This is an interesting and provocative book on the development of the power structure that has evolved around the presidency of the United States. However, some of Wills' assertions seem hard to believe; for example, on page 94 Wills asserts that the National Security Council hoped " ... to increase the military budget from $13.5 million to $50 million per annum." Apparently this refers to the US military expenditures in ca 1950 (the year that NSC 68 was issued). Wills attributes this assertion to Dean Acheson in his tome "Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department", p. 377. Since the US military budget in this era was on the order of $150 billion per year, this seems like a rather trivial increase in military expenditures, but I have no access to Acheson's book, so perhaps this attribution is correct.

In Chapter 10, Wills finds that Khrushchev and Castro were really only interested in 'defending' Cuba from US attack, and urges that Khrushchev was more responsible, and exhibited greater restraint than Kennedy in resolving the Soviet/Cuban missile crisis. Exactly where Wills got his information about the 'true' intentions of the Soviets and Cuba is never made clear; it's just his 'spin' on the bomb power conundrum.

Throughout the book, Wills goes to some length to prove that atomic and nuclear weapons have metamorphosed the US presidency into an American monarchy. Whether this thinly reasoned tome fully proves this assertion is open to question. It will remain for other authors with more scholarly documentation and rationale to prove this point.

General Groves was given charge of the Manhattan Project to develop nuclear weapons and end World War II. He had an enormous budget and operated at a level of secrecy even the Vice President didn't know what was going on. So few people could discuss the project, wacky ideas crept in: e.g. making more and more bombs so as to absorb all the available uranium and plutonium and make any challenge unthinkable.

Since the Manhattan Project, secrecy has progressively become a general pattern of U.S. governance creating a cult of the President as Commander in Chief. Democracy is being challenged. Our government "by the people, of the people and for the people" has acquired distinctly regal qualities. What should the regular U.S. Citizen do about it? A previous reviewer complains that Wills "... does not offer much in the way of a solution to the problem ...". My response is what more can he do? He stuck his neck out writing this book, now it is up to us to promote it and generate peaceful action. First things first and let's make sure of the facts. I am waiting to see if any knowledgeable one and two star reviews appear on amazon.com. Meanwhile I happily award five stars for an interesting, challenging and very accessible book.

Insightful and thorough, this book is required reading for people concerned about the health and maintenance of our national experiment, a democracy in a republic, transformed over time into something that the Founders never intended. Political partisans may take issue with parts of what Garry Wills writes, but the facts are irrefutable. In recent history, we have seen a deliberate, calculated assault on the U.S. Constitution by people dreaming of establishing a new Roman-style empire based on perpetual warfare, just like the old one. The insidious introduction of a "parallel government" in the Bush Administration subverted everything that this country has stood for, and died for. Well before the controversial "bailouts" of financial institutions, the bloated national security infrastructure built at the expense of genuine well-being threatened to bankrupt the country.

Hearkening to the cautionary words written by Alistair Cooke, in the early 1970s, it remains to be seen whether this nation will give up basic freedoms in exchange for "bread and circuses."

Jim O'Dell
Buellton, CA

Garry Wills short, thoughtful analysis of expanding American presidential power since the creation of the atomic bomb is insightful and thought provoking, but not completely unified.

The strongest sections of the book are the first hundred pages or so, where he describes the secrecy surrounding the Manhattan project during WWII and the aftermath of the war are the best. Here he establishes how the the military was able to secure the funds, material and people to produce the Bomb, outside the normal constraints of the Constitution, but within the expectations of a wartime presidency.

In the years following WWII and up to Korea, Wills is still able to show how possession of the Bomb became a legal justification for pursuing numerous secret practices. But by the second half of the book, the connection is not always so clear. Wills describes numerous examples of how recent presidents have avoided Congressional oversight and subverted the Constitution, but it is not clear how having the nuclear football is the root cause of Presidential excess.

Wills seems to imply that once the power is in the President's hands he will inevitably be loath to let it go, but that is not spelled out, it is just assumed. By the time George Bush is re writting legislative bills with his incredibly frequent use of signing statements, it seems Presidential privelege is taken for granted. While the book does a great job on examining how the threat of the Bomb in the Soviet Union's hands was used to ratchet up the security state he is silent on the impact of the collapse of the USSR.

Wills also does not offer much in the way of a solution to the problem, perhaps because he does not see one. It seems to require a Washington like decision - a President will need to refuse to accept imperial powers that a nation is willing to bestow on him for the long range interest of the nation. Towards the end of the book he makes clear he does not think this will happen in the Obama administration.

The age of atomic bombs and forward-located ICBMS (especially on submarines) means that presidents can no longer wait to consult Congress and receive a declaration of war.But that's the worst-kept secret of today - everyone knows that the president is never far from the 'nuclear football,' ready to respond to attacks or even initiate one without approval from Congress. Author Wills, however, sees this as only one of numerous Constitutional violations that have grown out of the nuclear genie. Others include the secrecy with which General Leslie Groves operated during the Manhattan Project (Congress wasn't even informed), the arbitrary revocation of Robert Oppenheimer's security clearance (he wasn't supportive enough of the H-bomb), keeping secret the quid pro quo given by Kennedy to end the Cuban Missile Crisis, our 'police action' in Korea, and thousands of legally-dubious presidential signing statements are others. Wills also sees the nuclear age as having led to U.S. stationing troops around the globe. Then there's been our Cngressionally unapproved and unprovoked invasions of Cuba, Panama, and Grenada, and toppling regimes in Iran, the Dominican Republic, the Republic of the Congo, the the lies and half-truths that brought the U.S. into the Vietnam War and extended it briefly to Cambodia.

"Sixty-eight straight years of war emergency powers (1941-2009) have made the abnormal normal, and constitutional diminishment the settled order." A national security state has become increasingly pervasive - increased secrecy and spying have become the norm, and 'extraordinary renditions,' along with unilateral abrogation of treaties additional means of skirting the Constitution.

Wills concludes with "Perhaps in the nuclear era, the Constitution has become quaint and obsolete." John Yoo, author of legal justifications for some of Bush II's actions in the WOT, might suggest it was obsolete long ago - his "The History of Executive Power From George Washington to George W. Bush" points out that after one ill-fated attempt, Washington quit seeking advice and consent from the Senate on treaties and ambassadors. And Dean Acheson, Truman's Secretary of State, had the State Department list 83 prior cases in which a president dispatched troops without asking Congress to declare war.

Bottom-Line: Given our current inability to govern from Washington, we need to rethink and rewrite the Constitution.

With the rise of Alexander the Great, the experiment in limited participatory democracy in ancient Athens came to an end after about two centuries, and Athens was absorbed into Alexander's empire.

With the rise of Octavian (later known as Caesar Augustus), the ancient Roman Republic came to an end after about five centuries, as Octavian transformed the appearances of the old Roman Republic into the new Roman Empire, with himself as the first emperor.

With the rise of secret research in World War II on the atomic bomb, the appearances of the old American Republic came to an end after about a century and a half, as various presidents transformed the old American Republic into the new National Security State, with each successive president in turn as the commander-in-chief of the new National Security State.

In effect, the new National Security State overturned and reversed the cause for which the American Revolution had been fought and for which the U.S. Constitution had been written.

But, hey, aren't most Americans today happy to live in the new National Security State, with each successive president as the commander-in-chief of the National Security State?

After all, Dick Cheney is.

But Garry Wills isn't. So he rails against the new National Security State as though the spirit of 1776 and the U.S. Constitution were still alive in the hearts of Americans today.

But how many Americans will pay attention to his railing? Didn't the spirit of 1776 and the U.S. Constitution die with the rise of the new National Security State?

Thomas J. Farrell, author of Walter Ong's Contributions to Cultural Studies: The Phenomenology of the Word and I-Thou Communication (The Hampton Press Communication Series (Media Ecology).)

In "Bomb Power" Wills argues that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki marked a critical turning point in American polity. Presidents would no longer have the time necessary, nor the luxury of consulting Congress and asking for a formal declaration of war. The increasing ability to forward position nuclear weapons and the rapidly improving technology for delivering them meant that time and space were contracting too rapidly to allow for such formality. More importantly, the potential for mass destruction had to be closely guarded to prevent the potential for catastrophic mistakes. Thus the near dictatorial powers General Leslie Groves had crafted around the Manhattan Project had to be transferred to the direct control of the President. This served to greatly enhance the power and prestige of the President, leading to the construct of the Imperial Presidency that evolved over time, allowing Presidents to avoid and evade the need to consult Congress on military matters, whether it was Korea, Vietnam, or other conflicts. As a result there was a pressing need for a robust national security apparatus that could effectively serve the needs of the President in such a dangerous age of nuclear proliferation.

Wills argues that the creation of this National Security State (as he terms it in the title and elsewhere) has served to weaken democracy by transforming the presidency and the executive branch into something with near dictatorial powers, thwarting any effective checks and balances from Congress. At times Wills digresses into tangents that weaken his narrative and really have little to do with his central arguments. In the later chapters it almost had the ring of a polemic against the abuses of George W. Bush's Administration that will certainly cause readers to accuse Wills of particular biases. That tempts me to caution that "Bomb Power" may certainly be loved or hated by readers based on political idealogy, but his arguments elsewhere are quite persuasive and thought provoking. "Bomb Power" is perhaps one of the best written books on the consolidation of power within the Executive Branch driven by the events of the Cold War and is up on par with other recent books such as The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, George Kennan, and the History of the Cold War and One Minute to Midnight: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Castro on the Brink of Nuclear War (Vintage). If Wills could reign in his diversions I'd be tempted to give it an enthusiastic five star rating. Even with those flaws and it's diatribe against the Bush Administration I'm tempted to give it five stars.