Radosh/Rosenberg File

JKSCHW at aol.com JKSCHW at aol.com
Fri Oct 13 13:20:29 PDT 2000

It's been pretty clear from the start that the information Julis Rosenberg gave the Soviets was almost worthless. It concerned the "lens" design for the TNT that imploded the plutonium in a Fat-Man style bomb. Pieces of TNT were specially shaped so that the plutonium "grapefruit" was squeezed equally all around by the explosion. Otherwise it wouls just spurt rather than fission. If there was anything in what J gave the Soviets, it was the idea that lenses were to be used. But the Soviets had already figured taht out on their own, as well as getting the infro from physicist-spy Klaus Fuchs.

What JR was unable to provide to the Soviets was the specs on the lens design, which were precise and delicate. But this was crucial to the design of an atomic bomb. So, even supposing for the sake of argument that it might have been a good thing for the Soviets to get a bomb, JR did not help the Soviets (much) to do it. --jks

In a message dated Fri, 13 Oct 2000 4:02:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:


>>> LeoCasey at aol.com 10/13/00 01:49PM >>>
In a message dated 10/13/2000 1:18:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, owner-lbo-talk-digest at lists.panix.com writes:

<< I thought _The Rosenberg File_ was holding up quite well...


CB: But it wouldn't have been good for humanity for the U.S. to be the only country with nuclear weapons, no ? I mean especially from the standpoint of the Koreans and Viet Namese or even the Soviets. But even the Cubans. What would have become of the post WWII colonial independence movement , if the U.S. had a monopoly on the bomb ? >>

Talk about argument by non sequitur. What does the response have to do with the original contention? One could grant the argument of the response in its entirety, and it would still have no impact on whether or not Radosh was right that Julius -- but not Ethel -- Rosenberg did participate in espionage, or that the trial was not a fair one.


CB: Gee, you aren't too good at logic. I didn't say anything about whether or not Julius Rosenberg did it. What I implied ( but you are too dense to get) is that if he did do it, wasn't it a good thing ?


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list