This taboo is an asset to be treasured

Saturday, January 24th, 2026

Arms and Influence by Thomas C. SchellingThomas Schelling opens the 2008 edition of his Arms and Influence with a new preface:

The world has changed since I wrote this book in the 1960s. Most notably, the hostility, and the nuclear weapons surrounding that hostility, between the United States and the Soviet Union—between NATO and the Warsaw Pact—has dissolved with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. A somewhat militarily hostile Russia survives the Cold War, but nobody worries (that I know of) about nuclear confrontations between the new Russia and the United States.

The most astonishing development during these more than forty years—a development that no one I have known could have imagined—is that during the rest of the twentieth century, for fifty-five years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered the world’s first nuclear bombs, not a single nuclear weapon was exploded in warfare. As I write this in early 2008, it is sixty-two and a half years since the second, and last, nuclear weapon exploded in anger, above a Japanese city. Since then there have been, depending on how you count, either five or six wars in which one side had nuclear weapons and kept them unused.

[…]

Nuclear weapons were not used in the United Nations’ defense of South Korea. They were not used in the succeeding war with the People’s Republic of China. They were not used in the U.S. war in Vietnam. They were not used in 1973 when Egypt had two armies on the Israeli side of the Suez Canal. They were not used in the British war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. And, most impressively, they were not used by the Soviet Union when it fought, and lost, a protracted, demoralizing war in Afghanistan.

This “taboo,” as it has come to be called, is an asset to be treasured. It’s our main hope that we can go another sixty years without nuclear war.

The nonproliferation program has been more successful than any student of the subject would have thought likely, or even possible, at the time this book was written. There are, in 2008, nine, possibly going on ten, nations that have nuclear weapons. When this book was being written, serious estimates suggested that three or four times that number would have nuclear weapons within the century. This outcome partly reflects successful policy and partly reflects the loss of interest in nuclear electric power, especially after the explosion in Ukraine of the Chernobyl reactor complex in 1986.

[…]

Smart terrorists—and the people who might assemble nuclear explosive devices, if they can get the fissionable material, will have to be highly intelligent—should be able to appreciate that such weapons have a comparative advantage toward influence, not simple destruction. I hope they might learn to appreciate that from reading this book.

[…]

Actually, I found the first sentence of the original preface to be even more portentous than I could make it in the 1960s. “One of the lamentable principles of human productivity is that it is easier to destroy than to create.” That principle is now the foundation for our worst apprehensions.

I had to coin a term. “Deterrence” was well understood. To “deter” was, as one dictionary said, to “prevent or discourage from acting by means of fear, doubt, or the like,” and in the words of another, “to turn aside or discourage through fear; hence, to prevent from action by fear of consequences,” from the Latin to “frighten from.” Deterrence was in popular usage not just in military strategy but also in criminal law. It was, complementary to “containment,” the basis of our American policy toward the Soviet bloc. But deterrence is passive; it posits a response to something unacceptable but is quiescent in the absence of provocation. It is something like “defense” in contrast to “offense.” We have a Department of Defense, no longer a War Department, “defense” being the peaceable side of military action.

But what do we call the threatening action that is intended not to forestall some adversarial action but to bring about some desired action, through “fear of consequences”? “Coercion” covers it, but coercion includes deterrence—that is, preventing action—as well as forcing action through fear of consequences. To talk about the latter we need a word. I chose “compellence.” It is now almost, but not quite, part of the strategic vocabulary. I think it will be even more necessary in the future as we analyze not just what the United States—“ we”—needs to do but how various adversaries—“ they”—may attempt to take advantage of their capacity to do harm.

We have seen that deterrence, even nuclear deterrence, doesn’t always work. When North Korea attacked the South, it wasn’t deterred by U.S. nuclear weapons; nor was China deterred from entering South Korea as U.S. troops approached the Chinese border (and the United States was not deterred by Chinese threats to enter the fray). Egypt and Syria in 1973 were not deterred by Israeli nuclear weapons, which they knew existed. Maybe Egypt and Syria believed (correctly?) that Israel had too much at stake in the nuclear taboo to respond to the invasion by using nuclear weapons, even on Egyptian armies in the Sinai desert with no civilians anywhere near.

But “mutual deterrence,” involving the United States and the Soviet Union, was impressively successful. We can hope that Indians and Pakistanis will draw the appropriate lesson. If this book can help to persuade North Koreans, Iranians, or any others who may contemplate or acquire nuclear weapons to think seriously about deterrence, and how it may accomplish more than pure destruction, both they and we may be the better for it.

Reality becomes input, not a corrective signal

Sunday, January 11th, 2026

Data Republican (small r) argues that late-stage empires do not fail because they are weak or poorly intentioned:

They fail because they become autopoietic.

Autopoiesis is a term from systems theory. It means this: a system responds to reality only through the constraints of its own internal organization.

You’ve almost certainly encountered autopoietic institutions, even if you didn’t have a name for them:

  • A corporation where middle management defines OKRs that have no relationship to customers, yet performance reviews insist everything is “on track.”
  • A bureaucracy that measures success by compliance with procedure rather than outcomes.
  • A late Soviet state in which leadership was reassured by reports everyone knew were false, but which could no longer be contradicted without threatening the system itself.

Autopoietic systems lose the capacity for the environment to redefine their purpose. Inputs still arrive, but they are reinterpreted until they are compatible with the system’s existing outputs. Feedback loops close. Contradictions are absorbed. External signals stop producing corrective changes in internal behavior.

At that point, the system is no longer adaptive relative to its original purpose. It becomes self-referential. It is capable of internally justified expansion without reference to external success.

That’s a long-winded way to explain that none of these institutions were lying in the usual sense. They were maintaining equilibrium.
This is the key point: autopoiesis becomes pathological when stability is prioritized over external correction.

[…]

The current unrest in Minnesota is an example of an order that has reached equilibrium through mutual dependency between antagonistic subsystems.

After the Cold War, the Western world organized itself around a single moral injunction: Never again. Never again fascism. Never again totalitarianism. Never again a unified ideology capable of subordinating it to a single vision of man.

To prevent another Nazi Germany or another Soviet Union, the post–Cold War order built immunity to totalitarian ideologies.

Grand narratives were treated as dangerous. Politics was re-engineered away from totalizing visions and towards norms and institutional mediation.

[…]

Dissent was absorbed into civic infrastructure: NGOs, foundations, advisory boards, grant programs, legal advocacy, compliance regimes, and professionalized activism. Radical energy was translated into careers and metrics.
The result is a structural inversion. The Western order that was constructed to neutralize Communism now depends on its managed presence to generate legitimacy. At the same time, contemporary revolutionary movements depend on the same institutions they once sought to overthrow; for funding, protection, and survival.

[…]

The institutional networks require managed dissent to justify their expansion, funding, and moral authority. The revolutionary networks require institutional cover to survive in a system that would otherwise suppress them. Together, they form a closed loop.
This is not hypocrisy alone, nor betrayal alone, nor even corruption alone. It’s systems logic.

[…]

They form what I call managed antagonism.

  • The revolutionary layer produces instability that forces attention.
  • The institutional layer prevents that instability from becoming existential.
  • The revolutionary layer cannot survive sustained repression.
  • The institutional layer cannot justify its expansion without crisis.

Each makes the other necessary.

No conspiracy is needed; every system selects for actors who can survive within this loop.

[…]

Reality (such as the ICE video that was released today) becomes input, not a corrective signal.

The output is always the same:

  • More NGOs
  • More taxpayer dollars
  • More institutional capture
  • More managed disorder

This is equilibrium.

The Trump administration has long accused Maduro of running a criminal narco-trafficking organization called Cartel de los Soles

Saturday, January 3rd, 2026

The U.S. is one of many Western countries who see Maduro’s government as illegitimate, citing widespread fraud in the 2024 election:

The Trump administration has long accused Maduro of running a criminal narco-trafficking organization called Cartel de los Soles, which experts say is shorthand for a system of corruption rather than a single hierarchical group. The U.S. declared it a foreign terrorist organization in November.

On Saturday, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Maduro, Flores, and senior Venezuelan face charges related to alleged “drug trafficking and narco-terrorism conspiracies,” according to an unsealed indictment Bondi posted on X.

The indictment alleges that, starting in 1999, Maduro and others partnered with international drug trafficking organizations to transport thousands of tons of cocaine into the United States.

[…]

The Trump administration claims that Venezuela “stole” oil and assets from the U.S., after its government nationalized them in the late 1990s, which Maduro’s government denies.

Last month, Trump ordered a blockade against Venezuelan oil and sanctioned tankers. And on Saturday morning, Vice President JD Vance tweeted that Trump had been clear to Maduro: “the drug trafficking must stop, and the stolen oil must be returned to the United States.”

[…]

“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said. “The biggest beneficiary are going to be the people of Venezuela.”

Despite Trump’s announcement that Vice President Rodríguez has been sworn in, it’s unclear who will take over Maduro’s duties long term.

“I’m not sure there’s going to be a power vacuum, because so many of his cronies apparently were left behind,” Todd Robinson, former acting U.S. ambassador to Venezuela during President Trump’s first term, told NPR.

“There are a lot of questions about what exactly is left behind now, and what more the United States is willing to do to ensure that a potential legitimate person takes over,” Robinson added.

Trump on Saturday did not outline a clear plan on next steps but said that the U.S. will run Venezuela until a “proper transition can take place.”

“We’re going to run the country right. It’s going to be run very judiciously, very fairly,” he said during Saturday’s press conference after Maduro was captured.

Public Domain Day 2026

Thursday, January 1st, 2026

January 1 is Public Domain Day:

Works from 1930 are open to all, as are sound recordings from 1925.

[…]

The literary highlights range from William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying to Agatha Christie’s The Murder at the Vicarage and the first four Nancy Drew novels. From cartoons and comic strips, the characters Betty Boop, Pluto (originally named Rover), and Blondie and Dagwood made their first appearances. Films from the year featured Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, the Marx Brothers, and John Wayne in his first leading role. Among the public domain compositions are I Got Rhythm, Georgia on My Mind, and Dream a Little Dream of Me.

The island is not merely symbolic but pivotal terrain

Tuesday, December 30th, 2025

At the heart of China’s fixation on Taiwan lies a convergence of ideological, military, and geostrategic imperatives:

Beijing’s leadership views the island not merely as a breakaway province, but as the unfinished business of China’s “national rejuvenation” and a core element of CCP legitimacy. Beijing sees Taiwan’s continued de facto independence as a symbol of national weakness and foreign interference, and as a threat to the Chinese Communist Party’s domestic narrative if left unresolved. This drives a sense of urgency within the PLA to develop credible warfighting options capable of securing control of the island if political efforts fail.

Militarily, Taiwan is a strategic keystone in the Western Pacific. Its position within the first island chain gives it outsized importance in controlling access to the East and South China Seas. If Beijing were to seize Taiwan, the PLA Navy (PLAN) and PLA Rocket Force (PLARF) would be able to displace U.S. influence deeper into the Pacific and threaten critical sea lines of communication linking North America to Southeast Asia. Taiwan’s airfields, ports, and undersea infrastructure would become forward platforms for China’s anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) networks, narrowing the tactical margin for U.S. and allied forces to project power. From this military perspective, the island is not merely symbolic but a pivotal terrain that could reshape regional balances.

Tactically, seizing Taiwan would require overcoming a heavily fortified defense posture, challenging geography, and a technologically sophisticated defender. Taiwan possesses advanced air defenses (including Patriot PAC-3 and indigenous systems), a modernized fighter fleet, and well-trained marine and special operations units capable of mobile defense and anti-ship missile deployments. Any amphibious assault would have to cross approximately 160 kilometers of open sea under surveillance by U.S. and allied satellites and sensors, suppress Taiwan’s anti-access systems, and secure key ports and landing zones under fire. It would be a complex and high-risk operation.

China has taken key tactical lessons from the Ukraine war. Russian failures to secure air superiority, underestimating resistance, and struggling with logistics in urban warfare have made clear to Beijing that a Taiwan operation will demand overwhelming joint coordination. The PLA is accelerating its ability to conduct complex amphibious operations supported by air, cyber, space, and electronic warfare forces. Tactical units are being trained to operate autonomously in contested environments, utilizing UAVs, loitering munitions, and hardened satellite communications to maintain operational tempo.

What is good in bourgeois civilization is concentrated in this season of beauty and merriment

Friday, December 26th, 2025

The Christmas season is a sort of measuring stick. T. Greer says:

What is good in bourgeois civilization is concentrated in this season of beauty and merriment. Against this bar all creeds, all claimed paths to excellence, all cults of eudaimonia, may be measured. Against this bar most are found wanting.

[…]

It is silly and sentimental, a thoroughly domesticated holiday, in practice a celebration of the most bourgeois aspects of life: private happiness, familial bliss, childhood as a privileged category, contentment derived from creature comforts, joy derived from things given and received, and charity as the guiding virtue—but charity practiced soul-to-soul, not at the level of society as a whole. It is not a holiday that celebrates justice, nor greatness, nor ambition; it is mirthful but never Dionysian; it is faithful but never austere. It sits uneasy with the ethos of the conqueror; it fits no better in the theorizing of the philosopher. No Greek nor Roman, no crusader nor hermit, no revolutionary, no terrorist, no underground man can smile sound on this Victorian relic.

This holiday does not idolize excellence. It gives equally to the old, the poor, and the ugly. It does not ask for supreme sacrifices. It does challenge those who celebrate it to recognize the supreme sacrifice of another—but to recognize this sacrifice in an everyday way, through modest and moderate acts of goodwill. It is a celebration well made for the temperate. It defines success as sitting around a warm fireplace, kids in tow. It draws meaning from nostalgia and merriment, in small rituals and small acts of kindness. Christmas is a bundle of unapologetically mawkish sensibilities gone wild—and despite all of that, it is good.

I am aware that the Christmas I describe is not universal. I describe a tradition whose practices emerged in the mid-1800s, and that have lasted, with an aesthetic tweak there or a practical change there, down to the present. It embodies the virtues of its origins: it is a holiday for the shopkeepers, birthed by the Victorian marriage of Christian sentiments and Enlightenment sensibilities. From that moment arose a set of traditions and convictions that are modest, beautiful, and good. They are small. They are simple. But from these small and simple things great ones may be judged.

German scientists did not support their country in the war effort

Friday, December 19th, 2025

Now It Can Be Told by Leslie M. GrovesIt was quite interesting, General Groves explains (in Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project), to watch the pattern of the total German scientific effort emerge:

I have always considered Goudsmit’s opinion much to the point: “On the whole, we gained the definite impression that German scientists did not support their country in the war effort. The principal thing was to obtain money from the government for their own researches, pretending that they might be of value to the war effort. One genuine selling point which they used extensively was that pure research in Germany in many fields was far behind the United States.”

Although most of our objectives in Germany lay in the French zone of advance, one that was particularly important to us — the Auer-gesellschaft Works in Oranienburg, about fifteen miles north of Berlin — lay in what was to be the Russian zone. The information that Alsos had uncovered in Strasbourg had confirmed our earlier suspicions that the plant was engaged in the manufacture of thorium and uranium metals which were to be used in the production of atomic energy and hence probably for the manufacture of an atomic bomb. Since there was not even the remotest possibility that Alsos could seize the works I recommended to General Marshall that the plant be destroyed by air attack.

When he approved, I sent Major F. J. Smith, of my office, to explain the mission to General Carl Spaatz, who was then in command of our Strategic Air Forces in Europe. Spaatz co-operated wholeheartedly and, in a period of about thirty minutes during the afternoon of March 15, 612 Flying Fortresses of the Eighth Air Force dropped 1,506 tons of high explosives and 178 tons of incendiary bombs on the target. Poststrike analysis indicated that all parts of the plant that were aboveground had been completely destroyed. Our purpose in attacking Oranienburg was screened from Russians and Germans alike by a simultaneous and equally heavy attack upon the small town of Zossen, where the German Army’s headquarters were situated. I have since learned that as an entirely unexpected bonus the Zossen raid incapacitated General Guderian, then Chief of the German General Staff.

[…]

[T]he experimental uranium pile at Berlin Dahlem had been removed to Haigerloch, another small town near Hechingen. They reported a shortage of heavy water, explaining that their only source of it had been in Norway. The pieces of the puzzle were beginning to fall into place at last.

Bothe disclosed that the total German effort on atomic physics had consisted of himself and three helpers: Heisenberg with ten men; Dopel in Leipzig, assisted by his wife; Kirchner in Garmisch with possibly two assistants; and Stetter in Vienna with four or five others. Hahn, he said, was engaged in work on chemical problems.

The Heidelberg group told us that Gerlach’s approval was required before any physicist could obtain the means for scientific work. If he wanted the highest priority rating, called DE, he had to have the additional approval of Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments and Munitions.

Later, Bothe expressed his belief that the separation of uranium isotopes by thermal diffusion was impossible and indicated that the only work on isotope separation being done in Germany involved the centrifugal method. He added that this work was under the direction of Dr. Harteck. Bothe said he knew of no element higher than 93, although he recognized that since element 93 was a beta emitter, 94 must exist. He repeatedly expressed his opinion that the uranium pile as a source of energy was decades away and that the use of uranium as an explosive was altogether impracticable. He claimed not to know of any theoretical or experimental work being done in Germany on the military applications of atomic fission, but he agreed that such work could be under way without his knowledge.

After repeated questioning about the military value of the cyclotron, Bothe admitted that it had been regarded as a means for obtaining radioactive material for bombs.

[…]

Some of his personal letters, however, did cast doubts upon his assertion that he knew nothing of the work being done at Bisingen and Sigmaringen. From other sources, the interrogators learned that Bothe had returned a considerable quantity of uranium to Degussa after he had no further use for it.

Kuhn was present throughout Bothe’s interrogation. When it was over, he called one of the Alsos men aside and told him about the technical and scientific library of the German Chemical Society, of which he was the custodian. He claimed that it was the best of its kind in the world and included accounts of most of the German chemical activities in the war. To avoid the risks of heavy bombing, the library had been concealed in a number of caves and eventually was moved to a salt mine. Quite evidently, Kuhn preferred to have it taken over by the Americans rather than by the Russians. Unfortunately, it was behind the Russian lines.

[…]

Gertner said that he had worked with Joliot in Paris, from September of 1940 to July of 1943. He and Joliot, who had been close friends, had discussed the possibility of an atomic bomb and they had agreed that its development was not feasible.

[…]

He had reached the conclusion that it would be impossible to develop an atomic bomb because of the difficulties involved in separating isotopes. He further believed that, of all the separation methods, the centrifuge process offered the best prospects of success, but the low production rates that had been achieved by that method appeared to rule it out.

[…]

At about this time a major problem arose in Washington. The division of Germany into three zones of occupation had been arranged at Yalta. Later, when it was decided to establish a fourth zone to be occupied by the French, the readjustment of the American zone’s boundaries was handled by a committee of representatives of the State Department and of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All the information that had been developed by Alsos indicated that the principal German work on atomic energy was being conducted in the general area Freiburg-Stuttgart-Ulm-Friedrichshafen, a large part of which would be turned over to the French. Hechingen lay near the center of this area and was in the French Army’s zone of advance, far removed from the zone of any American unit.

As I saw it, there could be no question but that American troops must be the first to arrive at this vital installation, for it was of the utmost importance to the United States that we control the entire area that contained the German atomic energy activities.

[…]

Consequently, I was forced to initiate some drastic measures to accomplish our purpose. One of these became known as Operation Harborage.

According to this plan, American troops would have to get into and hold the area long enough for us to capture the people we wanted, question them, seize and remove their records, and obliterate all remaining facilities, for my recent experiences with Joliot had convinced me that nothing that might be of interest to the Russians should ever be allowed to fall into French hands. Having reached this conclusion, I discussed the matter with Secretary Stimson and General Marshall together. After I had outlined briefly what I wanted, and we had considered the possible value of the information we might gather, we all turned to the big wall map in the Secretary’s office. To my great embarrassment, I was unable to find Hechingen on this map, and both the Secretary and the Chief of Staff were equally unsuccessful. Finally, Mr. Stimson summoned his aide, Colonel William H. Kyle, who succeeded eventually in locating our target at the bottom of the map, not more than two feet above the floor. If a photographer had been present at that time when the four of us were almost on our hands and knees, gazing intently at this point barely off the floor, he might well have caught one of World War II’s more interesting photographs.

A short discussion followed, during which General Marshall asked me how I would ensure the capture of our objectives. I suggested that the necessary American troops, possibly as much as a reinforced corps, should cut diagonally across the advancing French front. Marshall agreed and sent for Major General J. E. Hull, Head of the Operations Division, War Department, General Staff, telling him to issue instructions to General Eisenhower that would take care of our requirements.

[…]

Since the war, I have had occasion to discuss Operation Harborage and other Alsos operations with a number of the officers who were involved. In the course of these discussions, I have made it a point to tell them how much I always appreciated the co-operation given my representatives throughout the European Theater, when the only justification that they had for their apparently outlandish requests were simple memoranda addressed “To Whom It May Concern,” signed by either Secretary Stimson, General Marshall, or in a few cases by Colonel Frank McCarthy, the Secretary of the General Staff, and stating that their mission was of the utmost importance and that the Secretary of War would appreciate any assistance that could be rendered. Invariably, I have been told that it was not a case of kindness on the part of anyone in the European Theater, for these letters were most unusual and they realized that the matters involved must be of paramount importance. But over and above this, I have always felt great pride and pleasure upon hearing from these same commanders that while my officers were far from high-ranking, they were obviously of such ability and so convinced of the importance of their mission and the strength of their backing that they would have accomplished their missions no matter what obstacles stood in their way.

[…]

The WIFO plant was seized quickly and without incident. It was in a terrible condition from repeated bombings, but fortunately the manager had stayed on the job. Hidden in his house was an inventory of the plant’s property, which showed the whereabouts of the missing ore. Approximately eleven hundred tons of it were soon found stored in barrels under open sheds above-ground.

Most of the barrels were either broken or rotten, and it was obvious that the ore would have to be repacked before it could be moved. Complicating the problem was the fact that there were still many German units in the area. Fortune smiled upon Lansdale’s group again when the CIC agents found a barrel factory close at hand. The owner of the plant, who was also the local burgomaster, was soon prevailed upon to round up a sufficient number of laborers and to resume operations. During the next two weeks, with Agent Schriver in charge, and while under intermittent enemy fire, this factory turned out about twenty thousand fruit barrels.

Lansdale, in the meantime, had gone back to SHAEF, where he saw General Smith, and procured the services of a truck company. Trucks were in great demand at this period and the men, all Negroes with one white lieutenant, were exhausted from lack of sleep. They were further handicapped by being far from their normal maintenance bases. Nevertheless, they performed splendidly, and with the use of forced labor to repack and load the ore, the entire tonnage was removed during three days and nights to an airport hangar at Hildes-heim, near Hanover, well behind the Allied lines. A small amount of the ore was lost en route because of the number of truck ditchings caused by the extremely rough roads.

[…]

Observing the ore’s hue and noting that it was escorted by Hambro, a member of a well-known London banking family, many of the British were convinced that it was gold.

From Hanover, a considerable tonnage was moved by air to England. There was too much, however, to carry all of it in this manner, so arrangements were made to move the remainder by rail to Antwerp about two hundred miles away, and thence by ship to England. The precautions for insuring its delivery proved inadequate and somewhere along the line, probably in a switching yard, three cars disappeared, but after an intensive search, Agent Schriver found them, much to our relief.

From England, the ore was sent over to the United States.

[…]

It was becoming apparent that there were two groups in Germany working on the uranium pile, the first under Diebner at Frankfurt and the second under Heisenberg. Heisenberg’s group had been started in 1939 as a co-operative project of the most important physicists in Germany, with headquarters at the Institute of Physics in Berlin. There had been a certain amount of competition between the two groups, and quarrels over who would get materials continued even after all research had been officially consolidated under Gerlach. In Gertner’s opinion, the work done under Diebner was not so good as that over which Heisenberg had supervision.

Having pretty well exhausted its Heidelberg sources, Alsos next turned its attention to the Frankfurt area, where the uranium metal required by the German project had been produced. It found there that the degrees of purity achieved were not particularly high.

Following closely behind the advancing American front, on April 12, Alsos moved in and seized Diebner’s laboratory and offices, which were located in an old schoolhouse. Pash’s people found, however, that the majority of the scientists, together with most of their documents, materials and equipment, had been evacuated on April 8, to carry on their work elsewhere. Nevertheless they picked up some uranium oxide, various pieces of equipment, an extensive physics laboratory and many files. From these last it appeared that Germany’s military interest had been aroused in early 1940 by the experiments of Hahn and Strassman. It had been suggested then that uranium could be used to form an explosive, as well as to serve as a source of energy. Work to this end had been started by Heisen-berg’s group in Berlin, using uranium ore from Joachimsthal, which had been transformed into powdered U-238. This attempt at making a pile, however, was unsuccessful, primarily, I believe, because of the clumsiness of the experimental equipment. Heisenberg’s group continued experiments with their apparatus until about the end of 1941, always with negative results. In spite of their failures, Heisen-berg and von Weizsäxcker calculated that by making a number of modifications to their equipment a self-sustaining pile could be built. The work was transferred to Leipzig, where, in 1942, a pile gave positive results, but was not self-sustaining. This led to the initiation late in 1942 of the so-called large-scale experiments at Berlin Dahlem. Finally, late in 1944, an exponential pile was constructed in Berlin. This, however, was what might be termed purely academic scientific experimentation.

[…]

Something had to be done, and, as usual, Pash did it. He asked for help, and General Harrison gave him operational control of the 1279th Engineer Combat Battalion. With this force he seized Haiger-loch on April 23 and immediately began dismantling the laboratory. Its major feature was the exponential pile, which had been brought there from Berlin in February and concealed in a tunnel under a high cliff. The Alsos detachment was greatly assisted by the arrival of a number of British scientists under the leadership of Sir Charles Hambro, and was able to complete its operations in Haigerloch before the French reached there.

In the meantime, Pash, with one company of the 1279th Engineers, moved on to Hechingen, which he captured on April 24. Efforts to take this town the night before had been strongly resisted, but the final attempt was virtually unopposed. Pash seized a large atomic physics laboratory and a number of the leading German physicists, including von Weizsäxcker and Wirtz.

The next morning he moved into Tailfingen, where they took over a large chemistry laboratory and captured Otto Hahn and Max von Laue. At Stadtilm, Alsos had found signed receipts for all the secret reports and documents that had been sent to the various scientists. But as the men were picked up, one by one, they all announced blandly that everything had been destroyed. Hahn, however, answered promptly, “I have them right here.”

The capture of Hahn was simple. A German on the street, when questioned, pointed the way to an old school building which contained his laboratory. After the school was surrounded by troops, F. A. C. Wardenburg and James Lane, both chemical engineers from du Pont and two of our Alsos scientific personnel, walked in and asked for Hahn. They were shown into his laboratory and started their interrogations. “It was just like a business call on a customer,” was their apt description. By now French Moroccan troops were in the area, yet the mission still had not found the German stores of heavy water and uranium oxide that had been used in the Haigerloch pile. Fortunately, the French were few in number, and the many German units scattered throughout the countryside kept them fully occupied while Alsos was getting its job done.

Skillful questioning of the German scientists by Goudsmit and his associates finally disclosed the hiding place of the heavy water and uranium and, on April 26, the heavy water was removed from the cellar of an old mill near Haigerloch and sent back to Paris. About one and a half tons of small metallic uranium cubes were dug up from a plowed field just outside the town. These, too, were quickly dispatched to Paris. Both water and uranium were then shipped to the U.S., to be disposed of by the Combined Development Trust.

On the twenty-seventh, the German scientists were taken to Heidelberg for further questioning, and later removed to Rheims. As they were in the act of leaving, von Weizsäxcker suddenly blurted out the information necessary to locate the still missing records of the German research programs. They were sealed in a metal drum, which had been deposited in the cesspool in back of von Weizsäxcker’s house.

By the end of April, Alsos was heavily engaged in mopping-up activities. Most of the material we wanted had been secured. A few important scientists — notably Heisenberg — still eluded us. But, generally, our principal concern at this point was to keep information and atomic scientists from falling into the hands of the Russians.

Self-help books for women vs. men aren’t selling the same story

Thursday, December 18th, 2025

Self-help books for women vs. men aren’t selling the same story, Rob Henderson notes:

If you walk through the self-help section and compare the books marketed to men with those aimed at women, the contrast is striking. The books for men tend to emphasize stoicism, discipline, and self-sufficiency: become more focused, toughen up, don’t let the world knock you off your path, no one is coming to save you. The message is essentially that you need to strengthen yourself and earn your way forward.

The books for women, by contrast, rarely begin with the idea that you’re lacking something that needs to be built. Instead, the theme is closer to: you’re already great, but you keep getting in your own way. The world hasn’t recognized your value because you haven’t fully accepted it yourself. The promise is that once you stop beating yourself up and embrace who you already are, others will see it too.

Two very different messages — one built around improvement, the other around affirmation.

France acquired a bargaining power out of all proportion to anything to which her early patents entitled her

Wednesday, December 17th, 2025

Now It Can Be Told by Leslie M. GrovesGeneral Groves explains (in Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project) the problem of the French scientists:

The circum­stances that made this possible go back to 1939, when a group of French scientists, working under Joliot’s leadership, had patented a number of inventions that they claimed would provide means for controlling the energy of the uranium atom. They assigned their rights in these patents to the Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, an agency of the French Government.

One of Joliot’s assistants in this work was Hans von Halban. In June of 1940, when France was collapsing under the German onslaught, von Halban had left for England, taking with him the entire French supply of heavy water, a number of scientific papers, and a verbal commission from Joliot to act for the Centre in attempting to obtain the best possible terms to protect future French interests in the atomic field.

[…]

At the same time, the British employed von Halban and three of his associates from the Centre, eventually, as I have said, assigning them to the laboratories of the Tube Alloys Project in Montreal. By 1944, a number of other Centre scientists had left France to join the Free French Provisional Government in Algiers. The French working in the Montreal laboratories maintained contact with their former colleagues in North Africa and, through them, with their former leader, Joliot, who remained in Paris throughout the German occupation.

[…]

Upon his return to London, von Halban was closely questioned by my agents about his discussions with Joliot and it became obvious, as we had expected, that he had not held the conversation within the bounds of any “barest outline.” Vital information relating to our research had been disclosed—information that had been developed by Americans with American money, and that had been given to the British only in accordance with interchange agreements subsidiary to the Quebec Agreement. It confirmed facts that Joliot might have suspected, but which he otherwise could not have known. This information had always been scrupulously regarded as top secret.

[…]

Having effected a breach in the Quebec Agreement, Joliot proceeded to exploit it. He met with the Chancellor in February, 1945, and made it clear to Sir John that, while France had no immediate desire to press the issue, if she were not eventually admitted to full collaboration with the United States and Britain in the project, she would have to turn to Russia.

Thus, France acquired a bargaining power out of all proportion to anything to which her early patents entitled her. She was enabled to play power politics with our accomplishments and to bring, or threaten to bring, Russia into the picture. The United States was forced to sit quietly by while a large measure of the military security that we had gone to such pains to maintain was endangered and prematurely compromised by the actions of other governments over which we had no control.

In May of 1945, the French Government instructed Joliot to begin work on an atomic energy project. Joliot turned to his colleague, Pierre Auger, who had been working in the Montreal laboratories. Anticipating our concern, the British hastened to assure us that Auger would not participate in the actual work, but would limit his activities strictly to putting the French back on the right line if they made any serious errors. While Dr. Chadwick and I were both confident of Auger’s integrity, we realized that naturally his greatest loyalty was to his own country.

[…]

My sole source of satisfaction in this affair came from a remark made by Joliot to an employee of the United States Embassy in Paris: while the British had always been most cordial to him and had given him much information, he said, he got virtually nothing from the Americans he encountered.

Virtually his only critics were Pinker, Judge Richard Posner, and Steve Sailer

Sunday, December 14th, 2025

It’s bizarre to think back to how intellectually prestigious Malcolm Gladwell was in the first decade of this century, Steve Sailer notes:

Virtually his only critics were Pinker, Judge Richard Posner, and myself.

I actually was moderately sympathetic to Gladwell because I bothered to understand his strengths and weaknesses.

The key to understanding Gladwell is to grasp that he is essentially a public relations professional of the kind that research universities employ to write press releases to make their professors’ academic papers more understandable to the upper middlebrow general audience. But Malcolm had somehow lucked into doing the same thing — punching up academic studies — for The New Yorker.

As I’ve pointed out several times, academic PR is a useful and honorable trade. I’ve frequently quoted PR specialists’ press releases about new papers rather than the original paper in a scholarly journal because the PR pro has emphasized the study’s most interesting finding, found vivid examples, added a little human interest, and otherwise provided amiable helps for us non-specialists. And he has the professor read it over before he sends it out to make sure he didn’t get anything too wrong.

The job is a little like being a trial lawyer in that you are supposed to make the best case for your client (in this case, the professor). But it’s less demanding because the other side isn’t employing a lawyer also trying to win the debate for his client.

Malcolm was extremely good at taking an academic’s technical research and polishing it up to be comprehensible and appealing to New Yorker subscribers.

A critical problem is one that people are willing to pay a considerable price to have solved

Wednesday, December 10th, 2025

Politics is nothing but an ocean of hyperbole, Bryan Caplan reminds us, as he cites this passage from Edward Banfield‘s 1974 classic, The Unheavenly City Revisited:

A great part of the wealth of our country is in the cities. When a mayor says that his city is on the verge of bankruptcy, he means that when the time comes to run for reelection he wants to be able to claim credit for straightening out a mess that was left to him by his predecessor. What he means when he says that his city must have state or federal aid to finance some improvements is (1) the taxpayers of the city (or some important group of them) would rather go without the improvements than pay for it themselves); or (2) although they would pay for it themselves if they had to, they would much prefer to have some other taxpayers pay for it. Rarely if ever does a mayor who makes such a statement mean (1) that for the city to pay for the improvement would necessarily force some taxpayers into poverty; or (2) that the city could not raise the money even if it were willing to force some of its taxpayers into poverty. In short, the “revenue crisis” mainly reflects the fact that people hate to pay taxes and that they think that by crying poverty they can shift some of the bill to someone else.

[…]

That we have not yet been willing to pay the price of solving, or alleviating such “problems” even when the price is a very small one suggests that they are not really critical. Indeed, one might say that, by definition, a critical problem is one that people are willing to pay a considerable price to have solved.

We just want every child to reach their full potential

Monday, December 8th, 2025

Freddie deBoer is exasperated with anti-hereditarians who talk as though Blank-Slatism is some reviled niche perspective, when in fact the blank slate represents the bipartisan and cross-ideological assumption that has dominated debate in education policy since before he was born:

Perhaps the reason I am so regularly exasperated with people like Hoel or Eric Turkheimer or any number of others in this conversation is because I have been marinated in the ed policy world for a long, long time, and in that world there is no debate at all: every child is capable of any academic outcome. There is no limit to what education can do. Go to your average charter school conference and the idea that individual students have any inherent or intrinsic academic tendency isn’t just unpopular, it will get you shouted out of the room. Try being a public school teacher of a 25th percentile student, telling his parents that it’s not realistic to hope to turn him into a 90th percentile student, and see how that goes for you professionally. Even if you can get people to concede that our goal shouldn’t be equality of educational outcomes, or even that students perhaps don’t all have perfectly equal potentials, such concessions will remain in the realm of the vague and the general.

(When I ask people if they think we should try to establish summative educational equality of outcomes, they say of course not, that’s a straw man, we just want every child to reach their full potential. When I ask if they think it would be alright if, say, 15% of students were a full standard deviation or more below the mean, they say that’s outrageous, we should never condone that level of failure! And it’s like, guys….)

The two most important American educational bills in the 21st century have been No Child Left Behind (bipartisan, signed by a Republican president) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (bipartisan, signed by a Democratic president). Those names are not coincidental or empty; they express exactly what the politicians who drafted them believed was possible. They reflect a cross-ideological and remarkably durable assumption in our education politics that all students can be pushed through the college-to-affluence pipeline. I wish people on the genetics research side of this debate would stop talking as though there’s some rigid hereditarian consensus when, in the ed policy world, there is in fact the exact opposite.

A cruise ship the size of a country

Saturday, December 6th, 2025

On his way to India last year, Bryan Caplan connected through Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and toured its sister-city, Dubai, too. He shares his reflections on the United Arab Emirates:

In cleanliness and crime, UAE rivals Japan.

[…]

The key ingredient of Emirati success: 88% of UAE’s population is foreign-born. That’s the highest share of any country on Earth.

[…]

I chatted with workers from both Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone. Yes, would-be migrant workers face a government approval process, so the border is not 100% open. But if you want to work hard to make a better life for yourself, your prospects of landing a work visa are decent no matter how humble your credentials.

Abu Dhabi and Dubai are living proof that Michael Clemens’ “Trillion Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk” is literal truth. Both cities look like Coruscant from Star Wars. They are absolute marvels: Gleaming cities of the future where humanity gathers to produce massive wealth. And without mass immigration, almost none of this could have been built!

[…]

In a country where everyone is rich, rich people would have to hire other rich people to clean their homes, cook their food, and watch their kids. In a nativist UAE, the only way to get good value for your money would be to leave the country!

[…]

A typical demagogue would have objected, “We don’t want to become a minority in our own homeland,” but Zayed boldly forged ahead — and created a cruise ship the size of a country. Since 1971, UAE’s population has grown from 280K people to 9.5 million. A miraculous multiple of 34x.

[…]

Most observers glowingly describe UAE’s overflowing welfare state. In a sense, they’re right.

[…]

In a more important sense, however, the UAE’s welfare state is admirably austere, because these lavish benefits are limited to Emirati citizens — and these citizens are a tiny minority of the population. If 88% of the residents of Sweden were ineligible for redistribution, no one would call it “a generous welfare state” — no matter how high the benefits for the remaining 12% happened to be.

[…]

Instead, the UAE has decisively Westernized two initially un-Western populations: native Arab Muslims and Third World migrants. How? By creating an economy dominated by Westernized multinationals. Though the Western population is low, their “soft power” has slowly but surely taken over the soul of the UAE. Verily, Western culture is a hardy weed.

[…]

“What about businesses withholding their workers’ passports?” That’s now illegal, and locals tell me the new law is well-enforced. But either way, it’s a rounding error. Foreign workers have phones, so what do you think they tell their friends and family back home? “Don’t come; they’ll confiscate your passport”? Or, “Definitely come; in five years you’ll return a rich man”?

Ponder this: If a foreigner causes problems in the UAE, the standard punishment is deportation. So how dire could the problem of withholding passports have ever been? The main function of the new UAE law is not to protect foreign workers from employers but to protect the UAE’s reputation from international muckrackers.

It’s living proof that “trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk” is not silly blackboard economics

Thursday, December 4th, 2025

Bryan Caplan argues that the so-called “cultural costs” of immigration would have to be astronomical to outweigh the tens of trillions of dollars of gains we’re forfeiting every year from restricting it:

And they’re clearly not. If natives really cared so much about their cultures, they would be migrating en masse to low-immigration areas of their countries. They aren’t.

[…]

Since they almost never do, we should infer that their cultural attachment is weak.

This first comment, from Torches Together, offers a British perspective:

The first point seems incredibly poorly thought through.

People very clearly do move away from high-immigration neighbourhoods! This is well documented in the UK and France at the population level.

White Britons tend to move to majority-white (95%+) areas in their 30s when having kids.

We also see macro-level shifts in the classic “white flight” cases: Bradford, Saint-Denis, Southall, Blackburn, Tower Hamlets. Entire neighbourhoods that were 99% White in the 1950s are now over 90% minority.

And the answer to the question “Why don’t people move across the country?” is already in the preceding paragraph. “Somewheres” are defined by attachment to place, not race or nation or ethnicity. If you’re from south London and you’re uneasy about the pace or nature of demographic change, your options typically look like:

1) Stay put – keep your attachment to place, with less attachment to the area’s shifting ethnic profile. Quite common.; 2) Move nearby to somewhere whiter but still kinda “your area” (Essex is the classic example) – also common. 3) Move across the country to somewhere 99+% white – this is less common because you have no attachments there!

Living near productive people is attractive to other productive people and to parasites.

Bryan offers the straightforward economic solution no one seems to consider:

If the problem is negative externalities, then the usual Pigovian logic applies: Governments should measure these negative externalities — remembering to subtract any positive externalities — then impose an immigration tax of equal magnitude. Anyone who pays the tax gets in.

A tax on work visas would resolve many issues — as would stricter enforcement of ordinary laws:

I keep “gushing” [about the United Arab Emirates] because it’s living proof that “trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk” is not silly blackboard economics. Emirates is a cruise ship the size of a country, where the world’s poorest and richest come together for the betterment of both. The West is demonstrably missing a golden opportunity to enrich their citizens and humanity by tens of trillions of dollars.

The US lacks the will to enforce the rules that would make mass immigration feasible.

And the handsome sleeping lieutenants were massacred

Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025

Wind, Sand And Stars by Antoine de Saint-ExupéryDavid Foster sees a murderous parallel between the recent D.C. shooter and this passage from St-Exupery’s Wind, Sand, and Stars:

I had known el Mammun when he was our vassal. Loaded with official honors for services rendered, enriched by the French Government and respected by the tribes, he seemed to lack for nothing that belonged to the state of an Arab prince. And yet one night, without a sign of warning, he had massacred all the French officers in his train, had seized camels and rifles, and had fled to rejoin the refractory tribes in the interior.

Treason is the name given to these sudden uprisings, these flights at once heroic and despairing of a chieftain henceforth proscribed in the desert, this brief glory that will go out like a rocket against the low wall of European carbines. This sudden madness is properly a subject for amazement. And yet the story of el Mammun was that of many other Arab chiefs. He grew old. Growing old, one begins to ponder. Pondering thus, el Mammun discovered one night that he had betrayed the God of Islam and had sullied his hand by sealing in the hand of the Christians a pact in which he had been stripped of everything.

Indeed what were barley and peace to him? A warrior disgraced and become a shepherd, he remembered a time when he had inhabited a Sahara where each fold in the sands was rich with hidden mysteries; where forward in the night the tip of the encampment was studded with sentries; where the news that spread concerning the movements of the enemy made all hearts beat faster round the night fires. He remembered a taste of the high seas which, once savored by man, is never forgotten. And because of his pact he was condemned to wander without glory through a region pacified and voided of all prestige. Then, truly and for the first time, the Sahara became a desert.

It is possible that he was fond of the officers he murdered. But love of Allah takes precedence.

“Good night, el Mammun.”

“God guard thee!”

The officers rolled themselves up in their blankets and stretched out upon the sand as on a raft, face to the stars. High overhead all the heavens were wheeling slowly, a whole sky marking the hour. There was the moon, bending towards the sands, and the Frenchmen, lured by her tranquility into oblivion, fell asleep. A few minutes more, and only the stars gleamed. And then, in order that the corrupted tribes be regenerated into their past splendor, in order that there begin again those flights without which the sands would have no radiance, it was enough that these Christians drowned in their slumber send forth a feeble wail. Still a few seconds more, and from the irreparable will come forth an empire.

And the handsome sleeping lieutenants were massacred.