It is also missing a final step in which the book finally comes out, and you are so OVER it, but of course it is the thing people want you to talk about because for them it is new, and you're like, fine, OK... but let me tell you about this new project I'm working on, one with infinite potential...

I think it is missing #0, which is the stage in which the book idea has truly infinite potential (and hence is appealing). As you make your way through the steps the potential becomes much more definite...

As an aside, on a whim, I asked ChatGPT, some time ago, whether it would be possible for me to generate $10 million in a decade given my decidedly sub-millionaire financial situation. Ever optimistic, it said it would be totally possible — I'd just need $5 million to invest, first.

And there is a really good chance that if your client is skeptical of ChatGPT's accuracy (like they should be), they will absolutely take their business elsewhere. If my accountant told me he used ChatGPT for my finances, I would be GONE.

And there are a million jobs one can have that don't involve taking writing seriously. It blows my mind that people would pursue one of those rare jobs, and then decide to outsource it to a plagiarism machine. Even if its output was actually good... why do that? To what end? Have they no shame?

You can think of it as an "atomic biography" of Truman, from 1945 through 1953, focused very closely on Truman's individual and personal thoughts and actions regarding nuclear weapons, inasmuch as one can try to know them. I think it will make both pro- and anti-Truman readers uncomfortable.

Alternate titles I thought about were "This Terrible Bomb" and "The Most Terrible Bomb" but my publisher wasn't thrilled with them. In retrospect, I can see a major problem — you're really giving a negative critic too much of a free gift if you call your book a "terrible bomb." 😅

The new book builds upon previous work I've done, but goes well beyond it. It puts forward a very different argument about Truman and the bomb than most people have likely ever heard. It is fundamentally about Truman's own moral horror regarding the atomic bomb: its origins and its consequences.

It's not even clear how it helps ensure ICBM survivability, unless one believes that they think the ICBMs could be destroyed in silos before taking off — which would imply a lot of other vulnerabilities that they have assured us in the past that they do not have...

Also, the arms race dynamic here is pretty explicit. Because we built up missile defenses, China has built up capabilities to guarantee a second strike for them. As a result, we must build up more missile defenses. What's China likely to do then? Just give up? What's the desired state of affairs?

I think the really odd thing is believing that you need hyper-expensive and comprehensive missile defenses to guarantee a second strike capability. Are you telling me he believes that in their absence, the US does *not* have such a capability? Hard to believe they really think this.

Your first photo reminds me of this fastener for window shutters that I saw near the Jardin du Luxembourg... I love these kinds of things both because they reflect a wonderful attention to detail, and, more selfishly, because they make me feel observant and clever when I notice them...

Raid Over Moscow (Access/U.S. Gold, 1984, C64/Spectrum)

#2 for one week in March 1985

Follow-up to Beach-Head. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament protested against its insensitivity.

I don't know why this brought this to mind, but here's my pitch, Hollywood: MUPPET SEVEN SAMURAI

you can have that one for free

And, if we are just piling on other reasons to not use Manhattan Project as a generic term for "we want to spend a lot of money," we should note that the Manhattan Project was ~4-5X overbudget and deliberately subverted any kind of oversight by Congress. Not usually seen as plusses.