
Why did the atomic spy do it? - Petiver
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02279-4
======
bfuclusion
A few things I like to keep in mind about soviet spies of this era, especially
in regard to nukes. 1) The USSR was the UKs and the USs ally in WWII, and all
the propaganda was saying as such. 2) It would not be a stretch to think that
having only a single nation, no matter how benevolent, with nukes is a bad
idea. There's a lot of temptation when you're the only guy with the giant
mushroom cloud backing you.

~~~
lambdasquirrel
Not to mention that Russia bore the brunt of human loss in the war for the
Allies. It's quite staggering that in 1945, most people in Europe felt that
the Soviet Union had done the most to defeat the Nazi regime, but that by
modern day, most people think it was the U.S.

To be sure, the Soviets would have lost the war if it were not for the U.S.
The Russian breadbasket had been taken by the Nazis, and the retreating
Russians burned everything to the ground as they gave ground. But when you
look at the erasure of the Russian role in fighting the Nazis, as well as the
troublesome views of leaders like Churchill, you wonder not only about Fuchs,
but also about the clean version of history we're taught about that war.

~~~
TomMarius
We don't feel the US did more in terms of quantity of dead men, we know more
Soviet-affiliated troops died there. However with hindsight we now know the
real plan of the Soviet Union - it never was to help Europe, but to conquer
it. So in conclusion the US government _helped_ us more (and not just during
the war), while the SU government sent more people to die for their shady
goals here. Nobody is discounting the heroism of the individual soldiers. The
sad thing is that the current Russian government is using their legacy to
pursue their shady goals again.

~~~
cycomanic
That needs some serious citations. If you're saying it's evidenced by the
soviet military in the Eastern block I encourage you to look at the US
presence in Nato countries. I know that history in the US is largely a picture
of American exceptionalism and "we were always the good guys", but actual
history has many more shades of gray. This is one thing that the allies (in
both parts of Germany) did reasonably well, break the circle of history as a
means for teaching patriotism.

~~~
TomMarius
I know of the US presence in NATO countries and we welcome it. It is
absolutely incomparable to the Warsaw Pact occupation of our country (for
example, the US forces didn't shoot anybody nor ran over people with a tank)
which is the reason why we welcomed the US forces and joined NATO as soon as
we could after 1989. Not sure what citations should I send you, I live here
(Czechia). You can probably read about it on Wikipedia, I'd do the same.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
US forces tend to do their shooting and running over in Central/South America
and the Middle East. Many countries in those areas are less impressed by US
benevolence.

The US is an empire. So was the USSR. So are China and modern Russia. Some
provinces are treated better than others, but empires are empires, and
propaganda, political manipulation, corruption, violence, and torture are how
they roll - together with resource capture, labour management, and various
levels of market development.

Europe had a notable level of propaganda and political manipulation, and still
does, and not so much of the overt violence. But just because the corruption,
violence and torture were happening elsewhere doesn't mean they weren't
happening at all.

~~~
TomMarius
I do not say that it's not happening. That does not mean we do not welcome the
US, or that its actions here are comparable to the actions of the SU, or that
the SU, a comparably much worse regime which caused dozens of millions deaths
after the war (many in the SU itself, but not only), _helped_ Europe more.

I guess I should thank the SU for stealing our uran, making my fellow citizens
forcibly work in the mines as a punishment for not being communist enough, and
for hindering our economical development by decades (of the country that used
to be one of the most advanced European states before the war, and got
destroyed AFTER the war so much that it fell below Africa in HDI)? Well,
thanks...

------
cryptonector
Oddly, one of the worst leaks to the soviets was the press release announcing
the A-bomb drop on Hiroshima. It specifically revealed the use of diffusion
for uranium enrichment, IIRC.

------
sillysaurusx
Does anyone know how effective his intel was? Did he transfer key secrets, or
crude napkin drawings?

Put another way: did he change the world? That’s the goal of idealism, after
all.

It seems absurd to say that the USSR developed nukes thanks to his help. And
yet, I can’t help but wonder... Could one person have made all the difference?

~~~
mabbo
It's about 'when' more than anything. We live in a world today with mostly
free information sharing on most scientific subjects. But picture a time when
cutting edge science like the nuclear programs were veiled heavily in secrecy.
Every single development took time, effort, work, _science_. And the result
is... an answer that can probably be written down in a single piece of paper.
Easily shared.

The USSR would have developed the same bombs eventually, but not as quickly, I
would guess.

~~~
est31
Basic science is done in the open, but science relevant to military goals is
still kept secret. For example, do you know how stealth fighter jets are made?

~~~
HideousKojima
There's actually quite a bit of information about the development of the
F-117, as well as the science and math that made it possible:
[https://www.f117sfa.org/f117-development](https://www.f117sfa.org/f117-development)

~~~
zandor
It gets even better.

The base of the research was deemed to be of no significant military or
economic value by the USSR so it was published internationally.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Ufimtsev#The_father_of_st...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Ufimtsev#The_father_of_stealth)

------
opwieurposiu
Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb goes into a lot of detail about what
was taken and how it was used. What astonished me is that using lend-lease,
the soviets were sending back literal plane loads of documents every week
through alaska. The sheer scale of the spying was amazing. The USA mostly let
it slide during the war, bigger fish to fry and all that.

------
pottertheotter
A recent episode of the Spycast Podcast was a discussion with the author. It's
an interesting podcast.

[https://www.spymuseum.org/multimedia/spycast/episode/atomic-...](https://www.spymuseum.org/multimedia/spycast/episode/atomic-
spy-a-conversation-with-nancy-greenspan/)

------
gok
I think the interesting question is how much the spying led to the failure of
the Baruch Plan. A few years of delay in the Soviet weapons program would have
meant they had no weapon by the time Stalin died, and Khrushchev was open to
bilateral demilitarization.

------
pauljurczak
Setting aside the long term ideological goals of worldwide spread of communism
by Soviet Union, they were not in position to do so in Western Europe after
U.S. acquired nuclear weapons. Soviet westward expansion stopped after
assimilating most of the Eastern Europe.

Acquisition of nuclear weapons by Soviet Union and later reaching parity with
the USA, was a major factor stopping WWIII from occurring. Long list of
characters, including Winston Churchill, Curtis LeMay, John von Neumann and
countless other were advocating a preemptive nuclear strike on Soviet Union.

Clearly Fuchs was played by Soviet spies, but in the greater scheme of things,
he may have contributed to saving tens of millions of lives.

~~~
arethuza
Worth noting that US estimates of the effects of them attacking with nuclear
weapons in the early 1960s was 600 million dead - a lot in Western Europe and
elsewhere.

This was known to be an underestimate as US planning did not take into effect
the thermal effects of nuclear weapons due to a degree of variability from
cloud cover etc. So probably about a billion would have died - then there is
the effect of Soviet weapons...

I can recommend Daniel Ellsberg's book on the topic:

[https://www.historytoday.com/reviews/confessions-nuclear-
war...](https://www.historytoday.com/reviews/confessions-nuclear-war-planner)

~~~
gremlinsinc
but it never did happen, who's to say the US being the only super power with
nukes, could've had a despot rise (one might be now), who if there were no
other countries with nukes, might decide to use a few for the purpose of
conquest.

Sure, nukes are bad, all mankind should probably ditch the tech, but it's like
a gun... i'd rather be in a mexican standoff, than empty handed staring down
the barrel of a gun.

Currently, I'm not very trusting of our (US) government and their 'goals'.
Trump may or may not have known Putin was murdering our soldiers. The fact is,
at least there's some solace knowing nukes will probably never be used (except
maybe by N.Korea - but as a suicide action by a crazy neurotic dictator), and
that there's a sort of checks/balances system as far as they are concerned.

Nobody rational, wants a nuclear war or fallout or nuclear winter.

Russia never building their own, also allows one side dominate in power, and
power corrupts, so maybe it helped even the equilibrium. Not saying them
having weapons is great, but who's to know what future would await a nazi army
rising in America and being the only country with nuclear capabilities. We
still might get that future, but at least there's some balance from other
countries in case certain scenarios happen.

It's naive to think 'our country' will always be benign and have everybody's
best interests in mind... just as it would've been naive for Germans to think
that in 1930.

