Review of “A Fiery Peace in a Cold War” by Neil Sheehan

Note: This book is reviewed by my husband Jim.

Neil Sheehan is considered a “giant” among journalists: the reporter who obtained the Pentagon Papers for the New York Times, and the author of a Pulitzer Prize winning book on Vietnam, A Bright Shining Lie. This book by Sheehan is a fascinating look at the background drama of another major act in American history.

6377338

Military men seldom become famous except through their exploits in war. However, perhaps the most important military “event” of the twentieth century was the one that didn’t happen — the nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Much has been written about the statesmen and politicians who helped avoid Armageddon, but very little has been written about the soldiers, scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs who developed the weapons, tactics, and strategy that made such a conflict unthinkable. A Fiery Peace in a Cold War is a tale of the people behind the evolution of the weapons and strategy that became Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), the doctrine that kept the Cold War cold until the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The United States enjoyed a brief monopoly of atomic bombs from 1945 until 1949, when the U.S.S.R. detonated its own uranium and plutonium bombs. Five-star Army General Hap Arnold, the head of the U.S. Air Force at the end of WWII, had the vision to recognize the importance of science and technology for driving the defensive strategy of the U.S. in the atomic age. He also recognized the talents of a colonel with an advanced degree in Aeronautical Engineering, Bernard “Bennie” Schriever, a German immigrant who fought with the U.S. in World War II. Arnold picked Schriever to head the development of the ultimate military weapon – one which would deter war rather than be used in war – the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) armed with a thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb.

Maj. Gen. Bernard Schriever on the cover of Time Magazine,  Apr. 1, 1957

Maj. Gen. Bernard Schriever on the cover of Time Magazine, Apr. 1, 1957

Sheehan’s writing is crisp and lucid. His description of the differences between uranium and plutonium bombs takes only one paragraph, yet it explains the reason why early production of the bombs was so meager [shortage of uranium, slow separation of U-235 from U-238 by gas diffusion] and the importance of the implosion concept for plutonium bombs [to avoid spontaneous fission from impurities].

Sheehan blames some of the frigidity of the early Cold War on a “misreading” of Stalin. Like the British Marxist historian Isaac Deutscher, he sees Stalin as a monster (on that, there is little to disagree about), but “he was not an expansionist monster in the likeness of Hitler,” as portrayed by George Kennan (an extremely influential American advisor on the Soviet Union). Where Kennan saw a “fanatical revolutionary,” Sheehan considers Stalin to have been a more complex mixture of genuine Marxist faith, cynicism, Realpolitik calculation, suspicion, and cruelty. In Sheehan’s view, it was in part the psychological insecurity of some U.S. leaders that led to the country’s distorted view of Stalin. Moreover, Sheehan characterizes Dean Acheson, Truman’s Secretary of State, as “an intellectual primitive” when it came to communism.

Dean G. Acheson, U.S. Secretary of State, January 21, 1949 to January 20, 1953

Dean G. Acheson, U.S. Secretary of State, January 21, 1949 to January 20, 1953

Once the Russians (likewise saddled with some influential but intellectually primitive careerists in its military and diplomatic corps) had their own atomic bomb and the Korean War had shown that at least some communists were expansionistic, the trillion dollar arms race between the two super powers began in earnest. The first key strategic decision for American military planners was to devise a method of delivering atomic bombs to Russia. By the early 1950’s, Hap Arnold had retired and his place was taken by the crewcut wearing, colorful, fanatic, and (some would say) evil Curtis LeMay, who was parodied so effectively by George C. Scott in the movie “Dr. Strangelove.” (LeMay was known for such policies as the firebombing of Tokyo with napalm in World War II; “Operation Starvation” against the Japanese; and the policy “to bomb [North Vietnam] back into the Stone Age.”)

Gen. Curtis E. LeMay

Gen. Curtis E. LeMay

LeMay spearheaded the development of the monstrous B-36 (too slow to avoid jet interceptors), the B-47 (supersonic and beautiful, but too light and short-ranged to carry atomic bombs to Moscow), and finally, the B-52 (there, that might do it). LeMay, however, was short-sighted in that he had no use for missiles, which he regarded as impractical. A former pilot, he thought “the bombers will always get through.”

Fortunately, others in the government and military saw the potential in guided missiles. Schriever becomes the ultimate hero of the narrative as he shepherds the development first of liquid fuel rockets and finally the highly reliable solid fuel Minuteman missile. [Minuteman was the name given to the second generation solid propellant ICBM.] He was aided by the genius of John von Neumann, the emigre physicist from Hungary who made important contributions to any scientific field he entered. Von Neumann was able to demonstrate that as the size of hydrogen bombs became smaller (less than 1500 pounds), practical improvements in existing rocket motors could result in missiles capable of flying from the continental U.S.A. to Russia. The ICBM could fly across continents at 16,000 miles per hour and reach its target in just 30 minutes. Mutual deterrence became the strategy of choice for rational political actors.

Minuteman Missile

Minuteman Missile

Sheehan limns the ferocious funding battles and turf wars among the armed service branches as well as the large aerospace contractors. He also reports on the struggle between design concepts: intermediate range (1500 miles) vs. intercontinental (6000+ miles) missiles. Eisenhower became convinced of the special importance of the ICBM (mostly thanks to von Neumann), and by the end of his term, the U.S. had far outstripped the Russians in missile technology. Eisenhower knew of the American advantage because of the U-2 spy plane flights made during his administration, but could not say so publicly without admitting violating Russian air space.

Thus, the evolution of four different technologies used by both Superpowers served to deter a catastrophic war: (1) reliable ICBM’s, (2) relatively small nuclear warheads, (3) powerful radar systems, and (4) spy satellites. With these in play, the nuclear stalemate called MAD became inevitable.

Evaluation: This is a highly readable, important contribution to Cold War scholarship which recognizes the personalities that developed basic strategy during the Cold War. It is recommended for those interested in a new perspective on this complicated and exciting period in history.

Rating: 4/5

Published by Random House, 2009

Advertisements

About rhapsodyinbooks

We're into reading, politics, and intellectual exchanges.
This entry was posted in Book Review and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Review of “A Fiery Peace in a Cold War” by Neil Sheehan

  1. Are we married to the same guy? 🙂 Because this is EXACTLY the type of review my husband would write – his blog posts are anything BUT concise. Great review, though, and great of your husband to share with us!

  2. Marie says:

    Wow. Definitely not my usual beat but I’ve been known to read this kind of thing from time to time. Honestly it sounds like something perfect for my father in law!

  3. Julie P. says:

    I am so impressed with his review! My husband hasn’t joined the fun at Booking Mama, but I guarantee he would be “most concise.”

  4. Ti says:

    I’m very impressed. My husband doesn’t even remember the name of my blog and he is not a reader so there is no hope of a review ever coming from him. However, I think it’s great to include this additional voice.

  5. Biblibio says:

    A questions: is this book more about the people behind the technology, or the science of the technology itself? Honestly, I’m not sure if either answer will make me think less of the book – it sounds quite fascinating. I might be leaning a bit more towards the science part but I suspect a book of this kind will be interesting simply because the general subject it exists in is one with much to say. Much to think about with a book like this; I am quite curious to read it now.

  6. Sandy says:

    At least you can get your husband to come within 10 feet of your blog! My husband wants nothing to do with mine. And if, by some miracle, I could get him to write a review, it would no doubt be about 10 sentences long.

  7. Bingo says:

    I loved the review…am very long winded myself and think he did a fab job!…AND, i laughed at all the comments as we all seem to share some of the same things with out spouses!

  8. Jenners says:

    I never really thought of the “Cold War” as actually being a war with actual people thinking and planning and plotting about it.

    I’m impressed that you can get your husband to read … let alone write a review! : )

  9. Alyce says:

    I’m curious to know what happened to LeMay. After reading your summary of his role and his lack of compassion I’m wondering about what the rest of his life was like.

  10. Belle says:

    Nice review. I think my son might like this one – he’s a military history buff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s