Interview with Sidney D. Drell, July 20, 2004

Nevada Test Site Oral History Project University of Nevada, Las Vegas Interview with Sidney Drell July 20, 2004 La Jolla, California Interview Conducted By Mary Palevsky © 2007 by UNLV Libraries Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews conducted by an interviewer/ researcher with an interviewee/ narrator who possesses firsthand knowledge of historically significant events. The goal is to create an archive which adds relevant material to the existing historical record. Oral history recordings and transcripts are primary source material and do not represent the final, verified, or complete narrative of the events under discussion. Rather, oral history is a spoken remembrance or dialogue, reflecting the interviewee’s memories, points of view and personal opinions about events in response to the interviewer’s specific questions. Oral history interviews document each interviewee’s personal engagement with the history in question. They are unique records, reflecting the particular meaning the interviewee draws from her/ his individual life experience. Produced by: The Nevada Test Site Oral History Project Departments of History and Sociology University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 89154- 5020 Director and Editor Mary Palevsky Principal Investigators Robert Futrell, Dept. of Sociology Andrew Kirk, Dept. of History The material in the Nevada Test Site Oral History Project archive is based upon work supported by the U. S. Dept. of Energy under award number DEFG52- 03NV99203 and the U. S. Dept. of Education under award number P116Z040093. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these recordings and transcripts are those of project participants— oral history interviewees and/ or oral history interviewers— and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Department of Energy or the U. S. Department of Education. UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 1 Interview with Sidney Drell July 20, 2004 Conducted by Mary Palevsky Table of Contents Introduction: the historic relationship between testing and treaties – LTBT ( 1963), NPT ( 1970, extended 1995), TTBT ( 1974), Treaty of Moscow ( 2002) 1 Talks about development of underground testing and bunker busters 3 Details rationale for resumption of testing and importance of test ban for nonproliferation 5 Discusses ratification of CTBT and its importance 7 Talks again about development of bunker buster and its capability 9 Describes work with JASON, advising government on national security matters 11 Compares Cold War diplomacy between the US and the USSR with modern relationships with terrorists 13 Talks about testing and stockpile stewardship as a reliable and safe deterrent 14 Discusses “ culture of secrecy” about nuclear weapons, the spread of technology for creating weapons, and the Nunn- Lugar Program to protect stockpiles 16 Returns to work of scientists on JASON, and talks about dangers of becoming consumed with security concerns: the Hart- Rudman Report, and the erosion of science education and research 17 Remembers theoretical physicist Paul Dirac 20 Talks about the JVE 21 Conclusion: recalls friendship with Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov 22 UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 1 Interview with Sidney Drell July 20, 2004 in La Jolla, California Conducted by Mary Palevsky [ 00: 00: 00] Begin Track 2, Disc 1. Mary Palevsky: So we’re on. The relationship between testing and treaties, historically. Sidney Drell: Well, testing was necessary in the beginning, as we learned how to make bombs and began to understand them. We designed more efficient ones, bombs that could be carried on bombers, then on missiles, so they had a big yield- to- weight ratio and were reliable. Then in 1963, it was realized that there was an atmosphere fallout problem, a health problem, and so the Limited Test Ban Treaty [ LTBT], which confined all nuclear explosive testing underground, was signed, and that was a step which one hoped would lead to further constraints on the nuclear arms race. Then in the 1970s— I don’t have the exact year— there was a so- called Threshold Test Ban [ Treaty, 1974] limit, saying no tests in the ground would be larger than 150 kilotons. Always trying to somehow or other slow down the nuclear express and have treaties which would not only limit the deployment of nuclear weapons, but the other concern one had, besides that they were growing in numbers and might be used, leading to a nuclear Armageddon. As President Eisenhower said during his administration, before nuclear weapons, war was a battle to the exhaustion and surrender of the enemy, but once we had nuclear weapons, it now was a battle in which nuclear war would likely be destruction of the enemy and suicide. And so the danger of nuclear weapons was realized and efforts to control its spread, as well as prevent its use, and so the proliferation game became important. And as you know, we signed a Nonproliferation Treaty [ NPT] in 1968 and it entered into force in 1970. Now, that treaty was discriminatory because it said nuclear countries could keep UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 2 their weapons and we could benefit from nuclear power and so forth, but we said other countries should not become nuclear. And the carrots that went with the stick, or the bait there, was that we would see to it, we would ensure that non- nuclear countries that obeyed the inspection rules and the restraints of the Nonproliferation Treaty benefited from nuclear energy. And so the guarantees of the NPT, the treaty, to provide the peaceful benefits, both for medicine and energy, are in that treaty. But in there, it was explicitly in preamble, that we were going to work to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, we were going to reduce eventually in some future, we would hope to get rid of them, and that the idea of working to stop testing was implied. So for the first time, the idea, not just of limiting tests but of ceasing tests. And the Nonproliferation Treaty, which came into force in 1970, had in it every five years, a mandatory five- year review for twenty- five years. There were five of them. And in 1995, the United Nations [ UN], the Nonproliferation Treaty was extended into the indefinite future, and in an international consensus; 185 of the 189 nations in the world have signed on to that agreement. All but India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea now. But there, it was implied and explicitly stated by many of the signatories who were restive under the discriminatory features of the treaty, that the nuclear powers would stop testing. And so the idea not just of a moratorium that President George H. W. Bush initiated in ’ 92, which Clinton continued and signed into a treaty in ’ 95, but there’s now a general feeling that the nuclear powers are to stop testing and developing better and newer weapons, and reduce reliance on them, not find new missions for them. Which is why I have such trouble with the bunker buster idea, which is now saying, well, instead of thinking of nuclear weapons only for deterrence, for defense of last resort, we’re now looking for limited military missions, missions against limited military targets in limited strikes. In other words, just like another weapon. And I think that’s a terrible idea because I think once UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 3 you cross the nuclear threshold, nobody knows where you stop, and you’ve unleashed now weapons, modern weapons, a million times more powerful than pre- nuclear weapons. And what [ 00: 05: 00] the impact on civilization and the world would be in an all- out nuclear war is absolutely unknown. There’s no history. We don’t know what a nuclear war would do. We just know what the trigger, the trigger of one of our modern bombs, did to a city like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So there is a real implication now on the Nonproliferation regime and the effort to reduce reliance on these weapons and reduce their numbers. Presidents Bush and [ Vladimir] Putin signed a treaty in 2002 in Moscow, the Treaty of Moscow, saying that the deployed weapons would decrease to about 2,000 in the year 2012. But now they have talked and made commitments, but I haven’t seen a treaty, that we’re going to reduce, actually, the total numbers of warheads, which was not part of the 2002 treaty. You know, I’ve been spending a lot of time at the test site, so one of the questions that came up for me— tell me if this is completely off the wall— you know, when we went from atmospheric to underground [ testing], this whole new science had to develop, the science of the weapons and the science of containment. Did that science of underground explosions contribute to knowledge of how to do bunker busters? Because we were underground already? The main thing about bunker busters is to develop means of making a rugged structure, a rugged structure, that when you drop it from a bomber or shoot it into the ground with a missile, and it’s coming in very fast, that it’s strong enough that it can dig into the ground, tens of meters or something like that, without destroying itself. That’s mainly a structure problem. And we’ve learned: look, doing earth penetrators is an important part of the conventional military. If you want to destroy an enemy airbase, make it unusable, you want to crater the runway. There are UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 4 increasing numbers of underground military targets around the world. I think the National Intelligence Estimate, published version, talks about the order of a thousand militarily interesting targets in seventy or more countries around the world. Digging underground has become less expensive, and there are more and more important military facilities, leadership facilities, storage facilities, that are being built underground. And you see that now in North Korea and in Iran. So that for conventional military, for normal military, we do have wars. Being able to deliver shocks underground is important, and if you can bury a weapon so that you contain a larger fraction of the energy, you can increase the shock that destroys structures underground by— put it this way: for a nuclear weapon, you can make a one- kiloton weapon have the effect on an underground structure of a ten- kiloton weapon, even maybe a size twenty kiloton, with a factor of ten or twenty, if you can dig it down ten, twenty feet or so before it detonates. So that’s the problem. But we certainly learned. I mean when you test underground, of course, you’re testing in a different environment than in the atmosphere. But I don’t think that was the main— the bunker buster wasn’t the main thing we learned by that underground— Right. No, it was one of those non- technical- person questions because, for me, it’s interesting to look at the whole world of moving from atmospheric to underground testing, and the science that had to develop in order to do underground tests. Well, we certainly developed the science to learn a lot more about underground tests. I mean the point of the underground tests was not just to get a big bang. The idea was to be able to do enough diagnostics to improve understanding, so you could design better weapons. By the time you’re getting to 1990, our weapons have become pretty proficient in terms of yield- to- weight. And with the end of the Cold War, President George H. W. Bush and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, General Scowcroft, they decided that we didn’t have a need for new UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 5 designs. And that’s why they called the moratorium, and I thought that was a very important step made by those leaders. One can raise a question about bunker busters as follows: I believe— this is something we’ve worked a lot on, and JASON [ scientific consulting group formed in 1960 to advise the federal government on national security matters] is publicly known for a study I led on non- nuclear testing in 1995, which really made the case that a comprehensive test ban was consistent with our national security. I believe that since then, we have, with good work at the national laboratories, support for the stockpile stewardship program, we have increased confidence quite [ 00: 10: 00] a bit, certainly mine, that we can maintain our current forces as a safe, reliable, and effective deterrent without underground low- yield testing. And it’s not beyond the imagination to think that some of the push that coming for bunker busters is to find a new excuse to resume underground testing. Because of the whole, well, nuclear- industrial complex that’s built up to keep those people in business, or what? What would be the rationale for resuming testing? Well, if you’re going to design better bunker busters, you’re going to design new weapons. And so, I mean there is the military one that the administration said in the Nuclear Posture Review, [ submitted to US Congress by DoD, 12/ 31/ 2001] which I discuss in the new book there [ Sidney D. Drell and James Goodby, The Gravest Danger: Nuclear Weapons, 2003], we may need new missions for the post- Cold War world. There is a school of thought. You can always get some benefit by having a new weapon. But you also have to ask, what do you do to your national security if that helps destroy the international consensus for Nonproliferation? After all, the greatest danger this country faces really is precisely the one that President [ George W.] Bush said at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point commencement in 2002: The greatest danger this nation faces lies at the crossroad of radicalism and technology. We have to keep these weapons UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 6 out of the hands of very bad people, terrorists or rogue nations. And that’s going to take an international consensus working together. Because we’re going to have to have international collaboration, recognizing through political pressure, through sanctions, and strengthened means of verifying the Nonproliferation Treaty, that countries are obeying this treaty. We want to make stronger, more stringent requirements so that future countries— and particularly I’m talking about Iran, North Korea— don’t go nuclear. But we’re going to have to have the help of other countries doing it. They’re going to have to agree not to ship them ( would- be proliferators) that material. They’re going to have to agree that if they do try to become nuclear nations, economic sanctions will be invoked. They, the supporters of the NPT, have to make it politically uncomfortable for countries to acquire nuclear weapons. The US also will have to diplomatically work to remove some of the motivation for these countries to want to be nuclear. If it’s their economy or their security assurance they need, then we have to work together. You can’t, [ as] one country alone, say nobody else is going to be nuclear. And so it’s important that we maintain this international consensus if we want to strengthen the nonproliferation regime and keep the worst material out of the hands of the worst people. And that means we have to obey the pressures that these 185 countries agree, that we can’t just go continue tests, develop new weapons, have new missions, and they get nothing. So it’s a very strong diplomatic challenge, but in this case, in my mind, it’s a serious one for us because we can maintain, I believe, I assert, confidence in our deterrent without testing. And we’ve had success. I mean President Kennedy, I think, in the sixties said, obviously before he was assassinated, that he thought that by the end of the decade, there’d be a dozen or more countries with nuclear weapons. The end of the century, there are only eight. Many countries had started down the road— Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, Taiwan, countries like that— walked away. Argentina and Brazil walked away. South Africa gave up. UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 7 And then there’s a graph on page six or so in that little book [ The Gravest Danger] which shows you that there’s no increase in countries with nuclear weapons for almost twenty years now. But we have new problems with countries like Iran and North Korea, and we’ll have to give the Nonproliferation Treaty more severe powers to verify compliance. The Additional Protocol has been talked about, which is going to allow us to inspect suspect facilities, not just declared ones. The proliferation security initiative has been talked about. That is, in order to intercept, what do you do, in seas, you put embargoes on— like we did with Castro in Cuba. You have to intercept shipments of things that would make it possible for them to build a nuclear infrastructure. Also, the greatest difficulty for a would- be proliferant to make a nuclear weapon is to get his hands on the material— plutonium, enriched uranium. That’s the hardest thing. And so we have the Nunn- Lugar [ Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, 1991] Program to try and get better protection of the largest arsenal in the world, namely of materials sitting in the former Soviet [ 00: 15: 00] Union [ USSR]. It’s a big deal, diplomatic, and so I think that the importance, now, of trying to work to preserve the nuclear nonproliferation regime, that is the greatest challenge we face. And the test ban is very central to that, I believe. Right. That was going to be my next question. So a piece of that is that no one’s testing, including the great nuclear powers. That’s right, and now, you know, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [ CTBT] has been signed by many countries; 173 have signed and 120 have ratified it. What’s important is for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to come into force, all forty- four nations in the world that are declared nuclear capable. The eight or nine with nuclear weapons plus those with reactors for research or power. Of those forty- four, thirty- three have ratified the treaty. Russia’s ratified the UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 8 treaty. Germany, England, France ratified the treaty. China said it would. Japan has. We have not ratified it. What do you think are our chances? I mean the people that I’ve talked to down in Nevada have said they’re opposed to the CTBT because it doesn’t give us enough safeguards for other people, the same argument that’s always made against those treaties, that other people could break it even though we never would. When we sign a treaty, there’s always a national security clause in it which says that if, in the need for national security, due to new political or technical conditions, we can say we’re going to withdraw from the treaty. We did that with the ABM [ Anti- Ballistic Missile] Treaty. The main thing is to have better means of verifying compliance with the treaty, and that’s why all these enforcement steps are important. President Bush has endorsed them, but you must accompany these steps, which are sticks with carrots, to invite other countries and that’s where we have to work. But the Additional Protocol to challenge and inspect any suspect site and the Proliferation Security Initiative, to be able to interdict any troubling cargo, and trade restraints, sanctions and whatnot, is doing a better job. But also, very important, saying that complete fuel cycles will not be allowed in new countries. That is, you won’t have the ability to completely enrich the uranium or reprocess plutonium. There could be regional centers, guaranteeing the materials are there for peaceful uses. We have to build a world order on this. It’s very difficult. It’s not impossible. For fifty years, through the Cold War, we did build a consensus of nonproliferation that held us to eight countries. That’s a terrific record. Right. That’s one of the things that’s coming across as you’re talking to me, because with the worst of the Cold War, and when you’re looking at the huge numbers of weapons that were built, UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 9 there was slowly this— and I think you or [ Freeman J.] Dyson or someone referred to the “ tradition of non- use.” That’s right, the norm of non- use and non- possession. Both. Right. And so it’s interesting historically to see you’ve got this really scary thing with the build- up and then slowly, slowly, slowly, fifty years later, you do have this regime— Countries understood that the likelihood of our surviving in a world is greater without nuclear weapons all over the world. The material spreads, countries can get their hands on it. And as I said, the hardest step for a new country to become nuclear is to get their hands on the material. Once you got it, it’s not trivial, but it’s easier, particularly if you want to make a Hiroshima- type bomb, the gun- type uranium bomb, which doesn’t have even an implosion mechanism. So we have to really work to keep the worst material, the most dangerous material, out of the most dangerous hands. That’s our priority. Just two sort of general questions are raised by what you’ve said so far. One is, you’re talking about the bunker buster and the fact that it’s a weapon for a particular use. But all through the Cold War, wasn’t the military coming in and saying, you know, give us a weapon that can do this? Thank you. The answer is we have bunker busters now. They’re called high- yield weapons of hundreds of kilotons. I mean we have very powerful weapons, up to the megaton