Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 1:40 PM

One of the pleasant frustrations of modern life is that there are far more good books out there than any of us have time to read. Browsing the Brookline Booksmith -- the wonderful local bookstore in my hometown -- is simultaneously delightful and depressing: I get intrigued and excited by all sorts of titles, but then I have trouble deciding which to buy and which to read first.
I'm know I'm not the only person with that problem -- which is why book reviews exist -- so I thought I'd help out by suggesting a few books I've recently read that got my own synapses humming.
The first is John Mueller's Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al Qaeda, which relentlessly punctures the various ways that analysts of all persuasions have overstated the dangers and the importance of nuclear weapons. (For a preview of Mueller's argument, see the FP excerpt here). It is an equal-opportunity critique, as Mueller goes after hawks, doves, realists, and other Cassandras with equal relish and a playful but pungent wit. He emphasizes that nuclear weapons are in fact highly destructive and need to be handled with great care, but convincingly shows that policymakers and pundits have 1) routinely exaggerated their destructive power (i.e., by suggesting they can "destroy the world"), 2) inflated their importance in deterring war, imparting influence, or enhancing status, and 3) overstated the risk of nuclear accidents, nuclear terrorism, or other very low-probability events. And instead of encouraging a useful prudence, Mueller argues that our "atomic obsession" has led us to adopt various policies that wasted a lot of money and may have actually made the situation more dangerous rather than less. Not everyone will be convinced by Mueller's arguments, but the book will certainly make you think. Added bonus: It's immensely fun to read.
My second recommendation is Campbell Craig and Fredrik Logevall's America's Cold War: The Politics of Insecurity. This is a creative, carefully researched, and incisive analysis of U.S. strategy during the long struggle against the Soviet Union. There are plenty of good books on this topic already, but Craig and Logevall's is one of the best, and their interpretation has important implications for contemporary strategic debates. In brief, they argue that America's initial response to the Soviet threat in Europe was both necessary and successful, but overselling by early Cold Warriors also put in place a worldview and a set of domestic institutions that consistently exaggerated U.S. insecurity and led to costly and counterproductive excesses over the next 40 years. The Soviet Union is now gone, but that worldview and those institutions remain in place today. Which is why the United States spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined, why we find ourselves bogged down in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, and why we panic over countries like Iran (whose defense spending in 2007 was a whopping $7.5 billion, or about 1 percent of America's).
My third suggestion is Margaret MacMillan's Dangerous Games: The Uses and Abuses of History, which I read on my recent trip to Norway. Based on a series of invited lectures, it is a set of pointed reflections on history, historians, and the ways in which the past is employed (and distorted) for both noble and ignoble purposes. If not quite the intellectual tour de force of a book like David Hackett Fischer's Historians' Fallacies, her reflections nonetheless provide a smart and eminently sensible set of warnings for citizens and leaders alike. History is essential to our identities, but it can also a dangerous weapon in the hands of anyone with a political agenda.
And speaking of history, my last recommendation is Eugene Rogan's The Arabs, which I acquired last week. I haven't finished it, but so far it's an entertaining, gracefully written, and eye-opening look at a diverse people whose history, culture and character are often badly misunderstood (if not actively distorted) here in the United States. Read it. You'll learn a lot.
RAMZI HAIDAR/AFP/Getty Images
Readers interested in the Mueller book can attend a book forum if they're in Washington or watch it live on the internets if they're not
For prospective attendees, free sandwiches and diet cokes afterward!
No need to buy Mueller's book. It is wrong.
Muller's argument is facile and fatuous. Which would be bad enough, but it is also false.
Just because it is an equal-opportunity critique does not make it correct.
Indeed, nuclear weapons exploding are a low probability event -- but they are low-probability and HIGH consequence event.
Which means we need to pay attention to them.
Dr. Muller does not have even a fundamental grasp of freshman-level statistics it appears.
Just because a nuclear accident has not happened until now does not mean it cannot happen.
The author's idea is provocative but fatuous and facile.
See:
http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf
http://www.nuclearrisk.org/soaring.pdf
The author needs to study statistics. That this can get published exposes the weakness of our educational system in math and sciences.
Until 1986 we thought the space-shuttle program kept astronauts safe, too.
Read Martin Hellman: "In the same way that life-insurance companies utilize statistical analysis to produce cold blooded projections of fatality rates for individuals, statistics tells us that, to be 95% confident of our statements, we cannot project the last 64 years of nuclear non-use more than 31 years into the future. Even if one drops the required confidence level to 50%, that only increases the time horizon from 31 to 44 years. And, with the fate of the earth at stake, a higher confidence level would seem appropriate. If we want to be 99% confident about our statements, the 64 years of non-use that we have experienced cannot be used to justify a time horizon of even 14 years. Statistics does not rule out that we might survive significantly longer than these time horizons, but it does say that the data thus far cannot be used to justify such hopes with any degree of confidence."
Until they explode in a city close to you, nuclear weapons are indeed nothing to worry about.
The book I most enjoyed reading lately was, "Inside CIAs Private World: Declassified Articles from the Agency's Internal Journal". It's full of amazing insights into how the agency operates, and best of all for super I.R. nerds like me, there are many articles on analysis and forecasting of specific events which can be helpful for thinking about and improving ones own analytical tools. Also, three words: the Nosenko case.
Not a pleasant frustration at all
I lean more to the depressing than the delightful. Too many good books and not enough time for someone with a wide variety of reading interests. I have enjoyed John Mueller's writings in the past and a book as catch-all as the Arabs is definitely worth a look. Thanks Prof. Walt.
Oh by the way, what was Al Qaeda's defense spending prior to 9/11? Throwing out a number like Iran's defense spending tells me nothing about the level of threat they pose.
The most recent book I read which I highly recommend:
was "Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession, by Haggai Ram" (http://www.amazon.com/Iranophobia-Israeli-Obsession-Stanford-Studies/dp/0804760683)
You can read the first 20 pages here: http://www.sup.org/pages.cgi?isbn=0804760683&item=Excerpt_from_Introduction_pages&page=1
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE