reformist but still a Marxist. Sakharovnrepresents a middle ground, the sortnof figure the modern Western mindnfeels most comfortable with, standingnfor democracy, justice, disarmament,nfor a true detente.nA nuclear physicist who played ancrucial role in the development of thenhydrogen bomb, a recipient of both thenLenin and Stalin Prizes, three times anHero of Socialist Labor, and the youngestnmember of the U.S.S.R.’s Academynof Sciences, Sakharov was an honorednmember of the Soviet establishment untilnhe began speaking out in 1968. Hisnbook is, however, by no means a smoothnand cohesive document. Repetitive innmany places, following an often exhortativenstyle, it nevertheless places beforenthe Western public a solid chunk ofndocumentation relative to the wholenspectrum of Soviet human rights issues.nThose questions, argues Sakharov, arengermane not merely to those behind thenIron Curtain but affect the very structurenof worldwide peace and security.nHe points out that detente, for all itsnfailings, has served as a stumbling blocknto the Kremlin as it attempts to stiflendomestic dissent. To some extent theyndo fear our reactions. Yet Sakharov isnrealistic enough to urge the West tonmaintain a tough policy vis-a-vis negotiationsnwith the Soviets, noting thatnarms talks should ensue “only from positionsnof equal strength,” and excoriatingn”the shortsightedness and domesticnpolitical maneuverings of certain Westernnpoliticians, who are prepared tonjeopardize the delicate global balancenof power for transitory political situationsnat home.”nHis own life is a testament to valornin the face of force and brutality. He isnplaying a high-pressure, high-stakesngame, wagering the lives and fortunesnof himself, his family and friends, ofnfellow dissidents he has never met butnwhose rights he defends. “There is anneed to create ideals even when youncan’t see any path by which to achieventhem,” he muses, “because if there arenno ideals there can be no hope, and thenn30inChronicles of Culturenone would be completely in the dark,nin a hopeless blind alley.” (DP) DnLibby’snMatter-of-FactnessnLeona Marshall Libby: The UraniumnPeople; Crane Russak & Co. and CharlesnScribner’s Sons; New York.nDoctor Libby has written a memoirhistorynof the nuclear era, from the discoverynof nuclear fission in the 1930’snto the contemporary controversies overnnuclear power. She was one of thenyoungest participants in the ManhattannProject, and worked on the developmentnof the plutonium bomb in Chicago,nHanford and Los Alamos. She gives annaccount of the work on the first nuclearnreactor at the University of Chicago inn1942. Her portraits of Enrico Fermi,nRobert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, EdwardnTeller and others may correctnsome of the popular stereotypes of thesenmen. She throws light on postwar issuesnsuch as the decision to build the H-bombnand the Oppenheimer case. Her view ofnDr. Oppenheimer, though not unfriendly,nis perhaps more critical than has beennfashionable. Without the drive of Lawrence,nTeller and a few others for thenBradford’s Vade MecumnM. E. Bradford: A Better Guide thannReason; Sherwood Sugden & Co.; La Salle,nIllinois.nFor anyone exposed to liberal interpretationsnof the Founding, Bradford’sncollection of essays should come as anprovocative surprise. He treats the Declarationnof Independence primarily as anprotest leveled against the violation ofnthe prescribed rights of Englishmen andnstresses that document’s corporate, notnegalitarian, character. He takes thenphrase “All men are created equal” tonrefer to the parity that colonial Englishmennwere then asserting as their inher­nnnH-bomb project in 1949-1950, and thendiscoveries of Teller and Ulam in 1951,nshe suggests, the United States mightnhave fallen far behind in the nucleararmsnrace. As it was, the Soviets beganntheir H-bomb work before the UnitednStates and developed a deliverable bombnnine months before we did.nDoctor Libby has some importantncomments on nuclear-reactor safetynand the disposal of nuclear wastes,nthough unfortunately her book was finishednbefore the Three Mile Island accident.nShe remains a firm exponent ofnnuclear-fission development, and arguesnconvincingly that the dangers of plutoniumnhave been exaggerated and thatnthe British have already solved the wastenproblem by baking fission products intonglass. She does suggest that the nuclearnindustry would be well advised to takena leaf from the Manhattan Project’s effortsnat Hanford, and settle on onensound, standard reactor design. Thisnwould greatly simplify the acceptancenand construction of new nuclear-powernplants. It is interesting to note that thenHanford reactors, the first large nuclearnreactors ever built, were designed andnbuilt in eighteen months. It can nowntake up to ten years to build a newnpower plant —a rather odd form ofnprogress. (AJL) Dnent right in dealing with the Englishnmotherland. The Declaration was not,nas many modern historians maintain, annaffirmation of a democratic societynbased on political and social equality.nRather, it represented a defense ofnEnglish liberties and was the work ofnpropertied gentlemen, not of democraticnideologues.nNowhere does Bradford grow so malignantnas when he describes populistnand democratic saviors—from Cromwellnto FDR. Those who excite thenmasses with visions of social transformationnmust end by causing destructionnborn of illusions and resentments. Then