Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagon's Scientific Underworld

In Imaginary Weapons, Sharon Weinberger, describes a hare-brained project, financed by the Pentagon, to make a Hafnium bomb. The project started when a scientist at the University of Texas at Dallas claimed that he was able to cause the release of significant gamma radiation by bombarding an isomer of Hafnium with low energy X-rays. Never mind that the experiment contradicted the known laws of nuclear physics. Never mind that no major lab, Argonne National Laboratories or Lawrence Livermore, were able to duplicate the experiment. Never mind that the JASONs, the emminent scientists that the military uses to pass judgment on the viability of projects, declared the project worthless. Never mind that there was no real supply of Hafnium isomers of the type used and that creating them would cost about a billion dollars a gram. Never mind that, even if all the scientist were wrong, and, through some miracle, the proper Hafnium isomer could be obtained, it would be so radioactive that only a suicide bomber could use it. The fact was that the Pentagon had its heart set on the bomb and was more than willing to pay your tax dollars to get it. The story of the Hafnium bomb is told very well by Ms Weinberger, who has reported on defense technology and national security since 2001 for Slate and for the Washington Post Magazine. Ms Weinberger does not expect the reader to be conversent with the nuclear physics nor does she try to teach it. She deals with the people involved with the project and has a wonderful technique of inserting common sense observations that will often bring a smile to the reader's lips and usually a chuckle. Although it could be, this is not a political book in any way. Ms Weinberger avoids political comment scrupulously. She just lets the facts talk to the reader. Buy this book and read it. You will have great fun doing so. But, if you are like this reviewer, you will also be angry. On the day that I bought the book, a mother of a young soldier called in to a radio talk show. She complained that her son, a private in Army intelligence was being sent to Iraq and was told that he had to buy for himself, a canteen, so that he may have fresh water while on the desert, a magazine to hold the ammunition for his weapon, and various other equipment. The total cost, to him was about $1000, one month's wages. The Pentagon apparently has no money for canteens, but plenty of money for foolishness.

I used to work in one of the New Mexico labs mentioned in her book. Forrest Agee's boss at AFOSR, our "best man", was also from New Mexico. He personally selected Agee to head up the Physics and Electronics basic research for the Air Force. I am familiar with many of the cast of characters in her book- especially Forrest Agee who liked to be called "Jack", Tony Tether and "Uncle" Rummy. I must say, Sharon Weinberger did a supererb job of characterizing the individuals in the book. Sharon Weinberger does a super job explaining how Tether likes to remind everyone "there is no sin in failing at DARPA". However, it is a sin for DARPA to fail the US taxpayer. "High Risk" is important to invest in - DARPA used to have top notch scientists that had a good nose for ferreting out the good stuff to invest in. Nonsense under the guise of "High Risk" is silly and has no chance of going anywhere - much worse than even winning the lottery. Sharon Weinberger does a great service educating the reader about the importance of funding good science and how our country depends on it. DARPA also points out in their program strategy that good research ideas have to have top notch people and lab facilities to do the research. Sharon does a great job of describing the facility where the research took place. The web sites help too -they show pictures of research laboratory lab that is the subject of the book. Perhaps, in the second edition of the book, Weinberger could include pictures - they might be worth much more than a thousand words. So where did the money go? Sharon Weinberger does a good job of discussing the "renting" the Hafnium sample. Perhaps this is one area Sharon Weinberger could have done a bit better. I'm sure Tony Tether and the AFRL would jump at the opportunity to have another interview with Weinberger on that matter. I'm sure the readers and taxpayers would love to hear more about that too. SDI is often referred to as a "brilliant bluff" - but at least it had science theory behind it - and now some of the ideas are actually able to be implemented. Sharon also does a nice job of explaining what others throughout the world thought of the research - in addition to the JASONs. This "imaginary weapon" is not pure science - it is just pure nonsense - no science behind it - and it couldn't even be used to bluff anyone - except only our high level government officials like Agee, Tether and Rumsfeld who couldn't seem to tell the difference between real science and "fringe" science - even when they paid the JASONs to look into it and they shot down the idea. This is one of the things the JASONs apparently claim they are good for - according to Ann Finkbeiner's book - which is also a quite good read. However, the JASONs were not even able to shoot this one down - that literally took an act of Congress. Sharon Weinberger went where no high level Government Official has gone before - to the very bottom of an important matter. Although her book di

It is no surprise that this book has generated so much controversy. Whenever a boondoggle's uncovered, the perpetrators are not going to slip away silently. They'll fight back with as much smoke and noise as they can muster. They'll attack the messenger. They'll shout "fraud!" stridently and repeatedly, but without any supporting evidence. They'll post bogus reviews. They'll give their own reviews high ratings, and low ratings to others. They'll nitpick; they'll do anything *except* address the central issue. And they'll hope you won't notice. But a calm, reasoned reading of this book reveals some simple truths: A second-rate scientist (a key characteristic of a second-rater is repeatedly to refer to other scientists -- many of them Nobelists -- as the "best and brightest" in a sneering, sarcastic tone) reports a startling result, based on a flimsy experiment. Other, first-rate scientists (if not the "best and brightest" then certainly at least "better and brighter") can't reproduce the results. Nevertheless, funding is provided to develop devices based on the assumption that the results are correct. Science being what it is, the repeated failure to replicate the results by anyone not affiliated with the original group calls the whole business into question. Finally, cooler heads prevail, and most of the funding is withdrawn. As with cold fusion and other bits of pathological science, claims of confirmation will never die away, and a hard-core contingent of supporters will remain to fight on fiercely. But a telling characteristic is/will be the involvement of only second-raters. Some criticize this book for its tone. I agree in part, for I believe that it is quite possible that Carl Collins suffers from a mental illness. I think he earnestly believes what he's saying. It's easy to poke fun at the delusional, but it probably isn't very nice. Had there been more evidence of conscious intent to defraud, I'd feel differently. If you track the bizarre antics and postings by Collins and his wife, Doina, you get the real feeling that they are unwell upstairs. I enjoyed reading this book, and learned quite a bit, even though I travel in circles that intersect that world frequently. In the end, I developed some sympathy for prof. Collins. He yearns for a greatness that he will never achieve, and seems to believe that, if only Ms. Weinberger et al would go away, a call from Stockholm would follow soon after.

Imaginary Weapons addresses issues regarding the use of public funds for highly speculative military research. Weinberger's main theme is that a line must be drawn between "high risk, high payoff" projects, and projects which are overt wastes of money and resources, and she argues that consensus within the scientific community should play a major role in where such a line is drawn. The story that she narrates about the hafnium bomb project demonstrates how personalities and politics can lead defense officials to cross this line from the risky to the insane. I give the book five stars because the topic is extremely important and has implications for a very wide audience, but it is a topic that is rarely, if ever, discussed in a way that is accessible to the general public. Weinberger discusses the issues in a way that is entertaining as well as enlightening. In parallel with the story of the isomer bomb, she makes basic philosophical arguments regarding the responsibilities that the government and the public have in funding large science projects. Her arguments are clear to anyone regardless of their education, just as any discussion relevant to the general public should be. For these reasons, I give the book the highest recommendation possible.