78. Economic historians differentiate “defense share” (military expenditures expressed as a percentage of total expenditures by a central government) from “military burden” (military expenditures expressed as a percentage of GDP, a far broader category that includes all goods and services in the nation-state as a whole). Economic historian Jari Eloranta presents a number of examples of military spending in terms of defense share: In England from 1535 to 1547, for instance, the defense share averaged 29 percent; from 1685 to 1813, the English average was 75 percent and in any given year did not drop below 55 percent. During the early nineteenth century the English average was about 39 percent and from 1870 to 1913 about 37 percent. During World War I the average annual defense share was massive: England 1914–18, 49 percent; France 1914–18, 74 percent; Germany 1914–18, 91 percent; US 1917–18, 47 percent. Jari Eloranta, “Military Spending Patterns in History,” EH. Net Encyclopedia, ed. Robert Whaples (Sept. 16, 2005), eh.net/encyclopedia/military-spending-patterns-in-history (accessed Apr. 18, 2017).
79. Raines, Getting the Message Through, 172, 191; Curtis, “Optical Glass,” 81. Curtis emphasizes the role of the federal government’s Bureau of Standards in this effort: “In times of peace a busy place engaged in scientific and industrial researches nearly as numerous as those of the combined physical and chemical laboratories of the universities of the country; under the stress of war, the Bureau perforce expanded into a personnel of nearly fifteen hundred, gathered from all over the United States, working and experimenting in every phase of the war’s scientific needs.”
80. Stephen C. Sambrook, “The British Optical Munitions Industry Before the Great War,” in Proceedings, Economic History Society Annual Conference, Royal Holloway College, University of London, Apr. 2004, 52, www.ehs.org.uk/events/ehs-annual-conference-archive.html (accessed Apr. 18, 2017).
81. Stephen C. Sambrook, The Optical Munitions Industry in Great Britain, 1888–1923, PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 2005, 156.
82. Sambrook, “No Gunnery Without Glass”; Sambrook, “British Armed Forces and Acquisition.”
83. In 1913 Britain’s exports totaled $3.1 billion, Germany’s $2.4 billion. All figures were converted to USD by the authors, using gold standard par value. Hugh Neuburger and Houston H. Stokes, “The Anglo-German Trade Rivalry, 1887–1913: A Counterfactual Outcome and Its Implications,” Social Science History 3:2 (Winter 1979), 187–88, 191–92.
84. Treaty of Versailles, Articles 168–70, 202.
85. The final list of verboten items to be surrendered was presented in the Blue Book’s thirty-three chapters. Many were dual use, and soon Germany challenged the breadth of the list, “arguing that the inclusion of items such as cooking utensils, and more importantly transportation, would not only hurt the German economy but would hinder reparations deliveries to the Allies and make German political conditions conducive to Bolshevism.” Richard J. Schuster, German Disarmament After World War I: The Diplomacy of International Arms Inspection (London: Routledge, 2006), 41.
86. J. H. Morgan, Assize of Arms: The Disarmament of Germany and Her Rearmament (1919–1939) (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), 37–38.
87. Schuster, German Disarmament, 63–64; Morgan, Assize of Arms, 35, 40. Germany asked that some eighty factories be permitted to engage in production of war material; the IAMCC eventually allowed fourteen smallish firms to each produce a specific type of weapon. See Schuster, German Disarmament, 42–45, for details on the destruction of arms. While a German writer, Hans Seeger, emphasizes the widespread destruction rather than the confiscation of precision optics, some historians, such as Michael Buckland, contend that such Feinmechanik would have been attractive booty for the Allied conquerors (email to Avis Lang, Dec. 2009), and Morgan points out that within a few months after the German government declared it had surrendered all required arms, “hundreds of newly manufactured howitzers [were found] walled up in a single factory,” and a “vast ‘gun park’ of heavy artillery” was found to have been “secreted in the forts of Königsberg.” Seeger, Militärische Ferngläser und Fernrohre in Heer, Luftwaffe und Marine (1996), 32, English translation at www.europa.com/~telscope/trsg2.txt (accessed Apr. 18, 2017); Morgan, Assize of Arms, 35.
88. Hagen, “Export versus Direct Investment,” 1 and n. 6, 4–7, 11–12, 17–18 n. 25; US Army Ordnance Department, Manufacture of Optical Glass, chap. 1; Sambrook, “British Optical Munitions Industry,” 54. According to the Ordnance Department, “Educational and research institutions obtained a large part of their equipment from Germany and offered no special inducement for American manufacturers to provide such apparatus. Duty-free importation favored and encouraged this dependence on Germany for scientific apparatus.”
89. The Zeiss website states: “Although the production of instruments for civilian use had been dominant in the 1920s and early 1930s, Jena never lost sight of the development of military instruments, as the advances being achieved at that time in the field of precision engineering and optics were equally suitable for civilian and military purposes.” “The Carl Zeiss Foundation in Jena,” www.zeiss.com/corporate/int/history/company-history/at-a-glance.html#inpagetabs-1 (accessed Apr. 18, 2017).
90. P. G. Nutting, “The Manufacture of Optical Glass in America,” letter, Science 46:1196 (Nov. 30, 1917), 539. In 2016 purchasing power, half a million 1913 dollars would be more than $12 million, according to Measuring Worth, www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus (accessed July 26, 2017).
91. Hagen, “Export versus Direct Investment,” 17 n. 25; M. Herbert Eisenhart and Everett W. Melson, “Development and Manufacture of Optical Glass in America,” Scientific Monthly 50:4 (Apr. 1940), 323; Raines, Getting the Message Through, 174.
92. The War Industries Board mobilized, coordinated, and regulated production; headed by Bernard Baruch for the final eight months of the war, it converted about a quarter of US industrial production to military purposes. The National Bureau of Standards developed a new crucible material that could survive the assault of barium crown glass melts; it also assisted with the testing of glass and of finished optical instruments. The US Geological Survey located new sources of raw materials, such as sufficiently pure silica sand. See US Army Ordnance Deparartment, Manufacture of Optical Glass, introduction and table 1.
93. The frontispiece of Sidereus Nuncius reads: “MAGNA, LONGEQVE ADMIRABILIA / Spéctacula pandens, suspiciendáque proponens vniquique” (trans. Albert Van Helden). For Galileo’s drawings, see “Sidereus Nuncius, Galileo Galilei (Facsimile),” Museo Galileo VirtualMuseum, catalogue.museogalileo.it/object/GalileoGalileiSidereusNunciusFacsimile.html (accessed Apr. 13, 2017). Until Galileo went blind in the late 1630s, his eyesight as well as his instruments were taken as authoritative. However, the seventeenth-century astronomer and telescope maker Johannes Hevelius was not cowed by Galileo’s reputation. In Selenographia, Hevelius’s book on the Moon, he critiques Galileo’s depiction of the Moon in Sidereus Nuncius: “Galileo did not have a sufficiently good telescope or could not devote sufficient care to those observations of his or, what is most likely, was ignorant of the art of picturing and drawing that serves this work very well, and no less than acute vision, patience, and toil.” Albert Van Helden, “Telescopes and Authority from Galileo to Cassini,” Osiris, 2nd ser. (1994), 15–18.
94. The writer also says, “Painters need not despair; their labours will be as much in request as ever, but in a higher field: the finer qualities of taste and invention will be called into action more powerfully; and the mechanical process will be only abridged and rendered more perfect. What chemistry is to manufactures and the useful arts, this discovery will be to the fine art; improving and facilitating the production, and lessening the labour of the producer; not superseding his skill, but assisting and stimulating it.” Spectator, “Self-Operating Processes of Fine Art. The Daguerotype,” The Museum of Foreign Literature, Science and Art 35 (Mar. 1839), 341–43, formerly available at “Daguerreian Texts: The First Two Years (1839–1840),” Daguerrian S
ociety, www.daguerre.org/resource/texts/self_op.html (link disabled).
95. Fox Talbot was also the author of the first book to be illustrated with photographs, The Pencil of Nature (1844–46).
96. François Arago, “Fixation des images qui se forment au foyer d’une chambre obscure” (1839), in Oeuvres complètes de François Arago, vol. 7, ed. Jean Augustin Barral (Paris: Gide et J. Baudry, 1854–62), 4–5, trans. Stéphan Reebs and Avis Lang.
97. Arago, “Fixation des images,” 6; Gérard de Vaucouleurs, Astronomical Photography: From the Daguerreotype to the Electron Camera, trans. R. Wright (New York: Macmillan, 1961), 13–16. Arago’s two collaborators in the Moon-imaging experiment were Pierre-Simon Laplace and Étienne-Louis Malus (who was part of Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt). The urging of Daguerre was done by a triad—Arago, Jean-Baptiste Biot, and Alexander von Humboldt—whom de Vaucouleurs describes as “his three renowned physicist-astronomer confidants in the Academy.”
98. François Arago, “Report” (1839), in Classic Essays in Photography, ed. Alan Trachtenberg (New Haven: Leete’s Island Books, 1981), 21–22. Similar statements are made a month later in François Arago, “Le daguerréotype: Rapport fait à l’Académie des Sciences de Paris le 19 août 1839” (Caen: L’Échoppe, reprint 1987), 18–22.
99. For the British side of this story, see R. Derek Wood, “The Daguerreotype Patent, the British Government, and the Royal Society,” History of Photography 4:1 (Jan. 1980), 53–59.
100. “Despite these early successes, most professional astronomers shunned the photographic process. Photography, as it was practiced then, was noxious, imprecise, and inefficient.” Alan W. Hirshfeld, “Picturing the Heavens: The Rise of Celestial Photography in the 19th Century,” Sky & Telescope (Apr. 2004), 38. Two of the many excellent overviews of early astronomical photography are de Vaucouleurs, Astronomical Photography, and John Lankford, “The Impact of Photography on Astronomy,” in Astrophysics and Twentieth-Century Astronomy to 1950, Part A—The General History of Astronomy, vol. 4, ed. Owen Gingerich (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 16–39. On reproducibility, see Walter Benjamin’s widely reprinted 1937 essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.”
101. Thomas Melvill, “Observations on Light and Colours (1752),” reprinted in J. Royal Astronomical Society of Canada 8 (Aug. 1914), 242–43.
102. See Ian Howard-Duff, “Joseph Fraunhofer (1787–1826),” J. Brit. Astronomical Assoc. 97:6 (1987), 339–47.
103. Letter from Bunsen to Sir Henry Roscoe, Nov. 15, 1859, quoted in Mary E. Weeks and Henry M. Leicester, Discovery of the Elements (Easton, PA: J. Chemical Education, 1968), 598.
104. As translated in John Hearnshaw, “Auguste Comte’s Blunder: An Account of the First Century of Stellar Spectroscopy and How It Took One Hundred Years to Prove That Comte Was Wrong,” J. Astronomical History and Heritage 13:2 (2010), 90.
105. De Vaucouleurs, Astronomical Photography, 35, 49. The Henrys’ instrument had a thirteen-inch aperture. Tenth-magnitude stars took them twenty seconds; sixteenth-magnitude took eighty minutes. In 1885, by using long exposures, the Henrys discovered a hitherto unobserved nebula surrounding the Pleiades, even though that region of the sky had been scrutinized by other astronomers for decades. See also “Obituary Notices: Associate: Prosper, Henry,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 64 (Feb. 1904), 296–98.
106. Lankford, “Impact of Photography,” 29.
107. Samuel P. Langley was the first winner of the Henry Draper Medal and the founder of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Laboratory. Re newness and the quotation (from Sir William Huggins), see A. J. Meadows, “The New Astronomy,” in Astrophysics and Twentieth-Century Astronomy to 1950, ed. Gingerich, 59, 70.
108. Harwit resigned under political pressure in May 1995 because of objections to the museum’s planned exhibition marking the fiftieth anniversary of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima by the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay. The controversial exhibition, meant to go beyond a commemoration of the end of World War II, was to include material on the consequences of the bombing. Because of strong advance criticism from groups including the American Legion and the Air Force Association, it was canceled. See Edward J. Gallagher, “History on Trial: The Enola Gay Controversy,” Lehigh University, www.lehigh.edu/%7Eineng/enola (accessed Apr. 12, 2017).
109. Martin Harwit, Cosmic Discovery: The Search, Scope, and Heritage of Astronomy, 1st ed. (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 13–17, 20; Michael J. Sheehan, The International Politics of Space—Space Power and Politics series (London/New York: Routledge, 2007), 2.
110. Isaac Newton, Opticks: or, a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections, and Colours of Light, 4th ed. (London, 1730), bk. 1, pt. 1, prop. viii, prob. 2; see p. 110 of the Project Gutenberg ebook at sirisaacnewton.info/writings/opticks-by-sir-isaac-newton (accessed Jan. 13, 2018).
111. Robert W. Duffner, The Adaptive Optics Revolution: A History (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2009), ix.
112. For more detail, see, e.g., Neil deGrasse Tyson, “Star Magic,” Natural History 104:9 (Sept. 1995), 18–20, digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/6501 (accessed Jan. 14, 2018). Adaptive optics systems are cheaper and simpler for infrared than for visible light, because differences in temperature and density among atmospheric patches are less destructive to infrared wavelengths. As a result, the effective size of an atmospheric patch is correspondingly larger, the mirror need not be as heavily segmented, and finding a nearby guide star is more likely. In addition, the moment-to-moment changes in atmospheric conditions are less severe and occur at a slower rate, so the guide star need not be monitored as rapidly and need not be as bright.
113. See Ann Finkbeiner, The Jasons: The Secret History of Science’s Postwar Elite (New York: Viking, 2006).
114. Duffner, Adaptive Optics Revolution, 14–15; Robert Q. Fugate, quoted in Robert W. Duffner, “Revolutionary Imaging: Air Force Contributions to Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics,” Historical Perspectives—ITEA Journal 29:4 (Dec. 2008), 341.
115. For more on the military contributions, see, e.g., Duffner, Adaptive Optics Revolution, passim; John W. Hardy, Adaptive Optics for Astronomical Telescopes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 16–25, 217–21, 378–79; Robert W. Smith, review of Duffner, Adaptive Optics Revolution, Isis 101:3 (2010), 673–74; N. Hubin and L. Noethe, “Active Optics, Adaptive Optics, and Laser Guide Stars,” Science 262:5138 (Nov. 26, 1993), 1390–94; Ann Finkbeiner, “Astronomy: Laser Focus,” Nature 517:7535 (Jan. 27, 2015), www.nature.com/news/astronomy-laser-focus-1.16741; GlobalSecurity.org, “Airborne Laser Laboratory,” www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/all.htm# (accessed Jan. 14, 2018). Also see Hardy, Adaptive Optics, 11–16, for early efforts at compensating for atmospheric turbulence.
116. Hardy, Adaptive Optics, 378–79. For more on Hardy and his work, see Duffner, Adaptive Optics Revolution, 31ff.
117. Johnson quoted in US Air Force, Space Operations: Air Force Doctrine Document 2-2, Nov. 27, 2006, 1, fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afdd2_2.pdf (accessed Apr. 12, 2017).
118. John F. Kennedy, “President Kennedy’s Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs, May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/United-States-Congress-Special-Message_19610525.aspx (accessed Apr. 12, 2017). This is the same speech in which Kennedy declared, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.”
119. The Union of Concerned Scientists maintains a database of all orbiting satellites at www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-weapons/satellite-database#.WPELGqK1tnJ, updated ”roughly quarterly.” As of Dec. 31, 2016, there were 1,459. As of Aug. 31, 2017, there were 1,738.
/>
120. Corona was called Discoverer; Zenit was called Kosmos. For a comprehensive case study of the Defense Support Program satellites that also addresses the overall political dynamics and implications of military programs, see Jeffrey T. Richelson, America’s Space Sentinels: The History of the DSP and SBIRS Satellite Systems, 2nd ed. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2012).
121. Joan Johnson-Freese, Heavenly Ambitions: America’s Quest to Dominate Space (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 81.
122. T. S. Subramanian, “An ISRO Landmark,” Frontline 18:23, Nov. 10–23, 2001, www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1823/18230780.htm; Habib Beary, “India’s Spy Satellite Boost,” BBC News, Nov. 27, 2001, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1679321.stm; PTI, “India to Launch Spy Satellite on April 20,” Times of India, Apr. 8, 2009, timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-to-launch-spy-satellite-on-April-20/articleshow/4374544.cms (accessed Apr. 12, 2017).
123. European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency, “Galileo Is the European Global Satellite-based Navigation System,” www.gsa.europa.eu/european-gnss/galileo/galileo-european-global-satellite-based-navigation-system; “European Parliament Resolution of 10 July 2008 on Space and Security (2008/2030/INI),” www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0365+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN; Galileo GNSS, “European Satellite Systems in Service of European Security,” June 14, 2016, galileognss.eu/european-satellite-systems-in-service-of-european-security; see also Vincent Reillon and Patryk Pawlak, “EU Space Policy: Industry, Security and Defence,” Galileo GNSS, June 13, 2016, galileognss.eu/eu-space-policy-industry-security-and-defence. (All accessed Apr. 14, 2017.)
124. Trudy E. Bell and Tony Phillips, “A Super Solar Flare,” NASA Science, May 6, 2008, science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare (accessed Sept. 9, 2017).
Accessory to War Page 52
