What was his impression as to why the IAEA took so long to found? It was 12 years after the first nuclear weapons test, and 8 after the Soviet’s acquired their own. Relatedly, what political actions do you remember as being most important for U.S.-USSR trustbuilding at the time (ex: Eisenhower giving his atoms for peace speech)?
What was his personal impression of why the Baruch Plan failed? For a few years, it seems almost possible that the U.S. would have voluntarily limited its nuclear monopoly, if only it had been able to get the other major powers to agree.
What was his personal impression of why the Baruch Plan failed? For a few years, it seems almost that the U.S. would have voluntarily limited its nuclear monopoly, if only it had been able to get the other major powers to agree
The Soviets went all out after the Americans developed nuclear weapons and within a very few years had their own. Stalin was still alive. There was no hope for the Baruch plan or any other until his death. I’m afraid the initiative was on the basis on a US superiority in nuclear weapons, which was not a good basis.
Ultimately, the reason the IAEA came into being was the Russians could see advantages to themselves and one of them was certainty the East West split. The IAEA did not cause the tearing down to Berlin wall, but it provided a period of stability in Europe, coupled with Stalin’s departure, that made broad cooperation exemplified by the IAEA mutually beneficial on both sides.
What I’d really like to know before I die is that we made some progress within our own country in two critical areas. One is a safe disposal site for high level waste. And second is the acceptance of recycle as a way of producing a very safe waste form for such disposal. A very stable, non-threatening waste form that can be buried and safe for mankind for 100,000s of years, which I believe is possible.
What was his impression as to why the IAEA took so long to found? It was 12 years after the first nuclear weapons test, and 8 after the Soviet’s acquired their own.
It required a joint effort by the major powers. There had to be on both sides a vision, a peaceful world in which atomic energy was used constructively and that vision came after Stalin. And I think more than anything else it required Eisenhower to really push it through because he worked constructively during WW2 with the Soviets to defeat Nazi Germany, and they knew him as a hero, as a peace maker because he engineered the Western Front. The nuclear cooperation required leadership that he provided. To me it was amazing how soon after this atoms for peace intuitive that there was an IAEA.
The person who asked the question doesn’t know the period of hostilities [between the US and Soviet Union] that existed after WW2. It had to wait for Stalin’s death as one criterion.
Relatedly, what political actions do you remember as being most important for U.S.-USSR trustbuilding at the time (ex: Eisenhower giving his atoms for peace speech)
The person answered the question! Before he made it there had to be a lot of background work done. His speech was an important step towards international cooperation, but it was not the result of the speech, but rather the speech was a statement that we have together begun to visualize a path forward. Or another way of putting it, the speech didn’t cause the cooperation, the speech was evidence of the corporation that was building following Stalin’s death. I’m sure John Foster Dulles has a lot to do with it. I was not involved.
By the time I had my first trip to Russia, things had begun to move rather smoothly. I was able to visit there nuclear energy program offices and their laboratory and talk to people who were purely technical, not political. That was before the IAEA.
My second visit, again prior to the IAEA, was even broader it its scope, indicative of further progress, most of that coming out of the state department.
What was his impression as to why the IAEA took so long to found? It was 12 years after the first nuclear weapons test, and 8 after the Soviet’s acquired their own. Relatedly, what political actions do you remember as being most important for U.S.-USSR trustbuilding at the time (ex: Eisenhower giving his atoms for peace speech)?
What was his personal impression of why the Baruch Plan failed? For a few years, it seems almost possible that the U.S. would have voluntarily limited its nuclear monopoly, if only it had been able to get the other major powers to agree.
The Soviets went all out after the Americans developed nuclear weapons and within a very few years had their own. Stalin was still alive. There was no hope for the Baruch plan or any other until his death. I’m afraid the initiative was on the basis on a US superiority in nuclear weapons, which was not a good basis.
Ultimately, the reason the IAEA came into being was the Russians could see advantages to themselves and one of them was certainty the East West split. The IAEA did not cause the tearing down to Berlin wall, but it provided a period of stability in Europe, coupled with Stalin’s departure, that made broad cooperation exemplified by the IAEA mutually beneficial on both sides.
What I’d really like to know before I die is that we made some progress within our own country in two critical areas. One is a safe disposal site for high level waste. And second is the acceptance of recycle as a way of producing a very safe waste form for such disposal. A very stable, non-threatening waste form that can be buried and safe for mankind for 100,000s of years, which I believe is possible.
It required a joint effort by the major powers. There had to be on both sides a vision, a peaceful world in which atomic energy was used constructively and that vision came after Stalin. And I think more than anything else it required Eisenhower to really push it through because he worked constructively during WW2 with the Soviets to defeat Nazi Germany, and they knew him as a hero, as a peace maker because he engineered the Western Front. The nuclear cooperation required leadership that he provided. To me it was amazing how soon after this atoms for peace intuitive that there was an IAEA.
The person who asked the question doesn’t know the period of hostilities [between the US and Soviet Union] that existed after WW2. It had to wait for Stalin’s death as one criterion.
The person answered the question! Before he made it there had to be a lot of background work done. His speech was an important step towards international cooperation, but it was not the result of the speech, but rather the speech was a statement that we have together begun to visualize a path forward. Or another way of putting it, the speech didn’t cause the cooperation, the speech was evidence of the corporation that was building following Stalin’s death. I’m sure John Foster Dulles has a lot to do with it. I was not involved.
By the time I had my first trip to Russia, things had begun to move rather smoothly. I was able to visit there nuclear energy program offices and their laboratory and talk to people who were purely technical, not political. That was before the IAEA.
My second visit, again prior to the IAEA, was even broader it its scope, indicative of further progress, most of that coming out of the state department.