..,,-·1...... ,...

(,
; / \.. 1. _J ...,. :
I .· .
(;.,.··
7', ).. . •~-"~
).

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

VOLUME VIII ,,

......................... ~. . . .1··-.,..... .........:Afl·~ ..., "%.rt.~ •.....,,.,-

.....-~,-._ _......_

t
t J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER
i
I
~ .fo(·

j_;_· :~;·~ erH:_~l-~- ~-:~- - ·-· - - - - -'

, I
l: ~ 1i ." i~l
'l'h1s docu•:-!!n: cc.· . -,' .~;_,·~ ·1~-~ dt'hllil
1'.ii' le..:: ·-~ · : ·''' J. !tu 1r1.mi111llial
.;o~ure o, i~:; i:c21.~nl11 In any mannu
unau1hotl11.ed person la pzchlbltecl.

Place - Wa•hington, D. C.

Date _ April 21, 1954 .·

. Pagea... ·.l.414..;to.·.~.5l0 ..

.ALDERSON llEPORTING COMP.A.NY ..

0./ficial '1( eporters
306 Ninth Street, N~ W.,
Wqhingcon 4, D. C. ·

AIJIOCIATll Ill PRlllCIP.fU CITlll

... , C"' ·'\ (O\• (" l ' .··7 ".'. ?(. t'
.'.. -< _:<..... ........... ) .) -...'(.)

Copy No. 8
., ')
 1414
PAP!CH UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COARUSS!ON

PERSONNEL SECtmITY BOARD

.
In the Matter of
..
J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER .•
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
~ ~ 0

Room 2022,
Atomic Energy Commission,
Building T-3,
Washington, D. C.
Wednesday, April 21, 1954.

The abo•·e entitled matter came on for hearingr

pursuant to recess» be:iore the Board,, :'it 9~30 q.m.

PERSONNEL SECURITY BOARD:

r.m .. GORDON GRAY 9 Chairmano

DRo WARD T .. EVANSp Member.
MRo THOMAS A. MORGAN~ l\lembero

PRESENT:

ROGER ROBB 0 and

C~ A.. ROLANDER, JRo, Counsel for the Board.
J. ROBERT OPPENHEil\iER o
LLOYD Ko GARRISON,
SAMUEL J. SILVERMAN, and
ALLEN Bo ECKER, Counsel for Jc Robert Oppenheimer.
HERBERT Sa !1v.\RKS, Co-Counsel for Jo Robert Oppenheimer.
 I HDE X

-Uitm:is;:;- - - --
Direct Cross Redirect Ee cross

8UM~fER T, Pl!ill ll.116

144.1

HORMAN FOSTER RAMSEY: JR. 1453 1465

J~SAJDORE: :~SAAC RABI 1494 1525 1553 1556

1532 1567
 1415

2 PROCEEDINGS
...------.-----...-~._..

MR. GRAY: The proceeding will resume.

tm. Pike, do you wish to testify under oath? You
are not required to do so.
r.m. PIKE: I would rather testify under oath.

rvm. GRAY: What is your full name, sir?

MR. PIKE : Sumner T •. Pilte •

.MR. GRAY: Sumner T. Pike, do you SWClll.. that the
testimony you are to give the Board shall be the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
lHH. PIKE : I do •

r~. GUAY: Will you be aettted 1 please, Eir.

Mny I, perhaps unuocessarily, call you attention
to the existenco of the perjury statutes. I am sure you
are familiar with them.
! should like to request that if in the course of

your testi1non;,i,' it becoues necessary for you to discuss or

disclose restricted data you will notify the chairman in

advance so we can take necessary steps under those circum-

stances.
nm. PIKE : I may have to ask Mr. Bolander whether
things are restricted or not because I have been away from
this thing for two and a half years and I don't know what
has been released.
~m. GRAY: Please be free to malte any inquiry about
 1416

3 it.
r.m.. ROLANDER : We have Dr. Beckerley with us.

MB. GRAY: '.fhe other thing I should like to oay

to you, si , is that we treat these proceedings as a confi-
den~ial matter between the Commission and its officials and
Dr. Oppenheimer and his representatiYes and witnesses. The

Commission will initiate no releases with respect to this

proceeding. We are expressing the hope that each witness

will take the same attitude.

MR. PIKE: It bothers me a little bit in case
there should be leaks as to what attitude shall I take, but
as far as it seems reasonable and possible, I will go along
with your feeling on it. I will be the source of no leaks.
~m.. GRAY: I have simply'stated the position of
this Board.
Mr. Garrison, would you proceed.
Whereupon,
SUMNER T. PIKE
was called as a witness, having been duly sworn, was examined

and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GARRISON:
Q Dr. Pike, what is your present position?

A I am Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission

in the State of r.7aine.

 Q Appointed to that by the Governor?

A Yes.
Q By the Governor and Council?

A Yes. The Council follows very much the same

confirmation procedure as the Senate.
Q Are you engaged in business in Maine, also?
A Yes. I am a part owner of a couple of businesses.

Q Sardines?
A Sardines.
Q You served on the Atomic Energy Commission from

1946 to the end of 1951, did you not?

A Exactly to December 15, 1951.
Q You were acting Chairman the last four months?

A No. It was between tts time Mr. Lilienthal left

which I think was in February, 1950, until Gordon Dean was
appointed, I believe, in July of that same year, for a few

months.
Q During this period you were well acquainted with

Dr. Oppenheimer?
A Yes.

Q Would you say something about the nature and extent

of that acquaintanceship?
A I first met Dr. Oppenheimer, I think, at ·,~he first

meeting of the General Advisory Committee -- I don't remem-

ber the date of that. -- during that pGiri.od, which must have
 ' '

1418

5 been late 1946 or early 1947 until the day I left. It

happens to be the day that they were meeting. I also saw

him when they met in l'l:-1shington, which was, I think, oftener

than the statutory minimum of four times a year. I some-
times saw h:l.m outside of the meetings and I sometimes saw
him when he was in Washington not at a meeting of the Com-

mittee.
He was in town at times as a member of other

boards and committees and sometimes perhaps as just an indi-

vidual. Outside of the office I saw him -- well, let me
see, there was a period I think during the summer of 1947

when we boarded at the Bohemian Grove Forest out in Califor-

nia. We were there three or four days.
Q Us being whom?
A The Commission, its laboratory heads, some of the
G•naeral Advi.sory Committee and several scientists like Dr.

Wigner. I don't remember whether he was a laboratory head or

not at that time. At that period we were put around at the
various cottages and Dr. Oppenheimer, Mr. Lilienthal and I
were put in the same cottage.
There were other times, once perhaps, or oftener,

when the committee was here I had them up to dinner between

their meetings.
Q The GAC?
A The GAC, yes. I saw Dr. Oppenheimer, I think, at
 1419
G Dr. Smyth's house. I believe that day Ileft I was going to
see him again but there was a bad snowstorm and nobody could

get to Dr. Smyth•s. I have not seen him from then until

yesterday.

Q The relations between the Atomic Energy Conwission

and the GAC were of a fairly close character, would you say?

A Yes, I should think so.

Q Did you attend meetings of the GAC?
A Yes. Their custom was to ask us in, usually

once or twice during their meetings, and then almo.st invari-

ably at the end of their meetings, at which time Dr. Oppen-
heimer would give us an oral review of the things thnt they
had been taking up and the results they arrived at. Later,
as I remember it, he would send a written summary.
I don't think there was any meeting they had here
that I did not attend in part, except possibly when I was
away on vacation or on Commission business.
Q Did you attend a meeting in Princeton in the early
summer of 1951 over which Dr. Oppenheimer presided?

A Yes.
Q The purpose of that meeting was to push forward

with --
A It was to pull together, as I remember it, various

ideas that had developed about hydrogen or fusion weapons.

It was quite a substantial meeting. As I remember it lasted
 1420
7 the better part of two days.
Q Mr. Pike, there has been a good deal of testimony
here about the work of the GAC, and I am going to try to
avoid duplicating the record, so I will just ask you a

general question.
Based on your observations and of the knowledge of
the work of the GAC and of Dr. Oppenheimer's chairmanship

of it, did you form any impression as to his own contribu-

tion to strengthening the country in the six years that you

have been talking about?

A Yes; I think theGAC under his chairmanship made
a major contribution to the work of the Commission and the
Commission, I take it, was trying to work for the good of

the country.
Q You have read the Commission's letter of December
23, 1953, which initiated these proceedings, containing the
derogatory informa~ion about Dr. Oppenheimer?
A Yes, I read the New York Times which I take it

gave the full letter.

Q On the basis of your knowledge of Dr. Oppenheimer
and your·experiences with him, what is your opinion as to

his loyalty?
A I never had any question about his loyalty. I

think he is a man of essential integrity. I think he has been

a fool several times, but there was nothing in there that

 1421

3 shook my feeling. As a matter of fact, it was a pretty

good summary, it seemed to me, of the material that was

•
turned over to us early in 1947 by the F.B.I., all except
the last thing about the hydrogen bomb. Ofcourse, that
was not in then.
Q The letter and, I assume, the file contained data
about past associations of his.
A Yes.
Q In your judgment is his character and the associa-
tions of the past and his loyalty such that if he were to
continue to have access to restricted data, he would not
endanger the common defense or security?
A No, 1· don't think he would endanger the common
defense or security the least bit.
Q You read about the Chevalier incident in the
Commission's letter and Dr. Oppenheimer's answer?
A Yes.
Q It is not clear as to how much of that story was
in the file that you went over in 1947. I assume you went

over whatever the file was?

A Yes.
Q Personally?
A Personally.
Q And participated in the discussions with the other

Comm:lssioners?
 J422

9 A Oh, yes.

Q Do you or do you not have any clear recollection

of the Chevalier incident as of that time? If you don't,

don't try to --
A I don't think I have much beyond the summary of the
letter of last week, which was published last week. There
was a lot more there. It was a pretty thick file, but I
don't remember exactly what was.in the file.
Q May I put to you a hypothetical question which I
put to you, I think, last night in order that you might
have an opportunity to reflect on it. Supposing that it

were established in addition to the description of the inci-

dent as it appears :Jn the Commission's letter that after the
conversation between Chevalier and Dr. Oppenheimer in which
Chevalier had informed him that Eltenton was in a position
to tra~smit secret data to Russia that for several months

Dr. Oppenheimer failed to report the matter to the security

officers; that thereafter he did on his own initiative report

to the security officers, but revealed only the name of

Eltenton, and declined when pressed to do so to reveal the
name of Chevalier, was not frank in describing the exact
circumstances of what had taken place, added to the story
about Chevalier without mentioning many certain facts which

were not in the picture; that later when again pressed to

reve.al the name of Chevalier ·he again declined; t.bat Genera1

 1423

10 Groves asked him to reveal the uame and he said he would not
do so unless ordered; that General Groves said he didn't

want to order him to do it, asked him to think it ovor and

met with him again and said he would have to order him

unless Dr. Oppenheimer would tell him the name and D~. Oppen-

heimer finally revealed the name of Chevalier.

Assuming that this were established would this

alter the opinion that you have expressed here to the Board

about your present views of Dr. Oppenheimer's loyalty and

the propriety of his having continued access to restricted

data?

A No.
Q Do you want to say why it wouldn't alter your

opinion?

A I think it was a bad incident. Taken alone it

would have bothered me very much. I suspect I have been

party to incidents in my life that I rather not have certain-

ly taken out of context. This, woven into the context,

however, of performance under closer observation for him,

many years and achievements of such size as to warrant the

gratitude of this country, I don't think it should be given

much weight at all.

Q Turning to another topic of the H-bomb for a

moment, without going into the details about which there is

a great deal in the record, as I understand it in reporting
 ltl24

11 to the President the views of the Atomic Energy Commission

about whether to go forward with an all out H-bomb program
or not, following the Russian explosion in the fall of 1949,
there were several separate reports, were there not?
A There were. I think there were four.
Q Would you just say what they were? I mean who
•
made these four reports?
A Strauss made one definitely for going ahead; Dean
made another in which he recommended some prior --
Q He already has testified.
A Smyth and Lilienthal made another.
Q Mr. Lilienthal has testified about that.
A .I agreed with them that this was not the time to

go on an all out effort but put in a supplementary memoran-

dum which, as I remember, I had to put in somewhat later
on account of being on the Coast. I had to take a trip at
that time.
Q You went to the Coast after the discussion?
A After the discussion. I don't think I put in my

separate memorandum until I got back. That must have been

about the middle of November.
Q That was about ten days after the meeting or some-
thing like that?
A I think so.
Q That went to the Whi t-e BOuc;e?
 1425
A Yes. \Vhether it went to the Security Council or

the President, I don't know. I have to perhaps say here that

I had not realized that I had any access to records so I have

not looked at any records since I left the Commission in

1951 and, of course, took none with me. I am relying co~­

pletely on my memory as to the time and dates.

Q Do you remember the substance of the points that

you made in that memorandum?

A I think so.

Q 1'/ould you state them?

A One of them was that we had no knowledge that the

military needed such a weapon. Another one was that the

cost of producing tritium in terms of plutonium that might

otherwise be produced looked fantastically high -- 80 to

100 times, probably, gram for gram.

The third one, and this sort of tied into the

first, was, as we all know, that the damage power of the

bomb does not increase with the size of the explosion,

and it seemed that it might possibly be a wasted effort to
make a great big one where some smaller ones would get more

efficiency.

I think I put in another one.: That as between

the fission work we were doing and the fusion thing in ques-

tion here, there were some good things about the f~ssion

tbings. Up to that time and up to the present nobod.y has

 1426
13 brought up anything useful for mankind out of the fusion.
Q Out of the fusion?
A The fusion. In other words, I have never yet
heard of any possibility of anything beneficial coming from
the hydrogen end of it.
Q In terms of useful energy?
A Other than as a weapon. Again I am going entirely
from memory, but I think that is what I put in my memorandum.
Q These were your own independent views?
A They were my own. They could not be completely
independent beca'u:se the Lord knows we had been talking
and discussing and, let us say, arguing for well over a
month at that time, possibly nearer two months.. So the
views were the result of a great deal of discussion. I
think they were my own. I came with a slightly different
set of reasons than the others, although I did come out with
the same recommendation as Lilienthal and Smyth did.
r.m. GARRISON: I think that is all, l\fr. Chairman.
MR. ROBB: I have no questions.
MR. GRAY: I have some questions, Mr. Pike.
I have been in the course of these proceedings
pursuing something that has been illusory and evasive as far
as I am concerned, and it may be just because I don't compre-
hend what has been said. This perhaps invc•lves a matter
of recollection on your part, so, ·Of course, you can testify
 1427
J.I,': only v.rhat you recall about it.
In Dr. Oppenheimer's reply, dated March 4, to

General Nichols' letter, he referred to the October 29, 1949

meeting of the General Advisory Committee and indicated that

this meeting was called to consider two questions. One
was the general questions in the light of the news about the

Soviet success, was the Commission doing all it should do,

and if not, in what way should it alter its course.
The second vras to pursue the question of \"1hethe1•

there should be a "crash" program with respect to t!le Super.

The record shows that the then Chairman, lit~.

Lilienthal, wrote a letter -- I am sorry I don't remember

the date -- to the General Advisory Committee, which raised

this first question.
Then the record shows that later in the same month,

that is_, October, there was a letter -- I can refer to that?

MR. ROLANDER: Yes, certainly. You can show it

to him.
MR. GRAY: A letter dated October 21, 1949, signed

by you as Acting Chairman of the Commission, to Dr. Oppen-

heimer with respect to this October meeting and asking cer-

tain questions, I believe, that the committee should address

itselj: to.
MR. ROLANDER: (Banding letter to witness)
TJm WITNESS: I would not have i·emembered this in
 1428

15 detail, but questions of this sort were certainly running

through our minds at the time.

MR. GRAY: Yes. Of course, there are a lot of
questions raised 1~ this letter.
THE WITNESS : That is right •
MR. GRAY: I have not looked at it very carefully
recently, but I don't believe this second question which I
referred to and which appears in Dr. Oppenheimer's reply of
March 4 certainly was asked in that form in this letter.
THE WITNESS: lfould you repeat that second question
for me, Mr. Gray? In reading I forgot what the second point

was.
MR. GRAY: Yes. Let me give you the exact language

of that.
Dr. Oppenheimer's reply indicates that the Comr4ission
asked the General Advisory Committee to consider and advise
on two related questions, the second one of which is, and
I am now reading from his letter, "whether a. 'crash' program
for the development of the Super should be a part of any new

program?"
What I have been trying to indentify :for my own
information in that accord is how this second question got

asked in that form. I don't believe it is raised in that

form by your letter.
THE WITNESS: I don't see it there.
 1429

lG MR. GRAY: I might say to you that I believe that

Mr. Lilienthal testified that his recollection was not good
on thls point. Am I correct on that? If I didn't nsk him

this question it is because it waslate and I was tired,

because I have really been trying to find out about it.

MR. GARRISON : I think I remember, Mr. Chai:i.·mnn,

that he testified he had written the letter that raised the

first of these two questions, and I myself don't re~ember

very clearly.
MR. GRAY: lily qtlestion of you is: Do you recall

whether you met with the committee and asked this second
questioil about the ''crash" program?
WITNESS: I remember very distinctly the phrases

''crash program" and "all out program" being used almost

interchangeably for some months. If I had to rely on my

unaided memory, and I guess I do, I would think that phrase
arose with Mr. Strauss. At least in my mind it ties in
with what he wanted to do.
In the meetings of theGeneral Advisory Committee
of course, I am mre you are aware from previous testimony --
they were not held to the things which the Commission asked
them to do. I think there were several times when they
got here and either took up things not on the previously

prepared agenda of their own motion or something had

happe.ned bet'iveen t'he time of tbe calling of the ·meeting ·and

 1430
-17 the time that they got there that would be discussed.
As I remember it, they were reasonably formal and
kept pretty full notes, but I don't think there was
any reason why a thing should not be discussed and consider-
ed even though it had not been put on any agenda• like the
calling of a nreoting of a Board of Directors or stockholders,
you tell them what you know should be discussed and then
you leave room for anything new thatmay come up.
It seems to me that knowing there was a very strong
recommendation for a heavy program on what we now call the
Super, I guess -- but that is an old name -- this would
inevitably have comeup in the discussion called for by this
letter. I don't know whether I am helping you out or not.
The "crash program" or the "all out program", let
us say, was an extreme of one position. It ·seems to me, let
'us say, that was the position that Mr. Strauss took.
Mn. GRAY: It was the position that the Government
of the United States ultimately took.
Tim WITNESS : I am saying at this time. The program
as laid down by the President in 1950, two or tbree months
later, was, yes, l~retty close to a crash program, in that
as you may remember -- I don't think this is classified --
it was very shortly embodied in a budget that Wt\S set up,
• an emergency deficiency bill, a very large size, in addition
to the one which we had alread sent up that year which had
 1431

18 already strained the imagination of the Appropriations

Committee pretty strongly.

That was a heavy program, yes. I am tryinc to

answer your question. I am afraid I haven't very well.

MR. GRAY: I am afraid You haven't and I won't

take any more of your time in pursuing it. I don't thinlt

you can answer it. I think you have indicated your :;11amory

is not clea1· as to the letter or instructions.

TUE WITNESS: My impression is that this c1~ept

into ·the discussion and probably got the name crasb some
where along the line because it was a convenient handle, just
as the name ofSuper came along -- I don't know where it came
from -- but it became a convenient handle.
MR. GRAY: I would like to turn to something else,
if I may, Mr. Pike, and that is the consideration given by
the Commission to the Clearance of Dr. Oppenheimer in, I

believe, March, 1947.

THE WITNESS: I think that is right.
MR. GRAY: Is ityour recollection that the Commis-
sion took formal action to clear Dr. Oppenheimer? I might
say that there is some confusion about this.
THE WITNESS : I don't have any clear recollection

that we took formal action to clear him then. I think you

are all aware that was a period of extreme confusion.

MR. GRAY: Yes.

 1432

19 TilE WITNESS : When the confirmation hearings were

going on on the Bill, when the Commission was going through
the initial throes of organization and really bad not started
to organize. My memory is that even the minutes themselves
had to be rewritten some months later, that is, the minutes
of the meetings. I may be wrong about that. But if you
told me that something was not on the record as of that
time, I would say I would not be at all surprised.
MR. GRAY: I think the fact is that in August
something was written which purported to reflect action taken
in :March.
MR. ROBB : February.
MR. GARRISON: It said February.
MR. GRAY: It said February when indeed whatever
took place actually took place in March. So there is a good
deal of confusion. I don't think the record is clear that
there was formal action which cleared Dr. Oppenheimer in
1947.
I am just asking you whether you are surprised to
hear me say that the record is not clear on that point?
THE lVITNESS : No, sir, I am not • I think both Mr.
Beckerley and Mr. Rolander were here during that period.
This is off the particular subject of Dr. Oppenheimer. But
as I remember it, Lyle Bellesly was succeeded by Roy Snapp
as Sec:retary and Bellesly's records were in unsl\tisfactory
 1433

20 shape and unsatisfactory to everybody. I think Snapp went

right back and took what he had~ what he could find, and wrote
up things. There were a lot of ex post facto things in the
record.

I think you will find if you go through it there

were a lot of things picked up and a lot of things missed

that should have been picked up.

~.m. GRAY: The fact is that the Chairman of the

Commission discussed this matter with people in tho White

House at about the time that the Commission read these files.

THE WITNESS: I am quite sure about that.

MR. GRAY: Is it possible that this kind of thing

could have happened : Thatthe Commission new that the

Chairman had consulted the White House; that the Chairman

was perhaps expecting some further word from the White House;

that no further word ever came from the White House and that

in fact nothing was ever done about the action on the clear-

ance?
THE WITNESS : I suppose that is possible. Of

course, that "as of" date was before the delivery of this

dossier; the February date, if I am not mistaken.

MR. GRAY: Yes; the February date could not, I

think, be correct.

THE WITNESS : I am not sure that 1 t couldn't.

MR. GRAY: You mean it is possible that the clearance

 1434

21 might actually have been considered in February?

THE WITNESS : I am not sure • For instance, the
clearance of all the members of the General A(fVisory Commit-
tee might have been made and considered in February. I

am not sure thnt it might not have happened that this was
the only case where a question was raised. This may have
been kept in abeyance to see whether that should have been
confirmed until August.
I am no clearer on the thing than our records are,
but I think that is all in the realm of possibility.
MR. GRAY: Did you consider, however, this a
serious thing at the time?
THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, I did. I am sure we all

did. There were five of us on the Commission. As I remem-

ber it, this was a unaminous action.
MR. GRAY: I nm going to change my course now a

little bit, Mr. Pike.

You testified that one of your reasons for not
being enthusiastic about the all out program was the fact
that there had been expressed no military need for this kind
of weapon.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. GRAY: Do you think it possible that a military
need had not been expressed to the Commission at that time
because the military did not have any reason to believe that
 1435

?';"; it was feasible? The reason I ask that is that once it

.
became feasible there seems to be no question that ·~he mili-
tary people think tbere is a need. I believe that 1.n correct •

THE lfITNESS: I think you will find, or thCo?1•c should

be in the documentation of the Commission and probably in

thatof the military liaison committee, the first exp~ession

of the military that such a thing was desirable. I don't

remember the date of it, of course. I remember distinctly
seeing such a paper. Whether it was in a meeting of the

military liaison committee meeting or a Commission meeting,

I don't remember.

I will say this : That we were accustomed to seoing

foul ups over in the military to the point where thay could
not agree with what they wanted. W'e were accustomed of ltnow-
ing all tho disagreements between the services.
I remember on this hydrogen bomb thing telling
Secretary Johnson that wa were getting very impatient with
the'ir waiting so long to come to decisions; that we could
expect to have things done, and we expected to be doing them

wJ1ile they were messing ~u·ou:nd wi'th their papers over at

the Pentagon. But he seemed a little miff·ad, althour.ih he

·was well aware when things went up to the Joint Chiefs they
went round and round and round until sombody gave them a jolt.

I remember frankly in the back <>:f my head thinl:•ing

that I would like to get these boys on tbs line. I thinlt
 143G

23 later they came on the line. You are perfectly familiar

with that. You were in that rat race at one time.
MR. GRAY: My recollection is about the same as
yours.
I suppose people in the military liaison committee
at that time perhaps can answer the question I put to you
better than you could.
I want to ask JO u one other serious question. You
say tbat as of 1949 and indeed as of today so far as you
know, there seems to be no use other than a military which
might come out of these processes?
THE WITNESS : Yes, sir, I believe that is correct.
MR. GRAY: I am asking for information. I don't
believe we had any testimony on that.
THE WITNESS: I am sure that there had been none
suggested then. If there have been any suggested since, I
am unaware of it.
MR. GRAY: In your official position you would be

very much interested in that.

TBE WimtESS: I would. All I am saying is that a
good many things have happened since December 15, 19.51 and,
of course, I would not be aware of those. I have had.no
security clearance. I think I have been in the Commission
Off ice once at their request and that was when the question
came up of power plant for the Paducah operation.
I .
' \
 1437

24 MR. GRAY: Al"e there any questions, Dr. Evans?

DR. EVANS: Yes. Mr. Pike, I understand that you

did say that Dr. Oppenheimer made a number of mistokes?

THE lfITNESS : I think so, yes.

DR. EVANS: I want to ask you another question.

If you had been in Dr. Oppenheimer's position when he was

approached in this matter about giving information to our
enemies, you would have reported that immediately, would
you·not?
TBE WITNESS: In 1943 I think I would have. I
fortunately was not in the position of having that question
put up to me. But I think I would have.
DR. EVANS: I wish. you would explain. Do you think
there is any military need today for a Super?
THE WITNESS : Yes, I .believe there is, Doctor. I

think if you go back and get the document I think exists,

you will see one or two reasons that I didn't have in mind.
One of them, for instance, is that you get a much
larger margin of error for a miss. Something, for example,
that will take a radius of ten miles rather than one mile.
Another one is that if you can get through you
only put at risk one or two or three planes as against a
flock of them to destroy a big target.
I can rationalize uses for the Super. I felt that
the military desirability of the Super ougbt to be estimated
 1438

25 by military people rather than a bunch of civilians like

ourselves. I still think their views would be quite authori-
tative with me.
DR. EVANS : You wished in your own account he-re to
go rather slow on this Super, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: I wished to get, as I testified later .
before theJoint Committee, to get more facts before ~oing

out on a crash program. This was a thing involving, as I

remember it, at least a couple of billion dollars.
I would like to bring in here one thing that was
not very well considered in the period we were talking about
but had to come up some months later. I think it was after
~fr. Lilienthal left. I remember I was \on that committee
of the National Security Council.
The order had been given and the question was not
whether to go ahead but how to go ahead. I brought up at
that meeting my point of view which was that this country
could be in no more miserable position than to bave a success-
ful development on our hands and then to have to spend three
or four years in building factories to produce the thing.
Therefore, in going ahead with the development we
had to at the same time go ahead with our factories or
plants just as though we were sure we were going to have a
successful development. That seemed to me always to be an
inberent part of the development question •

•
 1439

26 You see why we would be in a miserable position.

We had proven that it could be done, and somebody else could
have easily proven the same thing at the same time and three
or four years to build plants would be a pretty tough pGriod.
So it involved a major expenditure of time and
money, effort and manpower and it was not a thing to be gone
into lightly. · I wanted to get some important facts into
the picture, all the facts that could be gotten, and I was
not willing to recommend a drive program until we had some
of those facts.
Some of them came in if I am not mistaken. I think

we got that military appraisal or at least a military apprai-

sal before the January, 1950 decision from the \'lhite House.

I am not completely sure of that, but I think that wns in.

I don't know whether I have answered your question
or not.
DR. EVANS: Yes, I think you have. The thing that
I was trying to get your opinion on was as to whether A-bombs
as big as this and as costly as this would mean that we ought
to have a lot of targets on which to use them, whereas if
we only·had a couple it would be like killing a mosquito
with a sledge hammer.
THE WITNESS : This 1lS in my mind. I am nfraid to
give numberswould be to get into a secu~ity point. The

first military appraisal x saw indicated that there were not

 1440

27 very many targets on which they thougbtsuch a big bomb would

be required. There were some •
DR. EVANS : Thank you.
MR. GRAY: I have just one question suggested by

Dr. Evans' question.

You view was that we ought to know more nbout it.
You werE1not just unalterably opposed?
THE WITNESS : No. I think I put in in my memoran-
dum which you should have the qualification "at this time".
MR. GRAY: Is it your recollection that most of

the members of the General Advisory Committee were opposed

at any time?
THE WITNESS: No, that is not my recollection,
although I would, of course, have to refresh my memory.
That is not my recullection. l think they brought in,· as
perhaps they properly should, some, let us say, political and
strategic and moral questions which frankly did not weigh
very big with me. As far as I am concerned there was not
then and thereis not now a great deal of difference in
morality between one kind of warfare and another. This stuff
never affected me very much. But I think the GAC did give
it perhaps more consideration than I did.
MR. GRAY : Do you have any questions?
nm. GARRISON : Just a few, Mr. Chairman.
 1441
28 FURTBER DmECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. GARRISON :

Q Speaking of what was before the GAC at their

meeting on October 29, 1949, in response to a question by
the Chairman you said something to the effect that the ques-
tion of the crash program crept into the discussion, as I
recall tile phrase.
I wonder if when you were talking about discussion
you had reference to the preliminary meeting between the·
membe:i:rs of the Commission and the members of the GAC which
started off the meeting, as I understand it, in accordance
with the regular practice?
A No. Ithink what I was referring to was the various
meetings of the Commission during, let us say, the month or
a little more than a month between the announcement of the
Russian bang and this GAC meeting.
Q In other words, in the Commission's discussions
before the GAC meeting the question of a crash program
for the B-bomb was to the fore?
A I think so. Let me bring another group in on that.
Don't forget that we had a large and a very able staff. · We
had the heads of the various divisions in Wnshington and we
had at our various outposts poeple who came in on short.
notice. I am sure the Commission minutes will show who was
at t'arious meetings and when, but I am csompletely clear in
my inemory that there had been a lot of discussions. I nm not
29 completely clear in my memory exactly when they took place
and who was present at each one. That is a matter of record
and can be very clearly and easily got at.
Q When the question was put to the GAC in Mr. Lilien-
thal 'a letter asking that consideration be given to whether

in view of the Soviet success the Commission's program was

adequate and if not, in what way it should be altered or
increased, would it or would it not have been a natural out-

growth of that question, considering the times and the dis-

cussions that you had,to consider the question of the hydro- ,

gen crash program?

A I think it would have been a natural thing. If
you will remember, the hydrogen question had never been
dropped. It had been in charge of a small group headed by

Ed Teller. Dr. Teller was never one to keep his candles

bidden under bushels. Be was kind of a missionary. I might

say that perhaps John, theBaptist is a little over-exaggera-

tion. He always felt that this program had not had enough

consideration. Teller in my view was a pretty singleminded

and devoted person. I would guess that it would have suited

him completely if we bad taken all the resources we had

11nd devoted it to fusion bombs.

Be is a very useful and a very fine man, but I

always thought he was kind of lopsided, as a good man special-

ists are. This was one of the things that would naturally
 1443
30 have come into any involved discussion of what we ought to
be doing. I don't know whether I have answer your question

or not.
Q Just two more question.
After President Truman gave the go ahead on the
B-bcmb program, did the GAC, as you recall, cooperato with
the Government and accept that decision and move fo~ward? •
A Yes. When you say move forward~ one has to re-
meJ11ber that someof the developments in the early months

were quite disappointing. Thething was attacked, I think,

wholeheartedly and we were not happy, not about cooperation,
but not happy abOut the results for some time.
Q Did Dr. Oppenheimer, so far as you yourself knew,
doanythingto delay or obstruct the program?
A Oh, no, rather the reverse.
Q One final question.
When theChairman was talking with you about the
ques·tion of the 1947 clearance, you used the phrase "unani-
mout> action." I would like to ask you, leaving aside the
question of dates and minutes, what you recollect of Vlhat
the commissioners actually did do. Did they sit around the
itt1ble together and consider the matter of Dr. Oppenheimer's
·clearance and come to some view about it, o:r:• how was it done?
A They did what you suggest. I wan·t to go back to
a fu11damental question of Commission organ:!.. zation which came
 l<\44

31 up very early when we met. I had something to do with the

result of it. There was a question as to whether we should
not organize, let us say, something like the Interstate

Commerce Commission -- so and so be in charge of this, and

so and so be in charge of that, and sort of departmontali-ze
ourselves. That question was answered in the naaative and
I waa industrumental -- I do not say I was the dominant

factor, but I had this experience on the Securities and

Exchange Commission just after they had abandoned that
sort of division or labor system and the very unsatisfactory

results of that were in front of my mind -- so that while

naturally each oneperhaps would give a little more attention

to the thing he knew best -- Bacher, let us say, was the

•
physicist, I knew something about mining andraw materials,
and so on. Yet, our actions were taken together and our
responsibility was both joint an~ separate and complete.
In other words, while we asked for advice and asked for help
in agreat many areas, the final responsibility was always

ours, and it was always joint and ifanybody had a dissent. it

was recorded in those meetings. So, if there was no dissent
recorded, each one of us was in on the decision and each agreed

OD it.
Do I answer your question?
MR. GARRISON: That is all, Mr. Chairman.
MR. GRAY: ilas any member of the Commission interested

•
 I I I '

1445

32 . particularly in security problems? You were interested in

mining, _for example. Do you remember whether any Commissio ·ar
at that time was?
THE WITNESS: I would say that Commissioner Strauss
had some background in security problems when he was over
at the Navy and perhaps took·a more direct interest than
the rest of us. This security problem, I may say, v1as the
most nagging problem of all in a good many months of the
Commission's existence.
If you remember the law, it not only required an
FBI investigation of new employees but also required going
over everybody who had been cleared by the Manhattan Project
who was still working. This dragnet brought up quite a few
customers I probably am exaggerating but it seemed to me
as though we took over half our time for the first seven or
eight months on these distinct personnel security problems.
Of course, there were physical security problems,
such as a barb wire fence had rusted, or the grass had
grown so that a fellow could slither through it near one
of 1he plants. This could not all be corrected at once.
This was part of the general neglect into which the project
bad fallen during the year or so Congress had been trying
to make up its mind as to what law to 1.ass and the further
thre·e months Mr.Truman was trying to draft five people
willing to serve on. this Commission. Th~ waa was over, let
 1446
33 us say, in August 1945, the Commission was appointed in
late October -- I would guess the 28th -- of 1946, and
there was a period of slow d~n which looked at that time
when we came on as though it might culminate disastrously.
The:e were a lot of problems that had come up.
Let me give you an example on the security tting
in looking back. I think it was in March, 1946, as it
turned out later, there was a series of petty thefts out of
Los Alamos of photographs, of models of bomb cores, of
documents and it looked as if at that time morale must have
sunk to an incredible low, particularly in the Armed Services.
This is when they were trying to demobilize. Operation
Magic Carpet had just been over. There was a terrible period
for both physical and personnel security ~nd morale that
my gees would be got to its worse in late March, .1946, and
tllen it seemed to be beUBr or these crazy idiots were out
f

of the program.
r.m. GRAY:. Mr. Lilienthal testified that the

Deputy General Counsel of the Commission, Mr. Volpe, was

active with him in considering Dr. Oppenheimer's clearance.
Do you recall whether counsel of the Commission
participated in this, Mr.·Pike?
THE WITNESS: No, I don't.
r.m. GRAY: lY'ould he have normally sat with the
Ce>mmission when they considered these-security cases?
 1447

34 THE WITNESS : No. The counsel of the Commission

like every other officer of the Commission was called in
when the Commission felt it needed him. Of course, Volpe
was a natural for this thing because he bad done son1e security
work for General Groves before and had a general acquaintance
I think with the security problems in the Manhattan District.
During this period, as I say, we had no security
officer, or if we had one, I don't remember who it was. You
picked on the fellow who might be of some help and Joe Volpe
bad some background in this sort of bu~iness.

MR. GRAY: It was not because he was assistant

counsel or deputy counsel, but more because be had a back-
ground.
THE WITNESS : That would be my belief, yes, sir.

