves as your proof
of submission.
The paper copy is needed for your assessor to read and make comments on: we can’t supply any
feedback unless we have a version on paper, so please make sure both copies are submitted on time.
Remember that scripts are marked anonymously, so your name must not be used. Instead, please
make sure your student registration number is displayed conspicuously on the first page.
Late essays will not be marked, and will not receive credit (unless there are mitigating
circumstances with appropriate documentation: either a formal medical record of illness, or a note
from your Personal Tutor addressed directly to me).
Return of essays
I will endeavour to return essays as soon as possible with annotations, an individual marks and an
assessment sheet explaining the mark awarded. I will also produce general feedback, which will be
discussed in class and posted on the unit blackboard site. The mark given at this stage is provisional
only; it does not become final until approved at the examiners’ meeting in June.
14
Project (HSTM31712 students only)
For those taking the 20-credit version of the course, there is an additional piece of assessment. This
will normally be a project, such as a more extended essay (typically 3000 to 3500 words), critical
literature survey, or perhaps even designing a website. This project is a substantial piece of work,
equivalent to 100 hours of independent study and is intended to allow you to explore issues of
interest to you, and to allow you more scope for independent research and creative writing/design.
I will arrange to see all 20-credit students early in the course to discuss possible topics and readings,
and we will meet periodically thereafter in project workshops where we can discuss project design,
research methods, writing and other issues. I will answer questions on project coverage and
structure, and will be available to follow up any particular concerns or queries individually.
The deadline for submission of the project is Wednesday 7 May (Week 12). Bear in mind that you will
have a good deal of other work at this time, including the essay – so don’t leave your project until the
last minute. You need to work on the project over the entire course of the semester, and timetable
your work accordingly.
Note that the individual research project is worth 10 credits, which equates to 100 hours of study. I
will expect to see this reflected in the scale, scope (and bibliography!) of the project.
Submitting your project
As for essays, please submit:


One copy of your work electronically, via the unit Blackboard site, by 10.00am on
Wednesday 7 May;
One paper copy in class on Wednesday 7 May.
The electronic copy will be archived for the external examiner to review, and we may apply
plagiarism detection software to it as part of routine monitoring. The electronic copy also serves as
your proof of submission. The paper copy is needed for your assessor to read and make comments
on: we can’t supply any feedback unless we have a version on paper, so please make sure both copies
are submitted on time.
Remember that scripts are marked anonymously, so your name must not be used. Instead, please
make sure your student registration number is displayed conspicuously on the first page.
Late projects will not be marked, and will not receive credit (unless there are mitigating
circumstances with appropriate documentation: either a formal medical record of illness, or a note
from your Personal Tutor addressed directly to me).
Return of projects
I will endeavour to return essays as soon as possible with annotations, an individual marks and an
assessment sheet explaining the mark awarded. The mark given at this stage is provisional only; it
does not become final until approved at the examiners’ meeting in June.
15
Mark scheme (essays and projects)
Under Faculty of Life Sciences guidelines, essays and other coursework are assessed on a scale from 0
to 20, corresponding to values from 0% to 100%. The following directions are given to markers:
Two sets of annotations, neither of which are mutually exclusive, are provided allowing for accurate
allocation of marks. The second set is divided under the following headings K
Knowledge
C
Coverage
U
Understanding
A
Awareness
R
Reading
%
Mark
Criteria
100
20
Outstanding answer with high degree of
originality/flair/insight. Possibly considered
“perfect” because a better answer could not
be given even by the examiner.
95
19
Outstanding answer with clear evidence of
originality/flair/insight.
90
18
85
17
Excellent answer, with evidence of
supplementary reading and some originality
/insight in its approach
80
16
Very good answer, well presented with clear,
logical arguments, and conveying a clear
depth of understanding or breadth of
coverage. Evidence of some original thought.
75
15
Generally accurate, organised and wellinformed, logical and thorough. Definite
indication of extra study, attempts to
analyse.
70
14
First/2.i borderline
65
13
Reasonably comprehensive – covering most
important points, even if limited to lecture
material. Possibly some minor omissions.
60
12
2.i/2.ii borderline
16
K Contains all of the relevant information with no
errors or only insignificant errors
C Addresses all aspects of the subject
U Displays an excellent understanding of the subject
within a wider context
A Gives extensive evidence of critical awareness and
independent thinking
R Has read extensively beyond the essential material
K Contains all of the relevant information with no or
very few minor errors and no major errors
C Addresses all aspects of the subject
U Displays a good understanding of the subject
within a wider context
A Contains evidence of critical awareness and
independent thinking
R Has read beyond the essential material
K Contains most of the relevant information but may
include some minor errors though no major ones
C Addresses all aspects of the subject but might not
give adequate coverage to all aspects
U Displays an understanding of the subject within a
wider context but this might not be substantial
A Contains some evidence of critical awareness and
independent thinking but depends mainly on
factual information
R Has read and understood at least some of the
essential material
55
11
Adequate answer, but limited to lecture
material, with some minor errors or
omissions. Little or no cross referencing
between lectures.
K Contains the central core of essential information
but may include some minor errors and a few
major errors
C Does not address all aspects of the subject and
might not give adequate coverage to the aspects
that are addressed
U Has some understanding of the subject within a
wider context but this might be limited
A Little evidence of critical awareness and
independent thinking
R Might have read the essential material, but
probably with limited understanding
50
10
2.ii/Third borderline
45
9
Incomplete answer. Information is sparse,
possibly poorly organised with some or many
inaccuracies.
40
8
Pass/compensatable fail borderline. This
mark is the bare minimum required for a
clear pass and represents attainment of the
minimal standard requisite with intended
learning objectives
35
7
Deficient answer. Many omissions. Some
relevant facts and general approach sensible.
30
6
Compensatable fail/outright fail borderline.
Deficient answer. Many omissions. Some
relevant facts and general approach sensible.
This answer is barely enough to achieve
above an outright fail having barely achieved
some of the intended learning objectives
25
5
Answer largely irrelevant, but displays some
understanding of the general subject
20
4
15
3
Answer largely irrelevant, the information
may be poorly structured, confused with
many errors
10
2
Answer mostly irrelevant, a very poor answer
which may only vaguely address one aspect
of the question.
5
1
Hardly any answer – maybe one or 2 key
words implying the most basic awareness of
the subject
0
No answer, or answer totally
irrelevant/incorrect. (including cases where
the question has been mis-read).
17
K Contains only a limited amount of the relevant
information and may include minor and major
errors
C Addresses some aspects of the subject but
coverage of these aspects is incomplete
U Has only a limited understanding of the subject
within a wider context
A Very little, if any, evidence of critical awareness
and independent thinking
R No evidence of having read the essential material
K Contains very little relevant information, though
some is present; may include minor and major
errors
C Addresses a few aspects of the subject but
coverage is very incomplete
U Has little or no understanding of the subject within
a wider context
A No evidence of critical awareness and
independent thinking
R No evidence of having read the essential material
K Contains very little relevant information and what
is present is incomplete and probably out of
context, and there may be many minor and major
errors
C Coverage is sketchy and unfocussed
U Has no understanding of the topic within a wider
context
A No evidence of critical awareness and
independent thinking
R No evidence of having read anything
K Just a few relevant words and phrases and there
may be many minor and major errors
C Coverage is wholly inadequate
U Has no context
A Totally lacking in critical awareness and
independent thinking
R No evidence of having read anything
Week 1
Introduction: Making Nuclear Weapons
The first nuclear device was exploded at 0529:45 on July 16 1945 at Alamogordo in the New Mexico
desert. It was the outcome of a four-year research and development project which had involved tens
of thousands of scientists, engineers and military personnel in the largest coordinated human
enterprise since the construction of the pyramids. Costing over 2 billion dollars, the Manhattan
Engineering District became a top-secret state within a state. This introductory lecture explores the
reasons for the success of the ‘Manhattan Project’ and gives a broad outline of the aims and scope of
the course.
Recommended Background Reading
There are many histories of the wartime nuclear projects. The standard sources are the official
histories: R.G. Hewlett and O.E. Anderson, The New World. A History of the United States Atomic
Energy Commission. Volume 1. 1939-1946 (California UP 1990 [1962]); M. Gowing, Britain and Atomic
Energy, 1939-1945 (Macmillan, 1964) [UML 621.039/G101, 940.9642/G77; Joule U:623.4543/GOW].
Though problematic in its reliance on anecdotes, the best all-round account of the development of
atomic weapons is R. Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (Penguin, 1988) [UML 623.4525/R1,
also Joule U:623.4543/RHO]. For a detailed technical study of the Manhattan Project, see L.
Hoddeson et al., Critical Assembly. A Technical History of Los Alamos during the Oppenheimer Years,
1943-1945 (Cambridge UP, 1993) [UML 623.4525/H3]. A more general overview of the development
of fission weapons during the war can be found in H. Kragh, Quantum Generations. A History of
Twentieth Century Physics (Princeton University Press, 1999) [UML 530.9/K13]. For an account setting
the Manhattan Project in the longer timeframe of twentieth century science, see J. Hughes, The
Manhattan Project: Big Science and the Atom Bomb (Icon, 2002) [UML Main and HD, 623.4525/H9].
On the German atomic bomb programme, D. Irving’s The German Atomic Bomb (Da Capo, 1967)
[UML 623.4545/I1] is classic but problematic. Better is the revisionist M. Walker, German National
Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power, 1939-1949 (Cambridge, 1989) [UML 621.039/W15]; also
M. Walker, Nazi Science. Myth, Truth, and the German Atomic Bomb (Plenum Press, 1995) [UML
999/W275]. Two more lurid accounts of wider aspects of the German nuclear programme are G.
Brooks, Hitler’s Nuclear Weapons (Leo Cooper, 1992); P. Henshall, Vengeance. Hitler’s Nuclear
Weapon: Fact or Fiction (Sutton, 1995) [UML 623.4525/H7]. The transcripts of conversations between
interned German nuclear scientists at Farm Hall in 1945 are available in Operation Epsilon: The Farm
Hall Transcripts (Institute of Physics, 1993) [Joule and UML HD 530.943/F1].
Some recent work has suggested that the Germans did develop and test some form of nuclear
weapon during WW2: see http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22270 (sign in via UML).
Interestingly, controversial work has suggested that the Japanese too were working on nuclear
weapons during World War 2: see R.K. Wilcox, Japan’s Secret War: Japan’s Race Against Time to Build
its Own Atomic Bomb (Marlowe, 1995) [UML 355.0952/W1]; W.E. Grunden, M. Walker and M.
Yamakazi, “Wartime Nuclear Weapons Research in Germany and Japan,” Osiris 20 (2005), 107-130
[UML e-journal].
18
Week 2
Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the End of the Second World War
Debate continues about the reasons for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many
historians now believe that the Americans knew that the Japanese were suing for peace via the USSR
in the summer of 1945, raising profound questions about the actual reasons for the bombings. This
week we explore the argument that the bombs were dropped as an act of “atomic diplomacy” to preempt the Soviet Union’s entry into the Pacific war and subsequent Soviet expansionism.
Required reading:
Chapter 5, “On the Ground,” in A Weale (ed.), Hiroshima: First-Hand Accounts of the Atomic Terror
that Changed the World (Robinson, 1995), 145-168.
“Thank God for the Atom Bomb,” in P. Fussell, Thank God for the Atom Bomb and other Essays
(Summit Books, 1988), 13-44.
Both readings are available on the unit Blackboard site.
For this first discussion reading, you are asked to read two contrasting accounts of the atomic
bombing of Hiroshima: one from the point of view of the victims, and one from the point of view of
an American GI who would have been part of the planned invasion of Japan. Think about the
perspectives the two articles take, and what they tell us about the meaning of the bombing of
Hiroshima. Do you think it is possible to reconcile the two readings?
Recommended Background Reading:
J.S. Walker, “The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update,” Diplomatic History 14
(1990), 97-114 [UML e-journal].
Further Reading:
The classic account of the bombing of Hiroshima from the victims’ point of view (though written a
year later, by an American journalist) is J. Hersey, Hiroshima (Penguin 1946 and many subsequent
editions; UML 940.9652/H2; http://www.archive.org/stream/hiroshima035082mbp/hiroshima035082mbp_djvu.txt). This
short book is absolutely foundational to understanding subsequent nuclear discourse: it forms the
basis for the first piece of coursework, due in Week 4.
Context for Hersey’s work and a broader account of the reception of Hiroshima in the USA is given in
P. Boyer, By the Bomb’s Early Light. American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age
(Pantheon, 1985/1994) [UML 973.918/B86 and e-book]. More recent scholarship on reactions to
Hiroshima and Hiroshima includes P.B. Sharp, “From Yellow Peril to Japanese Wasteland: John
Hersey’s ‘Hiroshima’,” Twentieth Century Literature 46 (2000), 434-452; P.N. Kirstein, “Hiroshima and
Spinning the Atom: America, Britain, and Canada Proclaim the Nuclear Age, 6 August 1945,” The
Historian 71 (2009), 805-827; K.R. Forde and M.W. Ross, “Radio and Civic Courage in the
Communications Circuit of John Hersey’s ‘Hiroshima’,” Literary Journalism Studies 3 (2011), 31-53;
K.R. Forde, “Profit and Public Interest: A Publication History of John Hersey’s ‘Hiroshima’,” J&MC
Quarterly 88 (2011), 562-579; F.M. Szasz and I. Takechi, “Atomic Heroes and Atomic Monsters:
American and Japanese Cartoonists Confront the Onset of the Nuclear Age, 1945-80,” The Historian
69 (2007), 728-752; C. Laucht, “‘An Extraordinary Achievement of the ‘American Way’’: Hollywood
19
and the Americanization of the Making of the Atom Bomb in Fat Man & Little Boy,” European Journal
of American Culture 28 (2009), 41-56.
A range of original documents relating to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be found at
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm
An excellent compilation of
historical writings on the bombings and the various justifications given for them, as well as a selection
of key original documents, can be found in K. Bird and L. Lifschultz, Hiroshima’s Shadow
(Pamphleteer’s Press, 1998). For a superb photographic reconnaissance of Hiroshima after the bomb,
see E. Barnett and P. Mariani (eds.), Hiroshima Ground Zero 1945 (Steidl, 2011).
The classic revisionist account of the motives for the dropping of the bombs is G. Alperovitz, Atomic
Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (Simon & Schuster, 1965) [UML327.0973/A15], revised and
updated as The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Harper Collins, 1995) [UML 355.43/A41]. Recent
historical works focusing on the role of the bombs in the end of World War 2 are L.V. Sigal, Fighting
to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, 1945 (Cornell University
Press, 1988) [UML 940.9614/S3]; M. Sherry, The Rise of American Air Power: The Creation of
Armageddon (Yale University Press, 1987) [UML 358.350973/S2]; B. Bernstein, “Understanding the
Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and
Modern Memory,” in M.J. Hogan (ed.), Hiroshima in History and Memory (Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 38-79 [UML 940.97144/H11]; S. Asada, “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s
Decision to Surrender – A Reconsideration,” Pacific Historical Review 67 (1998), 477-512 [UML ejournal]; S.L. Malloy. “‘A Very Pleasant Way to Die’: Radiation Effects and the Decision to Use the
Atomic Bomb against Japan,” Diplomatic History 36 (2012), 515-544 [UML e-journal]; M. Gordin, Red
Cloud at Dawn: Truman, Stalin and the End of the Atomic Monopoly (Farrar, Sraus and Giroux, 2009).
The historical problems over the explanation of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are
covered in B. Bernstein, “Seizing the Contested Terrain of Early Nuclear History: Stimson, Conant and
their Allies Explain the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” Diplomatic History 17 (1993), 35-72 [UML
e-journal]. For excellent overviews of the continuing historiographical debate over the use of the
atomic bombs and their role in ending World War 2, see J.S. Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction:
Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan (University of North Carolina Press, 1997) [UML
940.9673/W110]; this is updated in J.S. Walker, “Recent Literature on Truman’s Atomic Bomb
Decision: A Search for Middle Ground,” Diplomatic History 29 (2005), 311-334 [UML e-journal]. More
recent studies include B. Bernstein, “Reconsidering the ‘Atomic General’: Leslie R. Groves,” Journal of
Military History 67 (2003), 883-920 [UML e-journal]; W. Wilson, “The Winning Weapon? Rethinking
Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima,” International Security 31 (2007), 162-179 UML e-journal];
E.C. Hymans, “Britain and Hiroshima,” Journal of Strategic Studies 32 (2009), 769-797 [UML ejournal].
A recent comprehensive survey of the literature is M. Kort, The Columbia Guide to Hiroshima and the
Bomb (Columbia University Press, 2007) [UML HD 952.9652/K1].
On the controversy surrounding the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution in 1995 and the
contemporary politics of Hiroshima, see P. Nobile, Judgement at the Smithsonian (Marlowe & Co,
1995); K. Bird and L. Lifschultz, Hiroshima’s Shadow (Pamphleteer’s Press, 1998); T.F. Gieryn,
“Balancing Acts: Science, Enola Gay and History Wars at the Smithsonian,” in S. Macdonald (ed.), The
Politics of Display (Routledge, 1998), 197-228 [UML Main and HD, 069.5/M2].
20
Week 3
From Few to Many: Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Culture, 1945-1955
Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States had only one nuclear weapon in
reserve. With nuclear weapons at first seen as an additional element of the US’s armoury, its
stockpile grew only slowly. Following confusion over policy and a shifting institutional framework,
only after the elaboration of the Truman Doctrine in 1947 did the US stockpile start to grow
significantly. Against the backdrop of the emerging Cold War it simultaneously had to devise a new
military and political strategy to protect its new weapon from its allies and to exploit it against its
enemies.
Having established its own version of the Manhattan Project, the Soviet Union used information
passed by American and British spies to help it build its own atomic weapons. The explosion of the
first Soviet nuclear device in 1949 took the rest of the world by surprise, and inaugurated a
superpower nuclear arms race which would dominate the next three decades. How did the Soviets
see international relations and the role of nuclear weapons after Hiroshima, and how did this help
shape the Cold War?
Required reading:
V.M. Zubok, “Stalin and the Nuclear Age,” in J.L. Gaddis et al (eds.), Cold War Statesmen Confront the
Bomb. Nuclear Diplomacy Since 1945 (Oxford, 1999), 38-61 [UML HD 327.09/G8; UML e-book.]
Recommended Background Reading:
S.R. Williamson, The Origins of U.S. Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1953 (St. Martin's Press, 1993) [UML HD
355.43/W13], 49-75.
Further Reading:
On the role of nuclear weapons in shaping the early years of the Cold War, see M.J. Sherwin, A World
Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance (Vintage Books, 1977) [UML 940.9673/S36, S37];
D. Yergin, Shattered Peace: The Origins of the Cold War and the National Security State (Andre
Deutsch, 1978) [UML 327.0973/Y62]; G. Herken, The Winning Weapon: The Atomic Bomb in the Cold
War, 1945-1950 (Princeton University Press, 1988) [UML 355.43/H34]; M. Gordin, Red Cloud at
Dawn: Truman, Stalin and the End of the Atomic Monopoly (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).
On the development of the US nuclear stockpile and nuclear strategy in the context of scientific
institutions, inter-service rivalries and the development of US international policy see J. Hunner,
Inventing Los Alamos: The Growth of an Atomic Community (University of Oklahoma Press, 2004);
P.B. Hales, Atomic Spaces: Living on the Manhattan Project (University of Illinois Press, 1999); L.J.
Graybar, “The 1946 Atomic Bomb Tests: Atomic Diplomacy or Bureaucratic Infighting,” Journal of
American History 72 (1985) [UML e-journal]; B.J. Bernstein, “Eclipsed by Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
Early Thinking about Tactical Nuclear Weapons,” International Security 15 (1991), 149-173 [UML ejournal]; S.L. Malloy, “’The Rules of Civilized Warfare’: Scientists, Soldiers, Civilians, and American
Nuclear Targeting, 1940-1945,” Journal of Strategic Studies 30 (2007), 475-512 [UML e-journal].
21
On ‘Atoms for Peace,’ Eisenhower’s 1953 initiative to improve nuclear PR, look at the U.S.
Government’s National Archives and Records Administration Eisenhower Museum site,
http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/ This contains an excellent overview of Atoms for Peace, the
political background and the text of Eisenhower’s famous speech:
http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/research/online_documents/atoms_for_peace.html
Eisenhower’s speech can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnt7gKXUVWE
The US AEC official history is comprehensive: R.G. Hewlett and J.M. Holl, Atoms for Peace and War,
1953-1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission (University of California Press, 1989). See
also S. Weart, Nuclear Fear (Harvard UP, 1988) [UML SLC 621.038/W8], 155-240; A.M. Winkler, Life
Under a Cloud. American Anxiety About the Atom (Oxford UP, 1993) [UML 341.67/W44], 136-164. A
reassessment of Atoms for Peace, arguing that in fact it accelerated weapons proliferation, is L.
Weiss, “Atoms for Peace,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 59 (2003), 34-44. For the political,
diplomatic and intelligence-gathering uses of Atoms for Peace, see J. Krige, “Atoms for Peace,
Scientific Internationalism, and Scientific Intelligence,” Osiris 21 (2006), 161-181 [UML e-journal]. On
Euratom, see J. Krige “The Peaceful Atom as Political Weapon: Euratom and American Foreign Policy
in the Late 1950s,” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 38 (2008), 5-44 [UML e-journal].
Full details of the Soviet bomb programme from the 1930s to the 1950s can be found in D. Holloway,
Stalin and the Bomb. The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956 (Yale UP, 1994) [UML Main and
HD, 355.43/H44]. See also D. Holloway, The Soviet Union and the Arms Race (Yale University Press,
1983) [UML 355.0947/H3]; D. Holloway, “Entering the Nuclear Arms Race: The Soviet Decision to
Build the Atomic Bomb, 1939-45,” Social Studies of Science 11 (1981), 159-197 [UML e-journal]. A
good recent source on the Russian nuclear power programme is P. Josephson, Red Atom. Russia’s
Nuclear Power Program from Stalin to Today (W.H. Freeman, 2000) [UML 338.4/J42].
On the role of espionage in the Soviet programme and on its repercussions in the West, see N. Moss,
Klaus Fuchs. The Man Who Stole the Atom Bomb (Grafton, 1987) [UML 327.1/F62]. On the complex
scientific and political decisions behind the detection of the Soviet bomb, see C. Ziegler, “Waiting for
Joe-1: Decisions Leading to the Detection of Russia’s First Atomic Bomb Test,” Social Studies of
Science 18 (1988), 197-229 [UML e-journal]; C.A. Ziegler, Spying Without Spies: Origins of America’s
Secret Nuclear Surveillance System (Prager, 1995) [UML 355.43/Z16]. The longer history of the Soviet
nuclear armoury, with copious technical detail on the various systems is given in P. Podvig (ed.),
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces (MIT Press, 2001)[UML e-book]; also see S.J. Zaloga, The Kremlin’s
Nuclear Sword: The Rise and Fall of Russia’s Strategic Nuclear Forces, 1945-2000 (Smithsonian
Institution Press, 2002) [UML 355.0947/Z4].
22
Week 4
Reminder: your first coursework assignment is due in this week. Please submit one copy
electronically by 10.00 a.m. and bring a paper copy to submit in class.
The Hydrogen Bomb and Nuclear Fear, 1955-1965
The development of the hydrogen bomb in the early 1950s massively increased the destructive
power of nuclear weapons, and threw all previous nuclear planning into chaos. At first the USA
developed the doctrine of Massive Retaliation, in which any Soviet attack would be met by
overwhelming nuclear force. As the USSR acquired its own H-bombs, the deployment of complex
weapon delivery systems and defensive capabilities by both superpowers created a self-sustaining
logic of deterrence – described by Churchill as the ‘sturdy child of terror and the twin brother of
annihilation’ – which sustained a tenuous peace for almost forty years. Against the threat of the
mushroom cloud, literature, radio, film, television and even popular music were all important in
creating and reflecting public attitudes towards the nuclear. In particular, representations of nuclear
war (whether by design or by accident) and the possibility of a nuclear armaggedon shaped the
consciousness and social practice of millions of people from the very birth of the nuclear age through
to the present. This class explores the development of hydrogen weapons, new strategies for using
them – and people’s reactions to them – in the context of the Cold War.
Required reading: none.
Recommended Background Reading:
D.A. Rosenberg, “American Atomic Strategy and the Hydrogen Bomb Decision,” Journal of American
History 66 (1979), 62-87.
