Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Russian Nuclear Bomb In Washington, DC
The Memory Hole ^ | Russ Kick

Posted on 08/22/2002 5:06:11 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest

In its 12 Nov 2001 issue, Time ran this brief article on page 31. Hugh Sidey—the magazine's Washington Contributing Editor—has been covering the presidency for Life and Time since 1957. In this snippet, he reveals that JFK told him in 1961 that the Soviet Union has a nuclear bomb in its embassy in Washington, DC.

In my book, this counts as a major revelation, yet there are several factors that indicate that this piece was created in a way that minimizes its impact. And that's exactly what happened: minimal impact. A sitting president told a White House reporter that the Russians have an atomic bomb in the nation's capitol, and no one heard it.

Here are some of the odd aspects of this article:

Presentation. After the letters section, each issue of Time has a section called "Notebook," a hodgepodge of quotes, obituaries, and factoids. This crucial revelation was run in this unlikely section, on the same page as a look at Muslim headgear. And because it was put in "Notebook," it's not available online, since Time doesn't post that section on its Website.

To top it off, the article is presented under the label "Personal History," as if it were some charming recollection of JFK spilling soup on his tie and making a witty remark.

Timing. Kennedy told Sidey about the A-bomb in 1961. Sidey told us in 2001. Does Time have any explanation about why it waited 40 years to publish this remarkable piece of information?

It certainly makes one wonder what the current President is telling White House reporters—revelations that Time will publish in 2042.

Lack of follow-up by Time. OK, so the Soviet Union smuggled parts for an atomic bomb in diplomatic pouches, then assembled it in their DC embassy. Does anyone know whether this bomb still exists and where it is now? Seems to me that there's a good chance it's still somewhere in the area. When the Soviet Union collapsed, did they take apart the bomb and ship the pieces back to Russia in diplomatic pouches? Did they load the whole thing onto an airplane and fly it back to the motherland? Both scenarios seem unlikely. Would Time care to investigate whether this bomb is still in the Russian embassy in Washington, DC?

Lack of follow-up by the rest of the media. Come to think of it, would anyone care to investigate this? It appears that no other media outlet has picked up the story. You might think that Kennedy revealing an A-bomb a few blocks from the White House would be highly newsworthy, but you'd be wrong.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: abombs; atomicbombs; atomicweapons; bombs; hughsidey; jfk; kennedy; loosenukes; nuclearweapons; presidentkennedy; russiannukes; sidey; sovietunion; suitcasenukes; timemag; ussr; wmd

1 posted on 08/22/2002 5:06:11 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
A little bit of history as told by Hugh Sidey of TIME.
2 posted on 08/22/2002 5:06:26 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
In some ways I think that the detonation of a small nuclear devise in D.C. might be a blow for freedom for the American people.
3 posted on 08/22/2002 5:15:54 PM PDT by az wildkitten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
In some ways I think that the detonation of a small nuclear devise in D.C. might be a blow for freedom for the American people.
4 posted on 08/22/2002 5:16:16 PM PDT by az wildkitten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
So THAT's what this thing is. Got it in a load of construction debris last week.

I'm throwin' it out. Open a winduh.

...hold muh beer
5 posted on 08/22/2002 5:16:18 PM PDT by PoorMuttly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Reaganwuzthebest,

All the points you make are good ones, and really analogize to the situation when banks "find" money left over from depositors who forgot about their account. They are then obligated to take out ads in newspapers and disclose all the money they found before it gets disposed of one way or another. Or like how the Feds write in little fine print all the guns and cars they've seized in the "war on drugs". Or how various commercial concerns are required to publish various disclosures in the backs of papers. These things are published because they are required, not because they think anyone is going to actually read them. In fact the people who run the ads are hoping that nobody does read them.

However, the key difference here is the word "required". In the case at hand, Time magazine was under no obligation to publish what they published. They could just as well have not run the story at all. There is no law that says when JFK tells Hugh Sidey something, that Time is obligated to print it within some amount of time (no pun). So your arguments are interesting but they don't address the issue of why TIME ran the story at all.
6 posted on 08/22/2002 5:18:35 PM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: az wildkitten
The story demonstrates how vulnerable we are. They can walk into the country with a device like this and take out an entire city or two.
7 posted on 08/22/2002 5:19:18 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: az wildkitten
Sheesh.
8 posted on 08/22/2002 5:20:59 PM PDT by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
...entire city or two."????

How about the Capital and the entire gob't.?

9 posted on 08/22/2002 5:23:00 PM PDT by It'salmosttolate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: az wildkitten
I am sure you werent trying to be an idiot in saying that but that is what manifested.
10 posted on 08/22/2002 5:23:22 PM PDT by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
"They can walk into the country with a device like this and take out an entire city or two."

...and someone will one day. Prepare now.

11 posted on 08/22/2002 5:27:11 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
The writing of the story was by Russ Kick, in case you though it was me.

As to TIME publishing it, I wonder if they would do it today if the same situation presented itself. Back then journalists weren't as quick to print everything a politician told them. A story like this could cause tremendous panic, but then you would want to get the city evacuated. Tough call.

12 posted on 08/22/2002 5:30:11 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: It'salmosttolate
How about the Capital and the entire gob't.?

Sure, if it's in DC. But any city in the country is vulnerable to terrorists, even in Hicksville USA where I live.

13 posted on 08/22/2002 5:33:52 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
You're right, I mistook Kick's arguments for yours, my apologies.

As to your second point, it is a point well taken, but not the subject of my remarks.

My point was that if Kick is making the argument that Time "buried" the story - and his arguments do *sound* plausible - then why did they bother printing it at all, even in 2001? Why not sit on it until 2101?

As to what Time would do if they heard the story as fresh news today, I agree with you that there is a balance to be weighed. Seems like there was a threat just like it in NYC this fall, immediately post 9/11. Seems like the police and feds chose not to go public with it. So I agree, the risks have to be weighed and the answers aren't obvious.

14 posted on 08/22/2002 5:36:37 PM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: blam
Yes they will, probably sooner than later. When the nukes take out our cities, I just hope we retaliate against the mideast. I'm concerned we'll make it a criminal matter, and just absorb the massive death and destruction.

Hopefully NORAD control will take over and just launch.

15 posted on 08/22/2002 5:39:12 PM PDT by Monty22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
The "they" in your last comment should reflect the reality that "anyone" coming into our nation is a potential facilitator of nuclear terrorism or worse. Let's face it, the right biological or viral release on US soil could wipe out a significant portion of our population. Yet our government couldn't seem to care less about our borders and who or who doesn't come across them.

I see 09/11 as a minor wake up call, not the seminal event that others do. And internalizing our efforts at security is pointless. Once the terrorist enters our nation, it's already too late. Who's to say that any one suicidal nut couldn't enter our nation infected with a mortal virus?

We need to clamp down on immigration tighter than a clam's arse. Will we do it? No. Why?

16 posted on 08/22/2002 5:41:02 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
It does come down to open borders, for a lot of us. After 9/11 the military should have locked them down without question. Yes we're a free society, and we still can be without committing suicide. We MUST know who's coming in and out of the country as best we can, it's common sense.
17 posted on 08/22/2002 5:47:02 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
I said "In some ways. . ." Getting rid of special interest lobbyests, life-time congresspeople, bureaucratic parasites and excessive inefficient regulators would be a good first step. To be more radical, I believe the representative form of government devised by our forefathers was a brilliant way around the problems in communication 200+ years ago. Today I think it would be more representative and cheaper to have direct vote. Get rid of Congress, have an issue presented on PBS by advocates and adversaries of the issue and vote by phone or Email. Keep the Executive and Judiciary.
18 posted on 08/22/2002 6:01:45 PM PDT by az wildkitten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Thanks for the comments. These issues are of vital importance. They are impacting our ability to remain a free society internally.
19 posted on 08/22/2002 6:05:54 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
My point was that if Kick is making the argument that Time "buried" the story - and his arguments do *sound* plausible - then why did they bother printing it at all, even in 2001?

My guess is since the story came out in Nov 2001 it's related to the terrorist attack. If not for 9/11 TIME probably would have kept it buried. It would be nice though if the media did do some follow-up on it.

20 posted on 08/22/2002 6:08:49 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: az wildkitten
Not that there's anything wrong with the way you said it the first time! I understood you implicitly. Some people are just overly sensitive.
21 posted on 08/22/2002 6:09:22 PM PDT by old school
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Nothing says I love you more than a small, well placed, nuke.
22 posted on 08/22/2002 6:22:23 PM PDT by AdA$tra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Sure, but you're wrong about Hicksville.

It's built on an ancient Indian burial ground.
23 posted on 08/22/2002 6:25:26 PM PDT by PoorMuttly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: az wildkitten
Do you keep getting punched in the face at social events and wondering why?

Your attempt at humor fails to recognize taste, appropriateness, or good judgement. Make a lot of jokes at funerals, too?
24 posted on 08/22/2002 6:34:11 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Wanna bet WE had(have) a big one in Moscow ?

Kind of an interesting "mexican standoff" , only requires a few dedicated people willing to die for their country (or at least on the orders of their leader).

If the Russians did have one in Washington,D.C. , what are the odds there is one in Peking, and London, and Paris, and Havana, and .....

25 posted on 08/22/2002 7:13:37 PM PDT by hoosierham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Don't let muslim nor any other third world filth into the unitied states.
26 posted on 08/22/2002 7:26:20 PM PDT by bok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: az wildkitten
"...In some ways I think that the detonation of a small nuclear devise in D.C. might be a blow for freedom for the American people..."

LOL!

You rubbed some fur backwards with that remark, didn't you?

And yet, perhaps it was precisely this calculation that stayed the Russian's hand on more than one occasion.

27 posted on 08/22/2002 7:32:27 PM PDT by DWSUWF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
This article is something of a confirmation for me. I always thought the most obvious thing the Russians could do would be to mine a few key American cities. Not to mention concealing nuclear weapons on their freighters which move in and out of our ports regularly.

Sort of eliminates that early-warning system if you take out primary political control immediately. But then the Russians would have had to deal with a purely military-controlled nuclear response. Not the best thing for them.

I consider it unlikely that we ever mined any of their cities because of their far more stringent internal security.
28 posted on 08/22/2002 8:27:08 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Better to nip the threat in the bud now than to wait untill they have even more powerful weapons.
29 posted on 08/22/2002 8:30:16 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: az wildkitten
In some ways I think that the detonation of a small nuclear
devise in D.C. might be a blow for freedom for the American people.

You are a nurse, with a daughter?  Do you
check your ethics at the login or something?

30 posted on 08/22/2002 8:34:21 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Maybe it's a non-issue because Kennedy or Johnson took care of the problem.
31 posted on 08/22/2002 8:39:01 PM PDT by krb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
WHY WOULD WE THINK OTHERWISE OF THE RUSKIES.
32 posted on 08/22/2002 8:39:55 PM PDT by Quix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWSUWF
And yet, perhaps it was precisely this calculation that stayed the Russian's hand on more than one occasion.



Nice analysis. The Soviets must have realized that we Amerikanskis had "met the enemy, and he is us."

Regards

J.R.


33 posted on 08/22/2002 8:40:20 PM PDT by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Reaganwuzthebest
How many nukes have the Chicoms smuggled in? Or maybe they have them in a mountain cave across the border in Mexico?
35 posted on 08/23/2002 8:32:45 AM PDT by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: az wildkitten
bwhahahahahahahahaha.

I couldn't think of a better ending for the scum.

Love of country DOES NOT EQUAL love of government!

36 posted on 08/23/2002 10:31:30 AM PDT by bat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest; belmont_mark
Bumptihumptydumpy
37 posted on 08/23/2002 10:50:04 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
How many nukes have the Chicoms smuggled in?

Would not suprise me at all if they brought in a few. In fact I think we should assume they have.

38 posted on 08/23/2002 6:16:31 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

Bttt.


39 posted on 07/13/2005 6:59:22 PM PDT by Prince Charles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia; Velveeta; DAVEY CROCKETT; MamaDearest; WestCoastGal

2002, JFK, history from 1961.


40 posted on 07/13/2005 9:25:40 PM PDT by nw_arizona_granny (http://bernie.house.gov/pc/members.asp Meet YOUR Communist party members in Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson