The Russian Nuclear Bomb In Washington, DC

The Memory Hole ^ | Russ Kick

[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.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

A little bit of history as told by Hugh Sidey of TIME.

[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.

[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.

[PoorMuttly]

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

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

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.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

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.

[DainBramage]

Sheesh.

[It'salmosttolate]

...entire city or two."????

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

[VaBthang4]

I am sure you werent trying to be an idiot in saying that but that is what manifested.

[blam]

"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.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

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.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

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.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

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.

[Monty22]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

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.

[az wildkitten]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the comments. These issues are of vital importance. They are impacting our ability to remain a free society internally.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

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.