LaRouche believed his SDI caused the Berlin Wall to fall (and incidentally the end of the Soviet empire):
« What caused it? The SDI. What caused it? Well, in a larger sense, I caused it. Well, here I sit in jail, as a reward for setting into motion the process which successfully cracked the Soviet-Communist empire, without war.» (1)
YET, Larouche et al said in 1988:
"...the reality is, that despite its technological successes, the program is being gutted beyond the point of feasibility within the decade." (2)
In other words: LaRouche's SDI (which didn't exist in 1988) cracked the Soviet Empire in 1989!
Rev. Sun Myung Moon also believes he cracked the Soviet Empire:
Reagan and Bo Hi Pak (Rev. Moon #2)
Maybe this marked a rapprochement between LaRouche and Rev. Moon when Rev. Bevel (a Moonie) ran as LaRouche vice presidential candidate in 1992...
|08-14-2012, 03:21 PM|
Can you some of you guys where in NCLC at the time, review this SDI nonsense? E. Teller denies the whole thing, having had words with Larouche at some conference or other. It's pretty out even for LL to make this claim.
|08-14-2012, 05:08 PM|
Conceptual History of the Labor Committees (a continuing series)
Lyn claimed to be the "conceptual author" (sometimes the "intellectual author") of the SDI because the Labor Committee campaigned for "beam weapons" or "e-beam weapons" starting in the late 1970s (see Sputnik of the Seventies: The Science Behind the Soviets’ Beam Weapon, the “U.S. Labor Party” pamphlet of 1977 http://wlym.com/archive/fusion/c-sr/1977-Sputnik.pdf --although of course we were completely full of prunes about the Soviets having beam weapons, as Lyn was always full of prunes about Soviet military and scientific capacity).
But with Lyn’s claims, you would have thought that he had schooled Edward Teller.
The truth is that Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb (whom we attacked for years as a fascist flunky of Nelson Rockefeller; obviously, Teller’s being Jewish was just one more strike against him in Lyn’s eyes)--anyhow, Teller and other scientists and strategists were contemplating this while Lyn was having still another breakdown/breakthrough looking into the bowels of thermonuclear hell (standard leaflet phraseology c. 1975-76).
We simply picked up the “SDI” concept from those scientists and strategists, through our own scientists, the long-ago-dropped-out Moe Levitt and Steve Bardwell, among others.
For example: the notion that became the SDI was part of the Republican Party Platform of 1980, during the Reagan-Carter presidential race.
So, no, when Reagan announced its adoption on March 23, 1983, sending LaRouche into paroxysms of world-historicity, he didn't do that because of LaRouche, for heaven's sake. He did that because these people had been PLANNING IT--the scientists and strategists, etc. who had been discussing it for years.
When we (Chuck Stevens, e.g.) tried to get friendly with Teller in that period, tried to cozy up to him, after years of attacking him vituperatively, he was understandably cold.
A similar thing had happened earlier with Dixy Lee Ray, former head of the AEC and later Governor of Washington State, whom we attacked as a lesbian (the LaRouche org may or may not be homophobic now, but in the 1970s and 1980s, they were putting the -phobe in homophobia). We said unprintable things about her--except we printed them.
Then we wondered why she took some time to warm up to us when we changed our line on something or other and wanted her to like us.
In short: The only thing the LC did that was connected with the SDI was to campaign for "beam weapons"--a component of the SDI.
Lyn and the Labor Committee claimed that Lyn had taught Ronald Reagan the importance of the SDI, and of course they had that photo of Lyn and Reagan taken in New Hampshire during the 1980 primary to prove it (http://www.schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2004/april-june/lar_reagan.html). After all, if they had a photo taken together, they must be intimates, is it not?
But, put simply, Lyn didn't come up with the idea—any more than he has come up with any of the ideas he has endeavored to cannibalize.
However, he certainly spent a lot of time attacking others who were involved in supporting variants of it (like Daniel Graham and his High Frontier operation).
Strangely, despite Lyn’s best efforts to claim that he, and not Danny Graham, Edward Teller, et al., had educated Reagan on the SDI, Reagan never acknowledged his “debt” to LaRouche.
He did write and speak warmly of Graham, though, and highlighted Graham’s role in the development of the SDI (a role LaRouche, with all his usual grace, bitterly disputed). Emphasis in the quotes below is mine, and the source for the quotes is http://users.erols.com/hifront/hf_reagan_letters.html:
I. Reagan Phone Remarks on 10th Anniversary of Adoption of SDI: "As you know, Dan, you and I were talking about missile defense before you set up High Frontier in September of '81.... You and a small group of dedicated, determined people helped us move the SDI concept over all the roadblocks put up by people of less vision and belief in American capacity. God bless you!"
II. Excerpts of Reagan letter to Danny Graham:
I appreciate the important work that you and your colleagues have done to prepare the way for a more secure America….
You, and all those who have made the High Frontier project a reality, have rendered our country an invaluable service for which all future generations will be grateful. I value greatly your continuing efforts to help us build a national consensus and to find the difficult answers for the profound strategic problems that face all of us in this nuclear age.
We have a great opportunity and challenge before us in making nuclear weapons obsolete and I truly appreciate your special efforts in attaining that goal.
God bless you!
|08-14-2012, 05:14 PM|
Another useful source for stuff about the SDI--
I notice that this shows Teller briefing Reagan that the Soviets had made advances in beam weapons--for the sake of accuracy I report this, because I implied above that we were nuts on that issue.
We were, of course, nuts on that issue--but it is worth making clear that Teller was worried about it too and was many percentage points less nuts.
|08-14-2012, 08:22 PM|
Danny Graham was an opponent of beam weapons. His proposal, the one that the Reagan Administration actually adopted, was a missile defense based on off the shelf technologies, missiles and other projectiles. Teller and the Labor Committees were both calling for a crash Manhattan Project style effort to develop Beam Weapons and other anti-missile technologies based on new physical principles. If the Reagan Administration had really done this, we would probably have commercial Fusion Power today.
|08-14-2012, 08:34 PM|
|08-14-2012, 09:13 PM|
As Lyn Sees It
For your greater convenience in toeing the LaRouche line, let's avoid Poe and go straight to the horse's ... mouth. I have emphasized a few things here, as you can see. I especially like the part where Lyn lets Teller "figure in" his SDI, and the part where Lyn reveals his world-shaking back-channeling with the Soviets.
I notice that Lyn doesn't mention the wistful notion of having fusion power by now, if only.... Meanwhile, let's recall that a key issue between LHL and Danny Graham was the issue of space-based vs. earth-based defensive weapons.
I also notice that Lyn appears to criticize Teller for NOT demanding a Manhattan Project-style crash project. Oh well.
This article appeared in the December 22, 2000 issue of Executive Intelligence Review magazine, http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2000/2750_teller.html
The Fraud Against Edward Teller
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
December 9, 2000
I have read two, related hoaxes, which rewarm the old frauds against the SDI which were circulated by now deceased Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Daniel P. Graham and his Heritage Foundation accomplices back during the 1982-1984 interval. The first of these is a piece titled "The Odd Couple and the Bomb," authored by London School of Economics graduate in politics William Lanouette, which appeared in the November 2000 edition of Scientific American. A more disreputable hoax, crafted by one T.A. Heppenheimer, appeared in the Winter 2001 edition of the periodical Invention and Technology. The political significance of this pair of hoaxes now, is their bearing upon the current geopolitical rage paraded as current proposals for nuclear ballistic missile defense. Both are, revealingly, attacks upon the original SDI policy.
Lanouette's hoax is a puff piece for the memory of Bertrand Russell cat's-paw Leo Szilard, and, thus, a cover-up of the legacies of such Szilard accomplices as the late John J. McCloy, McGeorge Bundy, and Bundy's lackey Henry A. Kissinger. Heppenheimer's hoax is the relatively more interesting of the two, chiefly because it is even worse: more anti-scientific than Lanouette's elimination of all reference to the fact, that in all relevant matters touched upon in that article, no mention is made of the actual authors of the nuclear-weapons doctrine, that created by H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, on behalf of which Szilard was steered, every step of the way, by his master, Russell. Heppenheimer's vicious and fraudulent attack upon Dr. Edward Teller requires a bit more explanation. Since I was a central figure in opposition to the way in which the Heritage Foundation set up Teller and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, I am better situated than the principals of that laboratory to pin-point the nature of the hoax perpetrated by Invention and Technology magazine.
The original design of SDI was a product of my initiatives of the 1977-1983 interval, into which Dr. Teller figured, from Autumn 1982 onward. Although the name of "Strategic Defense Initiative" first appeared in President Ronald Reagan's address of March 23, 1983, what became known as the policy of SDI was first publicized by me in a widely attended Washington, D.C. conference of mid-February 1982, and presented in a widely circulated attack on Henry A. Kissinger's détente policies, which first appeared in print during March 1982. From no later than Summer 1982, I came under frantic attacks by a Daniel Graham then deployed as a stooge for the Mont Pelerin Society's Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation. During the Autumn of 1982, Graham's bile was also directed against Dr. Teller.
President Reagan's initial version of SDI was consistent with what I had introduced into U.S.-Soviet back-channel discussions over the period beginning February 1982. However, immediately thereafter, the mice went to work. Daniel Graham, the leading opponent of SDI up to that time, now proclaimed himself the virtual author of the policy, and was used, thereafter, to remove all of the crucial elements from the original policy.
A critical turning-point came during the Summer of 1983, when a compromise was reached between the partisans of Graham and Dr. Teller. Graham, typical of his personal character (or, lack thereof), attempted to use his peace-agreement with Teller to attack me publicly, presenting Teller, by fraudulent cropping of a letter which Teller had issued, as having repudiated Teller's own disagreements with Graham. Graham's fraud resulted in a temporary patch-up of relations between me and the circles of Dr. Teller.
Meanwhile, many among the key backers of SDI from inside the Reagan Administration, were shunted aside, excepting, as a discomfitted Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev was reminded in October 1986, the President himself. Under the de facto peace-treaty between the Heritage Foundation and Lawrence Livermore Lab, the laboratory was boxed into what proved to be a predictably untenable position. The predictable result, was the circumstance used by Heppenheimer's fraudulent account.
How the Hoax Was Done
The original design of SDI was premised upon two crucial premises: 1) the necessity of seeking cooperation from the Soviet Union, and 2) that the realization of the goals of strategic ballistic missile defense would depend upon a quality of relevant "crash scientific program" whose economic spill-overs would reverse the current depressing trends in the world's per-capita physical productivity. Even after Andropov's peremptory, irrational rejection of President Reagan's proffer, the President and I typified, in our respective statements, a continuing commitment to reaching the point at which the Soviet Union would change its posture and agree.
The fatal error of Teller and Lawrence Livermore Lab, was never scientific; it was political. Instead of sticking to their guns, and insisting that only a "crash scientific program" of the type of the Manhattan Project, for example, could gain the performance projected for SDI, they allowed themselves to be boxed in politically, to putting up a few selected hardware targets as the basis on which the validity of methods other than Heritage's axiomatically incompetent insistence upon "kinetic weapons only" could be "justified." Lawrence Livermore National Lab's "brilliant pebbles" is an example of the fruits of submission to that rotten political compromise. Thus, the feasible X-ray laser conception was reduced to a specific framework of development and testing, the kind of target which no scientific program would ever tolerate. The result was predictable, and intended by the Heritage Foundation side.
The key to understanding how and why this hoax was perpetrated by the pro-Heritage faction's demands upon Lawrence Livermore National Lab, lies in recognizing the fully witting character of the fraud by the Heritage gang. The U.S.A. has never, yet, produced a competent design of a strategic ballistic missile defense, and, under present policies, never could, and never actually intended to do so. From the beginning, in 1982, Graham never really claimed anything different. Graham's argument was pure double-dipping, to create a bonanza for existing arms manufacturers, by enriching their opportunities for peddling their existing, off-the-shelf sales!
Only a "science-driver crash program" could do what SDI proposed to do, and every competent authority in the world, including "crash program" veteran Dr. Teller, knew that. The minute SDI was degraded to a specific set of hardware, rather than a continuing development program, the technical success of the program was foredoomed to fail. Thus, by its Summer 1983 "peace agreement" with Graham's crowd, Lawrence Livermore National Lab set itself up for the trap which the enemies of SDI then closed.
In my opinion, Teller made no scientific error; he sacrificed himself on the altar of politics, in the effort to save the continued existence of Lawrence Livermore National Lab (his people) from the vengeance of Lawrence Livermore National Lab's enemies.
This returns us, in conclusion, to the relevant implications of Scientific American's hoax. The Mont Pelerin Society is the world's leading political spokesman for the political-philosophical standpoint of the nuclear-weapons policy created jointly by H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell. The objective was always "world government," exactly as Russell had agreed publicly and fully to the political basis for the nuclear-weapons doctrine of H.G. Wells, as expressed in Wells' The Open Conspiracy. The purpose, as Russell summed this up in the September 1946 edition of Szilard's The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, was to use the threat of nuclear terror to bully the nations of the world into giving up their sovereignty, and accepting rule by a new global Roman empire, called "world government."
It was Russell's lackey Szilard who, at the 1958 Quebec conference of Pugwash, laid out the doctrine which became the life's work of such figures as McCloy, Bundy, and Kissinger. Build up the threat of a general barrage of thermonuclear ballistic missiles, but prohibit the development of any competent defense against such a barrage. This was not a policy born during the post-World War II period; it was already Wells' stated nuclear-weapons policy prior to World War I, and dominated the Solvay conferences' Russell-led efforts to suppress crucial lines of scientific progress, during the 1920s.
Neither then, nor now, does any political force, inside or outside the U.S.A., which is allied politically with the Mont Pelerin Society, intend to develop and deploy any capability for actually defending nations against nuclear ballistic missile assault. Russell's crew acted to suppress the development of nuclear physics during the 1920s, and in the 1930s turned to organize nuclear weapons-policy as an instrument for creating world government. Atoms For Peace, never; atoms for world government, always.
Daniel Graham's only interest in ballistic missile defense, was to create for Wall Street's defense contractors but another opportunity to loot the public till. What poor wretches Lanouette and Heppenheimer appear to be, when the facts are taken adequately into account.
|08-14-2012, 09:24 PM|
He criticizes Teller for "not sticking to his guns" and demanding a Manhattan Project-style crash project. In other words, he says that Teller supported such an effort, but capitulated.
|08-14-2012, 10:26 PM|
All, thank you for your responses to this SDI thing. Fascinating, really. Teller, BTW, was asked directly about his relationship with LHL and he said he exchanged a few words with him at one point during this period but basically noted LHL played no role at all.
I don't think 'we have Fusion by now' had they gone the particle way. In fact, there is a question in physics (I work with the American Nuclear Society) that actual beam weapons have the same problem all LINACS (linear accelerators do) which is staying power. The beams are famous for "interrupting" that is, conking out. Creating a steady beam with LINACS is still a work in progress. At the Thorium Energy Conference last year at CCNY we were given many talks by the Brookhaven and Los Alamos boys over this.Just say'n...
|08-15-2012, 03:52 AM|
LaRouche's SDI fraud
LaRouche isn't mentioned in any of the official accounts on the development of SDI. "Way Out There in the Blue" by Francis Fitzgerald, and "Teller's War" by William J. Broad, are two non-LaRouche sources on the development of SDI, and neither book mentions LaRouche. According to these sources Edward Teller was the author of SDI, and the key influence in getting it adopted by Reagan. Both men envisioned SDI as an American-only project, that was pushed publicly partly as propaganda to frighten the Soviets. LaRouche's vision of American/Soviet collaboration was never on the table, and Reagan would have opposed such an approach. I know in the late 70s FEF put out the book "Beam Weapons" before Reagan had taken office, and LaRouche had spoken with Reagan at one of the candidates debates during the 1980 election, and had some contacts within the administration, but I think LaRouche is reinventing history and attempting to give himself more credit than he deserves for SDI, which turns out to have been an huge waste of government money spent on a project that was scientifically unachievable based on the technology of the time.
1. LAROUCHE'S SDI POLICY CRACKED THE SOVIET EMPIRE;, by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.; EIR;, June 29, 1990.
2. Will the SDI survive? a political question ElK March 11, 1988
3. "When Andropov Played Hamlet" by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.; April 21, 2000 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.