class. Non- nuclear? Nuclear. Oh, no, no, I mean we have very high- yield nuclear weapons. The idea of the bunker buster— and that’s the insidious part of it; it’s a good point to pull out— is to make a lower- yield weapon which will produce less collateral damage and, apparently to some people, therefore be more usable. That’s the problem. I mean you give me a megaton weapon and I’ll bust a lot of UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 10 stuff that way. You’re not going to be safe anywhere. But, of course, it makes a huge fallout. But let me [ 00: 20: 00] tell you, if I wanted to take— well, typically when one talks about low- yield, one��s talking about less than five kilotons. Hiroshima was about thirteen kilotons. Take one kiloton, just one kiloton— really a small weapon. If I can drive that into hard rock, which if you’re going to build a hard underground target, you’re not going to build it in sand. First of all, the limits of material strength— and this is in the things I’ve given you, spelled out in more detail— means there’s no way I can get that to survive intact if it is dropped from a bomber or a on a missile warhead and driven more than fifty feet into the ground. If I detonate that at fifty feet depth, first of all, I’m not going to destroy a target, say, a thousand feet deep, that’s hardened to a thousand atmospheres, which is the kind of things that one talks about. But secondly, I’m going to tell you, that one kiloton detonated about fifty feet underground is going to create a radioactive debris cloud with about 106 cubic feet, a million cubic feet of radioactive debris. That’s not small, minor damage when that gets out. That’s not small, minor damage. But it’s true. It could do the damage of a ten- kiloton bomb that isn’t detonated that deep— that’s detonated on the surface. So indeed, one kiloton is less bad than ten or twenty. But a million cubic feet of radioactive debris is not minor collateral damage. Not if it’s near a city. So one has to put these things in perspective. There would be certainly a limited military advantage, if you really wanted to take that incredible step of using a nuclear weapon in a limited scenario. I think that’s an obscene idea. But what it would do to our effort at nonproliferation to keep the worst from also going nuclear— because if we go around saying, Well, we need a new weapon for new kinds of military missions, that increases the attraction for other countries to say, Hey, if they’re going to talk about doing that for limited military missions we’d better get some too. So it doesn’t help a nonproliferation consensus. Now, I’m not a politician, but I think that’s common sense. UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 11 Yes. Well, for a non- technical person, the mind sort of boggles because you’ve realized there are all sorts of weapons that have already been created that aren’t this general bunker buster notion that seems so important now that can do all sorts of horrific things. You know, I work at JASON. I think national security is very important. I’m not a disarmer or anything. And I think making better conventional weapons and giving conventional weapons a better capability to take care of underground targets because they are a growing danger. And improving our intelligence above all, so we know where they are. There’s plenty of evidence that when we go after underground targets, we sometimes get the wrong one. The main thing about getting an underground target, you have to know precisely— we can deliver a weapon where we say we will, but we have to know where that target is accurately. And so there are other challenges than just building a bomb. But, to me, it’s not a matter of denying a military capability, because we have it. We have it with big nuclear weapons and we have it in a limited way with non- nuclear weapons. It’s important that we not create this notion that I can be more likely to use a low- yield nuclear weapon in a limited conflict because it’s less collateral damage. I just reject that notion. You mentioned JASON, and I think that was set up in ’ 60, is that right, 1960? Nineteen sixty, it was started. So you’re close to forty- five years. And what would you say, looking back, do you think you have been able to operate for what you consider to be the good in advising—? I wouldn’t have stayed through JASON all the years I did and, you know, I wouldn’t want anybody to think I do this work because I like associating with people in Washington, or I find this more interesting than the scientific work I would do at home. I think, as I’ve said in some of my writing, I think scientists have given the world problems with our advances and the technical UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 12 developments. And I think as a community, we have an obligation to try and see that they are put to good use. I mean science has improved the medical standards and given us an era of presumptive good health. It’s improved the standard of living. It gives us a much higher standard of living with the industrial- technological spin- off. And in some ways, you can say it’s helped [ 00: 25: 00] our security. But it’s also created new problems, both in the environment and in medical abuses and in military. We have to try and help society understand all the implications of the advances we’re responsible for. We understand them better than non- scientists because we know the possibilities. We also know the limits, which was involved in the big ABM fights, because we understood the limits as well. And so I think as a community, we bear a special obligation. Not everybody, but some of us find that in a way, we can convince ourselves we’re making an important contribution, or a worthwhile one, and we do it. And so JASON has continued. JASON now, of course, are a much younger organization. There are a few of us old Neanderthals around, but success depends upon getting very bright young people coming in, with a lot of skills we don’t have, because nuclear physics was everything when we started, and radar. Now, it’s computers and biology and information technology, oceanography, many, many other areas where one need skills. And so JASON succeeds because we convince people who may not agree with what we’re doing that we’re doing good technical work, and that we’re not just politicians. We’re doing good technical work that helps serve the national security interest of the country. And as long as there are people who believe that, JASON will stay healthy. That’s interesting because the big political divide is— the reason I think you’re interesting, and you talk about it when you talk about what happened during the Vietnam era, this is notion that if you are talking to defense people, then you must be on that side of the divide. UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 13 Well, I got thrown out of classrooms. Some JASONs were attacked on the campuses during the Vietnam War. At Stanford, I got along very well. I guess I was too well known for my work opposing the ABM. In Europe in 1972, in Rome at the university and in Corsica at a summer school, I got thrown out of classrooms because I was a war professor. But that’s another story. Yes. So do you think, during sort of the worst days of the Cold War, did you envision where we are now, what would’ve happened to the Soviet Union? Because a lot of the rhetoric back then was, you know, we have to avoid this nuclear holocaust. It’s certain to come if we don’t really come to some sort of understanding. And things sort of unrolled differently than people expected generally. No, the fact is that it ( a nuclear holocaust) died with diplomacy. It started with the Atoms for Peace with Eisenhower. Kennedy. It continued with Ronald Reagan after all, when he decided he could deal with [ Mikhail] Gorbachev. I think this country worked, and it worked successfully, to prevent the use and help control the spread of weapons. And I think we had leadership, but we understood that it took diplomacy. Multilateral diplomacy, arms control treaties, nonproliferation treaties, arms limitation treaties. It was slow and there were times we lost opportunities and we can always yell, and we yelled at the time, and we did our best— we got through fifty- nine terribly, terribly dangerous years. The danger really went away, I would say, probably in the 1990s, so I should say— I mean but certainly there were forty- five to fifty very dangerous years. We made it through. And that gives me faith that we can make it through now, if we don’t lose our direction. And I think now, more than ever, because we’re dealing with people— you know, the problem’s more difficult. Deterrence worked because we realized that, I mean, the Soviet Union wasn’t going to just go nuclear and get blown out of the earth. Deterrence worked, as awful as it is, but it worked. But now we’re dealing with a culture which has terrorists, and some UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 14 irresponsible nation leaders, who really don’t have much to lose or who have shown they’re willing to be suicidal. And so how do we make a policy that goes beyond deterrence? We do, in fact, have to be prepared to wage preemptive, or even preventative, war. But it’s got to be done very carefully in a way which, because we depend upon international collaboration, has the world understanding what we’re doing, helping support what we’re doing. We have to do it based upon intelligence that we believe and the world believes, if it is to be viewed as legitimate. There are a number things we’ve been learning, we should have known before Iraq, and I think in Iraq, to my mind, having Mr. Saddam Hussein gone is a great thing. But being there by ourselves and having fractured the world diplomatic scene by doing it the way we did, I think is a terrible mistake, and I think it was an unnecessary one, but that’s an area I’m not an expert in. Yes. Yes. That’s interesting. The intelligence piece is interesting, but that’s something else I’ll tell you later, too. Down in Nevada, you hear people say, and they’ve written in some of the [ 00: 30: 00] test site [ publications, for example: Origins of the Nevada Test Site, DOE/ MA- 0518, Feb. 2002, p. 86], that the test site was really a battleground, a major battleground, of the Cold War. In other words, because of the testing and the creation of a valid, a believable, deterrent, I guess, the worst was avoided. I agree. I agree. No, no, I think developing a reliable and safe— you know, one of the things you don’t talk much about is that we’ve had a very safe deterrent. We’ve had no nuclear accidents producing yield. Planes have gone down when we had the air alert B- 52 force and whatnot. There’s been never an accidental nuclear detonation that wasn’t supposed to go off that k