Scan barcode
bennought's review
5.0
Yet again, Rhodes has completed a magisterial piece of scholarship on the history of nuclear weapons. The first two books ([b:The Making of the Atomic Bomb|16884|The Making of the Atomic Bomb|Richard Rhodes|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1298415987s/16884.jpg|105195] and [b:Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb|16889|Dark Sun The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb|Richard Rhodes|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1166761879s/16889.jpg|2730465]) chronicle the creation of the atomic and hydrogen bombs. In 'Arsenals of Folly,' Rhodes tracks the history of nuclear proliferation and the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR following the end of the Second World War. With his characteristic lucid and captivating prose, the author captures and explains the personalities of the major players (especially Reagan and Gorbachev) and exposes the convoluted logic behind nuclear deterrence. Despite the fact that his vehement anti-nuclear opinions are readily apparent throughout the book, there is no question that Rhodes's scholarship and research are of the highest caliber. Just as the first two books are some of the best histories of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, this book is clearly one of the most important and insightful chronicles of the arms race. Richard Rhodes is one of the best authors and scholars of our time, and anyone with any interest in nuclear physics/chemistry, the history of nuclear power, or the nuclear arms race needs to read his books.
socraticgadfly's review
5.0
Richard Rhodes moves from more general nuclear weapons issues of "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and "Dark Sun" to here take a skeptical and insightful look at details of arms negotiations issues in specific. Since the biggest deals took place after Gorbachev became Soviet leader, and he was a new leader for that country, Rhodes begins by giving an autobiographical sketch of him. Since Reagan was the U.S. president who had the most direct dealings with him, and set the floor for Bush Senior, he gets a sketch, too.
Unfortunately, we just get a thumbnail of Richard Perle. The "Prince of Darkness," Rhodes shows, earned his nickname long before the Project for a New American Century and the invasion of Iraq. Rhodes documents well how Perle, and other neoconservatives, not only wanted to wreck arms-reduction deals with Gorbachev, but went out of their way to present false options, distort or even straight-out lie about evidence and more. (Rhodes spells out one case where a still-unknown Reagan Administration person at Reykjavik told a direct lie about a Soviet position on an issue.) Arguably, such service to ideology before country comes close to the spirit, if not the letter, of treason. And, so, it's no wonder that many people claim Rhodes demonizes Reagan (a Reagan of myth), hates America, etc. Nothing's farther from the truth.
In fact, Rhodes loves America enough to wonder, at the end of the book, just how much we, as well as the Soviets, LOST due to the Cold War. Eisenhower already noted this in his "military-industrial complex" warnings. He notes that, while not as militarized as the USSR, American could fairly be described as militarized to some degree. And, though he doesn't move beyond the end of the Cold War, by noting that Dick Cheney refused to think of a "peace dividend" through cutting defense spending at the end of the Cold War, Rhodes leaves the reader to realize that is still true today.
In reality, this is more a 4-star than a 5-star book, but, as on Amazon, it needs a 5-star rating to offset the types of reviews that do everything but mention "Comrade Rhodes."
Unfortunately, we just get a thumbnail of Richard Perle. The "Prince of Darkness," Rhodes shows, earned his nickname long before the Project for a New American Century and the invasion of Iraq. Rhodes documents well how Perle, and other neoconservatives, not only wanted to wreck arms-reduction deals with Gorbachev, but went out of their way to present false options, distort or even straight-out lie about evidence and more. (Rhodes spells out one case where a still-unknown Reagan Administration person at Reykjavik told a direct lie about a Soviet position on an issue.) Arguably, such service to ideology before country comes close to the spirit, if not the letter, of treason. And, so, it's no wonder that many people claim Rhodes demonizes Reagan (a Reagan of myth), hates America, etc. Nothing's farther from the truth.
In fact, Rhodes loves America enough to wonder, at the end of the book, just how much we, as well as the Soviets, LOST due to the Cold War. Eisenhower already noted this in his "military-industrial complex" warnings. He notes that, while not as militarized as the USSR, American could fairly be described as militarized to some degree. And, though he doesn't move beyond the end of the Cold War, by noting that Dick Cheney refused to think of a "peace dividend" through cutting defense spending at the end of the Cold War, Rhodes leaves the reader to realize that is still true today.
In reality, this is more a 4-star than a 5-star book, but, as on Amazon, it needs a 5-star rating to offset the types of reviews that do everything but mention "Comrade Rhodes."
morgan_blackledge's review
4.0
Arsenals of Folly (the third installment of Richard Rhodes trilogy on the rise and fall of nuclear weapons) documents the apex of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union.
I was a teenager during the 1980's, when many of the events in this book occurred. My personal experience of that time was defined by anxiety and uncertainty about the future due to the nuclear threat. My adolescent take on all of it was that the leaders of America and the Soviet Union were evil villains who were drunk with greed and power and who wanted to bring on Armageddon.
This book reconsiders that time from the reasonable adult perspective.
As it turns out, all that madness didn't happen because of good and evil, heroes and villains or any of that mellow dramatic nonsense.
It happened because the mostly sane, largely competent human beings on both sides were doing the best they could to do the right thing, protect the people and preserve there way of life.
Everyone involved lived through the horrors of WWII. It's easy to forget what actually went down in WWII. Just how awful and terrifying all of that must have been. The Cold War happened in the wake of 20-80 million war related deaths. This book does a terrific job of humanizing all of that.
Takin as a whole, the trilogy is absolutely excellent. This book is probably the weakest of the three and it's still awesome and completely worth it.
Do your self a serious solid and read the whole trilogy, beginning with the deservedly Pulitzer Prize winning The Making Of The Atomic Bomb, followed by the equally awesome Dark Sun: The Making Of The Hydrogen Bomb, and capped off by this one Arsenals Of Folly.
Read them all.
You won't be sorry.
I was a teenager during the 1980's, when many of the events in this book occurred. My personal experience of that time was defined by anxiety and uncertainty about the future due to the nuclear threat. My adolescent take on all of it was that the leaders of America and the Soviet Union were evil villains who were drunk with greed and power and who wanted to bring on Armageddon.
This book reconsiders that time from the reasonable adult perspective.
As it turns out, all that madness didn't happen because of good and evil, heroes and villains or any of that mellow dramatic nonsense.
It happened because the mostly sane, largely competent human beings on both sides were doing the best they could to do the right thing, protect the people and preserve there way of life.
Everyone involved lived through the horrors of WWII. It's easy to forget what actually went down in WWII. Just how awful and terrifying all of that must have been. The Cold War happened in the wake of 20-80 million war related deaths. This book does a terrific job of humanizing all of that.
Takin as a whole, the trilogy is absolutely excellent. This book is probably the weakest of the three and it's still awesome and completely worth it.
Do your self a serious solid and read the whole trilogy, beginning with the deservedly Pulitzer Prize winning The Making Of The Atomic Bomb, followed by the equally awesome Dark Sun: The Making Of The Hydrogen Bomb, and capped off by this one Arsenals Of Folly.
Read them all.
You won't be sorry.
gregbrown's review
4.0
Fascinating book, and a great follow-up to his earlier two nuke books, but man is it bewildering to start the first 60 pages with an account of Chernobyl and a bio of Gorbachev. Just start it chronologically in the 1960s! It turns out he’s really not setting anything up for later, or accomplishing anything that couldn’t have been incorporated into the book when he does arrive back in the ‘80s later on. It just comes off as noodling around, or an abridged and aborted separate book that was folded into this one.
Otherwise great, and an excellent bridge between The Doomsday Machine and The Dead Hand in terms of nuclear strategy and proliferation. Highly recommended.
Otherwise great, and an excellent bridge between The Doomsday Machine and The Dead Hand in terms of nuclear strategy and proliferation. Highly recommended.
joncoughlin's review
5.0
As Reagan and Gorbachev stood, diametrically opposed on the ban of space-based arms, a member of the Soviet delegation pleaded with the men, prophesying if future generations were to realize they had come within a single word, that day, of an agreement to rid the world of nuclear weapons but failed, that they would never be forgiven; and so we should not.
Arsenals of Folly is full of these moments, as if the history of attempted nuclear disarmament were lived dramatically enough for unembellished representation on the silver screen. And of course it was; the United States sent its top Hollywood star. Rhodes is not impressed by the head of state, but neither, apparently, was anyone else in Reagan's close vicinity. Aides laughed at his complete ignorance of international affairs upon taking office, and his briefings, typically written, were converted to film - the only medium through which the President could retain information - and Gorbachev wondered, in regards to Reagan's constant insistence that his Space Defense Initiative (SDI) was a direct analogy to an archetypal, primitive shield, if the man had, in a previous incarnation, invented the shield himself. The President maintained a dogmatic loyalty to the right of the United States to develop a "gas mask" in the form of SDI, another of his favorite analogies for "Star Wars," the more appropriate analogy of infinitely expensive lasers in space that was adopted colloquially, shouting at Gorbachev in that final closed door negotiation in Reykjavik, "I don't understand why you are opposed to us having a gas mask!"
Reagan, Rhodes makes clear, was a man incapable of thinking beyond the biblical complexities of allegory and parable, and thus failed to grasp the clear and inevitable path from space-based defensive armaments to space-based offensive weapons, thus dooming the considerable domestic maneuverings of his Soviet counterpart to prepare entrenched nuclear industrial interested for their disbandment. However pure Reagan's heart, in his seemingly sincerely expressed desire to rid the world of nuclear arms, it is a tragedy for humanity that the United States couldn't send someone more sound of mind.
As the United States teeters on the verge of war with Iran over another failing of a Republican president to embrace the safety of the world through practical diplomatic compromise, Arsenals of Folly's dissection of the end of the Cold War is an unsettling first chapter in the forty year abandonment of intellectualism in the Republican party.
Arsenals of Folly is full of these moments, as if the history of attempted nuclear disarmament were lived dramatically enough for unembellished representation on the silver screen. And of course it was; the United States sent its top Hollywood star. Rhodes is not impressed by the head of state, but neither, apparently, was anyone else in Reagan's close vicinity. Aides laughed at his complete ignorance of international affairs upon taking office, and his briefings, typically written, were converted to film - the only medium through which the President could retain information - and Gorbachev wondered, in regards to Reagan's constant insistence that his Space Defense Initiative (SDI) was a direct analogy to an archetypal, primitive shield, if the man had, in a previous incarnation, invented the shield himself. The President maintained a dogmatic loyalty to the right of the United States to develop a "gas mask" in the form of SDI, another of his favorite analogies for "Star Wars," the more appropriate analogy of infinitely expensive lasers in space that was adopted colloquially, shouting at Gorbachev in that final closed door negotiation in Reykjavik, "I don't understand why you are opposed to us having a gas mask!"
Reagan, Rhodes makes clear, was a man incapable of thinking beyond the biblical complexities of allegory and parable, and thus failed to grasp the clear and inevitable path from space-based defensive armaments to space-based offensive weapons, thus dooming the considerable domestic maneuverings of his Soviet counterpart to prepare entrenched nuclear industrial interested for their disbandment. However pure Reagan's heart, in his seemingly sincerely expressed desire to rid the world of nuclear arms, it is a tragedy for humanity that the United States couldn't send someone more sound of mind.
As the United States teeters on the verge of war with Iran over another failing of a Republican president to embrace the safety of the world through practical diplomatic compromise, Arsenals of Folly's dissection of the end of the Cold War is an unsettling first chapter in the forty year abandonment of intellectualism in the Republican party.
teeler's review
3.0
I feel like there aware lots of people that this book would appeal to; I’m just not one of them. I was hoping for a more in-depth explanation as to the logistics & engineering behind the nuclear arms race.
unionmack's review
4.0
If this book is any indication of Rhodes’ ability to write about the race to create nuclear technology—and I assume it is given he won a Pulitzer for another book like this about making the first atom bomb—then I’ll be returning to his work often. Some of my favorite books about history or political issues are the ones that take issues I’m only somewhat interested in going in and then totally enthralling me. Perhaps Rhodes’ greatest strength is centering his work on the characters involved rather than the technology itself. This is less a book about what happened in the arms race and more about why it did with the people who it did. It’s pretty epic in scope but the majority of it focuses on Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev—he paints both of them in shades of nuanced critique and cautious praise. Really enjoyed it, even if the story it tells is all the more terrifying given how totally unnecessary so much of it was.