S. Weart, Nuclear Fear (Harvard UP, 1988), 215-240 [UML HD 621.4809/WEA].
Further Reading:
On the development of the hydrogen bomb, see R. Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen
Bomb (Simon & Schuster, 1995) [UML 623.4525/R2]; H.F. York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and
the Superbomb (Stanford University Press, 1976) [UML 355.43/Y2]; J.G. Hershberg, “‘Over My Dead
Body’: James B. Conant and the Hydrogen Bomb,” in E. Mendelsohn et al. (eds.), Science, Technology
and the Military (Kluwer, 1988), 379-430 [UML Per. SOCIOLOGY]; P. Galison and B. Bernstein, “In Any
Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954,” Historical Studies in the
Physical Sciences 19 (1989), 267-347; L.A Bruno, “The Bequest of the Nuclear Battlefield: Science,
Nature, and the Atom During the First Decades of the Cold War,” Historical Studies in the Physical and
Biological Sciences 33 (2003), 237-260 [UML e-journal].
For the H-Bomb’s effects on nuclear strategy see D.A. Rosenberg, “The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear
Weapons and American Strategy, 1945-1960,” International Security 7 (1983), 3-71 [UML e-journal];
T. Higuchi, “’Clean’ Bombs: Nuclear Technology and Nuclear Strategy in the 1950s,” Journal of
Strategic Studies 29 (2006), 83-116 [UML e-journal]; M. Trachtenberg, History & Strategy (Princeton
University Press, 1991) [UML 355.43/T14 ]. More generally on the world of nuclear strategists, see F.
Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (Stanford University Press, 1983/1991) [UML 355.43/K47]; S.
Ghamari-Tabrizi, The Worlds of Herman Kahn: The Intuitive Science of Thermonuclear War (Harvard
University Press, 2005); S.D. Sagan, “SIOP-62: The Nuclear War Plan Briefing to President Kennedy,”
International Security 12 (1987), 22-51. On the political impact of the H-bomb in the USA, see C.
23
Craig, Destroying the Village: Eisenhower and Thermonuclear War (Columbia University Press, 1998).
On nuclear relations between the USA and Europe, see R. Dietl, “In Defence of the West: General
Lauris Norstad, NATO Nuclear Forces and Transatlantic Relations 1956-1963,” Diplomacy and
Statecraft 17 (2006), 347-392 [UML e-journal]; K.S. Readman, “Germany and the Politics of the
Neutron Bomb, 1975-1979,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 21 (2010), 259-285.
More recent work on the history and historiography of US nuclear policy includes: K. Young, “The
Hydrogen Bomb, Lewis L. Strauss and the Writing of Nuclear History,” Journal of Strategic Studies 36
(2013), 815-840; B.M. Jones, Abolishing the Nuclear Taboo: Dwight D. Eisenhower and American
Nuclear Doctrine 1945-1961 (Helion, 2011); W. Burr, “The Nixon Administration, the ‘Horror
Strategy,’ and the Search for Limited Nuclear Options, 1969-1972,” Journal of Cold War Studies 7
(2005), 34-78; N. Tannenwald, “Nuclear Weapons and the Vietnam War,” Journal of Strategic Studies
29 (2006), 675-722 [UML e-journal]; G. Skogmar, The United States and the Nuclear Dimension of
European Integration (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004).
On nuclear espionage, see R. Radosh and J. Milton, The Rosenberg File (Yale University Press, 1997)
[UML 343.1/R35, 36]; V. Carmichael, The Rosenberg Story and the Cold War (University of Minnesota
Press, 1993); J.T. Richelson, Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to
Iran and North Korea (W.W. Norton, 2006); D. Kaiser, “The Atomic Secret in Red Hands? American
Suspicions of Theoretical Physicists During the Early Cold War,” Representations 90 (2005), 28-60
[UML e-journal];M. Goodman, Spying on the Nuclear Bear: Anglo-American Relations and the Soviet
Bomb (Stanford University Press, 2007); G. Herken, “Target Enormoz: Soviet Nuclear Espionage on
the West Coast of the United States, 1942-1950,” Journal of Cold War Studies 11 (2009), 68-90; A.
Brown, “The Viennese Connection: Engelbert Broda, Alan Nunn May and Atomic Espionage,”
Intelligence and National Security 24 (2009), 173-193; S.T. Usdin, “The Rosenberg Ring Revealed:
Industrial-Scale Conventional and Nuclear Espionage,” Journal of Cold War Studies 11 (2009), 91-143;
H. Dylan, “Britain and the Missile Gap: British Estimates on the Soviet Ballistic Missile Threat, 195761,” Intelligence and National Security 23 (2008), 777-806; G. Spinardi, “Golfballs on the Moor:
Building the Fylingdales Ballistic Missile Early Warning System,” Contemporary British History 21
(2007), 87-110.
24
Week 5
From the Bay of Pigs to Armageddon: The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962
In 1962, the Soviet Union began to site nuclear missiles in Cuba, within easy striking distance of the
United States. Diplomatic tensions culminated in a US-imposed blockade of Cuba and thirteen critical
days of intense stand-off between the superpowers: the Cuban Missile Crisis. In October 1962, the
world came as close as it has ever been to all-out nuclear war. The emergence of documentation
from the former Soviet Union has shed new light on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Like many other
episodes of the Cold War, this evidence is forcing historians to re-evaluate the last fifty years. This
week’s class explores the origins, development and consequences of the crisis, and looks at ways in
which it may be similar to the current global situation. It also begins to raise questions about the
meaning of the nuclear after the end of nuclear ideology – a theme which will figure large for the
remainder of the course.
Required reading:
L. Scott and S. Smith, “Lessons of October: Historians, Political Scientists, Policy-Makers and the
Cuban Missile Crisis,” International Affairs 70 (1994), 659-684 [e-journal].
Recommended Background Reading:
J.L. Gaddis, We Now Know. Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford, 1997), 260-280 [UML Main and HD,
327/G84].
Further Reading:
For more general background on the crisis, see D.A. Brugioni, Eyeball to Eyeball: The Inside Story of
the Cuban Missile Crisis (Random House, 1991); The "Cuban Crisis" of 1962: Selected Documents,
Chronology and Bibliography (University Press of America, 1986) [UML 972.91/L17]; A. Chayes, The
Cuban Missile Crisis (Oxford University Press) [UML 341.2/C5]; J.G. Blight, On the Brink : Americans
and Soviets Reexamine the Cuban Missile Crisis (Hill and Wang, 1989) [UML 327.0973/B234]; R.N.
Lebow and J.G. Stein, We All Lost the Cold War (Princeton UP, 1994), 19-145; E.R. May and P.D.
Zelikow (eds.), The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis (Harvard
University Press, 1997); J.A. Nathan, The Cuban Missile Crisis Revisited (St. Martin’s Press, 1992) [UML
327.0973/N62]; R.A. Divine, “Alive and Well: The Continuing Cuban Missile Crisis Controversy,”
Diplomatic History 18 (1994), 551-560 [UML e-journal]. Recent scholarship is well summarised in L.
Scott, The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Threat of Nuclear War (Continuum, 2007).
American public response to the crisis is documented in A.L. George, Awaiting Armageddon: How
Americans Faced the Cuban Missile Crisis (University of North Carolina Press, 2003). On Britain and
the Cuban Missile Crisis, see J. Wilson, Launch Pad UK: Britain and the Cuban Missile Crisis (Pen &
Sword, 2008); L.V. Scott, Macmillan, Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis (Palgrave, 1999); D.G.
Coleman, “The Missiles of November, December, January, February…: The Problem of Acceptable
Risk in the Cuban Missile Crisis Settlement,” Journal of Cold War Studies 9 (2007), 5-48; D. Tierney,
“’Pearl Harbor in Reverse’: Moral Analogies in the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Journal of Cold War Studies 9
(2007), 49-77; R. FitzGerald, “Historians and the Cuban Missile Crisis: The Evidence-Interpretation
Relationship as Seen Through Differing interpretations of the Crisis Settlement,” Irish Studies in
International Affairs 18 (2007), 191-203.
25
For the wider context, see P. Nash, The Other Missiles of October: Eisenhower, Kennedy and the
Jupiters, 1957-1963 (University of North Carolina Press, 1997) [UML 327.0973/N69]. On what
policymakers learned from the Cuban missile crisis, see S.D. Sagan, The Limits of Safety. Organization,
Accidents and Nuclear Weapons (Princeton University Press, 1993) [UML 355.43/S107].
The 50th anniversary of the crisis in 2012 produced a spate of new information and interpretations;
see, for example, the rich survey of new material exploring all sides of the crisis at
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/CWIHP_Cuban_Missile_Crisis_Bulletin_17-18.pdf
and the multimedia http://www.armageddonletters.com/
Week 6
** RESEARCH WEEK: NO CLASS **
There will be no class this week. You should use your time to do research and writing towards
your second coursework assignment, due 19 March.
26
Week 7
Ideologies of the Nuclear State: Civil Defence and CND
The conjunction of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons created what has been called the ‘nuclear
state,’ a security and secrecy-minded official culture in which individuals’ freedom were subjugated
to the interests of the nuclear industry, the military and government. Nuclear states require
ideologies of the nuclear which would allow them to persuade their citizens of the credibility of
deterrence and that defence against nuclear attack was possible. This involved education, the media
and the institutional apparatus of the state. But while the nuclear establishment sought to persuade
the public of the benefits of nuclear technology, a growing number of people began to protest
against nuclear weapons and the system of terror sustaining the political balance between the
superpowers. This opposition to the bomb gave rise to organised groups like the Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the 1950s and 1960s. Not only did these groups exert powerful
pressure on governments: they, too, changed the relationship between individuals, politics and the
state. This week’s lecture and video explore the constitution of the ‘nuclear state’ and map some of
the practices by which individuals were configured within it, particularly through the idea of ‘civil
defence.’
Screening: The War Game
We will watch a classic film raising profound questions about the nuclear state and the nuclear arms
race. Made by Peter Watkins as a semi-documentary for the BBC in 1965, The War Game explored
the likely effects of a nuclear attack on Britain. Shortly before the film was due to be broadcast, the
BBC decided to ban it, ostensibly for fear of scaring the public. A more likely reason was that revealed
by a senior civil servant: “the showing of the film on TV might well have a significant effect on public
attitudes towards the policy of the nuclear deterrent.” He was probably right: the film is one of the
most powerful pieces of television of the era.
Required reading:
T. Shaw, “The BBC, the State and Cold War Culture: The Case of Television’s The War Game (1965),”
English Historical Review 121 (2006), 1351-1384 [e-journal].
Recommended Background Reading:
M. Grant, “’Civil Defence Gives Meaning to Your Leisure’: Citizenship, Participation and Cultural
Change in Cold War Recruitment Propaganda, 1949-54,” Twentieth Century British History 22 (2011),
52-78 [UML e-journal]
Further Reading:
On the idea of a ‘nuclear state’ see R. Jungk, The Nuclear State (Calder, 1979). Details of the UK
government’s preparations for war can be found in the classic P. Laurie, Beneath the City Streets: A
Private Enquiry into Government Preparations for National Emergency (Granada, 1979) [UML
355.43/L4]; Nuclear Attack: Civil Defence: Aspects of Civil Defence in the Nuclear Age (Brassey, 1982)
[UML 355.43/R85, R86]; G. Rumble, The Politics of Nuclear Defence (Polity, 1985) [UML
355.0942/R43]. For UK civil defence in the 1980s and after, see ; D. Campbell, War Plan UK (Burnett
Books, 1982), 111-136 [UML HD Photocopies 999/C486]; Steve Fox, “Beyond War Plan UK”, at
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/features/beyond Fox’s article “Where did the Government Go?” is
27
also invaluable: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/features/government/ There is an archive of UK civil
defence material at http://www.atomica.co.uk/, including the UK civil defence booklet Protect and
Survive. An interesting website featuring many subterranean Cold War bunkers in the UK is at
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/. The most recent and comprehensive analyses of the UK
government’s plans for its own protection and for civil defence in the event of nuclear war are P.
Hennessy, Secret State: Preparing for the Worst (Penguin, 2010); M. Grant, After the Bomb: Civil
Defence and Nuclear War in Britain, 1945-68 (Palgrave, 2010).
On civil defence in the USA, see G. Oakes, The Imaginary War: Civil Defense and American Cold War
Culture (Oxford University Press, 1994) [UML 355.43/O15]; L. McEnaney, Civil Defense Begins at
Home: Militarization Meets Everyday Life in the Fifties (Princeton University Press, 2000) [UML
309.73/M326]; L. McEnaney, “Atomic Age Motherhood: Maternalism and Militarism in the 1950s,”
available at http://masterghistory.com/Documents/Atomic%20Age%20Motherhood.pdf; T.C. Davis,
States of Emergency: Cold War Nuclear Civil Defense (Duke UP, 2007); D. Monteyne, Fallout Shelter:
Designing for Civil Defense in the Cold War (University of Minnesota Press, 2011); K. Tobin, “The
Reduction of Urban Vulnerability: Revisiting 1950s American Suburbanization as Civil Defence,” Cold
War History 2(2) (2002), 1-32 [UML e-journal]; M. Mandelbaum, “The Bomb, Dread, and Eternity,”
International Security 5 (1980), 3-23 [UML e-journal]; B. Jacobs, “Atomic Kids: Duck and Cover and
Atomic Alert Teach American Children How to Survive Atomic Attack,” Film & History 40 (2010), 2544; B. Jacobs, “‘There Are No Civilians; We Are All at War’: Nuclear War Shelter Narratives During the
Early Cold War,” Journal of American Culture 30 (2007), 401-416; K. Zarlengo, “Civilian Threat, the
Suburban Citadel, and Atomic Age American Women,” Signs 24 (1999), 925-958.
Useful histories of the disarmament movement are L. Wittner, One World or None. A History of the
World Disarmament Movement Through 1953 (Stanford UP, 1993) [UML 341.67/W45]; The Struggle
Against the Bomb. Vol.2. Resisting the Bomb (Stanford UP, 1997) [UML 341.67/W45]; Toward Nuclear
Abolition. A History of the World Disarmament Movement 1971 to the Present (Stanford UP, 2003)
[UML 341.67/W45]. Also see W. Rudig, Anti-Nuclear Movements: A World Survey of Opposition to
Nuclear Energy (Longman, 1990) [UML 341.67/R3]; A. Carter, Peace Movements: International
Protest and World Politics Since 1945 (Longmans, 1992) [UML Deansgate Meth.Arch. MARC1905]; A.
Rojecki, Silencing the Opposition: Antinuclear Movements & the Media in the Cold War (University of
Illinois Press, 1999) [UML 341.67/R34]; On the role of transnational peace movements, see M.
Evangelista, Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War (Cornell University
Press, 1999).
On the relationships between nuclearism and religion, see A.M. Lahr, Millennial Dreams and
Apocalyptic Nightmares: The Cold War Origins of Political Evangelism (Oxford University Press, 2007);
J. Gorry, Cold War Christians and the Spectre of Nuclear Deterrence, 1945-1959 (Palgrave Macmillan,
2013); D. Kirby, “The Church of England and the Cold War Nuclear Debate,” Twentieth Century British
History 4 (1993), 250-283.
For the British case, see R. Taylor, Against the Bomb: The British Peace Movement 1958-1965
(Clarendon Press, 1988) [UML 341.67/T55]; P. Byrne, The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (Croom
Helm,1988) [UML 328.368/B108]. For a critical view of CND and the British peace movement, see P.
Mercer, ‘Peace’ of the Dead: The Truth Behind the Nuclear Disarmers (Policy Research Publications,
1986); M. Phythian, “CND’s Cold War,” Contemporary British History 15 (3) (2001), 133-156 [UML ejournal]; H. Nehring, Politics of Security: British and West German Protest Movements and the Early
Cold War, 1945-1970 (Oxford University Press, 2013), available as open access e-book at
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199681228.do; J. Chapman, “The BBC and the Censorship
of The War Game (1965),” Journal of Contemporary History 41 (2006), 75-94; J. Stafford, “‘Stay at
Home’: The Politics of Nuclear Civil Defence, 1968-83,” Twentieth Century British History 23 (2012),
28
383-407; J. Preston, “Protect and Survive: ‘Whiteness’ and the Middle-Class Family in Civil Defence
Pedagogies,” Journal of Education Policy 23 (2008), 469-482;.
On British women’s anti-nuclear protest, see J. Liddington, The Long Road to Greenham. Feminism
and Anti-Militarism in Britain Since 1820 (Virago, 1989); M.L. Laware, “Circling the Missiles and
Staining Them Red: Feminist Rhetorical Intervention and Strategies of Resistance at the Women’s
Peace Camp at Greenham Common,” NWSA Journal 16 (2004), 18-41 [UML e-journal]; L.S. Wittner,
“Gender Roles and Nuclear Disarmament Activism, 1954-1965,” Gender & History 12 (1) (2000), 197222 [UML e-journal]. For a US study, see K. Zarlengo, “Civilian Threat, the Suburban Citadel, and
Atomic Age American Women,” Signs 24 (1999), 925-958.
More generally on feminist approaches to and critiques of nuclear issues, see C. Cohn, “Sex and
Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs 12 (4) (1987), 687-718; B. Easlea,
Fathering the Unthinkable: Masculinity, Scientists and the Nuclear Arms Race (Pluto, 1983) [UML
623.45119/EAS]; C. Cohn, “’Clean Bombs’ and Clean Language,” in J.B. Elshtain and S. Tobias, Women,
Militarism and War (Rowan & Littlefield, 1990), 33-56 [396.9/E25 and google books]; C. Cohn and S.
Ruddick, “A Feminist Ethical Perspective on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” available at
http://www.genderandsecurity.umb.edu/cohnruddick.pdf; D.E.H. Russell, Exposing Nuclear
Phallacies (Pergamon, 1989) [UML 341.67/R33]; F. Costigliola, “’Unceasing Pressure for Penetration’:
Gender, Pathology and Emotion in George Kennan’s Formation of the Cold War,” Journal of American
History 83(4) (1997), 1309-1339 [UML e-journal]; J. Caputi, “The Metaphors of Radiation: Or, Why a
Beautiful Woman is Like a Nuclear Power Plant,” Women’s Studies International Forum 14 (5) (1991),
423-442 [UML e-journal]; F. Zonabend, The Nuclear Peninsula (Cambridge UP, 993; UML HD
338.4/Z30); C. Duncanson and C. Eschle, “Gender and the Nuclear Weapons State: A Feminist Critique
of the UK Government's White Paper on Trident,” New Political Science 30(4) (2008), 545-563 [UML
e-journal].
On the relationship of nuclear protest to the romantic/antitechnological and Green traditions in
postwar Britain (including Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings!), see M. Veldman, Fantasy, the Bomb,
and the Greening of Britain (Cambridge, 1994) [UML 820.9/V39].
29
Week 8
Reminder: your second coursework assignment is due in this week. Please submit one copy
electronically and bring a paper copy to submit in class.
Meltdown and Broken Arrow! Nuclear Accidents and Nuclear Risk
By the 1960s, it was apparent that nuclear power – which had been represented as a path to cheap
and limitless energy – was at least as problematic as the energy sources its promoters sought to
displace. Problems with the disposal of radioactive waste, the dangers of environmental
contamination revealed by the Windscale accident in 1957 and, most worryingly, the possibility of
nuclear disaster brought forcibly to public attention by the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 all
raised concern about the dangers of nuclear power. Chernobyl in 1986 only confirmed most people’s
fears about the nuclear and the dangers of radiation and fallout. The Fukushima Daiichi accident in
March 2011 has put resurgent nuclear energy programmes into doubt. In the military sphere, a
number of accidents involving lost nuclear weapons (‘broken arrows’ in military jargon) raised public
fears of catastrophe. In 1966, a US B-52 bomber carrying 4 H-bombs crashed over the Spanish fishing
village of Palomares. One of the thermonuclear weapons was lost at sea for several weeks, and the
environmental impact of this, and other broken arrows, was enormous. In this class, we explore the
history and consequences of nuclear accidents.
Required Reading:
M. Henriksen, Dr. Strangelove’s America. Society and Culture in the Atomic Age (University of
California Press, 1997) [UML 973/H84], 303-344.
Recommended Background Reading:
D. Stiles, “A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: US Information Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident,”
Journal of Cold War Studies 8 (2006), 49-67 [UML e-journal].
Further Reading:
On Windscale, see L. Arnold, Windscale, 1957: Anatomy of a Nuclear Accident (St. Martin's Press,
1992) [UML 621.039/A41]. For Three Mile Island see M. Stephens, Three Mile Island. The Hour by
Hour Account of What Really Happened (Junction Books, 1980); J.S. Walker, Three Mile Island. A
Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (University of California Press, 2004) [UML 621.039/W61].
On Chernobyl, see D.R. Marples, Chernobyl and Nuclear Power in the USSR (Macmillan) [UML
338.4/M42]; P. Gould, Fire in the Rain: The Democratic Consequences of Chernobyl (Polity, 1990)
[UML 338.4/G75]; L. Mackay et al. (eds.), Something in the Wind: Politics after Chernobyl (Pluto,
1988) [UML 338.4/M54]; V. Haynes and M. Bojcun, The Chernobyl Disaster (Hogarth, 1988) [UML
621.039/H10]; The Radiological Impact of the Chernobyl Accident in OECD Countries (OECD, 1987)
[UML 309.4/O1651]; V.M. Chernousenko, Chernobyl: Insight from the Inside (Springer-Verlag, 1991)
[UML 621.039/C60]; R.F. Mould, Chernobyl: The Real Story (Pergamon, 1988) [UML 621.039/M25]; Z.
Medvedev, The Legacy of Chernobyl (Blackwell, 1990) [UML 621.039/M21]; C.C. Park, Chernobyl: The
Long Shadow (Routledge, 1989) [UML 621.039/P10].
30
For a general analysis of nuclear accidents and their relation to nuclear decision-making, see S. Sagan,
The Limits of Safety. Organizations, Accidents and Nuclear Weapons (Princeton UP, 1993) [UML
335.43/S107; Joule U:355.0217/SAG]. See also S. Sagan and J. Suri, “The Madman Nuclear Alert:
Secrecy, Signaling, and Safety in October 1969,” International Security 27 (2004), 150-183 [UML ejournal]; N.S. Leach, Broken Arrow: America’s First Lost Nuclear Weapon (Red Deer Press, 2008). For
a recent, and more popular, survey of (mostly US) nuclear accidents, see E. Schlosser, Command and
Control (Allen Lane, 2013).
Week 9
Film discussion: Doctor Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Stanley
Kubrick, 1964)
In the 1960s as nuclear systems became computerised and response times diminished, fears arose
that global thermonuclear war might break out by accident – technical malfunction or human error.
One of the significant cultural responses to the threat of nuclear war was black humour. A farcical
black comedy based on a far-from-comical novel (Peter George’s 1958 Red Alert), Strangelove
exploits the talents of Peter Sellers in an account of the dehumanised yet all-too-human logic of
Mutually Assured Destruction. This film is a nuclear classic. We will watch and analyse it in the light
of the themes of the course.
Background readings will be suggested in advance of the class; the script of the film is available here:
http://www.higherintellect.info/texts/movie_and_TV_scripts/published_movie_scripts/PDF_versions
/Dr.%20Strangelove.pdf
31
Further reading:
There is a large and expanding literature on ‘nuclear culture’ across the period from 1945 to the
present. http://www.thebombproject.org is an excellent introductory guide to nuclear imagery in
popular and artistic culture.
There is a huge array of nuclear literature, film and music. Among the more celebrated and
accessible of those dealing with the projected aftermath of nuclear war are N. Shute, On the Beach
(Heinemann, 1957); W.J. Miller, A Canticle for Leibowitz (Orbit, 1993 [1959]); P. Frank, Alas, Babylon
(Lippincott, 1959); M. Roshwald, Level 7 (McGraw Hill, 1959); R.C. O’Brien, Z for Zachariah (Gollancz,
1975); R. Hoban, Riddley Walker (Cape, 1980); J. Morrow, This is the Way the World Ends (Gollancz,
1987). A popular but chilling childrens’ book (and film) is R. Briggs, When the Wind Blows (Penguin,
1983).
