HSTM 31212 • HSTM 31712
THE NUCLEAR AGE
Hiroshima to Nuclear Terrorism
Semester 2, 2009-2010
Lectures/Seminars: Wednesdays, 10.00-11.50
Theatre 2A (Room 2.60), Simon Building, Brunswick Street
Lecturer: Dr James Sumner
Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine
Room 2.34, Simon Building, Brunswick Street
[email protected]
0161 275 5845
Office hours: Tuesdays 11.00-12.00, 14.00-15.00
Timetable
(Note: it’s occasionally necessary to change the order or contents of the timetable.
Announcements will be provided at lectures or electronically.)
Week 1
Introduction: Inside the Nuclear Bomb
3 February
Week 2
10 February
Week 3
17 February
Week 4
24 February
Week 5
3 March
Week 6
10 March
Week 7
17 March
Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the End of the
Second World War: The Legacy and the
Debate
From Few to Many: Nuclear Proliferation
and Nuclear Culture, 1945-1965
Coursework: The Meaning of Hiroshima
The Hydrogen Bomb and Nuclear Fear,
1955-1965
Atoms for Peace: Disarming Nuclear
Culture from Within?
Coursework: Visions of Apocalypse
From the Bay of Pigs to Armageddon: The
Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962
Ideologies of the Nuclear State: Civil
Defence
Coursework: CND and the Anti-Nuclear
Movement
Class includes film screening: The War
Game
Week 8
24 March
Meltdown! Nuclear Accidents and Nuclear
Risk
Optional film screening: Doctor
Strangelove, Wednesday afternoon (to be
confirmed)
Easter break: 27 March - 18 April
Week 9
21 April
Controls and Constraints: Nuclear Test
Bans and Nuclear Intelligence, 1965-1995
Coursework: Nuclear Proliferation, Nuclear
Racism?
Optional film screening: Threads,
Wednesday afternoon (to be confirmed)
Week 10
28 April
Week 11
5 May
Week 12
MAD, MIRVs and Minutemen: Nuclear
Systems at the End of the Cold War
Main essay due Friday 30 April
Overview and Conclusion: New Nuclear
Threats?
Coursework: Britain and Nuclear Power
Reading week
HSTM31712 only:
Project due Friday 14 May
12 May
page 2
Contents
Timetable .............................................................................................................. 2
Contents ............................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4
Aims...................................................................................................................... 4
Intended learning outcomes.................................................................................. 4
Contacting us........................................................................................................ 5
Course communications ....................................................................................... 5
A note about plagiarism ........................................................................................ 5
Disability support .................................................................................................. 6
Teaching ............................................................................................................... 6
Blackboard............................................................................................................ 6
Assessment .......................................................................................................... 6
How to find sources to read .................................................................................. 7
General reading .................................................................................................... 7
Useful websites..................................................................................................... 8
The coursework assignments ......................................................................... 10
The essay .......................................................................................................... 11
The project (HSTM31712 students only)......................................................... 14
Markscheme for essays and projects ................................................................ 15
Lectures and coursework assignments, week by week ................................ 17
Going further in the history of science, technology and medicine ....................... 34
page 3
Introduction
The shattering events of 11 September 2001 shook the fragile order of the post-Cold War
world, provoking drastic policy shifts and the identification of “terrorism” as a new global
enemy. As part of the “war on terror,” government leaders in the US and in Britain justified
war on Iraq on the basis of Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of “weapons of mass
destruction”: a blanket term with many meanings, but which suggests to most minds one
specific, visceral terror – nuclear attack. The new atmosphere of international concern has an
undeniable nuclear undercurrent: since the break-up of the former Soviet Union,
fragmentation of accountability and responsibility in the newly independent states’ nuclear
security arrangements has led to a significant traffic in smuggled fissile material. Fears of
radiological weapons (“dirty bombs”) are rife, transforming the domestic and international
security environment.
How has this state of affairs come about? 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. Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, some commentators argue that
we are entering a second nuclear age, in which the threat is not from an arms race between
competing superpowers, but from the terrorists and “rogue states” – an observation borne out
by recent events.
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,
gender and cultural production in the nuclear world. It confronts the methodological and
political problems of acquiring a properly historical understanding of nuclear matters. As the
United States again discusses a missile defence system to protect itself against “rogue
states”, the course also asks: is the world now a more or less dangerous place than it was in
the Cold War, and does history offer any 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) aims to give students the opportunity
of exploring in detail some aspect of the nuclear age through an individually supervised research
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
page 4
•
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.
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 and seminar organiser is Dr James Sumner. I can most easily be contacted by
email, on <[email protected]>. Alternatively, you can phone me on 0161 275
5845 (also voicemail).
I have regular tutorial hours in my office, 2.34 Simon Building, on Tuesdays at 11am and
2pm. If you can’t make these times, email me for an appointment, suggesting times when
you’re available.
The CHSTM Office is 2.21 Simon (limited office hours, posted on the door). Email
<mailto:[email protected]>, phone 0161 275 5850.
Course communications
Course announcements will be circulated to students’ University (@manchester.ac.uk) email
accounts. You should check your University account regularly while registered for this
course. If you prefer to use a private address, you should arrange to forward e-mails from
your University address to it.
Course materials, suggestions and announcements will appear on Blackboard where
possible, but any urgent announcements will go out by direct email.
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 (eg lifting passages – either word-for-word or
closely paraphrased – from books, articles, online sources, etc). Even ‘recycling’ parts of your
own work, which has previously been submitted for assessment at this University or
elsewhere, is defined as plagiarism.
It is not difficult for staff, who are all professional academic writers, to recognise instances of
plagiarism. Likewise, software for detecting material lifted from internet sources is regularly
employed in this regard.
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 University’s guide to avoiding plagiarism:
http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/studyskills/assignments/plagiarism/
Here, plagiarism is defined, and various misuses of sources are analysed for their errors.
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.
page 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 us about it. Please feel free to approach us to discuss
any additional needs that you have. You may wish to email us, 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 slot, on Wednesdays at 10.00, in
Lecture Theatre 2A (also known as Room 2.60) on the second floor of the Simon Building,
at the corner of Oxford Road and Brunswick Street. The classes will consist of lecture,
seminar and video elements.
Lectures will guide you through the essential elements of the course. The lectures form a
connected sequence in which later lectures build on materials presented in earlier ones, so
that it is in your interests to attend as many of the lectures as possible. You should take
notes to help in preparing coursework.
A seminar is a group discussion session, usually based on a reading or other activity. You
should read the material indicated in advance, and come to the class prepared to discuss
them. Some classes also include film or video screenings, followed by group discussion.
You may ask questions at any time in a lecture or seminar. Feel free to (politely) interrupt if
there’s anything you need to clarify, or if you think I have made a mistake. 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.
Remember: everyone is in the same position as you…
Blackboard
This course is running with full Blackboard support for the first time in 2009-10. I will try to
make sure the Blackboard content is always up to date, but please be patient: we’re building
it from scratch this year. You should check Blackboard regularly for new course materials,
updates, and suggested reading for research. Any corrections to the paper version of this
course outline will be announced on the Blackboard site.
Assessment
The 10-credit version of this course (HSTM31212) is assessed through five short assessed
coursework assignments and an essay. There is no examination! The credit split is as
follows:
Coursework assignments........................... 5 × 10%
Essay ......................................................... 50%
The 20-credit version (HSTM31712) is assessed through the same five short assessed
coursework assignments, one essay, and a longer project. There is still no examination!
The credit split is as follows:
Coursework assignments........................... 5 × 5%
Essay ......................................................... 25%
Project........................................................ 50%
Details of arrangements for all the assessments appear later in this outline.
page 6
How to find sources to read
All required readings will (if 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, for 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.
An increasing volume of the material you might need to look at is available online, either on
the open web, or through services subscribed to by the John Rylands University Library
(JRUL). This is particularly true for journal articles. Bear in mind, however, that many of the
most important sources are still only available on paper – particularly books. You will be
expected to visit libraries to access paper sources.
The most useful library for this course is the Main Library. In the lists that follow, readings in
the main shelf collection are designated JRUL; 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 JRUL online catalogue.
Details of all University of Manchester library locations are available at
<http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/librarysites/>.
A useful additional library resource (e.g. for background reading, essay and project research,
local newspaper sources, etc) is the city’s Central Library in St. Peter’s Square. For
information and holdings, see <http://www.manchester.gov.uk/libraries/central/>.
Remember: you will need to allow considerable time for reading around your subject, and for
planning and writing the essays. 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.
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) [JRUL 623.45119/DEG].
J. Newhouse, The Nuclear Age. From Hiroshima to Star Wars (Michael Joseph, 1989) [JRUL
355.43/N43].
M. Mandelbaum, The Nuclear Revolution. International Politics Before and After Hiroshima
(Cambridge UP, 1981) [JRUL 341.67/M61].
L. Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (Macmillan, 3rd edition 2003) [JRUL and HD
355.43/F46].
J.L. Gaddis, We Now Know. Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford, 1997) [JRUL 327/G79].
M.J. Hogan (ed.), Hiroshima in History and Memory (Cambridge University Press, 1996)
[JRUL 940.97144/H11].
S. Weart, Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (Harvard University Press, 1988) [JRUL
621.039/W8].
page 7
J. Simpson, The Independent Nuclear State. The United States, Britain and the Military Atom
(Macmillan, 1983) [JRUL 355.43/S78, 81].
W.E. Burrows, Critical Mass. The Dangerous Race for Superweapons in a Fragmenting
World (Simons & Schuster, 1994) [JRUL 355.43/B135].
J. Schell, The Fate of the Earth (Cape, 1982) [JRUL 575.322/S17].
J. Schell, The Unfinished Twentieth Century (Verso, 2001) [JRUL 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) [JRUL 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 periodical Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [JRUL Periodicals, Social Sciences, Orange
Ground, 1953-2008; available electronically via the JRUL website as an e-journal, 19401998] contains many useful articles and much essential information on the nuclear age.
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 – 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 original source
material
Cold War International History Project
<http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.home&topic_id=1409>: a superb
page 8
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 1950-1993 is at:
<http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm>.
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
nuclear-related 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 nonproliferation 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/>
One of the best sources for the course as a whole was the support site for the 1998 CNN (US
television) series, Cold War. Unfortunately, this has now been taken down, but most of the
material is archived at the following sites:
•
<http://www.internationalschoolhistory.net/coldwar_documentary/> (compressed video
files of the programmes themselves)
•
<http://cgi.turnerlearning.com/cnn/coldwar/cw_start.html>
•
<http://web.archive.org/web/20080314160908/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/>
There is also a useful accompanying book: J. Isaacs and T. Downing, Cold War (Bantam
Press, 1998), 145-163 [JRUL HD 909/I7].
page 9
The coursework assignments
The coursework assignments are designed to help you to develop your analytical, writing and
communication skills.
In five of the weeks of this course, you will be asked to read one or more short articles or
extracts, and answer some questions based on your reading. All the texts will be available
either via Blackboard, in online journals, or on paper in the John Rylands University Library
High Demand collection. Up-to-date details of access arrangements will always be given on
Blackboard.
Your answers should be word-processed, and should take up no more than two sides of
A4 paper, using 12-point text and page margins of at least 2.5cm. Please indicate your
student registration number (not your name) clearly at the top of the first page of each
document.
You should
•
complete your answers in advance (the assignment listed for Week 2 should be
finished before the class on Wednesday of Week 2, etc)
•
submit your answers via Blackboard
•
print off a copy, and bring it to the class
•
be prepared to discuss your answers with the rest of the group.
I will then grade your answers and supply any comments which might be useful.
Late coursework assignments will not be marked, and will not receive credit (unless
you can supply appropriate documentation: either a formal medical record of illness, or a note
from your Personal Tutor addressed directly to the course lecturer).
A number of additional readings are also suggested for each assignment. These are useful
for background material and will help you to get to grips with the issues, so it would be helpful
if you familiarised yourself with them. You can use these to follow up any points that interest
you. They will also be useful starting points when you begin reading for your essay or project.
You might need to use reference works in thinking about some of the questions: don't be
afraid of doing so, but be careful about using non-academic sources (e.g. Wikipedia)
uncritically.
page 10
The essay
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 no later than Friday 30
April 2010 (Week 10). Details of how to submit follow below.
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
Please select one of the following topics.
1. Why does debate persist about the reasons for the bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in 1945?
2. What was ‘Atoms for Peace’? Did it achieve its aims?
3. Compare and contrast two or more works of ‘nuclear fiction’ or ‘nuclear film’ separated
by at least twenty years. To what extent does each reflect the assumptions of its time
about nuclear war and the possibilities of survival? [NB: if taking this question, you
should consult the lecturer in advance, to check that the works you have chosen are
suitable].
4. Did nuclear weapons preserve the peace during the Cold War?
5. Has nuclear discourse been a masculinist discourse? Illustrate your answer with a
range of examples from both military and civil domains, and from a variety of media.
6. Will nuclear proliferation make the world more or less stable?
7. To what extent did anti-nuclear protest drive political processes of arms control, from
the 1963 Test Ban Treaty to the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties?
8. Was ‘Civil Defence’ ever a viable proposition in the nuclear age? What are the
implications of your answer for our understanding of the relationship between nuclear
states and their citizens?
9. Was the Cuban Missile Crisis the closest the world ever came to nuclear war?
You may choose another topic relevant to the themes of the course if you wish, but you
should do so only in consultation with the lecturer, who will be able to suggest relevant
readings.
Essay writing guidelines
These are the basic guidelines: more detailed guidance will be available from the course
lecturer.
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).
Essays which ignore these guidelines will lose marks.
page 11
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 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, 123’, or Edgerton, ‘Science and Technology’.
•
Do not bother to quote an author directly unless 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” in this handout).
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 an alphabetical bibliography at the end of your essay. Include only those
sources you have used, following a standard scholarly model (ask your lecturer if you
are unsure) such as the following:
[for books]:
John Pickstone, Medicine and Industrial Society. Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1985.
page 12
[for articles:]
David Edgerton, “Science and Technology in British Business History”. Business
History, vol.29 (1987), 84-103.
[for chapters:]
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. Accessed 15 January 2010.
<http://www.indiana.edu/~letrs/vwwp/>.
•
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 work electronically, via the ‘Assignments’ section on the
Blackboard site for this unit, by the stated deadline;
•
One paper copy to the CHSTM Essay Box outside the CHSTM Office, 2.21 Simon
Building, by the stated deadline.
The electronic copy will be archived in case of future questions or appeals, 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 appear anywhere
on your documents.
Late essays, or essays which ignore the guidelines, will lose marks. Essays handed in late
without a good explanation will not be marked, and you will receive no credit.
Return of essays
Your lecturer will advise you on arrangements for return of marks and essays. The mark
given at this stage is provisional only; it does not become final until approved at the
examiners’ meeting in June.
page 13
The 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, and is intended to allow you to explore in depth issues of interest
to you, and to allow you more scope for independent research and creative writing/design.
Possible topics might include:
• the ongoing debate about the reasons for the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki
• the development of nuclear culture – official and public – in one of the decades of the
nuclear age
• the development of nuclear strategy and the role of planners like Hermann Kahn and the
RAND corporation in making viable the idea of ‘megadeath’
• an analysis of nuclear films, e.g. Fail-Safe, Dr. Strangelove, 1950s mutant films, On the
Beach, post-nuclear holocaust films etc.
• an analysis of nuclear literature, e.g. post-nuclear holocaust fiction, and what it tells us
about changing attitudes to the nuclear
• a particular national nuclear programme and the problems of the ‘nuclear state’
• a survey of the contemporary nuclear situation
The topic of the project can be anything connected with the course, provided it does not
overlap with your assessment essay, and provided you agree the topic with the lecturer.
When you have agreed a topic and preliminary readings with the lecturer, you should meet
regularly, as directed, to discuss progress, additional readings, presentation of your project
etc.
The deadline for submission of the project is Friday 14 May 2010 (Week 12). Bear in mind
that you will have a good deal of other work at this time, so don’t leave your project until the
last minute. You may wish to do substantial work on the project during the Easter break. I will
meet regularly with 20-credit students to discuss progress.
Submitting your project
As for essays, please submit:
•
One copy of your work electronically, via the ‘Assignments’ section on the
Blackboard site for this unit, by the stated deadline;
•
One paper copy to the CHSTM Essay Box outside the CHSTM Office, 2.21 Simon
Building, by the stated deadline.
The electronic copy will be archived in case of future questions or appeals, 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 appear anywhere
on your documents.
Late projects, or projects which ignore the guidelines, will lose marks. Projects handed in late
without a good explanation will not be marked, and you will receive no credit.
page 14
Markscheme (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
C
U
A
R
Knowledge
Coverage
Understanding
Awareness
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 well-informed,
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
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
page 15
55
11
Adequate answer, but limited to lecture material,
with some minor errors or omissions. Little or no
cross referencing between lectures.
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
Answer largely irrelevant, the information may be
poorly structured, confused with many errors
15
3
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 misread).
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
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
page 16
Week 1. Introduction: Inside the Nuclear Bomb
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) [Joule JRUL
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) [JRUL 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) [JRUL 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)
[JRUL 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) [JRUL Main and HD, 623.4525/H9].
On the German atomic bomb programme, D. Irving’s The German Atomic Bomb (Da Capo,
1967) [JRUL 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)
[JRUL 621.039/W15]; also M. Walker, Nazi Science. Myth, Truth, and the German Atomic
Bomb (Plenum Press, 1995) [JRUL 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)
[JRUL 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 JRUL HD 530.943/F1].
Some very 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>.
Interestingly, controversial recent 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) [JRUL 355.0952/W1]; W.E.
Grunden, M. Walker and M. Yamakazi, “Wartime Nuclear Weapons Research in Germany
and Japan,” Osiris 20 (2005), 107-130 [JRUL e-journal].
page 17
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 pre-empt the Soviet Union’s entry into the Pacific war and
subsequent Soviet expansionism.
Recommended Background Reading
J.S. Walker, “The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update,” Diplomatic History
14 (1990), 97-114 [online via JRUL].
Further Reading
The classic revisionist account of the motives for the dropping of the bombs is G. Alperovitz,
Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (Simon & Schuster, 1965) [JRUL327.0973/A15],
revised and updated as The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Harper Collins, 1995) [JRUL
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) [JRUL 940.9614/S3]; M. Sherry,
The Rise of American Air Power: The Creation of Armageddon (Yale University Press, 1987)
[JRUL 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
[JRUL 940.97144/H11]. A useful range of original documents can be found at
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm>
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. On the cultural aspects of the bomb’s reception in
America, see P. Fussell, “Thank God for the Atom Bomb,” in Thank God for the Atom Bomb
and Other Essays (Summit Books, 1988), 13-37; P. Boyer, By the Bomb’s Early Light.
American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age (Pantheon, 1985/1994) [JRUL
973.918/B86 and e-book].
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) [JRUL 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
[JRUL e-journal].
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
[JRUL Main and HD, 069.5/M2].
page 18
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?
Recommended Background Reading
S.R. Williamson, The Origins of U.S. Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1953 (St. Martin's Press, 1993)
[JRUL 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) [JRUL
940.9673/S36, S37]; D. Yergin, Shattered Peace: The Origins of the Cold War and the
National Security State (Andre Deutsch, 1978) [JRUL 327.0973/Y62]; G. Herken, The
Winning Weapon: The Atomic Bomb in the Cold War, 1945-1950 (Princeton University Press,
1988) [JRUL 355.43/H34].
On the development of the US nuclear stockpile and nuclear strategy in the context of interservice rivalries and the development of US international policy see L.J. Graybar, “The 1946
Atomic Bomb Tests: Atomic Diplomacy or Bureaucratic Infighting,” Journal of American
History 72 (1985) [JRUL e-journal]; B.J. Bernstein, “Eclipsed by Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
Early Thinking about Tactical Nuclear Weapons,” International Security 15 (1991), 149-173
[JRUL e-journal]; 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 [JRUL 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) [JRUL Main and HD, 355.43/H44]. See also D. Holloway, The Soviet Union and the
Arms Race (Yale University Press, 1983) [JRUL 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 [JRUL e-journal]; 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 [JRUL HD 327.09/G8; e-book.]. 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) [JRUL 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) [JRUL
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 [JRUL ejournal]; C.A. Ziegler, Spying Without Spies: Origins of America’s Secret Nuclear
page 19
Surveillance System (Prager, 1995) [JRUL 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)[JRUL 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) [JRUL 355.0947/Z4].
Week 3 Coursework Assignment
The Meaning of Hiroshima
For this first assignment, 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.
Readings
• 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 will be made available via Blackboard.
Assessment
Write a summary and comparative review of the two readings, and your reactions on reading
them. What perspectives do the two articles take, and what do they tell us about the meaning
of the bombing of Hiroshima? Do you think it is possible to reconcile the two readings?
Your answers should be word-processed, and should take up no more than two sides of
A4 paper, using 12-point text and page margins of at least 2.5cm. Please indicate your
student registration number (not your name) clearly at the top of the first page of each
document.
As for all the coursework assignments on this unit, you should
•
submit your answers via Blackboard in advance
•
print off a copy, and bring it to the class
•
be prepared to discuss your answers with the rest of the group.
Late coursework assignments will not be marked, and will not receive credit (unless
you can supply appropriate documentation: either a formal medical record of illness, or a note
from your Personal Tutor addressed directly to the course lecturer).
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; JRUL 940.9652/H2]. 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)
[JRUL 973.918/B86 and e-book].
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).
Historians reflect on the problems of explaining the bombings in M.J. Hogan (ed.), Hiroshima
in History and Memory (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 38-79 [JRUL 940.97144/H11].
page 20
Week 4. The Hydrogen Bomb and Nuclear Fear, 19551965
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. This lecture explores the development of hydrogen weapons, new
strategies for using them – and people’s reactions to them – in the context of the Cold War.
Recommended Background Reading
D.A. Rosenberg, “American Atomic Strategy and the Hydrogen Bomb Decision,” Journal of
American History 66 (1979), 62-87 [online via JRUL].
Further Reading
On the development of the hydrogen bomb, see R. Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the
Hydrogen Bomb (Simon & Schuster, 1995) [JRUL 623.4525/R2]; H.F. York, The Advisors:
Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (Stanford University Press, 1976) [JRUL
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 [JRUL 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 [JRUL 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
[JRUL e-journal]; T. Higuchi, “’Clean’ Bombs: Nuclear Technology and Nuclear Strategy in
the 1950s,” Journal of Strategic Studies 29 (2006), 83-116 [JRUL e-journal]; M.
Trachtenberg, History & Strategy (Princeton University Press, 1991) [JRUL 355.43/T14 ].
More generally on the world of nuclear strategists, see F. Kaplan, The Wizards of
Armageddon (Stanford University Press, 1983/1991) [JRUL 355.43/K47]; S. Ghamari-Tabrizi,
The Worlds of Herman Kahn: The Intuitive Science of Thermonuclear War (Harvard
University Press, 2005). On the political impact of the H-bomb in the USA, see C. 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 19561963,” Diplomacy and Statecraft 17 (2006), 347-392 [JRUL e-journal]; N. Tannenwald,
“Nuclear Weapons and the Vietnam War,” Journal of Strategic Studies 29 (2006), 675-722
[JRUL 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) [JRUL 343.1/R35, 36]; V. Carmichael, The Rosenberg Story and the Cold War
(University of Minnesota Press, 1993); D. Kaiser, “The Atomic Secret in Red Hands?
American Suspicions of Theoretical Physicists During the Early Cold War,” Representations
90 (2005), 28-60 [JRUL e-journal].
page 21
Week 5. Atoms for Peace: Disarming Nuclear Culture
from Within?
In December 1953, in the wake of the testing of hydrogen bombs by the USA and the USSR,
President Eisenhower announced a plan to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes –
‘Atoms for Peace.’ This was partly an attempt to wage a propaganda war against the
Communists through a strategy of apparent openness and candour about nuclear matters on
the part of the USA. It was also an attempt to defuse public opinion by emphasising the
peaceful and beneficial aspects of nuclear energy (and opened the way for the worldwide
promotion of American nuclear reactors). This lecture looks at the public and private faces of
‘Atoms for Peace’ and the nuclear establishment’s attempts to create a positive public image
for itself, and explores the origins of the arms limitations treaties that culminated in SALT.
Recommended Background Reading
L. Weiss, “Atoms for Peace,” originally published in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 59(6),
2003. Online at <http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Atoms-For-Peace1nov03.htm>
Further Reading
The U.S. Government’s National Archives and Records Administration Eisenhower Museum
site formerly maintained an excellent overview of Atoms for Peace, still available via
archive.org:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20070205025956/www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/atom1.htm>. The
text of the speech itself is at <http://world-nuclear-university.org/html/atoms_for_peace/>.
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) [JRUL SLC
621.038/W8], 155-240; A.M. Winkler, Life Under a Cloud. American Anxiety About the Atom
(Oxford UP, 1993) [JRUL 341.67/W44], 136-164.
Week 5 Coursework Assignment
Visions of Apocalypse
Literature, radio, film, television and even popular music have all been 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. In this assignment we explore some of these representations,
and ask how fiction both reflected and shaped the conscience of millions of readers with
respect to the nuclear and its potential aftermath.
Reading
S. Weart, Nuclear Fear (Harvard UP, 1988), 215-240 [JRUL HD 621.4809/WEA].
Assessment
Please answer the following questions on no more than two sides of A4.
1. Why did nuclear holocaust and nuclear survivor stories become so prevalent in the late
1950s?
2. What were the characteristic features (and omissions) of nuclear fictions and films like On
the Beach and Alas, Babylon? What impact did they have on the public?
3. How did nuclear fiction and film draw on earlier images of apocalypse and survival?
page 22
4. To what extent did nuclear fiction and film extend these earlier images, and how did such
extensions reflect the changed conditions of the nuclear world (e.g the concept of
deterrence)?
5. To what extent did Hiroshima become an archetype for people’s notions of nuclear war?
Why?
Further Reading
The set reading contains references to many works of ‘nuclear fiction.’ You should read at
least one or two of these to get a feel for the genre. 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 [JRUL e-journal]; D.
Dowling, Fictions of Nuclear Disaster (Macmillan, 1987) [JRUL 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>.)
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) [JRUL 791.459/N2]; J.F. Shapiro,
Atomic Bomb Cinema (Routledge, 2002), with website at
<http://www.atomicbombcinema.com/english/home/home.htm>.
On art in the nuclear age, see S. Petersen, “Explosive Propositions: Artists React to the
Atomic Age,” Science in Context 17 (2004), 579-609 [JRUL e-journal]. The Bomb Project
website, <http://www.thebombproject.org> is also an excellent guide to nuclear imagery in
popular and artistic culture.
page 23
Week 6. 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.
Recommended Background Reading
J.L. Gaddis, We Now Know. Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford, 1997), 260-280 [JRUL
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)
[JRUL 972.91/L17]; A. Chayes, The Cuban Missile Crisis (Oxford University Press) [JRUL
341.2/C5]; J.G. Blight, On the Brink : Americans and Soviets Reexamine the Cuban Missile
Crisis (Hill and Wang, 1989) [JRUL 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) [JRUL
327.0973/N62]; R.A. Divine, “Alive and Well: The Continuing Cuban Missile Crisis
Controversy,” Diplomatic History 18 (1994), 551-560 [JRUL e-journal]. 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 L.V. Scott, Macmillan, Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis
(Palgrave, 1999).
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) [JRUL
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) [JRUL 355.43/S107].
The impact of new documentation and historical research on the crisis is described in 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].
page 24
Week 7. Ideologies of the Nuclear State: Civil Defence
The conjunction of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons created what Robert Jungk 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 required 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.
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 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 civil servants: “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.
Recommended Background Reading
M. Tracey, “Censored: The War Game Story,” in C. Aubrey (ed.), Nukespeak: The Media and
the Bomb (Comedia, 1982), 38-54 [JRUL HD Photocopies, 999/A256].
D. Campbell, War Plan UK (Burnett Books, 1982), 111-136 [JRUL HD Photocopies
999/C486].
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) [JRUL 355.43/L4]; Nuclear Attack: Civil Defence: Aspects of Civil Defence
in the Nuclear Age (Brassey, 1982) [JRUL 355.43/R85, R86]; G. Rumble, The Politics of
Nuclear Defence (Polity, 1985) [JRUL 355.0942/R43]. For UK civil defence in the 1980s and
after, see Steve Fox, “Beyond War Plan UK”, at
<http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/features/beyond/>. Fox’s article “Where did the Government
Go?” is 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/>.
On civil defence in the USA, see Guy Oakes, The Imaginary War: Civil Defense and
American Cold War Culture (Oxford University Press, 1994) [JRUL 355.43/O15]; L.
McEnaney, Civil Defense Begins at Home: Militarization Meets Everyday Life in the Fifties
(Princeton University Press, 2000) [JRUL 309.73/M326].
page 25
Week 7 Coursework Assignment
CND and the Anti-Nuclear Movement
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 changed the relationship between individuals, politics and the state.
Reading
M. Phythian, “CND’s Cold War,” Contemporary British History 15 (3) (2001), 133-156 [online
via JRUL].
L.S. Wittner, “Gender Roles and Nuclear Disarmament Activism, 1954-1965,” Gender &
History 12 (1) (2000), 197-222 [online via JRUL].
Assessment
Please answer the following questions on no more than two sides of A4.
1. Outline the political background to the formation of CND and the strategies it used to
promote its cause.
2. Why did CND change from being a short-term campaign to a long-term movement, and
how was this shift reflected in its policies?
3. Why did CND decline in the 1960s, but revive in the late 1970s?
4. What motivated women to become involved in anti-nuclear protest movements, and how
did this change the social and political role of women?
5. Can we today learn anything from the history of CND?
Further Reading
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) [JRUL
341.67/W45]; The Struggle Against the Bomb. Vol.2. Resisting the Bomb (Stanford UP,
1997) [JRUL 341.67/W45]; Toward Nuclear Abolition. A History of the World Disarmament
Movement 1971 to the Present (Stanford UP, 2003) [JRUL 341.67/W45]. Also see W. Rudig,
Anti-Nuclear Movements: A World Survey of Opposition to Nuclear Energy (Longman, 1990)
[JRUL 341.67/R3]; A. Carter, Peace Movements: International Protest and World Politics
Since 1945 (Longmans, 1992) [JRUL Deansgate Meth.Arch. MARC1905]; A. Rojecki,
Silencing the Opposition: Antinuclear Movements & the Media in the Cold War (University of
Illinois Press, 1999) [JRUL 341.67/R34].
For the British case, see R. Taylor, Against the Bomb: The British Peace Movement 19581965 (Clarendon Press, 1988) [JRUL 341.67/T55]; P. Byrne, The Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament (Croom Helm,1988) [JRUL 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). 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 [JRUL 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) [JRUL 820.9/V39].
page 26
Week 8. Meltdown! 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. Similarly, a number of accidents involving lost nuclear weapons (‘broken arrows’
in military jargon) raised public fears of catastrophe.
Recommended Background Reading
S. Weart, Nuclear Fear. A History of Images (Harvard University Press, 1988), 328-347
[JRUL 621.039/W8].
Further Reading
On Windscale, see L. Arnold, Windscale, 1957: Anatomy of a Nuclear Accident (St. Martin's
Press, 1992) [JRUL 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) [JRUL 621.039/W61].
On Chernobyl, perhaps the most significant nuclear accident of the last fifty years, see D.R.
Marples, Chernobyl and Nuclear Power in the USSR (Macmillan) [JRUL 338.4/M42]; P.
Gould, Fire in the Rain: The Democratic Consequences of Chernobyl (Polity, 1990) [JRUL
338.4/G75]; L. Mackay et al. (eds.), Something in the Wind: Politics after Chernobyl (Pluto,
1988) [JRUL 338.4/M54]; V. Haynes and M. Bojcun, The Chernobyl Disaster (Hogarth, 1988)
[JRUL 621.039/H10]; The Radiological Impact of the Chernobyl Accident in OECD Countries
(OECD, 1987) [JRUL 309.4/O1651]; V.M. Chernousenko, Chernobyl: Insight from the Inside
(Springer-Verlag, 1991) [JRUL 621.039/C60]; R.F. Mould, Chernobyl: The Real Story
(Pergamon, 1988) [JRUL 621.039/M25]; Z. Medvedev, The Legacy of Chernobyl (Blackwell,
1990) [JRUL 621.039/M21]; C.C. Park, Chernobyl: The Long Shadow (Routledge, 1989)
[JRUL 621.039/P10].
On the Palomares accident, see D. Stiles, “A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: US Information
Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident,” Journal of Cold War Studies 8 (2006), 49-67. 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) [JRUL 335.43/S107; Joule U:355.0217/SAG]. See also S. Sagan and J. Suri, “The
Madman Nuclear Alert,” International Security 27 (2004), 150-183 [JRUL e-journal].
SPECIAL FILM SCREENING
Doctor Strangelove (1964)
Subject to demand, there will be a showing of Doctor Strangelove on the afternoon of
Wednesday 24 March, time and room to be arranged. A farcical comedy based on a far-fromcomical 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. A nuclear classic.
Recommended Background Reading
M. Henriksen, Dr. Strangelove’s America. Society and Culture in the Atomic Age (University
of Califormia Press, 1997) [JRUL 973/H84], 303-344.
page 27
Easter Break, 27 March – 18 April
You should use the break to work on your assessed essay (and, for HSTM31712,
project).
Week 9. Controls and Constraints: Nuclear Test Bans and
Nuclear Intelligence, 1963-1996
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, 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. This lecture looks at the interconnected
histories of nuclear test controls, nuclear proliferation and nuclear intelligence.
Recommended Background Reading
M. Mandelbaum, The Nuclear Question (Cambridge University Press, 1979), 167-209 [JRUL
355.43/M53].
Further Reading
G.T. Seaborg, Kennedy, Khrushchev and the Test Ban (University of California Press, 1981)
[JRUL 341.67/S9]; H.K. Jacobson, Diplomats, Scientists and Politicians: The United States
and the Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations (University of Michigan Press, 1966) [JRUL
327.0973/J5]; G. Quester, The Politics of Nuclear Proliferation (Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1973) [JRUL 341.67/Q1]; S. Talbott, Endgame: The Inside Story of SALT II (Harper &
Row, 1979) [JRUL 341.67/T46]; W.C. Clemens, The Superpowers and Arms Control, from
Cold War to Interdependence (Lexington Books, 1973) [JRUL 341.67/C25]; M. Mandelbaum,
The Nuclear Revolution: International Politics Before and After Hiroshima (Cambridge
University Press, 1981) [JRUL 341.67/M61]; 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 [JRUL e-journal].
For the various national nuclear programmes, see J.W. Lewis and X. Litai, China Builds the
Bomb (Stanford UP, 1988) [JRUL 355.43/L24]; 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) [JRUL 355.43/P46]; H.K. Nizami, The
Roots of Rhetoric: Politics of Nuclear Weapons in India and Pakistan
[JRUL e-book]; P. Pry, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal (Croom Helm,1984) [JRUL 355.43/P41]; A.
Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (Columbia University Press, 1998) [JRUL 355.0933569/C2]; A.
Cohen, “Before the Beginning: The Early History of Israel’s Nuclear project,” Israel Studies 3
(1998), 112-139 [JRUL e-journal]; Z. Shalom, “Israel’s Nuclear Option Revisited,” Journal of
Israeli History 24 (2005), 267-277 [JRUL e-journal] J.D.L. Moore, South Africa and Nuclear
Proliferation: South Africa's Nuclear Capabilities (Macmillan, 1987) [JRUL 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 [JRUL e-journal]; G. Hecht, The Radiance of
France: Nuclear Power and National Identity After World War II (MIT Press, 1998) [JRUL
338.4/H117].
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
[JRUL 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>.
page 28
Week 9 Coursework Assignment
Nuclear Proliferation, Nuclear Racism?
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). Western nations also
seem to have a particular problem with nuclearisation in developing countries. This
coursework assignments explores the argument that western countries operate double
standards, and that an implicit nuclear colonialism is taking place in discussions about
proliferation – with potentially devastating effects.
Reading
H. Gusterson, “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination,” Cultural
Anthropology 14 (1) (1999), 111-143 [online via JRUL].
Assessment
Please answer the following questions on no more than two sides of A4.
1. What does Gusterson mean by ‘nuclear orientalism’ and ‘nuclear apartheid’? What is the
relationship between these two concepts?
2. In what ways is western nuclear discourse ‘ideological’?
3. What 4 arguments against horizontal proliferation does Gusterson identify in western
nuclear discourse, and how does he (a) refute them, and (b) turn them against western
nuclear powers?
4. What rhetoric and images sustain ‘nuclear orientalism’ in western discourse? Look for
current examples in the media, and bring them to class for discussion.
5. Does Gusterson’s article help us to understand events since its publication in 1999,
especially the Iraq War and current debates about the Iranian nuclear programme?
Further Reading
S.D. Sagan and K.N. Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A Debate Renewed (Norton,
2003) [JRUL 341.67/S51]; T.V. Paul, Power versus Prudence: Why Nations Forgo Nuclear
Weapons (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000); Z. Mian, “At War With the World: Nuclear
Weapons, Development and Security,” Development 47 (2004), 50-57 [JRUL 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 [JRUL e-journal]; B.
Danielsson and M.-T. Danielsson, Poisoned Reign: French Nuclear Colonialism in the Pacific
(Penguin, 1986).
SPECIAL FILM SCREENING
Threads (1984)
Subject to demand, there will be a showing of the BBC TV film Threads on the afternoon of
Wednesday 21 April, time and room to be arranged.
Often described as the grimmest, bleakest piece of nuclear cinema ever devised, this docudrama presents the physical and emotional consequences of a possible thermonuclear strike
on Britain, including nuclear winter and its after-effects over the following decades. Essential
viewing for anyone concerned with public perceptions of the nuclear, and offers important
comparisons and contrasts with The War Game (Week 7).
page 29
Week 10. MAD, MIRVs and Minutemen: Nuclear Systems
at the End of the Cold War
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 lecture 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.
Recommended Background Reading
J. Newhouse, The Nuclear Age: from Hiroshima to Star Wars (Michael Joseph, 1989), 333363 [JRUL HD 355.43/N43].
Further Reading
D. Miller, The Cold War. A Military History (Murray, 1998) [JRUL 355.0973/M51; Precinct
U:909.82/MIL]; R.E. Powaski, Return to Armageddon: The United States and the Nuclear
Arms Race, 1981-1999 (Oxford UP, 2000) [JRUL 355.43/P49; Precinct U:327.174/POW];
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) [JRUL 355.43/S80]; 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>; J. Haslam, The
Soviet Union and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons in Europe, 1969-78 (Cornell UP, 1990);
P.V. Pry, War Scare. Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink (Praeger, 1999) [JRUL
355.43/P50].
On the notion of ‘nuclear winter’ and ecological thinking on the nuclear threat which emerged
in this period, 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). 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 environmental impact of the nuclear age, see M. Davis, “Dead West: Ecocide in
Marlboro Country,” New Left Review 200 (1993), 49-73 [JRUL e-journal]; 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) [JRUL 623.4545/M2]; 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; 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) [JRUL 623.4545/D12]; 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 [JRUL JRUL
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 [JRUL 339.5/P129].
page 30
On ‘downwinders’ and victims of the US nuclear complex, see C. Gallagher, American
Ground Zero: The Secret Nuclear War (MIT Press, 1993) [JRUL 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.
On the management of radioactive waste, see: A. Blowers, D. Lowry and B.D. Solomon, The
International Politics of Nuclear Waste (Macmillan, 1991) [JRUL 327/B84, 85].
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) [JRUL
331.87/G117].; P. Shambroom, Face to Face with the Bomb: Nuclear Reality After the Cold
War (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003) [JRUL 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) [JRUL HD 327.04/W2], 203-231.
The post-Cold War thaw has led to the emergence of a defence heritage movement: see for
example, the beautifully illustrated coffee table book W.D. Cocroft and R.J.C. Thomas, Cold
War. Building for Nuclear Confrontation, 1946-1989 (English Heritage, 2003) [JRUL
355.0942/C7]. 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)..
page 31
Week 11. Overview and Conclusion: New Nuclear
Threats?
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, non-nuclear 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. The lecture attempts to assess the global impact of the nuclear, and looks at likely
future developments.
Recommended Background Reading
D. Howlett et al., “Surveying the Nuclear Future: Which Way from Here?” Contemporary
Security Policy 20 (1999), 5-41 [online via JRUL].
Further Reading
G.T. Allison et al. (Eds.), Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy. Containing the Threat of Loose Russian
Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material (MIT Press, 1996) [JRUL 341.67/A80]; S.M. LynnJones 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) [JRUL 341.67/S51]; A.T.J. Lennon (ed.), Contemporary
Nuclear Debates. Missile Defense, Arms Control, and Arms Races in the Twenty-First
Century (MIT Press, 2002) [JRUL e-book]; P. Rogers, Losing Control: Global Security in the
Twenty-First Century (Pluto Press, 2002) [JRUL 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), 146-156 [JRUL e-journal].
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.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/0433.pdf>; J.J. Wirtz and J.A.
Larsen, Nuclear Transformation: The New Nuclear U.S. Doctrine (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
On the 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 [JRUL e-journal]; 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 [JRUL 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 [JRUL e-journal]. The
UK government has a discussion paper on national missile defence at:
<http://www.mod.uk/issues/cooperation/missile_defence.htm>.
On the “dirty bomb” and nuclear terrorism, see 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 [JRUL
355.43/L27]; R.A. Falkenrath et al (eds.), America’s Achilles Heel. Nuclear, Biological and
Chemical Terrorism and Covert Attack (MIT Press, 1998) [JRUL 323.2/F18]; W.E. Burrows
and R. Windrem, Critical Mass. The Dangerous Race for Superweapons in a Fragmenting
World (Simon & Schuster, 1994) [JRUL 355.43/B135]; T.J. Badey, “Nuclear Terrorism: ActorBased Threat Assessment,” Intelligence and National Security 16 (2002), 39-54 [JRUL ejournal]; C.D. Ferguson and W.C. Potter, The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism (New York &
London: Routledge, 2005) [JRUL 323.2/F25].
page 32
Week 11 Coursework Assignment
Britain and Nuclear Power
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. Drawing on the history of the British nuclear
energy programme and current and projected energy needs, this coursework assignment
asks you to review the arguments for and against building new nuclear power stations in
Britain.
Assessment
Conduct a literature and web search and identify resources relating to the debate over new
nuclear development in the UK – both for and against. Be careful to identify the source and
political stance (e.g. pro- or anti-nuclear; left- or right-wing) of the websites you use, since
this will help you critically evaluate the arguments they use. A list of suggested starting points
will be distributed in advance of the assignment.
On no more than 2 sides of A4, review the arguments currently being deployed for and
against new nuclear build in the UK. Which side of the argument do you find more
persuasive, and why? Should Britain build a new generation of nuclear power stations?
Your answer could include brief information on what was learned from the two previous
nuclear power programmes, the context of UK nuclear policy, current UK energy needs and
current assessments of likely energy needs into the mid- and late-21st century.
Please include a complete list of the websites and other sources you have used at the
end of your report.
Further Reading
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) [JRUL 338/W34]; T.
O’Riordan, R. Kemp and M. Purdue, Sizewell B: An Anatomy of the Inquiry (Macmillan, 1988)
[JRUL 338.4/O47]; R. Williams, The Nuclear Power Decisions: British Policies, 1953-78
(Croom Helm, 1980) [JRUL 338.4/W62; Joule U:621.48/WIL].
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 [JRUL 623.4545/M2]. On nuclear legacy
issues in the UK, see the government’s July 2002 strategy paper, Managing the Nuclear
Legacy: A Strategy for Action,
<http://www.sepa.org.uk/radioactive_substances/rs_publications/idoc.ashx?docid=0f0503b2b0f7-437b-8413-97f73ceff863&version=-1>. The website of the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority is at <http://www.nda.gov.uk>
page 33
If you enjoy this course and would like to continue with study in this area
at postgraduate level, CHSTM runs several Masters Degrees and has a
large PhD programme.
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,
and on science communication. It includes the Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine and
the National Archive for the History of Computing. The interests of Centre staff lie
predominantly in 19th and 20th century history, mostly in Britain, Europe and the USA, but
also including STM in developing countries. The department is small and informal, with a
lively postgraduate community, and strong formal and informal seminar programmes.
CHSTM offers five Masters Awards:
• MSc History of Science, Technology and Medicine
• MSc History of Science and Technology
• MSc History of Medicine
• MSc Science Communication
• MSc Research Methods in the History of Science, Technology and
Medicine
All students take common core set units in Semester 1, and then choose from a range of
options in Semester 2. The balance of these options and the topic of the dissertation
determine the MSc awarded. The core course in Semester 1 provides a comprehensive
introduction to the nineteenth- and twentieth-century history of science, technology and
medicine (HSTM) in their wider social, economic, cultural and political contexts, and to the
growing field of science communication. Students also take two Research Methods courses:
one, providing general historical skills, through the Faculty of Humanities; the other, on
specific HSTM methods, is taught within CHSTM.
In Semester 2, students select from our specialised option courses: Nineteenth-century
Physical Sciences and Technology; Nineteenth-century Biosciences and Medicine; Science
Communication; Twentieth-century Physical Sciences and Technology; Twentieth-century
Biosciences and Medicine; Science, Nature, Museums.
The dissertation provides an opportunity for in depth research on a specific topic, working
with a member of staff with research interests in the area.
Research degrees: PhD and MPhil
Two research degrees are offered: PhD (3 years full-time, 6 years part-time) and MPhil (1
year full-time, 2 years part-time). The MPhil can be regarded as a preparatory degree for the
PhD, or as a free-standing research Master's. We expect PhD applicants to have a strong
background in HSTM (e.g. a good MSc in the subject, or considerable exposure to HSTM at
undergraduate level). Alternatively, students can take one of our taught postgraduate courses
before applying to go on to do research. These courses are designed to give you the
intellectual grounding and practical skills you need to do original research in HSTM.
Full details of all CHSTM’s activities and courses can be found at
www.manchester.ac.uk/chstm
Open Day: come and find out more about our courses on Wednesday 10
February 2010. For further details, contact the course lecturer…
page 34