What do you think?
Rate this book
Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda
Following 9/11, Americans were swept up in a near hysteria-level fear of terrorists, especially of Islamic extremists working domestically. The government and media reports stoked fears that people living in the US have the desire and means to wreak extreme havoc and destruction. Early reports estimated slightly more than 300 al Qaeda operatives living in the United States. It wasn't long before this number became 2,000 or 5,000 domestic terrorists. As these estimates snowballed, so did spending on federal counterterrorism organizations and measures, spending which now totals over a trillion dollars. The federal government launched more covert operations in the name of fighting terrorist adversaries than they did in the entirety of the forty-five year Cold War. For each apprehension of a credible terrorist suspect, the US government created or re-organized two counterterrorism organizations. The scale of these efforts has been enormous, yet somehow they have not been proven to make Americans feels safe from what they perceive to be a massive terrorist threat. But how well-founded is this fear? Is the threat of terrorism in the United States as vast as it seems and are counterterrorism efforts effective and appropriately-scaled?
It has not, statistically speaking, been efficient or successful. Only one alarm in 10,000 has proven to be a legitimate threat-the rest are what the authors refer to as "ghosts." These ghosts are enormous drains on resources and contribute to a countrywide paranoia that has resulted in widespread support and minimal critical questioning of massive expenditures and infringements on civil liberties, including invasions of privacy and questionably legal imprisonments. In Chasing Ghosts, John Mueller and Mark Stewart argue that the "ghost chase" occupying American fears, law enforcement, and federal spending persists because the public believes that there exists in the US a dire and significant threat of terrorism. The authors seek to analyze to what degree this is a true and to what degree the threat posed by terrorists in the US defends the extraordinary costs currently put towards their investigation.
The chance that an American will be killed by a terrorist domestically in any given year is about one in four million (under present conditions). Yet despite this statistically low risk and the extraordinary amount of resources put towards combatting threats, Americans do not profess to feel any safer from terrorists. Until the true threat of domestic terrorism is analyzed and understood, the country cannot begin to confront whether our pursuit of ghosts is worth the cost.
It has not, statistically speaking, been efficient or successful. Only one alarm in 10,000 has proven to be a legitimate threat-the rest are what the authors refer to as "ghosts." These ghosts are enormous drains on resources and contribute to a countrywide paranoia that has resulted in widespread support and minimal critical questioning of massive expenditures and infringements on civil liberties, including invasions of privacy and questionably legal imprisonments. In Chasing Ghosts, John Mueller and Mark Stewart argue that the "ghost chase" occupying American fears, law enforcement, and federal spending persists because the public believes that there exists in the US a dire and significant threat of terrorism. The authors seek to analyze to what degree this is a true and to what degree the threat posed by terrorists in the US defends the extraordinary costs currently put towards their investigation.
The chance that an American will be killed by a terrorist domestically in any given year is about one in four million (under present conditions). Yet despite this statistically low risk and the extraordinary amount of resources put towards combatting threats, Americans do not profess to feel any safer from terrorists. Until the true threat of domestic terrorism is analyzed and understood, the country cannot begin to confront whether our pursuit of ghosts is worth the cost.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
15 people are currently reading
138 people want to read
About the author
John E. Mueller
28 books12 followersJohn E. Mueller (born June 21, 1937) is an American political scientist in the field of international relations as well as a scholar of the history of dance. [Wikipedia]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
February 20, 2014
A liberal's view on world's nuclear proliferation
The proliferation of nuclear weapons is getting more dangerous than ever since Islamic nations such as Pakistan have acquired nuclear weapons, and Iran is on the verge of making one. The author also provides evidences for the moral and material support for Al Qaeda by Pakistani army and Pakistani physicists to help the Islamic terrorists to acquire these weapons. In spite of these disturbing reports, the author suggests that the fear over the use of such weapons is exaggerated, and our worries are unjustified. He observes that nuclear weapons have never been used since WWII despite the fact that a number of countries have them in their arsenal; hence we need not worry so much! The author's rush to this judgment is incorrect, because until now no Islamic nation possessed a nuclear weapon, but now one country has that, and another has acquired this technology. That means the whole dynamics changes. Since much of academics in universities and colleges are on the left; such a liberal bias is not unexpected.
The book is described in three parts. In the first part, the author argues that inventing nuclear weapons was a terrible waste of human talent, money, effort and a national tragedy, since a possible WWIII could be averted without them. The author argues that nations would have feared disastrous effects of even a conventional war let alone a nuclear war. The author has a short memory; ending of cold war between the two super powers, Libya's voluntary surrendering of nuclear program after Iraq war and the drone attacks on Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in Pakistani territory have worked because US has nuclear weapons. The use of atomic bomb against Japan prevented further escalations of WWII.
The second part describes nuclear proliferation among nations and asserts that this tragedy was based on the wrong ideology that weapons and the arms race cause war, and not people; and militarily these weapons are useless since they are difficult to obtain, and never been used except for once. This sounds like an argument of a defeatist and an apologist, since he continues his argument by saying that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (called weapons of mass destruction (WMD)) are a hysterical fear-mongering, because the damage of WMD in an actual war is not so far and wide as claimed. The author must tell this to a chemist or a biologist or even a physician; they will tell him the disastrous effect of radiation on the environment and on all living species. It is catastrophic even to think of such consequences.
The last part is the most interesting part since it discusses how terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and other rogue Islamic nations are trying to acquire these weapons, and how successful they are in producing them. The author provides a wide ranging reports that involves interactions between Pakistani nuclear physicists and Al Qaeda with the blessings of Pakistani military. It is the fear of United States retaliating against Pakistan that has prevented them to assist Al Qaeda and possibly Taliban. The author's analysis is jokingly simplistic and makes a mockery of seriousness of the issue. He claims that Al Qaeda can never be able to produce or acquire nuclear weapons; I hope the author's dream come true
The proliferation of nuclear weapons is getting more dangerous than ever since Islamic nations such as Pakistan have acquired nuclear weapons, and Iran is on the verge of making one. The author also provides evidences for the moral and material support for Al Qaeda by Pakistani army and Pakistani physicists to help the Islamic terrorists to acquire these weapons. In spite of these disturbing reports, the author suggests that the fear over the use of such weapons is exaggerated, and our worries are unjustified. He observes that nuclear weapons have never been used since WWII despite the fact that a number of countries have them in their arsenal; hence we need not worry so much! The author's rush to this judgment is incorrect, because until now no Islamic nation possessed a nuclear weapon, but now one country has that, and another has acquired this technology. That means the whole dynamics changes. Since much of academics in universities and colleges are on the left; such a liberal bias is not unexpected.
The book is described in three parts. In the first part, the author argues that inventing nuclear weapons was a terrible waste of human talent, money, effort and a national tragedy, since a possible WWIII could be averted without them. The author argues that nations would have feared disastrous effects of even a conventional war let alone a nuclear war. The author has a short memory; ending of cold war between the two super powers, Libya's voluntary surrendering of nuclear program after Iraq war and the drone attacks on Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in Pakistani territory have worked because US has nuclear weapons. The use of atomic bomb against Japan prevented further escalations of WWII.
The second part describes nuclear proliferation among nations and asserts that this tragedy was based on the wrong ideology that weapons and the arms race cause war, and not people; and militarily these weapons are useless since they are difficult to obtain, and never been used except for once. This sounds like an argument of a defeatist and an apologist, since he continues his argument by saying that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (called weapons of mass destruction (WMD)) are a hysterical fear-mongering, because the damage of WMD in an actual war is not so far and wide as claimed. The author must tell this to a chemist or a biologist or even a physician; they will tell him the disastrous effect of radiation on the environment and on all living species. It is catastrophic even to think of such consequences.
The last part is the most interesting part since it discusses how terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and other rogue Islamic nations are trying to acquire these weapons, and how successful they are in producing them. The author provides a wide ranging reports that involves interactions between Pakistani nuclear physicists and Al Qaeda with the blessings of Pakistani military. It is the fear of United States retaliating against Pakistan that has prevented them to assist Al Qaeda and possibly Taliban. The author's analysis is jokingly simplistic and makes a mockery of seriousness of the issue. He claims that Al Qaeda can never be able to produce or acquire nuclear weapons; I hope the author's dream come true
July 18, 2011
Every once in a while a book arrives that challenges many of our most deeply-held assumptions, and makes us reconsider some aspects of our worldview. For the better part of the last sixty five years one such assumption has been the imminent threat to the survival of the entire World posed by the nuclear weapons. With the end of the Cold War this threat seemed to be receding fast, only to be rekindled in the first decade of the 21st century by the rise of various rogue regimes around the world, and even more ominously, by the rise of non-state agents that aim to destroy as much of the modern Western civilization as possible. However, according to John Mueller much of that threat is way overblown (pardon the pun) and in "Atomic Obsession" he aims to refute most of our prejudices when it comes to nuclear weapons.
This is a very well researched book as sixty pages of references at the end clearly testify. Mueller brings up many good arguments and for the most part he seems very convincing. I am particularly swayed by the quick -calculation arguments that, for instance, refute notions such as that of a "suitcase bomb" that can be used to bring devastation to a major US city. The probably impact of one such device would be far smaller than what had transpired on 9/11, with the cost in development and resources that far exceed anything that any terrorist group is likely to have. There are several well constructed arguments like that one, and for the most part I am willing to be swayed.
However, there are some problems with the kind and range of sources that are consulted. It is hard to escape the impression that Mueller is rather selective in terms of sources that he cites. Most of the best-argued quotations are from the sources that support his claims. This could be because his claims are indeed the most reasonable and well-thought out, and most of the highest experts would agree with them. However, it is also obvious that the quotes from the sources that oppose his POV are more often than not very silly and preposterous, and it doesn't take a genius to refute them. In a sense, Mueller is oftentimes setting up a straw-man argument that does nothing to help his cause.
The most off-putting aspect of this book are the persistent snide remarks that show up every few pages. It could be argued that they are attempts at humor in an otherwise very serious book, but I didn't find a single one of those remarks funny. In fact, these remarks are rather distracting and do a disservice to his arguments. Many times I would find myself essentially agreeing with one argument or another, until I reach one of those condescending remarks that implies that anyone who sees things differently is essentially an idiot. Were it not for this supercilious tone the book would be a very readable treatment of the subject. In what gotta be the most presumptuous line that I had ever read in any scholarly work, Mueller accuses Albert Einstein of "confidence bordering on intellectual arrogance" in latter's endorsement of one World Government. I am not a very big fan of that idea either, to say the least, but if anyone can be allowed to show intellectual arrogance that would be Albert Einstein. Such a dismissive, and yes intellectually arrogant, attitude on the part of Mueller is extremely off-putting. Many of his arguments would probably flow much better with well intentioned skeptics had he chosen to adopt a much more even-handed attitude in this book. As it is, the book as a whole can be described as overconfident and intellectually arrogant.
It is not clear what the intended audience of the book is. On one hand this is a very well written scholarly work, and the academic audience seems to be its intended target. On the other hand there are many references to popular culture and the perception of the nuclear threat by the general public. It is quite clear that Mueller would like to sway the public opinion of what the real threat of nuclear weapons is, and in that vein a lot of his writing can be characterized as a polemic.
Overall, this is a very well written and extremely informative book. Whether you are inclined to treat the threat of nuclear holocaust as the most pressing security issue or not, you will benefit from reading the "Atomic Obsession." However, this book should not be considered the definitive word on the subject and I for one am interested in reading other works with potentially opposing points of view.
This is a very well researched book as sixty pages of references at the end clearly testify. Mueller brings up many good arguments and for the most part he seems very convincing. I am particularly swayed by the quick -calculation arguments that, for instance, refute notions such as that of a "suitcase bomb" that can be used to bring devastation to a major US city. The probably impact of one such device would be far smaller than what had transpired on 9/11, with the cost in development and resources that far exceed anything that any terrorist group is likely to have. There are several well constructed arguments like that one, and for the most part I am willing to be swayed.
However, there are some problems with the kind and range of sources that are consulted. It is hard to escape the impression that Mueller is rather selective in terms of sources that he cites. Most of the best-argued quotations are from the sources that support his claims. This could be because his claims are indeed the most reasonable and well-thought out, and most of the highest experts would agree with them. However, it is also obvious that the quotes from the sources that oppose his POV are more often than not very silly and preposterous, and it doesn't take a genius to refute them. In a sense, Mueller is oftentimes setting up a straw-man argument that does nothing to help his cause.
The most off-putting aspect of this book are the persistent snide remarks that show up every few pages. It could be argued that they are attempts at humor in an otherwise very serious book, but I didn't find a single one of those remarks funny. In fact, these remarks are rather distracting and do a disservice to his arguments. Many times I would find myself essentially agreeing with one argument or another, until I reach one of those condescending remarks that implies that anyone who sees things differently is essentially an idiot. Were it not for this supercilious tone the book would be a very readable treatment of the subject. In what gotta be the most presumptuous line that I had ever read in any scholarly work, Mueller accuses Albert Einstein of "confidence bordering on intellectual arrogance" in latter's endorsement of one World Government. I am not a very big fan of that idea either, to say the least, but if anyone can be allowed to show intellectual arrogance that would be Albert Einstein. Such a dismissive, and yes intellectually arrogant, attitude on the part of Mueller is extremely off-putting. Many of his arguments would probably flow much better with well intentioned skeptics had he chosen to adopt a much more even-handed attitude in this book. As it is, the book as a whole can be described as overconfident and intellectually arrogant.
It is not clear what the intended audience of the book is. On one hand this is a very well written scholarly work, and the academic audience seems to be its intended target. On the other hand there are many references to popular culture and the perception of the nuclear threat by the general public. It is quite clear that Mueller would like to sway the public opinion of what the real threat of nuclear weapons is, and in that vein a lot of his writing can be characterized as a polemic.
Overall, this is a very well written and extremely informative book. Whether you are inclined to treat the threat of nuclear holocaust as the most pressing security issue or not, you will benefit from reading the "Atomic Obsession." However, this book should not be considered the definitive word on the subject and I for one am interested in reading other works with potentially opposing points of view.
May 16, 2012
Nuclear Alarmism and its Impact
John Mueller is a professor of Political Science at Ohio State and has a long list of credentials including previous books, grants from National Endowment organizations and editorial columns featured in a variety of venues including on some issues in the Wall Street Journal, which incidental isn't all that impressed with this particular book. With these credentials you would expect that Mueller has some things to say that are worth listening to, even if you are not coming from his particular point of view.
You'd be right in that expectation.
Mueller systematically addresses many of the underpinning issues that appear to contribute to the current national fear of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue organizations and nations. Beginning from the advent of the nuclear era in 1945 Japan Mueller suggests that in terms of professional national intelligence standards and risk assessment that nuclear weapons, while horrific and possessing greater destructive power than conventional weapons are grossly over-rated in terms of their strategic value.
He addresses such issues as the logistics involved in developing a nuclear device, the logistics of maintaining a nuclear device, the cooperation in terms of knowledge, materials and maintaining secrecy required for it to even be acquired let alone deployed.
In addition to these logistical concerns, Mueller examines the international political environment and domestic political environment in terms of the impact of what the fear of a weapon of mass destruction in the wrong hands or worse yet, deployed has brought about. He notes especially the all too human tendency to judge the danger of something, not by the actually likelihood of it happening but rather by the perceived magnitude of its impact should it occur.
In view of all these factors, Mueller illustrates that nuclear weapon have never been as big a threat as they have been perceived to be, are not likely to occur and further the fear present in our society of things nuclear has contributed to policies and pre-emptive overreactions that themselves are more dangerous and of more likely impact than the thing feared itself.
What you have in this book is basically an extension of Roosevelt's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" adapted for the 21st century and our very different circumstances.
Regardless of whether you agree with the basic premise of the book itself, or not, there is no question that after reading this book, you will not look at nuclear weapons and their potential impact the same as before. I found that element of the book by itself worth the read.
It's impossible to write a book like this without taking a strong stance on one side of the issue or the other, because there is very little middle ground. I'm not entirely convinced that things are as non-threatening as what Mueller appears to believe, but I am convinced that the issue has been overblown and leveraged by political forces who find it more effective to trade in fear to manipulate the populace for their own purposes than to be provide calm, rationale and fair assessments of what is truly needful to address this particular threat.
4 stars.
bart breen
John Mueller is a professor of Political Science at Ohio State and has a long list of credentials including previous books, grants from National Endowment organizations and editorial columns featured in a variety of venues including on some issues in the Wall Street Journal, which incidental isn't all that impressed with this particular book. With these credentials you would expect that Mueller has some things to say that are worth listening to, even if you are not coming from his particular point of view.
You'd be right in that expectation.
Mueller systematically addresses many of the underpinning issues that appear to contribute to the current national fear of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue organizations and nations. Beginning from the advent of the nuclear era in 1945 Japan Mueller suggests that in terms of professional national intelligence standards and risk assessment that nuclear weapons, while horrific and possessing greater destructive power than conventional weapons are grossly over-rated in terms of their strategic value.
He addresses such issues as the logistics involved in developing a nuclear device, the logistics of maintaining a nuclear device, the cooperation in terms of knowledge, materials and maintaining secrecy required for it to even be acquired let alone deployed.
In addition to these logistical concerns, Mueller examines the international political environment and domestic political environment in terms of the impact of what the fear of a weapon of mass destruction in the wrong hands or worse yet, deployed has brought about. He notes especially the all too human tendency to judge the danger of something, not by the actually likelihood of it happening but rather by the perceived magnitude of its impact should it occur.
In view of all these factors, Mueller illustrates that nuclear weapon have never been as big a threat as they have been perceived to be, are not likely to occur and further the fear present in our society of things nuclear has contributed to policies and pre-emptive overreactions that themselves are more dangerous and of more likely impact than the thing feared itself.
What you have in this book is basically an extension of Roosevelt's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" adapted for the 21st century and our very different circumstances.
Regardless of whether you agree with the basic premise of the book itself, or not, there is no question that after reading this book, you will not look at nuclear weapons and their potential impact the same as before. I found that element of the book by itself worth the read.
It's impossible to write a book like this without taking a strong stance on one side of the issue or the other, because there is very little middle ground. I'm not entirely convinced that things are as non-threatening as what Mueller appears to believe, but I am convinced that the issue has been overblown and leveraged by political forces who find it more effective to trade in fear to manipulate the populace for their own purposes than to be provide calm, rationale and fair assessments of what is truly needful to address this particular threat.
4 stars.
bart breen
July 7, 2010
This book was an extremely long winded way of saying that the atomic weapons threat is overstated and all nations have been overreacting to the threat, consequently costing the world lives and quality of life. While I like Mueller's message, reasoning, evidence, and non-alarmist conclusion, I think that his message could have been made in half as many pages. This book is also about 30 years too late to be revolutionary in any way, for his conclusion is quickly becoming obvious.
November 18, 2014
First few chapters: kind of interesting
Rest of book: filler
No discussion of Hydrogen bombs and Able Archer. Little (almost zero) discussion of the aftermath of a war between the USA and the USSR.
What did I learn? The Hiroshima blast was not so big. The probability of a nuclear terrorist attack is extremely low.
Rest of book: filler
No discussion of Hydrogen bombs and Able Archer. Little (almost zero) discussion of the aftermath of a war between the USA and the USSR.
What did I learn? The Hiroshima blast was not so big. The probability of a nuclear terrorist attack is extremely low.
September 10, 2009
Worst book ever.
January 27, 2025
This book is terrible. The only thing I agree with the author on is that nuclear weapons are not easily gettable for non-state actors.
However, everything else in the book is just garbage. Mueller writes in a condescending style, his argument is light on academically sourced and peer-reviewed articles, and his 'statistics' from which he derives his conclusions are highly questionable (primarily because nowhere does he explain how he gets to those statistics and probabilities).
