Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
August 31, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

America the Illiterate

The Euro

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Print this item

Imaginary Weapons

Posted on Nov 16, 2007
Pentagon building

James Harris and Josh Scheer

(Page 4)

Scheer: Where’s the hate coming from?  Because it doesn’t sound like, “OK, this book is a little boring,” or whatever.  There’s one like that.  But most of them are, like, “This woman’s completely wrong.  She made up the whole story.”  Where does that come from?  Is it just people—?

Weinberger: The main Web site against the book is, of course, run by the wife of the main protagonist.  There’s this professor in Texas, Carl Collins, who did the controversial experiment in 1998, which led to the idea of a hafnium bomb.  And this is where he basically had a used dental X-ray machine, a sample of hafnium, this radioactive material, a nuclear isomer, and he claimed results that were immediately criticized by the scientific community but led this cadre of true believers to support the isomer bomb.  He has an unusual history.  He has definite opinions, and after the book came out, his wife created this unusual Web site that attacks me.  It attacks the book.  On one hand, coming out of writing the book, it wasn’t a surprise because Carl Collins’ MO was to very much attack the people who attacked his work, so it wasn’t that surprising for me that they created a Web site to attack me and attack the book.  I would say that, probably—there certainly are people who like the book and dislike the book, but I think certainly some of the reviews posted on Amazon could well be sock puppets, but I won’t say to whom.  This is part of what led me to write the book.  It was an interesting group of people, very hard-core, true believers who promoted the hafnium bomb and in some cases other far-fetched concepts.  I think people who look at the Web site will see that he not only attacks me; he attacks anyone who’s ever written a good review of the book, including a former presidential science adviser.  It’s entertaining to see the aftermath.  On the other hand, the book is quite critical of his work and he certainly has the right to answer that criticism in a public forum. 

Scheer: We’ve had authors on here that Publishers Weekly has tarnished and said, “This book is not worth reading,” but every Amazon review—there’s hundreds of them with five stars.  Whereas Publishers Weekly on Amazon likes your book quite a bit.  But, yes, some of the reviews—it was shocking to me because I hadn’t seen something like that.  I mean, a bad review is a bad review, but where it goes from five stars where it’s “This book’s a must-read,” to ...

Weinberger: The book speaks for itself.  Certainly what I would divide between are homemade Web sites by a protagonist in the book versus—.  There have been a slew of published reviews of the book, some of which have been—The New York Times Book Review reviewed the book.  They had some compliments of it, they had some criticism.  Science Magazine gave it a really, really nice review of the book.  There have been things in between.  But certainly none of the published reviews have attacked the book the way Carl Collins’ wife’s Web site attacks the book.  And there have been similar high jinks on Wikipedia.  My opinion is: The book speaks for itself.  People will read it and they’ll like it or not like it.  What people post anonymously or not anonymously is up to them.


Square, Site wide

Scheer: Yeah.

Weinberger: It’s a free world out there.

Scheer: I want to get on to something else now, something different, about a piece you wrote in 2005 called “Xtreme Defense”  for the [Washington] Post and I want to talk about the ideas.  It seems to me—I don’t know about James—that sometimes you can sell these ideas—obviously the guy in this book—who can sell these ideas ... better salesmen, and you invest many, many years into it, and you realize at some point—.  When do people wake up and go, “That’s a bad idea”?  Or do they ever, and we end up procuring nuclear hand grenades 15 years from now? 

Weinberger: That’s a recurring theme in my work, and not just in “Imaginary Weapons,” but also in a number of articles that I’ve written for The Washington Post Magazine, for Wired and for other outlets.  Part of the problem is that these ideas never go away.  Be it a nuclear hand grenade, be it a lightning weapon, be it a mind-control device—. 

Scheer: [Laughs.]

Weinberger: It’s the old adage: There’s a sucker born every minute.  The Pentagon does not speak with one voice, and if you get turned down in one part of the Pentagon, there’s an endless number of other agencies and funding sources you can go to and you’ll get many, many very smart bureaucrats in the Pentagon, but eventually you might find that one who just ain’t tried that yet.  And that’s unfortunate, and the question is, is that problem getting worse, has it always been there?  I think in some ways it is getting worse.  It’s certainly very troublesome.

Scheer: Yeah.

Weinberger: And certainly—.  You have to tolerate some waste in a system because any system is going to have waste, but that doesn’t mean you should not look at it or try to eliminate it.  And when you see these things come back again and again and again, you wonder, “Why haven’t they learned the lesson before?” 

Scheer: I was laughing before because when you were talking about mind control, I read on your Web site that you didn’t want people contacting you because they’d had mind-control devices put in their head.  That was just a funny aside that I’d read, but I just liked it.

Weinberger: A lot of that came out of— I wrote an article that came out earlier this year.  It was a story for The Washington Post Magazine, again, on people who say that they are mind-control victims, and the irony you get out of the situation is that the Pentagon really has worked on a lot of these mind-control technologies.  That doesn’t mean these people’s claims are true.  But part of the problem is, they get on the Internet, they start googling things and they find the Pentagon really has invested in weapons that send voices into people’s heads, and so they’d come to this conclusion.  And there’s a lot of people who believe this.

Harris: We are talking to the author of “Imaginary Weapons,” Sharon Weinberger.  Sharon, is this really a conversation about who should be building?  Is this really a conversation about what scientists should be doing and how these projects should be born and thought out, or is this a question about, you just feel like funds are being misappropriated and there’s a better way to do it but you don’t really have an answer as to how to do it?

Weinberger: Well, that’s like the question of things getting better.  Yes, technology goes forward.  In some cases claims have been made for decades, like the advent of deployable laser weapons.  Well, we’re now 30 years on and we still don’t have that deployable laser weapon. So, yes, technology moves forward, but it doesn’t always fulfill the promises that some people claimed some decades back.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By purplewolf, December 7, 2007 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

The United States spends more money per year on the war machine than all of the other countries on the earth combined. Just think how much good all that wasted money and effort on the wars and weapons could actually do to solving the problems the whole world faces. If even 1 percent of that was put to a positive use rather than what it now is the difference would be obvious. Sounds like the shades of paranoia have run out of control and have made the whole world the enemy of the United States

Report this

By SteveL, December 6, 2007 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment

What other countries are wasting their money on these kind of things?  Note that even Iran does weapons programs on a cost/benefit basis.

Report this

By purplewolf, December 5, 2007 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

Imaginary weapons must now be paid for with imaginary money!

Report this

By nils cognizant, November 24, 2007 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think people are afraid to comment on these dark programs. The project designers might want to raise their sights, though. There are cheap strategic advantages which can be gained through employment of technologies meant to bring contentment to unstable populations. One example I’ve dreamed up is a small, cheap 10-inch laptop computer operating off Linux and loaded with specialized modules: alternative farming for profit, high-production fishfarming strategies for areas requiring coral-reef protection, etc. The specialized modules will include video instructional lectures in the local language and will be aware of resources which are available locally.

Report this

By rodney, November 22, 2007 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s nothing but a bunch of drunkin cowboys sitting around thinking of new and better ways to kill and destroy society as if they haven’t already discovered enough ways. Just another way to steal and loot our taxpayers dollars without accountability. If we spent the money we spend on education instead killing and incarcerating,then maybe we would have to kill and incarcerate. Oh I totally forgot about imperealism,capitalism,colonialism,greed,power,and control.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 20, 2007 at 6:01 am Link to this comment

Isomers? Sounds like some kind of hairspray, ha ha. Oh, you mean the “Hafnium bomb” ......well, that’s different!

But isn’t it amazing how what can be described as “devastating” in another country’s hands is blithely seen as “useful” if it is developed by the USA?!?!

And the mad scientists are demanding to do whatever they wish by making excuses about a free country while the critics are trying to “fight the science in the press because they don’t like the politics”.......

Quote: “Hafnium could be used to build a more powerful bomb or, more to the point of what the military was looking for, a small bomb with a huge bang, the believers argued. And even better, building a weapon using hafnium wouldn’t violate internationally negotiated restrictions on testing nuclear weapons or congressional limits on developing new nuclear weapons. Because it wouldn’t involve splitting atoms, a hafnium bomb would be a totally new class of weapon…....

“It sure would make a great dirty bomb.”.......

A hafnium bomb, even if it didn’t leave radioactive fallout, still wouldn’t be like an ordinary bomb because, along with an explosive force, it would emit intense, penetrating gamma rays. According to Hill Roberts, a scientist at SRS Technologies in Huntsville, Ala., a gamma-ray bomb is appealing to some because gamma rays can pass through solid material and penetrate living tissue. Theoretically, an energetic gamma-ray burst could penetrate bunkers, killing whatever was inside—be it humans or anthrax stockpiles. Putting it more bluntly, he said, “Tissue turns to goo.”.......

Hafnium bombs could be loaded in artillery shells, according to a copy of the briefing slides, or they could be used in the Pentagon’s missile defense systems to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the air. He encapsulated his vision of the program in a startling PowerPoint slide: a small hafnium hand grenade with a pullout ring and a caption that read, “Miniature bomb. Explosive yield, 2 KT [kilotons]. Size, 5-inch diameter.” That would be an explosion about one-seventh the power of the bomb that obliterated Hiroshima in 1945…...”

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network