The Dysons
America’s first family of polymathic excellence, the Dysons, blow my mind with their thoughts on Edge‘s big-think annual question: What have you changed your mind about? Why
First, my hero Freeman Dyson offers a predictably surprising (does that make sense?) and predictably brilliant answer: Dyson is now certain that the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not end World War II, and that this is a dangerous myth.
In addition to the myth of two nuclear bombs bringing the war to an end, there are other myths that need to be demolished. There is the myth that, if Hitler had acquired nuclear weapons before we did, he could have used them to conquer the world. There is the myth that the invention of the hydrogen bomb changed the nature of nuclear warfare. There is the myth that international agreements to abolish weapons without perfect verification are worthless. All these myths are false. After they are demolished, dramatic moves toward a world without nuclear weapons may become possible.
Some of you will find this to be typical pacifist pabulum. I’d urge you to take anything Freeman Dyson says very seriously.
George Dyson, Freeman’s son, offers some interesting thoughts on Russia’s colonial presence in Alaska, which he now sees as a basically successful intercultural encounter.
Finally, Esther Dyson, Freeman’s daughter, has a wonderfully insightful take on privacy.
n short, for many users the Web is becoming a mirror, with users in control, rather than a heavily surveilled stage. The question isn’t how to protect users’ privacy, but rather how to give them better tools to control their own data – not by selling privacy or by getting them to “sell” their data, but by feeding their natural fascination with themselves and allowing them to manage their own presence. What once seemed like an onerous, weird task becomes akin to self-grooming online.
This relates to the broader question of open data, which I hope to learn more about.
They seem not so much pacifist pabulum as simply straw men, but your point is well taken.
I have to explore the links in this post, but right now it’s a little late. More thoughts later, perhaps.
— PEG · Jan 2, 11:58 PM · #
Dyson needs to read Richard Frank’s ‘Downfall’. It lays to rest the myth that it is a myth that the atomic bombings ended the Japanese war.
For example, Dyson in his bit on Edge says “ On the morning of August 9, Soviet troops invaded Manchuria. Six hours after hearing this news, the Supreme Council was in session. News of the Nagasaki bombing, which happened the same morning, only reached the Council after the session started. … The August 9 session of the Supreme Council resulted in the decision to surrender.” At p289 in the paperback of Downfall, Frank reports the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters as stating on the afternoon of the 9th of the Soviet attacks that the “scale of these attacks is not large”. The Soviet attacks didn’t start to achieve critical results until a couple of days in when the attacks launched from Mongolia into Manchuria from the west contacted the main Japanese defences to the west. Soviet attacks that had only just begun and had as yet achieved nothing much could hardly have caused the Japanese to surrender.
Dyson also says “The Emperor, in his rescript to the military forces ordering their surrender, does not mention the nuclear bombs …” Dyson is badly misinformed. The Imperial rescript included “Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives.” (in Frank) or at Wikipedia in a simplified translation as “The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon3 with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. If we continue to fight this war, this weapon will destroy the Japanese nation and bring about the total extinction of the human race.” How can Dyson be under the impression the rescript doesn’t mention the atomic bombs after reading that part of the rescript?
Dyson also relates “… but emphasizes the historical analogy between the situation in 1945 and the situation at the end of the Sino-Japanese war in 1895.” however, the versions of the rescript I have seen do not make any reference to the Soviet invasion or to 1895. A reference to 1895 wouldn’t make much sense anyway, since the situation in 1895 was completely different with Japan having manifestly NOT won the military contest in WW2 while it had won in 1895.
At the beginning Dyson says “ Until the last few years, the best summary of evidence concerning this question was a book, “Japan’s Decision to Surrender”, by Robert Butow, published in 1954.” This is peculiar, as Frank’s book came out in 1999 and there has been an enormous amount of new information come out since 1954. Among this information is the release of the texts (and the interpretive notes by the intel folk) of the intercepted and decoded Japanese diplomatic traffic and a document setting out Hirohito’s views after the war (1946, not released until after his death in 1989) Showa Tenno Dokuhakuroku (Showa Emperor’s Monologue). That Dyson is given to believe that Butow is the last word in argument that the atomic bombings produced Japanese surrender is bizarre.
Without access to Wilson’s article that Dyson is relying on I can’t check for other things, but if it left Dyson with the impression the rescript hadn’t mentioned the atomic bombings, made much of 1895, and that Butow is the last word in the bombings causing the surrender then either Dyson is badly past it or Wilson’s article is being very selective in its evidence. Having read a bit of Wilson’s site, particularly the revealing “ I have wanted, for twenty-five years to create arguments that will make it less likely that nuclear weapons will be used.”, I’m inclined to the latter view.
— Mike from Ottawa · Jan 5, 03:30 AM · #