I went through his list of published works. He is not a nuclear weapons-related specialist. He barely had any peer-reviewed articles on this subject, with most of them focussing on terrorism. He took a 10-year break from writing anything nuclear-related only to bust out this book in 2010.
His most mind-boggling argument is that the nuclear weapons aren't even all that dangerous, neither from a direct strike nor in terms of radiation. He actually insists that safe levels of nuclear radiation should be raised all over the world!
In essence, don't bother reading this. Absolute rubbish.
However, everything else in the book is just garbage. Mueller writes in a condescending style, his argument is light on academically sourced and peer-reviewed articles, and his 'statistics' from which he derives his conclusions are highly questionable (primarily because nowhere does he explain how he gets to those statistics and probabilities).
I went through his list of published works. He is not a nuclear weapons-related specialist. He barely had any peer-reviewed articles on this subject, with most of them focussing on terrorism. He took a 10-year break from writing anything nuclear-related only to bust out this book in 2010.
His most mind-boggling argument is that the nuclear weapons aren't even all that dangerous, neither from a direct strike nor in terms of radiation. He actually insists that safe levels of nuclear radiation should be raised all over the world!
In essence, don't bother reading this. Absolute rubbish.
May 10, 2018
I admire Mueller's work and this is fairly typical of his recent focus. He explains decades of fear-mongering involving nuclear weapons and returns to some long-time themes from his prior work. He reiterates, for example, that nuclear weapons likely had little to do with the long peace of the cold war and generally waste a lot of resources for big powers and new proliferant states. He shows have threats have also been inflated in debates about terrorism, nuclear terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.
Read
March 17, 2022a few nukes flying around turns out to be fine
November 19, 2024
Interesting book that offers a unique perspective on the status of nuclear armaments. A point of view that needs to be trusted though.
May 11, 2014
I have mixed feelings about this title. I certainly agree with the author there is some perfectly unwarranted hysteria around nuclear weapons, particularly when it comes to nuclear terrorism, which is essentially incredible except perhaps in the case of a radiological weapon ("dirty bomb") or the metamorphosis of the Taliban in Pakistan into the leadership of the country. That being said, I think he downplays interstate threats. For one thing, nuclear winter following a major nuclear exchange is mentioned as "controversial". I am not aware that the basic principle is heavily contested anymore and, by recent accounts, the temperature delta from even a relatively modest South Asian exchange would easily outstrip climate change due to greenhouse gases to date, in the opposite direction. Larger exchanges involving fusion weapons would dwarf it completely. To my knowledge, docking a full 8°C from the global mean temperature is possible. That would be nothing short of catastrophic. Mueller also appears to vacillate on a number of issues; I cannot remember every ostensible contradiction I saw but one that stood out in particular was inconsistency on the stability of deterrence, which appears several times. That is in a sense appropriate because the stability of deterrence is indeed questionable. There are certainly times when, in the context of a book that is essentially about faulting other people for their poor judgment and panicking, Mueller would know better than to oversell human rationality. On that note, he also conflates the risk aversion of American, Soviet and Chinese leaders with the risk aversion of the entire system in which they are embedded—the aversion of Moscow to nuclear war, for instance, may have meant absolutely nothing around the time of Able Archer 83 and the Soviet false alarm that could well have led to a decentralized "launch on warning" in this period of great tension. Indeed, autonomous risk of disaster is one possible way to bridge the "credibility gap" in nuclear deterrence. Finally a word on Mueller's relatively nonchalant view of radiation: it is possible that US federal standards for radiation are far too stringent but to know whether radiation from mere testing of nuclear weapons can cause rather serious health problems, one need only type "Semipalatinsk" into Google Images and see all the hideously misborn children that testify that this really can happen. All told, I liked his innovative view of the issues but there are certainly a number of instances where I think he is in fact burying his head in the sand, as other reviewers have suggested. "Alarmism" is simply not the issue. A thing is either true or not, regardless what kind of fear it evokes.
May 12, 2013
In "Atomic Obsession," John Mueller argues that nuclear weapons are far less important both as threats and as deterrents than almost anyone assumes. The weapons have always been nearly superfluous, he says; they remain so today. The author explains that the effects of a nuclear blast are not as bad as we imagine. A suitcase-size nuclear bomb that is detonated "in the middle of Central Park would not be able to destroy any buildings on the park's periphery." No doubt that is good news (if true) for those New Yorkers with a view of the park, but it somehow fails to bring much comfort. Mr. Mueller also offers a thinly sourced disquisition on the health effects of radioactive fallout. Exposure to low doses of radiation, he says, might actually be "beneficial by activating natural coping mechanisms in the body." Again, it is hard to feel comforted by such a claim. At a moment when the spread of nuclear weapons is bringing us palpably closer to the day when they might again be used in anger, "Atomic Obsession" deserves serious attention, not for the light it casts on its subject but for the powerful way it illuminates the impulse, in the face of danger, to bury one's head in the sand.
April 28, 2012
John Mueller utterly destroys the notion that the proliferation of nuclear arms or the prospect of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists is something we should stay up nights worrying about. Instead of being a "clear-and-present" danger to national existence, Mueller points out this essential fact of the post-war world: that nuclear arms are essentially useless except for deterrent purposes and the chance of either a state giving such weapons to terrorists or terrorists acquiring the weapons on their own is so low as to be nonsensical. A much-needed polemic that describes the hysteria surrounding this issue for exactly what it is - fear mongering by vested bureaucratic, political, economic, and cultural interests that have much to gain from scaring you.
Read
January 27, 2016Initially I was a little bit apprehensive about this book and its light-hearted style. The author however, builds a compelling case about the overrating of the benefits, which nuclear weapons might bring to their owners and the dangers, which they pose in conflict. Especially the cost and difficulty to achieve nuclear capability are highlighted. Also, the effectiveness of economic coercion as a diplomatic tool is critically reviewed. This book serves as a good reminder to not let ourselves fall in the trap of irrational fear, which might then easily be exploited by those, who want to impose their security policies upon our society. Anyway, this book is highly recommended to people with an interest in nuclear policy issues.
March 3, 2012
This scholarly book presents the argument that the fear of nuclear weapons is overblown and dangerous in and of itself. We are just now ending a war in Iraq that was extremely costly in terms of blood and treasure, and which in the end was based on nothing more than unfounded rumors and fear-mongering. It leaves an interesting question: Which is more dangerous to the survival of our nation: nuclear weapons, or the devastation we will wreak upon ourselves due to our fear of them? This book, while imperfect (it is sometimes redundant), merits four stars because it will make you think. This book is a timely read given the current concerns about Iran.
August 14, 2015
While I appreciate the amount of snark Mueller uses in this book, and appreciate to a certain extent his perspective - his use of facts is questionnable. If you know enough about nuclear history to know where he's stretching the truth or being liberal with it, then you can read this book critically. If you know nothing about the issue, then be warned this is only one, rather extreme, perspective. An important one none the less, though, that warrants attention.
March 1, 2010
I think the author has it about right when he indicates the U.S. has overblown the importance of nuclear weapons. The several comments in the book on 60 minutes programs will cause me to be a bit more attentive to the bias of folks appearing on the show. David Holloway, hollowdj@stanford.edu, in Science, February 5, 2010 issue, has done a good review of the book.
Want to read
April 7, 2012Definitely a good read, and a very thought-provoking series of alternative considerations to the traditional positions staked out by pro-disarmament and pro-nukes individuals. The technical approaches he takes are usually dead-on in their assessments, and his way of trying to think outside of the traditional "either-or" boxes on this issue are refreshing.
February 4, 2016
A book that everyone needs to read so as to properly understand nuclear weapons and their applications. Far too often we are taught to fear ants that have been enlarged by the imagination. Fear cannot rule our mind but will cloud our judgment. Only knowledge can help us cut through its haze.
July 25, 2013
Calms fears on how the nuclear threat is portrayed by politicians and in the news media. Gives a good education on the complexity of the nuclear weapons issue.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews