no way would exist to even estimatentheir size.nIn a discussion of coal, Teller presentsnhis own equally unique and unconventionalntheory of how some coal isnformed, but I’ll let you read that onenfor yourself.nTeller, of course, is best known fornhis invention (with Stan Ulam) of thenthermonuclear explosive and for hisnpromotion of the development of thenhydrogen bomb. It is for this that Westernnliberals have never forgiven Teller,nand they have painted him as a Strangeloviannbomb-lover ever since. But as itnturned out, Teller was right after all.nHe warned that unless we rushed withnthe invention of the Super-bomb, as itnwas called in those days, then Russianwould develop the H-bomb first.nI’ll bet you didn’t know that the Russiansnreally did invent the H-bomb first.nHowever, notice I said “bomb,” notn”device.” It was on October 31, 1952,nthat the Teller-Ulam invention, thenfirst thermonuclear explosion (it wasncalled “Mike”), vaporized the islandnof Elugelab in the Eniwetok atoll innthe South Pacific. But that explosionnwas produced by a huge device that couldnhardly be considered a deliverablenweapon, for it was mainly a huge hydrogen-liquefiern(refrigeration) plant. Itnwas only eight months later that thenRussians produced their first H-blast,n”Joe-four,” but theirs used dry (lithiumndeuteride) fuel and was thus “deliverable”nand therefore virtually a true practicalnweapon. It was seven months aftern”Joe-four” that we detonated “Bravo,”nour first “dry-bomb” type blast.nSuppose we had listened to the “Mennof Peace,” like Robert Oppenheimern(wartime director of Los Alamos Laboratory,nand the “Father of the A-bomb”),nwho advocated that America not developnthe H-bomb at all. Oppenheimer’s approachnwould have invited war by destroyingnthe nuclear weapons paritynthat has kept the two superpowers in anstable, if uneasy, stand-off for nearlynthree decades. But somehow, out of allnof this. Teller became known as thenwarmonger and Oppenheimer the mannof peace. That becomes even morenironic when you recall that it was Teller,nback at wartime Los Alamos (and thenFranck Committee in Chicago), who advocatedna demonstration drop of thenfirst A-bomb on an uninhabited Japanesenisland to convince Japan to surrender,nand it was Oppenheimer andnothers (the Interim Committee) whonvigorously promoted the tactic finallynadopted, which was to drop atomicnbombs on large civilian population centers.nSo, then as later. Teller advocatednthe correct, more sensible and humanenposition, always unpopular with thenmedia, while the “Men of Peace” ad­nvocated a plan which would have led tonwar. And that’s just what’s happeningntoday.n1 eller advocates a strong energynpolicy based on conventional methods.nYet in the press he takes the back pagesnto “Men of Peace” of another era, whonpromise what they can’t dehver: energynboth clean, abundant and nearly free.nBut like the Reverend Jim Jones promotingnthe virtues of Kool-Aid, there isnonly one certainty in all of their claims:nwhen the lights finally go out, theirnreckless lies, as well as they, themselves,nwill drown with the rest of us in the allengulfingndarkness. •nEvil and a Large Economic UnitnRobert Hessen: In Defense of thenCorporation; Hoover InstitutionnPress; Stanford, California.nby Harold C. GordonnDr . Robert Hessen has defended thencorporation on grounds that will startlenmany: he maintains that anyone whonwould deny or destroy corporate rightsnis really attacking individual rights.nThis argument challenges a deeply ingrainednprejudice. Americans have alwaysndistrusted impersonal aggregationsnof power—big government, big labor,nand especially big business. Indeed, thencurrent assault on the corporation isnbased on the claim that large economicnunits are inherently evil. Our new trustbusters.nSen. Edward Kennedy and hisnbureaucratic cohorts, want to disallownall mergers and acquisitions by big firmsnunless these transactions are found tonbe “socially useful.” Ralph Nader advocatesnfederal chartering of corporationsnas a way of making them more “democratic”nand “subservient to the publicnHarold Gordon is on the staff of thenUnited States Industrial Council.nnninterest.”nIt looks as if the neopopulists are attemptingnto make a social case againstnindustrial concentration because theyncan no longer make a convincing economicnone. Extensive research by YalenBrozen, Harold Demsetz, and othernscholars has undermined the myth thatncorporate giants do not compete. Onnthe contrary, they consistently vie withneach other to turn out new and betternproducts at the lowest possible cost.nBecause the attacks on the corporationnhave shifted from the economicnto the social front, those who wouldnrestructure the corporation advance thentheory that corporations are “creaturesnof the state” and may be altered at willnby the people’s representatives. Hessennrejects this view as reactionary. Its rootsnlie in Tudor and Stuart England, whennkings awarded exclusive commercialnrights to their favorites. As these rightsnoriginated with the sovereign, and couldnbe revoked at his pleasure, corporationsnthen were truly “creatures of the state.”nThey remained so until the last century.nIn America, after the Revolution, statenlegislatures assumed the prerogative ofnissuing corporate charters. During thisniS9nIVovembcr/Deccmber 1979n