For more general background, see C. Abbott, “The Light on the Horizon: Imagining the Death of
American Cities,” Journal of Urban History 32 (2006), 175-196 [UML e-journal]; D. Dowling, Fictions of
Nuclear Disaster (Macmillan, 1987) [UML 823.09/D12]; P. Brians, Nuclear Holocausts: Atomic War in
Fiction (originally published 1987, but now see the revised and expanded version online at
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/nuclear/index.htm); M. Henriksen, Dr. Strangelove’s America. Society
and Culture in the Atomic Age (University of California Press, 1997) [UML 973/H84]; J. Hogg and C.
Laucht (eds.), ‘British Nuclear Culture,’ special issue of British Journal for the History of Science 45
(December 2012).
For the wider cultural background to the nuclear in film, see J.A. Evans, Celluloid Mushroom Clouds:
Hollywood and the Atomic Bomb (Westview Press, 1998); K. Newman, Millennium Movies: End of the
World Cinema (Titan Books, 1999) [UML 791.459/N2]; J.F. Shapiro, Atomic Bomb Cinema (Routledge,
2002), with website at http://www.atomicbombcinema.com/english/home/home.htm
Recent cultural studies of the nuclear include: D. Cordle, States of Suspense: The Nuclear Age,
postmodernism and United States Fiction and Prose (Manchester University Press, 2008); D. Cordle,
“‘That’s Going to Happen to Us. It is’: Threads and the Imagination of Nuclear Disaster on 1980s
Television,” Journal of British Cinema and Television 10 (2013), 71-92; M. Grant, “Images of Survival,
Stories of destruction: Nuclear War on British Screens from 1945 to the Early 1960s,” Journal of
British Cinema and Television 10 (2013), 7-26; D. Seed, Under the Shadow: The Atomic Bomb and Cold
War Narratives (Kent State University Press, 2013); M. Morrison, “Edith Sitwell’s Atomic Bomb
Poems: Alchemy and Scientific Reintegration,” Modernism/Modernity 9 (2002), 605-633; P.J. Kuznick,
“Prophets of Doom or Voices of Sanity? The Evolving Discourse of Annihilation in the First Decade and
a Half of the Nuclear Age,” Journal of Genocide Research 9 (2007), 411-441; R.B. Mariner and G.K.
Piehler (eds.), The Atomic Bomb and American Society: New Perspectives (University of Tennessee
Press, 2009); P. Williams, Race, Ethnicity and Nuclear War: Representations of Nuclear Weapons and
Post-Apocalyptic Worlds (Liverpool University Press, 2011); D. van Lente (ed.), The Nuclear Age in
Popular Media. A Transnational History 1945-1965 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); F.M. Szasz, Atomic
Comics: Cartoonists Confront the Nuclear World (University of Nevada Ptess, 2013); D. Overpeck,
“‘Remember! It’s Only a Movie!’: Expectations and Receptions of The Day After (1983),” Historical
Journal of Film, Radio and Television 32 (2012), 267-292; H. Harrison, “Popular Responses to the
Atomic Bomb in China 1945-1955,” Past and Present Supplement 8 (2013), 98-116; D. Smith, “The
Broken Hexagon: French Nuclear Culture Between Empire and Cold War,” Modern & Contemporary
France 18 (2010), 213-229.
On art in the nuclear age, see S. Petersen, “Explosive Propositions: Artists React to the Atomic Age,”
Science in Context 17 (2004), 579-609 [UML e-journal].
32
Week 10
MAD, MIRVs and Minutemen: Nuclear Systems at the End of the Cold War
Following the threat of massive retaliation in the 1950s and the terrors of Mutually Assured
Destruction in the 1960s, and partly owing to the impact of the ban-the-bomb movements, scientists
and politicians began seriously to debate the control of nuclear weapons proliferation and testing.
Against this background, however, several more countries acquired nuclear weapons – France (1960),
China (1964), Israel (1968), India (1974), South Africa (1979). At the same time, intelligence gathering
techniques – spy planes, satellites and other photographic and electronic surveillance techniques –
were providing huge amounts of data about nuclear proliferation and the nuclear threat. Test bans
and non-proliferation treaties are designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Under these
treaties, the five declared nuclear powers are also committed to reducing their nuclear arsenals and
eventually eliminating them. Yet the nuclear ‘haves’ are very reluctant to fulfil these obligations,
while wishing other countries to abide by their commitments (and ignoring or tolerating undeclared
nuclear states).
By the 1970s, the world had become accustomed to the bizarre international stability provided by
nuclear deterrence, enshrined in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), embodied in
the technology of Multiple Independently Targetted Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs) and underpinned by
the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and other international agreements. The development
and deployment of new nuclear systems such as US MX and Minuteman missiles and Ronald
Reagan’s plans for a Strategic Defense Initiative (‘Star Wars’) anti-missile laser shield of defence
against Russia (the ‘Evil Empire’) threatened that stability. This class explores the stabilising logic of
MAD and the destabilizing influence of new technology and hawkish politicians in the 1980s. It will
show how close the world came to nuclear war in 1983, and will outline the state of nuclear play at
the end of the Cold War, when old stabilities and certainties fell apart.
Required reading: H. Gusterson, “A Double Standard on Nuclear Weapons?” available at
http://web.mit.edu/cis/pdf/gusterson_audit.pdf
Recommended Background Reading:
L. Scott, “Intelligence and the Risk of Nuclear War: Able Archer-83 Revisited,” Intelligence and
National Security 26 (2011), 759-777 [UML e-journal]
H. Brands, “Non-Proliferation and the Dynamics of the Middle Cold War: The Superpowers, the MLF,
and the NPT,” Cold War History 7 (2007), 389-423 [UML e-journal]
Further Reading:
On test bans and nuclear controls, see G.T. Seaborg, Kennedy, Khrushchev and the Test Ban
(University of California Press, 1981) [UML 341.67/S9]; H.K. Jacobson, Diplomats, Scientists and
Politicians: The United States and the Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations (University of Michigan Press,
1966) [UML 327.0973/J5]; K. Oliver, Kennedy, Macmillan and the Test-Ban Debate, 1961-63
(Macmillan, 1998); G. Quester, The Politics of Nuclear Proliferation (Johns Hopkins University Press,
1973) [UML 341.67/Q1]; S. Talbott, Endgame: The Inside Story of SALT II (Harper & Row, 1979) [UML
341.67/T46]; W.C. Clemens, The Superpowers and Arms Control, from Cold War to Interdependence
(Lexington Books, 1973) [UML 341.67/C25]; M. Mandelbaum, The Nuclear Revolution: International
Politics Before and After Hiroshima (Cambridge University Press, 1981) [UML 341.67/M61]; D.J. Gill,
33
“Ministers, Markets and Missiles: The British Government, the European Economic Community and
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1964-68,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 21 (2010), 451-470; W. Loth,
Overcoming the Cold War: A History of Détente (Palgrave, 2002). R. Rhodes, Arsenals of Folly: The
Making of the Nuclear Arms Race (Simon & Schuster, 2008) offers a broad overview of the climacteric
of the Cold War.
Against arms control and detente, nuclear conflict and nuclear proliferation continued and
accelerated. See, for example, S. Aronson, “Israel’s Nuclear Programme, the Six Day War and its
Ramifications,” Israel Affairs 6 (2000), 83-95; I. Ginor and G. Remez, Foxbats Over Dimona: The
Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War (Yale University Press, 2007); B. Blechman and D.M. Hart,
“The Political Utility of Nuclear Weapons: the 1973 Middle East Crisis,” International Security 7 (1982,
132-156.
For the various national nuclear programmes, see J.W. Lewis and X. Litai, China Builds the Bomb
(Stanford UP, 1988) [UML 355.43/L24]; M.T. Fravel and E.S. Medeiros, “China’s Search for Assured
Retaliation,” International Security 35 (2010), 48-87; P. Pry, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal (Croom
Helm,1984) [UML 355.43/P41]; A. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (Columbia University Press, 1998)
[UML 355.0933569/C2]; A. Cohen, “Before the Beginning: The Early History of Israel’s Nuclear
project,” Israel Studies 3 (1998), 112-139 [UML e-journal]; Z. Shalom, “Israel’s Nuclear Option
Revisited,” Journal of Israeli History 24 (2005), 267-277 [UML e-journal]; M. Gerlini, “Waiting for
Dimona: The United States and Israel’s Development of Nuclear Capability,” Cold War History 10
(2010), 143-161; J.D.L. Moore, South Africa and Nuclear Proliferation: South Africa's Nuclear
Capabilities (Macmillan, 1987) [UML 355.0968/M16]; V. Harris, S. Hatang and P. Liberman, “Unveiling
South Africa’s Nuclear Past,” Journal of Southern African Studies 30 (2004), 457-475 [UML e-journal];
G. Hecht, The Radiance of France: Nuclear Power and National Identity After World War II (MIT Press,
1998) [UML 338.4/H117]; W. Renolds, “Rethinking the Joint Project: Australia’s Bid for Nuclear
Weapons, 1945-1960,” The Historical Journal 41(3) (1998), 853-873 [UML e-journal]; W. Reynolds,
Australia’s Bid for the Atomic Bomb (Melbourne University Press, 2000); M. Rentetzi, “Gender,
Science and Politics: Queen Frederika and Nuclear Research in Post-war Greece,” Centaurus 51
(2009), 63-87; P.M. Cole, “Atomic Bombast: Nuclear Weapon Decision-Making in Sweden, 1947-72,”
Washington Quarterly 20 (1997), 233-251; E. Gheorghe, “Atomic Maverick: Romania’s Negotiations
for Nuclear Technology, 1964-1970,” Cold War History 13 (2013), 373-392; L. Choi, “The First Nuclear
Crisis in the Korean Peninsula, 1975-76,” Cold War History 14 (2014), 71-90.
South Asian nuclearisation has generated a substantial literature, including I. Abraham, The Making
of the Indian Atomic Bomb (Zed Books, 1998); G. Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on
Global Proliferation (University of California Press, 1999) [UML 355.43/P46]; H.K. Nizami, The Roots of
Rhetoric: Politics of Nuclear Weapons in India and Pakistan [UML e-book]; S.D. Sagan (ed.), Inside
Nuclear South Asia (Stanford UP, 2009); I. Abraham (ed.), South Asian Cultures of the Bomb: Atomic
Publics and the State in India and Pakistan (Indiana UP, 2009); R.S. Anderson, Nucleus and Nation:
Scientists, International Networks, and Power in India (University of Chicago Press, 2010); A.B.
Kennedy, “India’s Nuclear Odyssey: Implicit Umbrellas, Diplomatic Disappointments, and the Bomb,”
International Security 36 (2011), 120-153; F. Khan, Eating Grass; The Making of the Pakistani Bomb
(Stanford University Press, 2012); F. Shaikh, “Pakistan’s Nuclear Bomb: Beyond the Non-Proliferation
Regime,” International Affairs 78 (2002), 29-48; S. Miraglia, “Deadly or Impotent? Nuclear Command
and Control in Pakistan,” Journal of Strategic Studies 36 (2013), 841-866; S. Ganguly, “Nuclear
Stability in South Asia,” International Security 33 (2008), 45-70; B. Riedel, “South Asia’s Nuclear
Decade,” Survival 50 (April-May 2008), 107-126; S.P. Kapur, “Ten Years of Instability in a Nuclear
South Asia,” International Security 33 (2008), 71-94.
34
On the currently topical issue of Iranian nuclearisation, see S. Sagan, K. Waltz and R.K. Betts, “A
Nuclear Iran: Promoting Stability or Courting Disaster?” Journal of International Affairs 60 (2007),
135-150; G. Bahgat, “Nuclear Proliferation: The Islamic Republic of Iran,” Iranian Studies 39 (2006),
307-327; R. Takeyh, “Iran Builds the Bomb,” Survival 46 (Winter 2004-5), 51-64; S.E. Kreps, “Shifting
Currents: Changes in National Intelligence Estimates on the Iran Nuclear Threat,” Intelligence and
National Security 23 (2008), 608-628.
For more analytical perspectives on nuclear proliferation see S.D. Sagan and K.N. Waltz, The Spread of
Nuclear Weapons. A Debate Renewed (Norton, 2003) [UML 341.67/S51]; T.V. Paul, Power versus
Prudence: Why Nations Forgo Nuclear Weapons (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000); T.V. Paul,
“Taboo or Tradition? The Non-use of Nuclear Weapons in World Politics,” Review of International
Studies 36 (2010), 853-863; Z. Mian, “At War With the World: Nuclear Weapons, Development and
Security,” Development 47 (2004), 50-57 [UML e-journal]. On nuclear colonialism, see G. Hecht,
“Rupture-Talk in the Nuclear Age: Conjugating Colonial Power in Africa,” Social Studies of Science 32
(2002), 691-727 [UML e-journal]; B. Danielsson and M.-T. Danielsson, Poisoned Reign: French Nuclear
Colonialism in the Pacific (Penguin, 1986); H. Gusterson, “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the
Western Imagination,” Cultural Anthropology 14 (1) (1999), 111-143 [UML e-journal].
For an overview of data on nuclear testing, see R.S. Norris and W.M. Arkin, “Known Nuclear Tests
Worldwide, 1945-1995,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 52 (May-June 1996), 1-64 [UML e-journal].
Selections
of
declassified
intelligence
satellite
imagery
(IMINT)
are
at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080328013047/http://edc.usgs.gov/guides/disp1.html
and
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/index.html
On the ‘Second Cold War’ and the end of the Cold War, see D. Miller, The Cold War. A Military History
(Murray, 1998) [UML 355.0973/M51]; R.E. Powaski, Return to Armageddon: The United States and
the Nuclear Arms Race, 1981-1999 (Oxford UP, 2000) [UML 355.43/P49]; J. Haslam, The Soviet Union
and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons in Europe, 1969-78 (Cornell UP, 1990).
Scholarship on the 1983 ‘Able Archer’ NATO exercises and war scare suggests that nuclear war might
have broken out through misunderstandings. See S.J. Cimbala, “Year of Maximum Danger? The 1983
‘War Scare’ and US-Soviet Deterrence,” Journal of Slavic Military Studies 13 (2000), 1-24; P. Sabin,
The Third World War Scare in Britain: A Critical Analysis (Macmillan, 1986) [UML 355.43/S80]; P.V.
Pry, War Scare. Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink (Praeger, 1999) [UML 355.43/P50]; B.B.
Fischer, “A Cold War Conundrum: The 1983 Soviet War Scare,” (CIA Center for the Study of
Intelligence, 1997), available at https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csipublications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm;
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ablearcher/.
Following document declassification, there has been substantial further interest in the 1983 Able
Archer case, reinvigorating arguments about the possibility of provoked or accidental nuclear war
and the complexities of superpower relations (and inviting comparisons with Cuban Missile Crisis
historiography): A. Manchanda, “When Truth is Stranger than Fiction: The Able Archer Incident,” Cold
War History 9 (2009), 111-133; V. Mastny, “How Able Was ‘Able Archer’? Nuclear Trigger and
Intelligence in Perspective,” Journal of Cold War Studies 11 (2009), 108-123; J.M. DiCicco, “Fear,
Loathing, and Cracks in Reagan’s Mirror Images: Able Archer 83 and an American First Step toward
Rapprochement in the Cold War,” Foreign Policy Analysis 7 (2011), 253-274; L. Scott, “Intelligence
and the Risk of Nuclear War: Able Archer-83 Revisited,” Intelligence and National Security 26 (2011),
759-777.
The most comprehensive resource is now the National Security Archive’s
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ablearcher/
35
On the notion of ‘nuclear winter’ and ecological approaches on the nuclear threat which emerged in
this period, and which had a significant impact on public and political thinking, see P.R. Ehrlich et al,
The Nuclear Winter. The World After Nuclear War (Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984); J. Peterson et al,
Nuclear War: The Aftermath (Pergamon, 1982); L. Badash, A Nuclear Winter’s Tale: Science and
Politics in the 1980s (MIT Press, 2009) [UML 577.274/BAD]; M. Dorries, “The Politics of Atmospheric
Sciences: ‘Nuclear Winter’ and Global Climate Change,” Osiris 26 (2011), 198-223 [UML e-journal]; P.
Rubinson, “The Global Effect of Nuclear Winter: Science and Antinuclear protest in the United States
and the Soviet Union During the 1980s,” Cold War History 14 (2014), 47-69.
On the environmental impact of the nuclear age, see A. Makhijani, H. Hu and K. Yih (eds.), Nuclear
Wastelands: A Global Guide to Nuclear Weapons Production and its Health and Environmental Effects
(MIT Press, 1995), 393-434 [UML 623.4545/M2; HD]; M. Davis, “Dead West: Ecocide in Marlboro
Country,” New Left Review 200 (1993), 49-73 [UML e-journal]; P. Goin, Nuclear Landscapes (Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1991); S. Kirsch, “Peaceful Nuclear Explosions and the Geography of
Scientific Authority,” Professional Geographer 52 (2) (2000), 179-192 [UML e-journal]; S.I. Schwartz,
Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of US Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 (Brookings Institution
Press, 1998); L. Ackland, Making a Real Killing: Rocky Flats and the Nuclear West (University of New
Mexico Press, 1999); R.J. Dalton et al., Critical Masses: Citizens, Nuclear Weapons Production, and
Environmental Destruction in the United States and Russia (MIT Press, 1999) [UML 623.4545/D12]; V.
Kuletz, The Tainted Desert: Environmental and Social Ruin in the American West (Routledge, 1998); V.
Kuletz, “Invisible Spaces, Violent Places: Cold War Nuclear and Militarized Landscapes,” in N.L Peluso
and M. Watts (eds.), Violent Environments (Cornell University Press, 2001), 237-260 [UML
339.5/P129]; P. Garb and G. Komarova, “Victims of ‘Friendly Fire’ at Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Sites,”
in N.L Peluso and M. Watts (eds.), Violent Environments (Cornell University Press, 2001), 287-302
[UML 339.5/P129]; J.R. McNeill and C.R. Unger (eds.), Environmental Histories of the Cold War
(Cambridge UP, 2010).
A rich seam of scholarship now exists on nuclear and Cold War ‘legacies’ – the material and affective
remains of the last sixty years of nuclearism, mostly in the US and Russia: see, for example, J.A.
Shroyer, Secret Mesa. Inside los Alamos National Laboratory (Wiley, 1998); L. Ackland, Making a Real
Killing: Rocky Flats and the Nuclear West (University of New Mexico Press, 1999); M.S. Gerber, On the
Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site (University of Nebraska Press, 2007);
Kari A. Frederickson. Cold War Dixie: Militarization and Modernization in the American South (Athens
GA: University of Georgia Press, 2013); G. Heefner, The Missile Next Door: The Minuteman in the
American Heartland (Harvard University Press, 2012); J.M. Findlay and B. Hevly, Atomic Frontier Days:
Hanford and the American West (University of Washington Press, 2011); K. Brown, Plutopia. Nuclear
Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters (Oxford University
Press, 2013); G. Hecht, Being Nuclear: Africans and the Global Uranium Trade (MIT Press, 2012); S.
Kirsch, “Peaceful Nuclear Explosions and the Geography of Scientific Authority,” Professional
Geographer 52 (2000), 179-192; S. Kirsch, “Experiments in Progress: Edward Teller’s Controversial
Geographies,” Ecumene 5 (1998), 267-285; J.B. Krygier, “Project Ketch: Project Plowshare in
Pennsylvania,” Ecumene 5 (1998), 311-322; S. Frenkel, “A Hot Idea? Planning a Nuclear Canal in
Panama,” Ecumene 5 (1998), 303-309; K. Zachmann, “Atoms for Peace and Radiation or Safety – How
to Build Trust in Irradiated Foods in Cold War Europe and Beyond,” History and Technology 27 (2011),
65-90; B.C. Taylor et al, “Nuclear Legacies: Communication, Controversy, and the US Nuclear
Weapons Production Complex,” Communication Yearbook 29 (2005), 363-409; B.C. Taylor and J.
Hendry, “Insisting on Persisting: The Nuclear Rhetoric of ‘Stockpile Stewardship’,” Rhetoric & Public
Affairs 11 (2008), 303-334; A. Kirk, “Rereading the Nature of Atomic Doom Towns,” Environmental
History 17 (2012), 635-647; J. Lockard, “Desert(ed) Geographies: Cartographies of Nuclear Testing,”
Landscape Review 6 (2000), 3-20.
36
On ‘downwinders’ and victims of the US nuclear complex, see C. Gallagher, American Ground Zero:
The Secret Nuclear War (MIT Press, 1993) [UML 355.43/G107]. For the shocking story of Karen
Silkwood, see R. Rashke, The Killing of Karen Silkwood: The Story Behind the Kerr-McGee Plutonium
Case (Sphere, 1983); H. Kohn, Who Killed Karen Silkwood? (New English Library, 1983). There is also a
1995 film about Silkwood, starring Meryl Streep.
Nuclear workers are key players in the history of the nuclear age, but are underrepresented in the
literature, which includes F. Zonabend, The Nuclear Peninsula (Cambridge UP, 993; UML HD
338.4/Z30); S. Johnston, The Neutron’s Children: Nuclear Engineers and the Shaping of Identity
(Oxford University Press, 2012). On risk and regulation in the nuclear industry and elsewhere: J.S.
Walker, Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century (University of
California Press, 2000).
On the management of radioactive waste, see: A. Blowers, D. Lowry and B.D. Solomon, The
International Politics of Nuclear Waste (Macmillan, 1991) [UML 327/B84, 85]; A. Blowers, “Nuclear
Waste and Landscapes of Risk,” Landscape Research 24 (1999), 241-264; K. Bickerstaff et al,
“Reframing Nuclear Power in the UK Energy Debate: Nuclear Power, Climate Change Mitigation and
Radioactive Waste,” Public Understanding of Science 17 (2008), 145-169. A foundational study of
nuclear power and the public is B. Balogh, Chain Reaction: Expert Debate & Public Participation in
American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945-1975 (Cambridge University Press, 1991). On nuclear
legacy issues in the UK, see the government’s July 2002 strategy paper, Managing the Nuclear
Legacy: A Strategy for Action:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/nuclearcleanup/ach/whitepaper.pdf
On the nuclear complex after the end of the Cold War, see: H. Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons
Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (California University Press, 1996) [UML 331.87/G117].; P.
Shambroom, Face to Face with the Bomb: Nuclear Reality After the Cold War (Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2003) [UML 355.43/S110]; J. Masco, “States of Insecurity: Plutonium and Post-Cold
War Anxiety in New Mexico, 1992-96,” in J. Weldes et al. (eds.), Cultures of Insecurity: States,
Communities, and the Production of Danger (University of Minnesota Press, 1999) [UML HD
327.04/W2], 203-231.
The post-Cold War thaw has led to the emergence of a defence heritage movement: see for example,
W.D. Cocroft and R.J.C. Thomas, Cold War. Building for Nuclear Confrontation, 1946-1989 (English
Heritage, 2003) [UML 355.0942/C7]. The Subterranea Britannica movement has also spawned what
might be called the bunker porn genre: see N. Catford, Cold War Bunkers: Subterranean Britain (Folly
Books, 2010); N. Catford, Burlington. The Central Government War Headquarters at Corsham (Folly
Books, 2012). On post-Cold War archaeology, see N.J. McCamley, Cold War Secret Nuclear Bunkers
(Leo Cooper, 2002); T. Vanderbilt, Survival City: Adventures Among the Ruins of Atomic America
(Princeton Architectural Press, 2002); R. Ross, Waiting for the End of the World (Princeton
Architectural Press, 2004); J. Schofield and W. Cocroft (eds.), A Fearsome Heritage: Diverse Legacies
of the Cold War (Left Coast Press, 2007).
37
*** POSSIBLE FILM SCREENING ***
Threads (1984)
Subject to demand, there will be a showing of the 1984 BBC TV film Threads in Week 10, time and
room to be arranged.
Often described as the grimmest, bleakest piece of nuclear film ever devised, this docu-drama
presents the physical and emotional consequences of a possible thermonuclear strike on Britain,
including nuclear winter and its after-effects over the following decades. It is essential viewing for
anyone concerned with public perceptions of the nuclear, and offers important comparisons and
contrasts with The War Game (Week 6).
38
Week 11
Nuclear Britain
The UK government made the decision to build its own atomic bomb in 1947. This secret programme
culminated in Britain’s first nuclear test in Australia in October 1952. The government then went on
to commit the UK to building thermonuclear weapons, leading to tests in 1957-8. During the 1950s
and 1960s, the ‘V-force’ of jet bombers provided the platform for Britain’s strategic nuclear weapons.
Since then, Britain has worked closely with the USA to develop its nuclear systems – notably Polaris
and its successor Trident. Britain remains a nuclear power. In pursuit of its nuclear weapons
programme, Britain developed nuclear reactors to produce fissile material. In the late 1950s, she
developed nuclear reactors for electricity production. A second generation of nuclear reactors
followed in the 1960s and 1970s. All these reactors are now approaching the end of their lives, and
the UK government is currently considering the country’s future energy needs and the role of nuclear
power in our future energy mix. The outcome of this decision will play an important role in shaping
Britain’s technological future. In this class, we look at the British nuclear weapons programme and
explore the rationale for Britain continuing to be a nuclear power.
Required reading: K. Stoddart, “British Nuclear Strategy During the Cold War,” in M. Grant (ed.), The
British Way in Cold Warfare: Intelligence, Diplomacy and the Bomb, 1945-1975 (Continuum, 2009),
15-28 [google books].
Recommended Background Reading:
D. Sumner, R. Johnson and W. Peden, “The United Kingdom,” in A. Makhijani, H. Hu and K. Yih (eds.),
Nuclear Wastelands: A Global Guide to Nuclear Weapons Production and its Health and
Environmental Effects (MIT Press, 1995), 393-434 [UML 623.4545/M2; SLC]
Further Reading:
For the decision to build a British bomb and details of the secret programme, the classics are M.
Gowing, Britain and Atomic Energy, 1939-1945 (Macmillan, 1965) [UML SLC 621.039/G101]; M.
Gowing and L. Arnold, Independence and Deterrence. Volume 1. Policy Making (Macmillan, 1974);
Independence and Deterrence. Volume 2. Policy Execution (Macmillan, 1974) [UML SLC
621.039/G100]. L. Arnold, A Very Special Relationship: British Atomic Weapons Trials in Australia
(HMSO, 1987) [UML 355.0942/A25; Joule U:355/ARN]; L. Arnold, Britain and the H-Bomb (Palgrave,
2001) [UML 623.4525/A1]; S. Lee, “‘In No sense Vital and Actually Not Even Important’? Reality and
Perception of Britain’s Contribution to the Development of Nuclear Weapons,” Contemporary British
History 20 (2006), 159-185; C. Laucht, Elemental Germans: Klaus Fuchs, Rudolf Peierls and the Making
of British Nuclear Culture 1939-59 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); C.N. Hill, An Atomic Empire: A
Technical History of the Rise and Fall of the British Atomic Energy Programme (Imperial College Press,
2013).
On the British nuclear programme and relations with the USA see also A. Goldberg, “The Atomic
Origins of the British Nuclear Deterrent,” International Affairs 40 (1964), 409-429; A.J.R. Groom,
British Thinking about Nuclear Weapons (Frances Pinter, 1974) [UML 355.43/G103]; J. Simpson, The
Independent Nuclear State: The United States, Britain and the Military Atom (Macmillan, 1983) [UML
355.43/S78, 81].
39
On the British H-bomb, see J. Baylis, “The Development of Britain’s Thermonuclear Capability 195461: Myth or Reality?” Contemporary Record 8 (1994), 159-174; K. Pyne, “Art or Article? The Need
for and Nature of the British Hydrogen Bomb, 1954-1958,” Contemporary Record 9 (1995), 562-585;
L. Arnold, Britain and the H-Bomb (Palgrave, 2001) [UML 623.4525/A1]; R. Moore, “British Nuclear
Warhead Design 1958-66: How Much American Help?” Defence Studies 4 (2004), 207-228. For initial
British government reactions to the H-bomb, see J. Hughes, “The Strath Report: Britain Confronts the
H-Bomb, 1954-1955,” History and Technology 19 (2003), 259-277. For scientists’ reactions, see G.
Jones, “The Mushroom-Shaped Cloud: British Scientists’ Opposition to Nuclear Weapons Policy,
1945-57,” Annals of Science 43 (1986), 1-26.
On British nuclear strategy see I. Clark and N. Wheeler, The British Origins of Nuclear Strategy, 19451955 (Clarendon Press, 1989); R. Ruston, A Say in the End of the World: Morals and British Nuclear
Weapons Policy, 1941-1987 (Oxford University Press, 1989) [UML 355.0942/R46]. I. Clark, Nuclear
Diplomacy and the Special Relationship: Britain’s Deterrent and America, 1957-1962 (Clarendon
Press, 1994); B. Cathcart, Test of Greatness: Britain’s Struggle for the Atom Bomb (Murray, 1994)
[UML 355.43/C24]; R.H. Paterson, Britain’s Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: From Before the V-Bomber
to Beyond Trident (Frank Cass, 1997) [UML 355.43/P43]; D.,Murray, Kennedy, Macmillan and Nuclear
Weapons (Macmillan, 2000). On the technical development of British nuclear systems, see H. Wynn,
The RAF Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Forces: Their Origins, Roles and Deployment 1946-1969 (HMSO,
1994) [UML 358.350942/W3]; S. Twigge and L. Scott, Planning Armageddon: Britain, the United
States and the Command and Control of Western Nuclear Forces 1945-1964 (Harwood Academic
Press, 2000) [UML 355.43/T15]; R. Moore, The Royal Navy and Nuclear Weapons (Frank Cass, 2001);
D. Redford, “The ‘Hallmark of a First Class Navy’: The Nuclear-Powered Submarine in the Royal Navy
1960-77,” Contemporary British History 23 (2009), 181-197; J. Boyes, Project Emily: Thor IRBM and
the RAF (Tempus, 2008); L. Scott and H. Dylan, “Cover for Thor: Divine Deception Planning for Cold
War Missiles,” Journal of Strategic Studies 33 (2010), 759-775. For recent data on UK nuclear forces,
see S.N Kile et al, “World Nuclear Forces,” SIPRI Yearbook 2010: Armaments, Disarmament and
International Security, available at http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2010/files/SIPRIYB201008-AB.pdf
On British nuclear policy, the authoritative account is M. Quinlan, Thinking About Nuclear Weapons
(Oxford University Press, 2009). A contrasting historical view is R. Maguire, “The Use of Weapons:
Mass Killing and the United Kingdom Government’s Nuclear Weapons programme,” Journal of
Genocide Research 9 (2007), 389-410. Other studies of UK nuclear policy and diplomacy include:
M.A. Smith, “British Nuclear Weapons and NATO in the Cold War and Beyond,” International Affairs
26 (2011), 1385-1399 [UML e-journal]; J. Colman, “The 1950 ‘Ambassador’s Agreement’ on USAF
Bases in the UK and British Fears of US Atomic Unilateralism,” Journal of Strategic Studies 30 (2007),
285-307; R. Moore, Nuclear Illusion, Nuclear Reality: Britain, the United States and Nuclear Weapons,
1958-64 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); K. Stoddart, Losing an Empire and Finding a Role: Britain, the
USA, NATO and Nuclear Weapons, 1964-70 (Palgrave, Macmillan, 2012); K. Young, “A Most Special
Relationship: the Origins of Anglo-American Nuclear Strike Planning,” Journal of Cold War Studies 9
(2007), 5-31; K. Young, “US ‘Atomic Capability’ and the British Forward Bases in the Early Cold War,”
Journal of Contemporary History 42 (2007), 117-136; J. Baylis, “The 1958 Anglo-American Mutual
Defence Agreement: The Search for Nuclear Interdependence,” Journal of Strategic Studies 31 (2008),
425-466; J. Bronk, “Britain’s ‘Independent’ V-Bomber Force and US Nuclear Weapons, 1957-1962,”
Journal of Strategic Studies DOI:10.1080/01402390.2013.770736; M. O’Driscoll, “Missing the Nuclear
Boat? British Policy and French Military Nuclear Ambitions During the EURATOM Foundation
Negotiations, 1955-56,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 9 (1998), 135-162; K. Stoddart, “Nuclear Weapons in
Britain’s Policy towards France, 1960-1974,” Diplomacy and Statecraft 18 (2007), 719-744; J.
Crawford, “‘A Political H-Bomb’: New Zealand and the British Thermonuclear Weapon Tests of 19578,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 26 (1998), 127-150; L.J. Butler, “The Central
African Federation and Britain’s Post-war Nuclear Programme: Reconsidering the Connections,”
40
Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 36 (2008), 509-525; W. Zaidi, “‘A Blessing in Disguise’:
Reconstructing International Relations Through Atomic Energy, 1945-1948,” Past and Present,
Supplement 6 (2011), 309-331; D.J. Gill, Britain and the Bomb: Nuclear Diplomacy 1964-1970
(Stanford University Press, 2013).
Much recent scholarship has focused on UK-US nuclear relations: S. Kelly, “No Ordinary Foreign Office
Official: Sir Roger Makins and Anglo-American Atomic Relations, 1945-55,” Contemporary British
History 14 (2000), 107-124; M. Goodman, “With a Little Help from my Friends: The Anglo-American
Atomic Intelligence Partnership, 1945-1958,” Diplomacy and Statecraft 18 (2007), 155-183; M.
Middeke, “Anglo-American Nuclear Weapons Cooperation After the Nassau Conference: The British
Policy of Interdependence,” Journal of Cold War Studies 2 (2000), 69-96; K. Young, “No Blank Cheque:
Anglo-American (Mis)understandings and the Use of the English Airbases,” Journal of Military History
71 (2007), 1133-1167; M. Jones, “Great Britain, the United States and Consultations Over Use of the
Atomic Bomb, 1950-1954,” Historical Journal 54 (2011), 797-828; G. Warner, “Anglo-American
Relations and the Cold War in 1950,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 22 (2011), 44-60; W. Wallace and C.
Phillips, “Reassessing the Special Relationship,” International Affairs 85 (2009), 263-284; J. Simpson,
“The US-UK Special Relationship: the Nuclear Dimension,” in A.P. Dobson and S. Marsh (eds.), AngloAmerican Relations: Contemporary Perspectives (Routledge, 2013), 241-262.
Other recent work on nuclear Britain includes R. Maguire, “Scientific Dissent amid the United
Kingdom Government’s Nuclear Weapons Programme,” History Workshop Journal 63 (2007), 113135; D.J. Gill, “The Ambiguities of Opposition: Economic Decline, International Cooperation, and
Political Rivalry in the Nuclear Policies of the Labour Party, 1963-1964,” Contemporary British History
25 (2011), 251-276; K. Stoddart, “The Wilson Government and British Responses to Anti-Ballistic
Missiles, 1964-1970,” Contemporary British History 23 (2009), 1-33; J.R. Walker, Britain and
Disarmament. The UK and Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons Arms Control and Programmes,
1956-1975 (Ashgate, 2012); N. Ritchie, “Deterrence Dogma? Challenging the Relevance of British
Nuclear Weapons,” International Affairs 85 (2009), 81-98; N. Ritchie, “Relinquishing Nuclear
Weapons: Identities, Networks and the British Bomb,” International Affairs 86 (2010), 465-487; J.
Baylis and K. Stoddart, “The British Nuclear Experience: The Role of Ideas and Beliefs (Part One),”
Diplomacy & Statecraft 23 (2012), 331-346; K. Stoddart and J. Baylis, “The British Nuclear Experience:
The Role of Ideas and Beliefs (Part Two),” Diplomacy & Statecraft 23 (2012), 493-516.
An excellent sequence of papers has infolded the history of the controversial ‘Chevaline’ Polaris
warhead improvement programme: J. Baylis and K. Stoddart, “Britain and the Chevaline Project: The
Hidden Nuclear Programme, 1967-82,” Journal of Strategic Studies 26 (2003), 124-155; J. Baylis,
“British Nuclear Doctrine: The ‘Moscow Criterion’ and the Polaris Improvement programme,”
Contemporary British History 19 (2005), 53-65; K. Stoddart, “Maintaining the ‘Moscow Criterion’:
British Strategic Targeting 1974-1979,” Journal of Strategic Studies 31 (2008), 897-924; K. Stoddart,
“The British Labour Government and the Development of Chevaline, 1974-79,” Cold War History 10
(2010), 287-314; T. Robb, “Antelope, Poseidon or a Hybrid: The Upgrading of the British Strategic
Nuclear Deterrent, 1970-1974,” Journal of Strategic Studies 33 (2010), 797-817. Also H. Parr, “The
British Decision to Upgrade Polaris, 1970-4,” Contemporary European History 22 (2013), 253-274.
On the British nuclear power programme, see R.F. Pocock, Nuclear Power: Its Development in the
United Kingdom (Unwin, 1977) [Precinct Library U:621.480942/POC]; I. Welsh, Mobilising Modernity:
The Nuclear Moment (Routledge, 2000) [UML 338/W34]; T. O’Riordan, R. Kemp and M. Purdue,
Sizewell B: An Anatomy of the Inquiry (Macmillan, 1988) [UML 338.4/O47]; R. Williams, The Nuclear
Power Decisions: British Policies, 1953-78 (Croom Helm, 1980) [UML 338.4/W62]; B. Wynne,
Rationality and Ritual: Participation and Exclusion in Nuclear Decision-Making (revised edition,
41
Earthscan, 2011); Hunter Davies (ed.), Sellafield Stories. Life with Britain’s First Nuclear Plant
(Constable, 2012).
On the environmental impact of the UK nuclear programme, see D. Sumner, R. Johnson and W.
Peden, “The United Kingdom,” in A. Makhijani, H. Hu and K. Yih (eds.), Nuclear Wastelands: A Global
Guide to Nuclear Weapons Production and its Health and Environmental Effects (MIT Press, 1995),
393-434 [UML 623.4545/M2]; J. Smith, Clouds of Deceit: The Deadly Legacy of Britain’s Bomb Tests
(Faber & Faber, 1985) [UML 623.4525/S33]. On nuclear legacy issues in the UK, see the government’s
July 2002 strategy paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy: A Strategy for Action, available at
http://www.sepa.org.uk/radioactive_substances/rs_publications/idoc.ashx?docid=0f0503b2-b0f7437b-8413-97f73ceff863&version=-1 The website of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is at
http://www.nda.gov.uk
Office for Nuclear Regulation, Map of Regulated Nuclear Sites: http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/map-regulated-sites.pdf
42
Week 12
Reminder: your coursework essay and project (HSTM31712) are due in this week. Please submit
one copy electronically by 10.00 a.m. and bring a paper copy to submit in class.
Overview and Conclusion: New Nuclear Threats?
Put together the end of the Cold War, the political and economic reshaping of the former Soviet
Union, the lapsing of nuclear security procedures in the vast Russian nuclear military-industrial
complex, the opening of borders and the emergence of new forms of criminality in the Newly
Independent States, and what do you get? The conditions for an international traffic in nuclear
materials such as highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium. Add terrorists with enough
resources to buy fissile materials and the expertise to fashion them into a crude nuclear device, and
what do you get? Potentially, a nuclear explosion in any city in the world, and consequent mass
disruption or devastation. An unexpected legacy of the nuclear age, this conjunction is perhaps the
greatest threat facing world today, and has led some commentators to argue that we are entering a
destabilized and decentred ‘second nuclear age’ – which is even more unpredictable than the first.
This concluding session looks at the current nuclear situation worldwide, and asks: is the world a
more, or less, dangerous place now than it was twenty years ago? The ‘new triad’ of defensive, nonnuclear and nuclear systems threatens to blur the boundaries between nuclear and non-nuclear
elements, making the possible use of nuclear weapons thinkable. With regional nuclear proliferation
and the prediction that some act of nuclear terrorism is highly likely in the near future, it is
increasingly likely that nuclear weapons will be used in our lifetime. At the same time, the accident
at the TEPCO plant at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011 reignited concerns about the dangers of
nuclear power, and put in doubt a planned wave of new nuclear build – which some argue is essential
to counter the threat of global warming. In this class we will discuss the global impact and current
state of the nuclear, and look at likely future developments.
In this session we will also watch and discuss a ‘Horizon’ programme on the threat of nuclear
smuggling and nuclear terrorism. A summary and transcript of the programme can be found at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/dirtybomb.shtml
Required reading:
S. E. Miller and S.D. Sagan, “Alternative Nuclear Futures,” Daedalus 139 (2010), 126-137 [UML ejournal].
Recommended Background Reading:
M. Bunn, “Reducing the Greatest Risks of Nuclear Threat & Terrorism,” Daedalus 138 (2009), 112123 [UML e-journal].
Further Reading:
A good overview of current nuclear inventories and postures is S.N Kile et al, “World Nuclear Forces,”
SIPRI Yearbook 2010: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, available at
http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2010/files/SIPRIYB201008-AB.pdf
43
More generally on analytical approaches to contemporary de/nuclearisation, see G.T. Allison et al.
(Eds.), Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy. Containing the Threat of Loose Russian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile
Material (MIT Press, 1996) [UML 341.67/A80]; S.M. Lynn-Jones and S.E. Miller (eds.), The Cold War
and After: Prospects for Peace (MIT Press, expanded edition 1999); S.D. Sagan and K.N. Waltz, The
Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A Debate Renewed (Norton, 2003) [UML 341.67/S51]; A.T.J. Lennon
(ed.), Contemporary Nuclear Debates. Missile Defense, Arms Control, and Arms Races in the TwentyFirst Century (MIT Press, 2002) [UML e-book]; P. Rogers, Losing Control: Global Security in the
Twenty-First Century (Pluto Press, 2002) [UML e-book]; T.V. Paul, R.J. Harknett and J.J. Wirtz (eds.),
The Absolute Weapon Revisited: Nuclear Arms and the Emerging International Order (University of
Michigan Press, 1998); P. Bracken, “The Second Nuclear Age,” Foreign Affairs 79 (Jan-Feb 2000), 146156 [UML e-journal]; T.V. Paul, P.M. Morgan and J.J. Wirtz (eds), Complex Deterrence: Strategy in the
Global Age (Chicago UP, 2009).
On the new nuclear triad and the US 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, see J.J. Wirtz and J.A. Russell, “A
Quiet Revolution: Nuclear Strategy for the 21st Century,” Joint Forces Quarterly 33 (2002/3), 9-15, at
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/people/biolinks/russell/JFQ.pdf; J.J. Wirtz and J.A.
Larsen, Nuclear Transformation: The New Nuclear U.S. Doctrine (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
On the origins of, and contemporary threat to, the long-standing taboo on nuclear use posed by new
‘mini-nukes,’ see N. Tannenwald, “Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo,”
International Security 29 (4) (2005), 5-49 [UML e-journal]; N. Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo: The
United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945 (Cambridge UP, 2007); R.
Khatchadourian, “Relearning to Love the Bomb: A Move is on to Blur the Line Between Conventional
and Nuclear Weapons,” The Nation, 1 April 2002, 24-27 [UML e-journal]; G.H. Quester, Nuclear First
Strike: Consequences of a Broken Taboo (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006).
On Missile Defense, see R. Powell, “Nuclear Deterrence Theory, Nuclear Proliferation, and National
Missile Defense,” International Security 27 (2003), 86-118 [UML e-journal]; C. Peoples, Justifying
Ballistic Missile Defence: Technology, Security and Culture (Cambridge UP, 2010).
Recent and current work includes: S.E. Miller and S.D. Sagan, “Alternative Nuclear Futures,” Daedalus
139 (2010), 126-137; S.E. Kreps and M. Fuhrmann, “Attacking the Atom: Does Bombing Nuclear
Facilities Affect Proliferation?” Journal of Strategic Studies 34 (2011), 161-187; M. Fuhrmann,
“Spreading Temptation: Proliferation and Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreements,” International
Security 34 (2009), 7-41; M.S. Gerson, “No First Use: The Next Step for US Nuclear Policy,”
International Security 35 (2010), 7-47; F.J. Gavin, “Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism,
Proliferation, and the Cold War,” International Security 34 (3) (2009/10), 7-37; R.M. Frost,
“Improvised Nuclear Devices,” Adelphi Papers 45 (2005), 25-40; T. Ogilvie-White and D. Santoro,
Slaying the Nuclear Dragon: Disarmament Dynamics in the Twenty-First Century (University of
Georgia Press, 2012); J.E.C. Hymans, The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation (Cambridge University
Press, 2006); J.E.C. Hymans, Achieving Nuclear Ambitions: Scientists, Politicians, and Proliferation
(Cambridge University Press, 2012); J.J. Wirtz and P.R. Lavoy (eds.), Over the Horizon Proliferation
Threats (Stanford University Press, 2012); R. Rosenbaum, How the End Begins. The Road to a Nuclear
World War III (Simon & Schuster, 2011); M. Krepon, Better Safe than Sorry. The Ironies of Living with
the Bomb (Stanford University Press, 2009); C. Atkinson, “Using Nuclear Weapons,” Review of
International Studies 36 (2010), 839-851.
For proliferation through illicit networks which circumvent international nuclear regulatory regimes,
see A. Levy and C. Scott-Clark, Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Global Nuclear
Weapons Conspiracy (Atlantic Books, 2007); G Corera, Shopping for Bombs: Nuclear Proliferation,
Global Insecurity and the Rise and Fall of the A.Q. Khan Network (Hurst, 2006).
44
On the “dirty bomb” and nuclear terrorism, see R. Lee, Smuggling Armageddon. The Nuclear Black
Market in the Former Soviet Union and Europe (Macmillan, 1998), 1-13 [UML SLC C. Res. 999/L470]; J.
Stern, “Terrorist Motivations and Unconventional Weapons,” in P. Lavoy et al, Planning the
Unthinkable. How New Powers Will Use Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons (Cornell UP,
2000), 202-229 [UML 355.43/L27]; R.A. Falkenrath et al (eds.), America’s Achilles Heel. Nuclear,
Biological and Chemical Terrorism and Covert Attack (MIT Press, 1998) [UML 323.2/F18]; W.E.
Burrows and R. Windrem, Critical Mass. The Dangerous Race for Superweapons in a Fragmenting
World (Simon & Schuster, 1994) [UML 355.43/B135]; T.J. Badey, “Nuclear Terrorism: Actor-Based
Threat Assessment,” Intelligence and National Security 16 (2002), 39-54 [UML e-journal]; C.D.
Ferguson and W.C. Potter, The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism (New York & London: Routledge,
2005) [UML 323.2/F25]; J.T. Richelson, Defusing Armageddon: Inside NEST, America’s Secret Nuclear
Bomb Squad (W.W. Norton, 2009). For a corrective to the pessimism some recent discussion, see J.
Mueller, Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda (Oxford UP, 2010).
On the impacts of Fukushima, see in the first instance B.B.F Wittneben, “The Impact of the Fukushima
Nuclear Accident on European Energy Policy,” Environmental Science & Policy 15 (2012), 1-3 [UML ejournal].
45
If you enjoy our undergraduate courses, you might
be interested in further study. CHSTM runs a full
range of postgraduate programmes at MSc (taught
Masters), MPhil (research Masters) and PhD levels.
The Centre for the History of Science, Technology and
Medicine (CHSTM) is a major international focus for
research in the history of modern science, technology
and medicine. The department is supportive and
friendly, with a lively postgraduate community, and
strong formal and informal seminar programmes.
Taught Masters (MSc)
Our taught Masters programmes last one year (full-time) or two years (part-time). They are
suitable for students with undergraduate backgrounds in both the humanities and the
sciences. The following awards are available:
 MSc History of Science, Technology and Medicine. Our long-standing flagship course,
spanning the histories of the physical and life sciences, engineering, infrastructure,
information, medicine, and healthcare.
 MSc Medical Humanities. An innovative interdisciplinary course, taught in association
with the Manchester Medical School and with colleagues across the Faculty of
Humanities. It is provided as an intercalated course for medical students, but can also be
taken as a stand-alone MSc.
 MSc Science Communication. Addresses the theory and practice of communicating
scientific ideas in the news media, film, literature, museums, and public life, with a focus
on engagement between specialists and non-specialists.
 MSc Research Methods in HSTM. An alternative version of the HSTM programme giving
greater emphasis to formal qualitative research methods, including courses from the
School of Social Sciences.
All versions feature a comprehensive introductory survey course; skills training in research
and writing; specialist option courses taught by staff involved in current research; and a
research dissertation (which may be substituted by a portfolio of creative work on Medical
Humanities).
Research degrees: PhD/MPhil
CHSTM is also home to a thriving community of
research students, working in a range of HSTM and
related fields. We expect PhD applicants to have a
strong background in HSTM (e.g. a good MSc in the
subject). We offer two research degrees: PhD (3 years
full-time, 6 years part-time) and MPhil (1 year full-time,
2 years part-time). The MPhil can serve as a
preparatory degree for the PhD, or as a free-standing
research qualification.
Full details of all CHSTM’s activities, plus contact details, can be found at
http://www.chstm.manchester.ac.uk/
46