HomeArtsReading  }

A Nuclear Family Vacation is a very different sort of summer vacation

A bigger bang

28 MAY 2008  •  by Bronwen Dickey

A Nuclear Family Vacation: Travels in the World of Atomic Weaponry
By Nathan Hodge and Sharon Weinberger
Bloomsbury USA, 240 pp.



Click for larger image • The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant (also known as the Wading River Nuclear Power Plant) was a $6 billion General Electric nuclear boiling water reactor located in East Shoreham, N.Y., that was closed by protests in 1989 without generating any commercial electrical power.
Photo by Jeremy M. Lange
In January 2007, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of its Doomsday Clock—perhaps the most widely recognized symbol of the Cold War—forward two minutes, indicating its belief that that the new age of terrorism and the growing dangers of global warming have sent mankind galloping ever faster down the road to the apocalypse. Like duck-and-cover drills, fallout shelters and KGB spies, the Doomsday Clock probably isn't something that many of us think about much anymore, nearly two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The days of living in perpetual fear of thermonuclear war and mutual assured destruction are hard to remember—for those of us who remember them at all.

But as welcome as it was, the end of the Cold War in 1991 left the 60,000 people who once worked at the 14 sites of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex uncertain of what their roles would be in the new world of nuclear nonproliferation. "What happens when a war ends, but the warriors don't go home?" ask Nathan Hodge and Sharon Weinberger in A Nuclear Family Vacation: Travels in the World of Atomic Weaponry. In 2005, the husband-and-wife team of Washington, D.C., journalists embarked on a road trip through the test sites and design labs of 10 states and five countries (Russia, Kazakhstan and Iran among them) to investigate how global attitudes toward the bomb have changed—or not. Nuclear tourism: There's an idea.

As macabre as it seems, Hodge and Weinberger point out that the concept of nuclear tourism is nothing new. Families once gathered at picnics to watch mushroom clouds explode over the lunar landscape of the Nevada desert, and the reentry of a test ICBM into the placid waters of the Pacific still draws a diverse crowd in the Marshall Islands. The wide scope of the authors' journey, however, highlights one key thing: No one who works with the nuclear arsenal can say with any clarity what its purpose is. Asked, for instance, what he saw as the objective of future American nuclear strategy, Gerold Yonas (once the chief scientist for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, a.k.a. "Star Wars") provides only shadowy, Strangelovian replies. "The nature of complex, wicked problems is they tend to involve people," he said. "We tend to be complicated and wicked." And then: "That's the nature of a wicked problem: You don't ever come up with solutions."

Even for the most staunch anti-nuclear activist, it's difficult to read A Nuclear Family Vacation, though, and not come away with some sympathy for the people who spent their lives laboring behind barbed-wire fences in the literally subterranean world of nuclear weapons, hoping their work would one day secure peace. The careers of atomic scientists, like those at New Mexico's Los Alamos National Laboratory, who worked on designs for everything from the hydrogen bomb to the W54 SADM "backpack nuke," were once limited only by the darkness of their dreams. Now the same physicists are relegated to the science of technical maintenance, leaving many of them in various states of despair. "The students who grew up in the '80s or '90s are graduating today," notes Los Alamos weapons designer James Mercer-Smith. "I don't think they have any notion of why deterrence really does matter to them and their children."



Click for larger image • The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant
Photo by Jeremy M. Lange
The authors' trip to the Esfahan Uranium Conversion Facility in Iran, an oil-rich nation that does not have the capacity to refine its own oil, brings up the frustrating double-bind many countries face in regards to the energy crisis: It's possible to lessen oil dependence with nuclear energy, but with nuclear energy come the materials and know-how to produce atomic weapons. Similarly, the people of the Marshall Islands are economically dependent on the $15 million annual "rent" paid to the country by the United States, but they understandably despise America for using their Kwajalein Atoll for target practice. The world of atomic weaponry is defined by ambivalence.

With such a wealth of characters, locations and controversial politics on the table, one would assume that A Nuclear Family Vacation would be an engrossing read from the start. Sadly, it isn't. Instead of weaving the tortuous history of nuclear proliferation and disarmament into a vivid travelogue, in the manner of Sarah Vowell or Tony Horwitz, the "road trip" aspect of the story comes across as a pretext for a very dense, complex historical lecture. Scenes and dialogue are sparse. There are also some noticeable holes in the itinerary—if Hodge and Weinberger could get into Iran, why not India or Pakistan ... or both? Moreover, the dual authorship of the book means the reader learns little to nothing about the people who are taking the trip. The subject is so important that one ultimately wishes the authors had delivered it in a more accessible manner.

If it's hard to remember how hot the Cold War felt, it's similarly hard to forget that the U.S. is barreling through the fifth year of a war it started under the false premise of finding weapons of mass destruction, and that a military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program seems perilously closer every day. Though it fails to cohere into an engaging narrative, A Nuclear Family Vacation asks the reader to pay close attention to the American government's lack of consistent leadership on nuclear policy. It couldn't come at a better time. With the presidential election approaching, we can only hope the next administration understands the political complexities surrounding the nuclear arsenal better than the last. A president who could pronounce the word "nuclear" might be a good place to start. And if you're looking for Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location," it's in Pennsylvania.

2 COMMENTS

Ok a couple of things here.

First off, what in the world do two pictures of Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant have to do with this article? This book is all about the world of atomic weaponry. Shoreham had nothing to do with that and I'd be suprised if it's even mentioned in the book (it's certainly not in the article).

I mean that's like showing a picture of Exxon in an article talking about Napalm. (Napalm is just jellied gasoline.)

Secondly, you don't quite have it right that Shoreham was closed by protests. Shoreham was closed because right after TMI, politicians in the NY area thought it would be political suicide to endorse anything related to a nuclear power plant and so they refused to approve the company's evacuation plan (stating in fact that Suffolk County could not be evacuated). The company (LILCO) then went to Congress to try and make it a law that the county have an evacuation plan. To prevent this, Gov. Cuomo made a deal where the company would get back all of the money back that they spent on the nuclear power plant by charging a surcharge on customers for the next 30 years. In return they just had to let the whole thing drop, the power plant and the evacuation laws. They did.

As an interesting sidenote, I think it's also worth noting that LILCO was actually taken over by the state of NY in 1998 with the promise that they would reduce the amount residents pay for electricity. And in fact they did. Initially. But since they don't have the supply to keep up with the increasing demand they're buying a lot of power from other utilities and they're instituting huge surcharges in the summer to try and dissuade people from using as much electricity.

This lack of supply has resulted in New Yorkers paying the second highest average residential rate in the country (only Hawaii is higher) and Long Island in particular being one of the highest rates in the country.

For comparison, in Feb 2006, an average Long Islander was paying an average of 19.69 cents per kW/hr. An average resident in the Triangle right now in 2008 after more than 2 years of risig fuel cost, is paying ~7.45 cents per kw/hr (and the upcharge for summer is only .4 cents). This has a great deal to do with the fact that we had the forethought to build power plants in this area way back when "consumption" was getting close to "supply". It's getting to be that time again.

by JohnD Raleigh 30 May 2008, 9:55am Report this comment
I would like to thank John for his excellent information. Would you be willing to address the pressing issue of nuclear waste? Do you see any reasonable solutions for this? Perhaps the photos of a power plant that was never opened are to help us imagine a world where we are not dependent on an energy source that we do not yet know how to be responsible for. Certainly, global climate change is showing us the effects of actions taken previously without consideration - or proper consideration - for the entire cycle of resource use by humans. Cindy Thomas
by Cindy Thomas , Wisconsin 24 Jun 2008, 1:44pm Report this comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
 
return to top