DR. EVANS: Mr. Pike, you spoke about the trouble

you had with investigating the security. Did it seem to you
that there was really more screwy people in here than you
would have expected to find ordinarily'l
THE WITNESS : No, I don t t think so, Doctor. As
I remember it, a great many of the star customers bad already
gone. My best recollection is that of about 60,000 people
on the job at that time, we had around 60 or 65 -- it sticks
in my memory as one tenth of one percent -- of people about
whom there were questions coming from a vague doubt to a

fairly substantial doubt. Those figures may not be exact

 1448

35 but that is the range, I am sure.

DR. EVANS: Thank you; that is all.
MR. GRAY: Thank you very much, Mr. Pike.
THE WITNESS : Thank you , sir.
(Witness excused)
(Discussion off the record)
MR. GRAY: Let us get back on the record.
MR. ROLANDER: As I said, Mr. Chairman, we have
not had an opportunity to review all of the transcripts of
what we had hoped to be unclassified portions of the hearing,
so we have permitted Dr. Oppenheimer and his counsel to
review the transcripts here in the AEC building. A~ we
complete our review we turn the transcripts over to them
by receipt. I have also permitted them to use secretaries
for the purpose, as I understood, to assist them in prepar~

ing questions and what material they needed to continue

their presentation. I am somewhat concerned, however, that
if ~hsy bring stenographers in here that they not make copies
of thetranscripts until they have been approved from a
classification standpoint.
I wanted to go on record as noting that some 1nfor-
mat ion may have to be classified from a national defense
standpoint. Thie information should be protected from that
s1;andpoint as well as the confidential relationship between
D·r. Oppenheimer and the Commission.
 1449
36 MR. GARRISON: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ecker and Mr. Topkls

from my off ice have been at my request making summaries of

variQus portions of the transcript and have the transcript
as a whole in the room assigned to us and with a stonographer
at intervals to whom they have been dictating. Up to this
point I had assumed that there was no problem about this at
all.
I suppose in the nature of things there are bound to
be where something in the record needs to be cleared up a
quotation here and there directly from the transcript dictated
to the stenographer to write up so that we can study it. It
is awfully hard for us to work here ourselves in that room.
Now, if there is a security question about the contents
or about quotations from the transcript, I would lilte to
know what it is so we could have an understanding about it.
Do I understand that these transcripts that we have
been working on are still in some way being reviewed?
MR. ROLANDER : Yes, they are • They are being reviewed
not only by our own classification officer, but by represen-
tatives of other agencies.
DR. BERKELEY: May I make a comment for the record.
We have made arrangements with theDepartment of Defense
for review of certain portions of the transcript. Two or
three people are coming over at one o 'cloak today. .I hope

we will be able to clean up all of the Defense Department

 1450

37 questions with respect to the transcripts to date at that

time.
There is someintelligence data that has cript in in
a few spots. I have taken steps to have that reviewed. In
addition there is some material which may have sensitivity
in the Department of State. This is also being reviewed
at the present time.
:Am. GARRISON: Have you any suggestion to offer
about it?
DR. BERKELEY : I would be happy to de tine the
areas which I am quite sure there are some questions about.
Whether there is any claasif ied information in these parti-
cular sections, I don't know.
MR. GARRISON: Could you mark the portions of the
transcript that a1·e being reviewed :for security purposes
and then have it understood that we would not make any
quotations from those portions of the transcript?
D~. BERKELEY: I certainly could, yes. I can
identify the areas where there is some possible sensitivity
but i:a view of the fact that these are matters outside o:f
thie purview of the Commission I have no way of knowing
wh•ather these are or are not sensitive.
MR. GARRISON: Could that be done with some expedi-
t31.on?

DR. BERKELEY : Yes, I could do that right now, as

 1451
38 a matter of fact from my notes.

MR. GARRISON: So that at lunch, let us say, we

would know what those passages or portions are?
DR. BERKELEY: Yes. Could you indicate which
parts of the transcript or are you doing them in sequence?
nm. QARJiISON : We are doing them in sequence • I
asked Mr. Topkis to begin at the beginning, page one, and
give us a summary.
MR. ROLANDER: Mr Garrison bas received volumes

one and three. So it would only pertain to 10lumes t'110, four

five, six and seven.
DR. BERKELEY : Two is one o:r our more troublesome
ones since it concerned the witness• activities with the
Defense Department.
MR. GARRISON : One and three are completely clear
and can be taken out of the bullding.
MR. ROBB: Those you have, Mr. Garrison?
MR. GARRISON: Yes.

MR. GRAY: Let me suggest that I believe vre are

discussing mattees which really should be between counsel
and the Atomic Energy Commission and its officials on which
I think this Board can't make any ruling. I don't mind
hearing the discussion, but I think we are taking the time
of the Board to cover material with which you ought to deal

with Mr. Rolander.

 1'152

39 MR. GARRISON: Yes. There are volumes five and

six of the transcript. When will we get those?
DR. BERKELEY: Five has some material which I
have asited State to look at. I can define the areas.
MR. GARKISON : We had them to wrok on last night
but not this morning.
MR. GRAY: If this conversation is going to be
pursued I am going to have theBoard excused and let Mr.
Rolander and Mr G .. rrison discuss it.
MR. GARRISON: It is relevant to the Board because
it is a part of the whole procedural problem we do face,
which we have to bring to the Board's attention, nfr. Chairman.
nm. GRAY: Anything that is under the jurisdiction
of this Board should be brought to the Board's attention,
but I cannot make a ruling on security matters.
MR. GARRISON: Mr. Chairman, just one statement

for the record. If there is anything -- we will make our

copies available to you of everything that we have dictated
or written up to this point -- that we have extracted from
the minutes that has a security question, we want to
make it perfectly clear that we will return that to you.

MR. ROI.ANDER : Fine •

MR. GARllISON: That, then, can be worked out.
GR. GRAY : We will take a short recess.

Bowers f ols (Whereupon, a short recess was taken)

 1453

BOWFLSP MR 0 GRAY: Would yo stand and raise your right

hand, please?

MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. GRAY: Do you wi~h to testify under oath?

MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.•

MR. GRAY: You are not required to do so, but all.

of the witnesses have.

MR. RAMSEY: I am perfectly wi 1 lingo

MR. GRAY: Norman Foster Ramsey 11 Jr., do you sw,ear

that the testimony you are to give the Board shall be the

truth, the whole ·truth and nothing but the truth, so help you

God?
,'
MR. RAMSEY: I do.

Whereupon,

NORMAN FOSTER RAMSEY 9 JRc

was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn,

was examined and testified as follows:

·MR. GRAY: Will you be seated, please, sir.

It is my duty to call your attention to the

existence of the perjury statutes. I assume you are familiar

with them.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MRc GRAY: In the event, Professor Ramsey, it

becomes necessary for you to refer to restricted data in your

testimo~yp l wo~lq ask you to let me know in advance, so

that we may take certain appropriate and necessary steps.

I should also observe to you that we consider this

proceeding a confidential matter between Atomic Energy

Commission representatives and Dr. Oppenheimer, his witnesses

and representatives, and the Commission will make no public

releases. It is our custom to express the hope to the

witnesses that they will take the same view.

THE WITNESS: I might add one thing sir. that the

Chairman of my department called in great concern that a

newspaper reporter called him yesterday and asked him if by

chance I were to be a witness, and he said he wasn't sure,

or something like this, and this got repDrted in the paper

that Professor Bainbridge said I was to be a witness here.

This is certainly not my fault· and certainly not his.

MRo GRAY: Yes.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR., GARRISON:

Q You are a professor of physics at Harvard University?

A Yes, siro

Q You come from a military background?

A Through my father. My father enlisted at the age

of 16 in the Spanish American War. He then went to West

Poin.t. He served in World War I and World War II, and is

now retired a brigadier general.

Q What were your wartime positions? Would you just

 \

1455

run over those briefly?

A I was consultant to the National Defense Research

Committee. I was doing radar research at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, at MIT Radiation lab. I was an

expert consultant to the Secretary of War in the Pentagon

Bui lditgwith the Air Force during about 1942-43 P and I was

at Los A la mos fr 0.11 1943 to the end of the war, dux· ing which

time I actu•lly was officially employed as an expert

consultant to the Secretary of War, though I workccl completely

within the Los A la mos location.

Q What positions in the government do you now hold?

A No full time positionG I am a consultant to a number

of the services, that is, I am a member of the Air Force

Scientific Advisory Boardo I am a member of the newly

established Defense Department Panel on Atomic Energyo

Q Excuse meo Is that panel in substance the

successor to the atomic energy responsibilities of the Research

and Development Board?

A · Not in a certain sense a strict successor, but

with the reorganization this is what has been sbbstituted

for ito I am actually also supposed to be today, and yesterday

as well, attending a meeting of the Knothole Committee of

the United States Army on Combat Preparedness and various

other more minor things.

Q When did you first meet Dr. Oppenheimer?

 11!36

A l first met Dr. Oppenheimer in the summer of 1940.

Q This was at a meeting of the American Physical

Society?

A That is correct, the Seattle ~eeting of the

American Physical Society, which was also on my honeymooo

and Professor Zacharaias, who had a car, we had been riding

with him, and Dro Oppenheimer rode with us from Seattle to

Berkeley, and we stayed at Dr. Oppenheimer's house for

approximately two days in the early summer of 19400

Q This was at the time of the collapse of France in

World War 11?

A Yes, siro

Q Did you have any conversations with Dr. Oppenheimer

about that?

A We had a number of conversations, and it is

certainly difficult to reconstruct all of them in any detail.

Q I wouldn't ask you to.

A On the other hand, I do remember some. In

particular there ware some on that at which Dr. Oppenheimer

expressed a very grave concern for the French and ·the British

and particularly a rather fondness for Paris, and the trouble

which it was veiy actively in at that time, though this

was at the time of the Russian-Nazi Pact.

Q At Los Alamos, when you were there from 1943

to 1945, what was your particular job?

 1457

A I was head of the so-called delivery groupD which

meant that this was the group that was concerned with making

sure that the Los Alamos weapon was a real weapon, that is,

something that could be carried in an airplane atddropped

from same"

Also, this meant I had charge of the relationship

with the Army Air Forces> and the 509th Bombardment Group,

both in the testing of same and then ultimately actually

l was chief scientist at Tinian, where we assembled the two

atomic bombs used during the waro Actually the late Admiral

Parsons was head of the group at Tinian, and I was chief

scientist unde~ Admiral Parsons.

Q To what extent was there compartmetalization at

Los Alamos and what would your ob~ervation be as to the

general policy which was adopted there about the division of

labor among the groups?

A I would say for the basic scientific developments,

there was very little compartmentalization for very good

reasonso This was also true at the MIT Radiation Lab. It

had been discovered quite early in the war in a number of

laboratories that inefficiency went up very rapidly with

excessive compartmentalizationo Actually at Los Alamos my

own group, being somewhat more over the direct scientific

developments and also being considered one of the most top

secret things -- particularly the fact that we were so far

 1458

along that anyone had any interest in relationships with the

Air Force -- for this reason we were to a considerable degree

compartmentalizedo That is, we were never invited to give

reports at the staff seminars on what we were doing.

Likewise, when we were away from the place, we were

in fact required by security regulations to some degree to

our embarrassment.to be untruthful as saying where we came

fromD We were not allowed to say we came from Los Alamos~

In fact, we had to say we came from other places.

Q Would you care t9 make any comment upon the

quality of Dr. Oppenheimer's leadership at Los Alamos? 1

don't want U'great deal of detail, but just your impression.

A Yes, silo I saw it very obviously through the work

and was most impressed in every way~ I think he did a superb

technical job, and one which also made all of us acquire the

greatest of respect and admitation for his abilities and in

view of this hearing I might also add his loyalty and his

integrityo

Q At the end of the war was there a problem of holding

Los Alamos together?

A Yes$ a very great pr~blem in that most of the key

people in the laboratory. like myself, were men fundamentally

interested in pure science. For patriotic motives we had

by then been devoting four or five yeass of our lives since

we had really started in 1940 before the work working on

 1459

thingso We were indeed very eager to get back to our research

laboratories where we would do the fundamental research that

we were here todo.

As a result everyone was very eager to got away.

It was chiefly some rather elloquent pleas on the part of

Dro Oppenheimer that kept many there together. Actually I

know of this in two wayso One 0 bythe fact that for the

initial pleas in this direction I was not at Los Alamos since

1 was in charge of the group at Tinian. Most of us there

thought all of our friends would be reshing away fro.m

Los Alamos with terrific rapidityo We arranged by cable gram

for moving vans, asked our wives to arrange the moving.

As a matter of fact, when we got back, we were in some degree

of disgrace with the rest of our friends who had the benefit

of Oppenheimer~s lecture of the importance of staying ono

I was actually one of the first people getting

away from Los Alamos, and I have been somewhat embarrassed

r
about this ever ·Since o I was also told off about this.

~ During the controversy about whether to go ahead

full steam on the H bomb program crnot, that is to say,

roughly in the fall of 1949• and continuing on until

'President Truman's announcement in January of 1950g you were

a men::be:r of the Air Force Science Advisory Boad?

A That is correcto

C You did not take any official part in the formulation

 1460

of policy about the H bomb?

A No, sir.

Q I just want to ask you one question --

A We were, however, informed to a considerable degree

of the technical status of it. That is, we were given

review meetings at Sandia.

Q I wantto ask you one question as a matter of interest.

How did your own mind at that time run on the question?

A I found it a very difficult problem that I worried

about a great deal, even though I did not contribute to ita I

would say roughly I was in the state of schizophrenia, which

was best described bysaying I was actually 55 per cent in

favor of going ahead, that is, I felt it was a development

even with a crash program was appropriate to, and 45 per cent

in my own mind against it. Again this I also record as 100 per

cent loyalty. It was not a matter of loyalty versus

disloyalty, certainly from what I had been presented; it was

not a very useful looking weapon that was being described

with the probability that it would take a most fantastic airplane

to carry it. I better not go much furthero

Q During the past four or five years, Dr, Oppenheimer,

I think, has been Chairman of the Committee of the Harvard

Overseers to visit the Harvard physics department?

A Yes, sir.

Q Have you .had some association with him in that

 1461

connection?

A Yes, I have had quite a few, chiefly on two different

problems. The first one was immediately following the out-

break of hostilities in Korea. Our department was very much

concerned and worried with what was the best way for our

department to contribute to tha country when tbecoun·i;ry ·~as in

a state of emergency, at the same time doing its tery important

work also for the country of training students. We had a

number of discussid3is among ourselves, and a particularly

enlightening discussion with our visiting committee under the

chairmanship of Dro Oppenheimer -- the tlisiting committee

includes chiefly the various industrial physicsts -- and I think

the help we got from them was very great.

During these conversations, Dr. Oppenheimer .,,

particularly eloquently expressed the problem that the United

States was faced with. the threat that was there fr om Russia

and emphasized the importance of our doing work,

partilllarly by taking leave dro~ Harvard for consultation and

also urged with the president and provost, at least I am told

of it later, the importance of a 1 lowing members of our staff

to take such leaveo Indeed, they have been taking it.

I think on the whole we have averaged one or two

men, usually about two men, at any one time from our department

on leave on one or another defense project. Some, for

example, on the H bomb.. There is 'One at Livermore at the

 1462

present time.

Q Did ybu have any discussions with Dr. Oppenheimer

in his capacity as Chairman of the Visiting Committee about

the question of Professor Wendell Furry?

A Yes, sir. We had numerous discussions. For

background I should add that ourdepartment had the misfortune

of having on.e of the more famous of the cases in one af the

Congressionalinvestigations, namely, a member of the physics

department at Harvard, Professor Wendell Furry, in some

early hearings of the Congressional committees~ using the Fifth

Amendment. He is no longer using the Fifth Amendment. He did

in the early hearings. His first use was without consultation

with anyone" In fact, his lawyer said don't discuss this case

with anyonco They don't have immunity privileges. He is on

his own 1 I am afraid, on this kind of a matter, not too bright

a fellow. Re thought he should use the Fifth Amendment

which I personally greatly regret.

After this was done we had extensive conversations

with several members of our Visiting Committee, particularly

Oppenheimer as Chairmano Oppenheimer very vigorously

deplored to both some of us in the department and also to

Furry himself the unwisdom of Furry's choice, and even the

wrongbess of Furry's choice in using the Fifth Amendment.

He also duding the course of this exp~essed rather

str.'Jng .feelings about the fact that Furry had been for
 !

1463

really a fantastically long time a member of the Communist

Party.

I must admit that during these discussions which wore

quite extensive, the kind in which we wach ~hared views, .~

to the best of my knowledge Oppenhelmer's views and my views,

completely independently arrived at, we aacb bad those views at

the time we first goJ together, were essentially identical.

DRo EVANS: Did you suspect rurry of being a Communist

before that time?

THE WITNESS: I actually did not know Furry during

the period he was a Communist. H~ was out of the Communist

Party when I first met himo I certainly was not too surprised

he waso Eve'n in the first two years I knew him -- be has

changed quite markedly -- even those views were a little bit

wild in my opinion. I did not know and neither did other

members of the Department know that he had actually been a

member of the Communist Party.

BY MRo GARRISON:

Q I ~hink he had been a graduate student at Berkeley?

A He had, but I believe I am correct in saying he had

not been a member of the Communist Party at that time. I believe

he joined only after he came to Harvard.

Q You were a consultanfl on Project Lincoln?

A Iesp siro

Q 'Did you 'have ·accasl:on in' t'hat capacity --

 1464

A There were several meetings. Actually I was a

consultant in a sense that did not work very hard on the

project. I was chiefly called in on various policy discussionse

This is an air defense continental defense laboratory of

all the services, but particularly the Air Forcq, under

contract to the Massachusetts Institute.of Technologye I was

consultant of this and chiefly sat in on various meetings at

intervals discussing policyo

Dr. Oppenheimer had been on the summer study group

there which group I was not a member of but which came out

with I think some very important suggestbns for the defense

of theUnited States, most of whie I gather in one form

or another at least are now being adopted by the armed services.

In the se policy discussios we certainly discussed

these fo a fair extene. Throughout these again I had

reaffirmed what I had known all along, the deep feeling of

loyalty and of concern.which Dr. Oppenheimer felt for the

United States and very clearly that the thing of which he was

afraid, the country of which he was afraid, was Russia.

It was just as much as in the Pentagon Building.

It was a case a Russian bomber can take off from here and

get through. It. was not any sort of saying, "Wel 1, now, we

.1'etter .not consider 'fhe Russians to be our potentie l enemy."

MRo GARRISON; That is all~

 1465

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR 0 ROBB;

Q Doctor, when did you first learn that you were going

to be a witness here?

A I first learned that I was to be a w~tness, I would

say it is hard to say -- roughly three weeks ago. I bad

heard of the charges -- not of the charges -- I had heard that

Dr. Oppenheimer's clearance had been suspended prior to that

time o I heard about that officially through the Air Forces in

con(jm1ction with my work in the Scientific A9visory Board. ·

• Q How did you learn you were going to be a witness?

A I learned by phone call from Mr 0 Garrison asking for

an appointment, which I admit I had no idea and we had the

appointmento I can look up the exact date in my calendar if

it is important.

Q It :ls not important. Did you discuss the matter of

testifying with your superiors?

A No, siro Universities operate in funny ways. l don't

think we have particular superiors in this kind of matter.

Q Did you tell anybody in the department?

A I only told the charman of my department as I was

leaving to come hereo

Q Who is that?

A Ptrofessor Kenneth Bainbridge, who incidentally was

the s·c·iantist in ·c·harge ·of the flrs't a·tom bomb ·tests '.in New
 1466

Mexico.

Q You mentioned Dr. Furry, is it?

A Yes, that is right.

Q He was at Harvard for some time?

A I think he came to Harvard -- tbe two dates I will

get mixed -- I would say he came to Harvard in 1936, and joined

the Communist Party in 1938 .. No, he would not have joined in

194> o He came in a bout 1936 Q

Q When did you know him?

A I may have met him, it is one of these things you

can't be sure when you meet a person, I met him during the war

at a Physical Society meeting but my first knowled,e of meeting

him to attach a name to him and know the man was when I ·

arrived at Harvard in the fall of 1947.

Q Am you knew him from then as an associate?

A I knew him as an associate and very well •.

Q As a colleggue?

A A colleague, that is righto

Q Did you suspect that he elther was or had been a

Communist?

A If there had been any member of our department who

would have been, he would have certainly been the one~ I must

admit that it seemed to me somewhat in some of our political

arguments in my opinion he is not terribly sound on them. I

would like to get in the record I am a very strong opponent o.f

 1467

the Communists and have been.

Q I gathered thato

A On the other hand, Furry is being confronted with

a real tough problemd He has completely changed. Of this I

know. He is also now an opponent of the Communists.

Q l see in Dr. Oppenheimer's list of publications

on his PSQ a lot of publicationso

MR. GRAY: Perhaps you better identify for the

record what a PSQ is.

MR~ ROBB: Personnel security questionnaire.

There are a lot of articles and things.

BY MR. ROBB:

Q I see one here on the ~beory of Electron and

Positive, Wv W,. F\,lrry, Phys. Rev. 45, 245-262, February 15,

1934. Also Phys. 45, 34-43, 34-44, March l, 1934. Would that

w. Furry be Wendell?

A This is the same Furry. I should add one thing on

the basis of sworn testimony on several committees from F.urry,

he was not a member of the Communist Party at that time,

and was not a member until four years subsequent 'tio that time~

He joined in 1938., This is sn the testimony of the McCarthy

hearing jrn Boston.

It is also in Furry•s testimony to the Harvard

Corporat :I.on whibh was investigating his case.

Q Do you recall whether·he said where he was when he

 1468

joined the Party?

A He said he was at Harvardo I know which came f1rs1;

but I don•t know.the time sequence. I am sure it was in 1938

he joined actually.

DR. EVANS: Did you have a Communistic cell at

Harvard?

THE WITNESS: According to the testimony of practically

everyone who was in it there was a group of, I guess, about

ten or so people in the period of around 1938, chicily, who

were indeed members of the Communist Party v There has been

quite a lot of testimony about that group, sir, and by people

a 11 of whom were away out of the Communist Party at the present

time, and itiedeed emphasizes the point there are all sorts

of waps of being Communist. This was a high and idealistic

group of people. completely foolish in my opinion, naive and

stupid, to have gotten into itp but nevertheless, they were

a very high minded group whihh by the sworn testimony of all

concernod, if anyone had ever approached them and asked them

to do anything even remotely treasonable , they would not

only have refused to do itt but they would have after a

certain degree of soul search, would have felt obligated to

report it at that time. There are just many ways of being

foolish.

BY MRo ROBB:

Q You were at Los Alamos from 1943 to 1945?

 A Yes, sir,,

Q Was that a pretty closely l:u1it group down

Q I suppose among the physicists --

A A very fine group, toog l shoald s~o

Q And among the physicsts everybbdy knew ever~body else·

I

pretty \ff111? I
I
A Fairly well, although as the lab got bigger ,I there
i

were a number whom you certair, ~Y did not know. I wi 111 name

one offhand I did not kno~ although you subsequently ~t the

impression that this is the 11rnst 1mportant scientist w~ had,

and this is Fuchs o To the lt1.3st of my knowledge he wasl never

I

at the labo I had never se ~an him o I

I
Q Did you know a r1,an by the :name of Philip Mo:r~ ison?
A Yes, I did~ I

I
Q How well did ~;OU know him? I

A I would say c::" ly tnoderatelyo He was not in

~y group.
On the other hand,.. be ,, orked quite closely with us at f imes o

Incidentally, to the bE:st of my kno\1 ledge·' he did a ve y good

job there. Incidents l ly l> he is at t:l1e present mommnt

pro:fessor at Cornell l.1:niversityo

C' Did you see any indication of Communist lean·ngs on

his pa c·t?

A Yes, I wouLI saynot necessurily at that timeo There

were ~any subjects which we would argue and I would di agreeo

 14'10

But they were friendly disagreements. 1~ thought I was a

little n~ive nand I thought he was a little naiveo

Q When did you discern indications of Communist tenden-

cies on his part?

A I don't knowo I think I probably always considered

him leftl.sh and I certainly never knew he was more thnn that.

I might ~dd by reputation even before I met Dr. Oppenheimer,

he had the reputation of being leftish, I certainly never

heard anyone say he had been amember of the Communist Party.

I think the same is true of Morrisono

Q Did you know Charlotte Sarber at Los Alamos?

A Yes, I know her.

Q What can you tell us about her Communist tendencies

or otherwise?

A I must admit on that I did not know that she had

themo There is a certain mannerismo Sometimes she had a

characteristic of, oh, maybe a little intellectual snobbery

at inter••a ls. which I think some people have had;, which

incidentaUy she aas gotten completely over subsequentlyo

I think there is nothing in the political discussions that would

have implied it. Actually I got to know her better sinme the

war than I did at Los Alamos so we lived more closely together

then. I have seen her as recently as a month agoo

Q Where are they now?

A Pro.fessor Serber is a professor of theoretica 1

 1471

physics at Columbia University. He is also a consultant

at the E·rookhaven LabDratory for the Atomic Energy and

presumal: ly thereby c teared.

Q What about David and Francis Hawkins, did you know

them at Los Alamos?

A I knew them., Again they were not among my intimate

friends, but we knew them. They seemed to be doing a good job,

or he dido Actually she I can place, and this is about all

and I certainl y -- actually I had I would not have

suspected -- I was quite surprised when I learned Dave had been

a member of the Communist Party. In the cas8 of Morrison, I

had more political discussions. I knew we disagreed more on

things than with Dave. Actually it quite startled me in his

caseo I don't think Dave and I ever had a politicalargument.

Q 'What was his job down there?

A He was an administrative pa>sition. Here I better

make sure I am truthful on which my memory is a little vague.

I think partly vague because of this peculiar arrangement I

had. I was there as a consultant to the Secretary of War, and

I did not go through the persnnel channels. It is my

impression he had dominantly to do with personnel problems and

sort of administrative'help and this kind of thing. He may

have had to do with housing, though I don't know.

Q What about his wifeo Did you know her?

A Very little ·only. .I would recognize her if I see her,..

 1412

That is about alL

Q Did you know a man there named Robert Davis?

A Yei:;, l dido

Q What was his job?

A Again he was in more the administrative. Later 1

tnew his job best near the end of the warp when he was indeed

writing up something of the history or something of this kind

of the project •

Q Was that Davis or Hawkins?

A I would have said Davis had something to do with that.

Q Maybe he did.

A Maybe I should a ppeill to higher autbori ty.. I am a

little vague on that. I might add on this it was felt that

our end of the project was too secret and it never got written

up. I think I do know what Davis is doing now. Hawltins was

probably on the history. 1 would say that Davis was concerned,

subject to correction laterp with editing a series of books on

the technical projects developed in the lab, the kind of thing

that was to be published openly subsequent to the wa~o I t

was perfectly clear that my end of the work was never going

to be published which it never has been and I had ~ery little

to do with it"

Q Did you come in contact with Davis very much down

there?

A I would say a reasonable amount at the endo We were

 1473

not particularly compatible peoplep not particularly

incompatible.

Q Did you see any indication on his part of Communist

tendencies?

A Not of Communist tendencies, of a slight glumness

at intervals.

Q Slight what?

A Glumness.. Perhaps an undue reserve. I don't know

if this has to be a Communist tendency. I didn't sea ~nything.

That is true of all concernedo

Q You never suspected him of ~eing a Communist?

A I would never suspect. This is true of Morrison.

He was more left in his politicai views than I, but I would

not suspect him to be a member of the Communist Party.

Q Wou would not have suspected that Hawkins was either 9

woulc1 you?

A No, that is right.

Q· Did you know a woman down there named Shh· ley Bernett?

• Yes.
Q Who is she?

A She was the wife of the medical doctor. He was our

pediE1trician ..

Q Did she have a job there?

A She may haveo There was a period of time when it

was felt for economy of housing the wifes were urged

 1474

vitorously to take jobs within the technical areao I t was

later realized in part that this was not as good economy as

we thought because the husband then at intervals had to wash

the dish£is » so the wife cou 1d do less important work~ I

think fol' a period of time she probably was employedf

Q l don't expect you to remember all these things.

A I wi 11 do my besto

Q Do you recall at one time she was one of Dr.

Oppenheitlll!' 's secretaries?

A That may beo Pricilla Duffield was the princip41

of Dro Oppenheimer's secretaries. She was the one to whom we

always went. It may verw well be she was.

Q Did you know Shirley Barnett well?

A Moderat4y; the best good summary is that we

probably spent a tota 1 of four hours or five hours in

conversai;iono You get to· know a person fairly well, but you

don't gei; to know everything ..

Q Did you ever see any indication of Communist

tendencies on her part?

A No, there was no chance for a conversation to get

that far, She is not one who -- some people you get to know

well enough you can do it -- in Oppenheimer's case, I would

know it rnuch better o None of these people did I know as

nearly aB well as I knew Dr. Oppenheimer or Wendell Fm:ryn

Q Did you know Dr. Oppenheimer's brother Frank at all?

 1475

A Yes$ I did;,

Q How did you knm him?

A He was an employee at Los Alamos and an •ssistant to

Dr 0 Bainbridge ..

C" Did you know that Frank had ever been a Communist?

A Only after I read it in the newspapers.

Q Were you B.ll~prisaJ when you heard that?

A Yes, alhhough -- yes, I was certainly surprised by

this. Tl.ere were probably other people at the lab I might

have been more surprised about, including myself.

Q Did you know Mrs. Jo Robert Oppenheimer?

A Mrs. Jr. Robert Oppenheimer? Yes, though not too well.

Q Did you know she had ever been a Communist? .,

.

A No, sir. Well, I did not know at Los Alamos. I

was inde~d told by Oppenheimer himself, in fact in conjunction

with the discussions pertaining to Furry a year or so ago,

that she had been a member of the Communist Partye1

Q Were you surprised when you heard that?

A Well 9 I mean there is a surprise in each directiono

It is qu:i.te conceivable; on the other hand I had no reason to

anticipate it, and since the number is small, I would say yes,

I was gernerally surprisedo

Q Did you know Mrs. Frank Oppenheimer, whoso name was

Jackie'?

A I know her cheifly by nameo I did not know her well,

 no, sir.

Q Did you know some people down there named Woodward?

•
A Woodward?

A Not at Los Alamos or not well enough to be sure.

Q Doctor, I wonder if you can help us a little bito

You sa:td that you were a consultant or advisor to the Air

Force :Ln connection with an atomic mattero

A I am a member of the Air Yorce Scientific Advisory

Board. I am on the Armament Panel. Until about a year or so

ago when there was esta~lished also an Atomic Energy Panel of

the Ai;r F'orce 9 it was the Armament Panel that had tho scientific

advising responsibilities within the Air Force on atomic bombs,

not at ondc pr opou lsi on o .

Q How long have you been doing that for the Air Focce?

A I have been doing that for the Air Force I would

say sillcE~ about 1946 9 practically since the end of the war.

Q Doctor, could you tell us in 1949 there was a lot

of discu~sion about whether we would try the thermonuclear

or whether we would not; what was the position of the Air

Force ·.::>n this?

A Our panel was consulted on ft officially. On the

other hand, this was one on which we were given more

info mati.on because of the relationship to ourselves, the

official advising group for the Air Force, technical people

within the Air Force doing ito In general, certainly

as the briefings were presented to us of what was then

availablo from the Air Force point of view, the delivery point

of v~'..ew and what ki.nd of Air Force could be useful, it was a

pretty d:'"smal propm;itiono It takes a much longer ti.me to

dEivelop an airplane than it does at our present ret<Js to

develop new ltrombm~ I t loolwd as if not only a new airplone

but o ra~her fantastic airplane had to be developed. This looked

like a long time propositiono

Q Did the Ait· Force want the thermonuclear weapon?

A There were different people within it, and we saw

the men who briefed us• and the~r were of both opinions o It

is my impression th:lt 1.;he Air Force official policy was ycs 9 but

with considerable dissent within it, and it would not surprise

me if you could produce a record which said the Air Force said

it dion 't. "There was ,just a lot of dissent in the Air Force.

<; I am just asking for information because it had not

been clear to me~

A Particularly within the working groups of the Air

Fooe v•ith which we operated, it was such an argument of

people: saying what a sitting duck an airplane of this nature

would be on the one hand~ to people saying it is a super, it

is a hooper on ·t;he other o

I would not be su prised the same way l divide it

within myself, sort cf 55 per.cent probably for and 45 per cent

 VJ 78 ·~· 14 ?0

again~;t.

q Did the AirForce finally take an official position

as to whether they wanted the weapon oc whether they didn°t?

A This I cannot comment Ono It was never referred to

us, JCf I •kn~w, I don't remember. Eventually they have. They

have a r>osition now very strongly., They very much wnnt i1;

now. Ttis has been in our discussionu At what year and at

what i;l.n;e they decided they wanted it 9 I am completoly unclmiro

Q Was there some debate~ Doctor, about a strategic Air

Force ag·a inst a sc-ca l led Maginot L:lne defense that you had

anything to dowith?

A I had problems to do with the iir Force since about

•
P

since l went to the Radiation Lab in 19410 Ever since that

time ''.;here hs been a very vigorous debate about strategic

bombing versus tactical versus air defense. This is a very

real prciblem the Air Force has to face,, How does it

distribute its funds. Within the Air Force there is at all

times a considerable amouhtof dissention on the matter,

ranging from the Strategic Air Command» -- each group

essen·cir l ly sajng it has the iu:portant thing. I would say

dominantly during almost the en.ti:re time I have had to do with

it, the official position ofthe Air Force has always been

ve~ry ::;t1ongly in favor of the strategic concept ..

The Scientific Advisory Board 9 of which I am a member

is much less certain on this ma~~er" It has many more

I
 1480

reservations that this 13 enougho

Q Just so the record wi 11 be c 'lear, Doctor t when you

sper1k o:f a strategf.c air force --

A We all Egreed you need a strategic air forcco Then

it i.. s esseut ia l ly a tm tt.:-:i:· of how you cut a pie. Do you put

isract ic!l l ly ~everything in the strategic air force with only a

token air defense? Do you put an equal distribution or how

do you do it? I think most people wi 11 agree you need to

have a large and strong strategic air force. On the other ha~d,

there are tactical problems.

MR,, GARHISON: Mr. Chairmanp I don't wan~:; to shut

off discussion 9 ~1rl this is all very interesting, but is it

relevant to the problem before the Board? I ask this question

only in the interest of time, because we have two more

witnesses waiting.

MR 0 ROBB: I thought it was, Mr.Chairman, or I would

net have gone into :ito I think there has been something

said in the record by Dro Oppenheimer, somethin about Project

Vistao Didn't it have to do with that?

THE WITNESS: Project Vista had to do with

essentially the g~ound forces 0 not the Air Forcea Essentially

the 1=roblem of Pr '.J,ject Vista was given at Korea.

1 How do you

do something abou~ ito This was very closely relatEd also

to the Air Force. It was a joint project supported by the

Air Force, as well as the ground fpces o The problem was from
the Air Force point of view hcw can you support ground troops

nnd again what fraction of your money should go to that kind

\

of a wrn~pono The a 11 out strategic people would ~1rguo that

the on ~~y way to do is by strategic bombing, and don't waste you:r:

money rm tactical s~pporto

BY M:Ro RCE:B:

Q Project Lincolno

A That was another aspect of tho samethint~ci It is an

air defense problem, continental dEfenseo Again what fraction

of you:i· rroney should you spend to shoot down airpla1:es that

are attacking this country, and wbot fraction should you spend

in retaliation with your own strategic weapono Hy own

feeling is that you need to do both.

Q Doctor» just so the record may be clear~ may I ask

you this question: When you speak of a strategic air force 1

what is meant is net a striking force as distinguished from

a defensive :force?

A Well~ no~ It is a striking force in general to

strike rather deepo A tactical air force is the one that

strikeH near the front lines of combat, The strategic one is

the one that bombs the cities and bombs the industrial sources~

They got confused, In the beat of battle they throw everything

wherever it is most needed.

Q Doctor, to pull this in brief 1.y 9 do you know what

Dr. Oppenheimer's position wzs on these questions?

 1482

A I believe I knowo I have had a number of

discus:sions with him on ito 1 ·th:i.nk l know fairly closely,

This was the belief as mine that you need all, you need a

balanced force, not eJtclusively 01· too overwhelmingly on€.

You nfled a very strong strategi•::: air command a I believe» however~

he felt that too large a fraction of the Air Force's moneys

ware going to that compared to the very small amount that was

going to the problem of Eir defenseo I must admit I agree

with him. 1 an not sure that w·a would necessarily agree ds

to how muah conect ion needs to be na de o He may want to do

it more or less than Io

On this I am in complete agreement and so are

many uembers of our advisory committe boardo

Q In other wordsp the scientists tend to favor

rathe1· the continental dufense tlurnry~ is that it?

/, No, I would say they favor the balanced force theory

which many people in the military also favor 9 namely 9 that

to defend the country, if you put all the eggs in one basket

and the enemy country -- Korea was a good lesson of this --

we were actually relying~ I sould say, a little too heavily

on some of the strategic and not enough on the tactical 9

and we were suddenly confronted with the situation where it

was decided not to use the all out strategic weapons. I don 1 t

know of any scientist concerned with military things who

thinks that we should drop the strategic air force. Almost

all I know and it flS my impression that Dr~ Oppenheimm:· would

also argue that it should be the biggest part of tb0 air

force, but not the ~hole thingo

~ Did you have anything to do with the long range

detection business?

A Only aft<.:iir it was in'ron.tedo They tried to get 1:10

on the summer project, but my wife and I were schedul0d to go

on a trip to Europe~ and I am a1raid we went, anl ldidn~t

help very much on thato I think they or~ginatad soma ~ery

important ideas on thata

Q I am cautioned that I should avoid getting into

classified material on that mat~ero

A I think what we have said so far is all right, b~t

we are getting close, I agree.

Q Did Dr. Oppenheimer have any part in that?

A Yes, sir., He w21s on th,1 summer &tudy ~;roup that

invitod that. I don °t know who invented whato Certainly the

net product was very important. I have discussed it subsecjuently

and he thinks i:t is important and advocated strongly that it be

in ven~;ec .

Q Can you without getting into classified material give

us Dr. Oppenheimer's position?

A I think approximatalyD I think bis position was

that. the defense of the country as well as its ability to

ret.aliat.e was a very impoltant thingP which was being under-

 1484

Cleve lop€d c. There had now been in·uer,tec; some techniques which

would bE af a vast aid in this which were simply not thought

of b,e:fox o. In o;rC'~JT to strengthen ou;c country 11 we nc(~ded to put

more ~;upport l:Ehind this Q

I might ~:dd that this is now to the best of my

knowledge part of the official policy of the United States.

C Was there more than one technique without getting

into clEssified mater4al?

/

A There are a number of intermixed techniques in thiso

You use a 11., I wc uld say that the mowt important of the new
1

ideas i& the one you referred to and I will avoid having to refer

to it mrself o

Q Were there three fundamental techniques, Doctor?

A The usut: l ·thing when you categorize things --if you

name ·chem, I will agree withthem maybe.

Q I will ask a question that maybe will wind it upo

Was thex·e any technique that Dr o Oppenheimer opposed?

A I don't knowo It is on the record that at least

ong time he opposed development of an H bomb9

Q I am talking about this long range detection?

A I don 9 t know of anyp no, sir, There may be, but I

e. certain1.y do not know it.

Em. OPP:ENHEIMER: I know this is not a classroomm,

but the counsel and the witness are talking about two quite

distinct things and therefore they are not understanding each

 1005

other.

MRo ROBB: I rea l:iz ed that, too, on the last ques'ti.on.

I don 'i; think the witness unders·tood my question.

BY MR. ROBB:

Q I was talking about this long ~ange det0ction

un tter, r; oc tore l asl-ted you whether there was more t~um one

~;cohr.ique fo:r long range detection 1 and I believe you s2id

thare uas.

A Sure.

Q "' The questl.011 I asked you was there any technique

tbat Dro Oppenheimer opposed?

A Not to my know ledge. I thought you meant a non

detection technique.

Q One further quest ion" 1,lfas the:ire a man down at

Los Alamos while yoo weru there named DE.vid Green1,;lriss?

A I never met him, but I bbviously read about him in

t.b.e pa;~ex ~ I believe he was a machinist.,

Q You didn't know him]

A Never saw him.

MRo ROBB: Thank you very much.

MR~ GRAY: Dre R&msey 9 with respect tothe

compartmE!nta lizat ion versus. non-·co:npartmenta lization, I believe

you indicated that this was a technique which bad been used

in some other laboratories, and was found to be useful as far

as the e':pedition of wort-t v12"s conc·arned at Los Alamos?

.
)
 1486

THE WITNESS: Correct.

MR o GRAY: Am I right, however, in recalling that

you saic1 that you v1e:re in a compa:rtmenta lized ar1:ia?

THE WIT:NESS; I would say semi-compartmentalized.

MRo GH.AY: Becat::se of t'1e extreme secrr:?cy?

THE WITNESS: Ar.cl also from the lack of necessity

of kn1~1.e~ge of technical development. The point of view that

certainly most of~ adopted was in the best interests of the

coun.t;~y, what will speed things vrarsus what will rist:t securityo

In my own group there wasn't much advantage to have the

intE~rchange "Ghat was so necessary to the development in the

rest of the group» and there was also this particular secret

a spec<; that my grc·np indicated how far we were coming a loner.,

MRo GRAY: So in. the absence of the desirability

on the groupd of e·1:pedition of the work, compartmentalization

was a security measure which was adhered to?

THE WITNESS: Y€·s, l incidentally believe that what

was done on the compartmentalization there was very good

indeedp and the non-compartmentalization. I think it would

have been vastly later had it not been for thato

MRo GRAY: Onu other question about Lor:; Alamoso You

were not allowed to leave the premises without permission, is

that correct?

THE WITNESS: This varied a little from time to time.

ii
we always had to show passes at the gate~
 MR. GRAY: No.

THE WITNESS; For any extensive visit you had. I

think you could go to Santa· Fe to do shopping without higher

8 u"tho1·i.t }lo

MR.,, GRAY: 'Who was in charge of that.?

THE WI'l'NESS: W0 showe,.j our passes to the guard at

the gateo l would sny probably C0"'.onel de Silva.

MRo CRAY: It would be the security peopleo

THE Wfi,NESS: Yes~ it ·.voulcl be the security people.,

MRo GRAY: On your for~nu1a 5545 11 had. ·you served

on a committee or in nome other cnpacity at that time and

in such capacity been required to vote on the crash p~ogram,

I assuce that the 5 5 per cent

THE WITHSSS: 1'hat is correct o

MRo GRAY: There comes a time when a man -

THE WITNESS: Has to mako a decision, that is co:rI'ect.

One important argument might have reversed the 55 the other

way~ X would have to face that~ That is correcto I would

have voted in that time in favor of ito

MRo GRAY: You pretty well knew the var:lol.lis al'guments?

THE WITNESS: I think I knew most of them., I did

not know a 11 of the mo I certainly respected those people.

There were many who disagreed with me.

MRo GRAY: Yes, I understand that,, Just in the

interest of my understanding the record, in talking about Dr.

Furry~ ~'OU said hEr could not have joined the ComJiur.ist Par~;y

in 1910. What did you meec by tbst?

THE WITNESS: I (!~l'n tel 1 you .vzh~t i mean. I rca lized

this wbun I said ::.9400 Th:ls ws s the time of the Nazi-Sovie·t

agreement, and I clo know also :from the testimony that he

almost uot out at that time" Actuallj he didn't get out at

that t hrJPo But h1t1 almost dido Esssnti.ally by that arg1Jmont

I am saying that I thin~ it wo~ld have been very unlikely

that would have bmm th·a noment at which he initiEii';ed the move of

getting ino It is because also I remember he had been in

before i;hat period o

MR. GRA ~;: Yes. I was trying to get that clear~

Whether you are snying that it could not have been 1940

had to do with your recollE1ction or had to do with an

intHrna·~iona l sitnationo

THE WITNESS: I would say it actually had to do with

botho 1 think it was dominantly recollectionc As 1 started to

say thi1; j) I remember the 1938 date o But what I know of him

I think this would not iDlf:i been the date he would have chosen . .

It :ts theperiod o:t the collapsu c.f France and the Nazi-SO'iet

pact o I am sure he would !lot have chosen that as joining o

He was 1ery upset about it~ and in fact dropped going fr1Gm

all mee·~ingso

MR~ GRAY: You said he almost resigned.

THE WITNESS.: Yes* As a matter of fact. if it were

not that he moved so slowly -- it took him about a year to

make up his mind to drop out by which time Russia was an ally 0

MR.; GRAY: There• have bsen a lot of allegations about

the fact that peop7~e at Harvard and other institut:'..ons hflvo been

invol"/eti -- I don •t mean. to single out Harvard -- but they have

beenc

TI-IE WITNESS: Tl':.at is correct.

MR .. GRAY: Of course1 9 Dr o Fuz·ry 's name hns ~ppc:lrod

poblicl1· along with throe others at the sametimo.

TEE WI'fl'\'ESS: There hav•a been a total of th:roe.

Actaalls· one of them is no longer teaching at Ha~v~rd. Ho was

on a ·.;empo:rary appointnmnt o One has an appointment termi:natin.:;

this yearo Furry is the only permanent member of the tenure

appoiatn.ent in the Harvurd faculty for which this is true ..

MRo GRAY: We1~e these others known to you?

THE WITNESS: No~ I never met any of them. lncident-

a lly, K2neman, our other ~ost conspicuous case, Furry has

never met him. 1 am sorry they saw each other a~ a hearing.

NR 9 ROI3J8;; Is that Martin Kaneman?

THE WITNE:ss: It is a good quest ion., I thintt it is

Leon~ I am quite sureo

DR,, EVANS: D1·. RamEK10JY9 would you tell us about your

1.mden·r~raduate and gxaduEite educa·tton and where you ha() thon ..

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. :r r1aceived my bachelor •s

deg:reo from Colurnllia University. I war:; given a trr.veling
 1490

fellowship by Columbia University to go Cambridge University

where I did the peculiar thing -- the universiti~ are

different -- I received another bachelor's degree from

Cambr~dge University» subsequently a master's degree. I

came back and got my Ph. D~ degree from Columbiao

DR. EVANS; Did JOU me•3t a Be1·nie Peters down there

at LOE: 11 la mos?

THE WITNESS: I cert:l:i.nly didn't meet him Rt Los

AlamoE • I met bi~ at Richester subsequently~ and I didn 9 t

rea li:r.e he had beeil Di t Los ,\la mos o

DR., EV1~N:3; Did you m<:iet Lomanitz down there?

THE WITB:a:ss : N 0 p sir Q

DR. EVAN:3: Rossi?

THf: WITN:!:SS; No., si:r ,,

DR., EVAW3: Did y0u moet Weinberg down there?

THE WITNJ~SS: i\t :Los 11 lamos?

DR., EVANB: Ho was at Berkeley.

THE WITNESS: l think he was at Berkeley o As a

matter of fact 9 I naver met Weinberg.

DR" EVANB: Did you moet Ma Flanders down there?

THE WITNESS: Yes, be was a mathematician.

Dn. EVi1m:: Yes, he wfls an electroliic mathomaticianv

'JIBE WITNESS : He was in the com put i_ng ~ It was

mathematics at firsta It gradu&lly developed into electronicso

DR. EVANS': Did he h&ve"his beard?

 THE WITNESS: He had his beard, and it start'bd the

security guards no enda

DRo EVANS: You say ycu knew Fuchs?

THE WITNESS: Fuchs 9 under sworn testimony I would

have to say to the best of ffiY knowledge I have ne9er seen the

man, and I couldn't even prove he was ever at Los Alemoso

fvIR.o GRAY: Forgive me for reminding yoll 9 that you

are givir.g sworn testimcnyo

THE WITNESS: That is correct. I was about to say

if I worE, and realized that I amo

DR 0 EVAN~; Some of these people that you knew

down tllex e in this ce 11 at Harvard 9 a number turned out la tor

to be Communist.so

THE WITNESS: Yes~ actually the only member of

the group at Harvard that I ever met was Furryo This was

subseqi10r.t to his 1rembership,,

DRq :EVANS: You l.U.!.0W Haw kills 9 you said Q

THE \HTNESS: Yes, l am sorry o At Los Ala mos 1

knew the people I have enun::0rated, including Hawkins o

DR. EVANS: From what you tmow now, and thinking

back~ wo~ld you think you are a vary good judge as towhether

a man is a Communist or not?

THE WITNESS: I would say :1es ~ I think on tho fol lowing.

I mean s:i nee you were not trying to j urge., you can guess

some people might be and some were noto I don't think you can
 1492

explicitly with someone you don't know terribly well as

with all the ones I have eeumerated, my convers~tion runs to

maybe a total of four or five hours 9 I certainly would have

had no claim with anyones enumerated would I ever have ~clt

in a position 0-f saying they weren't.. I would not have been in

a position to claim they were or were not. Simply I didn't

know -~he1m well enoughc I don •t think ability to judge enters

thereo A person whom I never met I can't say anythingo A

person whom I met only casually, chiefly· to talk about the

physics problems, is no way to judge.

DRo EVANS: That is all.

MR o GRAY: Mr o Garrison?

MRo GARRISON: Noa

MRo GRAY: Thank you very mucho

THE WITNESS: Thank youo Sorry to have taken so much

of your time o

(Witness excusedo)

(Brief recess.)

MRo GRAY: Dro Rabi~ do you wish to testify under.

oath?

DR" RABI: Certainlye

MR" GRAY: Would you be good enough to raise your

~ight hand. I must ask for your full name~

DRo RABI: Isadore Isaac Rabi.

MR~ GRAY: Isadore Isaac Rabi, do you swear that the

 149J

testimony you are to give the Board sha 11 ,Jre the tnuth, the

whole truth 9 and nothing but the truth» so help you God?

ORo RABI: I do.

Whereupon»

ISADORE ISAAC RABI

was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn,

was examined and testified as follows;

MRo GRAY: Would you be seated, please, sir?

I must remind you of i:;he existence of the pf:n~jury

statutesn I am prepared to give you a description of ~~

pena ltie:; if you wish, but may X assume you are generally

familiar with the perjury statutes?

THE WITNESS; I know that they are dire~

MRo GRAY: 1 would also ask~ Dra Rabi, that you

notify m:3 in advance about the possible discussion or disclosu:re

of any r·sstricted data ~ ich you may get into or find nec9ssary

to get into your testimonyo

THE WITNESS: I hope i;o have the help of Dr.

Becker le·v on that o

MR. GRAY: He is here and I am sure will be alert.

THE WJJ:TNESS: I am confused about what has been

dee lassi:fied that l want technica 1 pr ofessiona 1 he lpo

MRo GRAY: Finally!) I should point out to you that we

regard the proceedings of this Board as a matter oonfidentia 1

in natur0 between the Commission and its officials and Dr.

 1494

Oppenhilimer 9 his representatives and witnesseso The

Commissicn will make no public release of matters pertaining to

these prcceedings, and on behalf of the Board, I make it a

custom tc express to the witness9s the hope that they may take

the same attitudeo

THE WITNESS: Yes, siro

DIRECT EXAMINATION •
BY MR., MARKS:

Q Dro RabiD what is your present occupation?

A I am the Higgins Professor .. of Physics at Columbia

Universityo

Q What, official positions do you have with the

government?

A Let me see if I can add them all UPo

Q Just the most importani; o

A At present as Chairman of the General Advisory

Committeep as successor to Dr Oppenheimer. I am a member of

the Scientific Advisory Committee to ODM, which also is

supposed 'to in some way advise the Presideflt of the United

States~

I am a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee to

the Bal liBtics Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground o

I am a member of the Board of Trustees of Associated

Universit:~es, Inc.,, which is responsible for the rt.nning of

Brookhavet\ Laboratory" I am a consultant to the Brookhaven

National Laboratoryo

I was a member of the Project East River, but that

is over. I was at one time the Chairman of the Scientific

Advisory Committee to· the Policy Board of the Joint .•

Research and Oevelopment Board, and a consultant there for a

number c.f years o I am a consultant to Project Lincolno

That is about all I can remember at the mcment.

Q That is enough~ s·peaking roughly, how much of your

time do you devote to this official work?

11 I ndded up what it amounted to last year,. and it

amounted to something lilte 120 working dayso So you might

ask what tine do you spend at Columbia.,

Q How long have you been a member of the General

Advisory Committee?

ll Since its incept ion o I don ~t remember the exact date

of my appointment but I have been to every meeting o I may

have missed one since the first c

q When did you become Chairman?

A I became Acting Chairman when Drn Oppenheimer's

term wa~ outo By our own custom the Chairman is elected at the

first meeting of the calendar year, and I was e lectcd ~hairman

by the committee at the first meeting which I think was in

January of last year o I am not sure of the date of the meeting.

Q Dr, Rabi~ to what extent has your work as consultant

in vax·ious capacities to the government overlapped or

 H96

coincided with work that Dr. Oppenheimer was perfo1·ming at

the same time and in the same general field?

A Chiefly of course the General Advisory Commi'ttee

and a lno to a degree in Project Lincoln 11 and particulrirly the

summer study of, I believe» 19520

Q Summer study where?

A This was a summer study at Cambridge on the

question of oontinenta l defense of the United States o

Q How long have you known Dr. Oppenheimer?

A I think we first met in the endof 1928 and we got to

know one another well in the winter and spring of 19290 l

have known him on and off sinceo We got together very frequently

during the wnr years and since.

Q Do you aiow him intimat•aly?

A I think so, whatever the te~m may meano I think

I know him quite we lL

Q Bro Rabi 9 if you will indulge me I would like to

skip ax·ound somewhat because as nearly as possible I would

like to avoid too much repetition ofthings that have already

been golia into by others o

Will you describe the extent that you can what took

place in the fa 11 of 1949 in so far as the GAC was conce:tned

or· you are concerned in respect of the question of thermonuclear

program for the Atomic Energy Commission?

A I can only give my own view indmy own recollection.

 149'1

I have not prepared myself for this by studing the minutes.

1 intended to, but I am on in the morning rather than the

afternoono So I can give you just my own recollectiono

Th~ thermonuclear rez.ction or as it was called the

Super was under intense study fr om my very first contact with

Los Ala mos o

Q When was that?

A About April 15 11 1943. At the establishment of the

laboratory 9 Dro Oppenheimer called together a group of people

to disc11ss the policy and technical direction of the

laboratory, and I was one of those who was invited to that

discuss:lono All throgh the war years and following that, that

was a subject of discussion and consideration by some of the

very best minds in physicso

The problem proved to be an extremely difficult,

very recalcitrant woblem 9 because of the many fac·tors which

were in 11olved where the theory 1 the understanding of the thing~

wasinad<?quatc. It was just a border line o The more one· looked

at it, ~he .t~ugher it looked.

Following announcement of the Russian explosion of

the A b·:>mbp I felt that somehow or other some answer must be

made in some form to this to regain the lead which we had,.

There w13re two directions in which 11>ne could look; oither the

roa liza·~ion of the Super or an intensification or the effort

on fisslon weapons to make very large ones, small ones,add so

 1498

on, to get a large variety and very great military flexibilityo

Furthermore, a large number, a large increase in

the production of the necessary raw materials, the fissionable

mater:i.als and so on, or one could consider both. Tho:i.'e was a

real ~:uestion there where the weight of the effort should lie.

~·· When yould you say that this question that you are

now dE·scr· ibing began to become acute in your thinking?

A Right awayo

~ You mean with the Russian explosion?

A As soon as I heard of the Russian explosion. I

discussed it with some colleagues~ I know I discussed it

with Dro Ernest Lawrence, with Luis Alvarez, and of course

with the Chairman of our Committee, Dr. Oppenheimer~ In fact,

I discussed it with anybody who was cleared to discuss such

matters, because it was a very, very serious problemo

That question then ca1111e up at the meeting of the

Genera 1 J\dvisory Commi'fttee.

Q That would have been the meeting that began on

October 29 9 1949?

A Yeso I do not recollect now whether this was the

first meeting after the announcement of the Russian explosion

or whether there was an intervening meetingo

Q To refresh your recollection, Dro Rabi, I think it

has been in the record here that there was a regular meeting

of the General Advisory Committee just after or just at the

 time wten the Russian e3plosion was being evaluated4

A Yes... I recollect now o In fact, I was coming up

on thf3 2.irplane and there was Dro Cockroft, the Director

of Ha:~we·l l -- he didn't te 11 me wha-t it was -- but he said

you will. read something very interesting in the newspaper.

Q You were coming on the airplane from whero'?

A From New York to Washington on the airplanco I ran

into .Jr. ~ockroft» and he told me I would read something very

:i.nter,asting :\n the noon paper o When I stepped off tho plane

there w~1s the Wt ax· with this announcement.

t~ This meeting which you identified was more or less

conte.:nporaneous by the official annoucement of this

government that there had been a Russian explosionp was there

any aiscussion at thattime of the thermonuclear?

!\ I would have to refresh my memory on thato 1 can

not say., l would be astonishec1 if there were not o I can not

say., I could go back and look. In fact, we talked about it

at ever;r meeting o

~ In all events~ the interval between that meeting

and the one on the 29thf was very much on your mind?

A Yes, siro

Q Do you have any recollection or impression as to tho

form in which the question of what to do about the thermonuc loar

problem came up in your meeting that began on October 29?

A The way I recollect it now, withoutperusal of the

 1500

minutes -- in fact, I think we kept no minutes of that meeting

which is somewhat unfortunate under the present circumstances --

the way r r.eco l lect --

c; Do you know why no minutes were kept?

A Because ·i;he discussion ranged so very wide:: ly.

We wel'.'e '~oncerned during that poriod ~ as I remember and we

consultej with the Joint Chiefs of Staff» we consultad with

rapresen·~ativesof the §tate Department and a whole lot of

stuff wa; there which we didn't feel should be distributed

arounc'o We decided not to keep accurate minutes of the meeting.

What was the question again?

~. I asked you whether you had any recollection or

any impression as -to the form in which the question conc~1rt1ing

the thermonuclear problem came before you, that is, the GACP

at the maeting which began on Oc::tober 29 9 19490

A As I recollect it now -- tt is five years ago --

the Ct.airman, Dr. Oppenheimer, st,arted very solemnly and

as I recall we had to consider this questiono The question

came not whether wre should make a thermonuclear weapon, but

whetbE!r there should be a crash programo There were some

peopl€, and I myself was of that opinion for a time, who

thought that the concentration on the crash program to go

ahead with this was the answer to the Russian thermonuclear

weapono The question wassi should it be a crash program and

a tectniJal question: What possibilities .lay in that? What

 1501

would be the cost of initiating a crash program in terms

of the strength of the United States because of the wealtening

of th1E1 effort on which something which we had in hand 11

namely 3 the fission weapons, and the uncompleted designs of

diffe1·ent varieties, to have a really flexible weapon, the

questi.on of interchangeability of parts, all sorts of things

which could be used in different military cireumstanceso

Then there was the question of the military value of

this weapon a One of the things which we talked about a great

deal was that this weapon as promised which didnqt exist

and wlt :I.ch we didn't know how to make, what sort of military

weapon was it anyway? What sort of target it was good foro

And what would be the general political effecto

In other words, we felt -- and I am talking chiefly

about myself that this was not just a weapono But by its

very nature, if you attacked a target~ it took in very much

moreo We felt it was really essential and we discussed a

great deal wlat were you buying if you got this thing" That

was the general nature of the discussion"

Technical~ military 9 and the combination of military

political,

Q Dt~ Rabi, if in the state of mind that you have

descr i.bed the quest ion among others had been put to you by the

C ommh;sion or its Chairman toconsidEJr an appraisa 1 of the then

progrri1m of the Atomic Energy Commission of whether it was

 1502

adequate and i.f not, what to do about itD what you would have

c onsider1:>d a quest ion in those genera 1 terms embraced o

A Are youreferring specifically to the thermonuclear

weapon or to the whole program?

Q I am referringto anything that you think of.

Would that have embraced the thermonuclear?

A The thernonuclear weapon at Los Alamos went; through

ups and downso We spent a lot of time talking of how we

could ge~ some very good theoretical physicsts to go to Los

A la mos aud strengthen that effort o We thought at tiraos of the

effort ai; being such a distant thing that working on that·

kind of J'esel:trch because it was a distant thing and 11ew ideas

would evolve and would really act as a ferment and sort of

spark thu laboratory.. It was one of those things whore you

really d:.dn 't know how to find a wayo Where experimnnts were

really d:.fficult to make and tremendously expensiveo

With the ideas in hand it was very hard to know how

to go at this thing, even how to set up a crash program. But

what w·e ·vere croncerned about on the other hand, we felt that

there wa£: a verygreat inadequacy in the Commissionis program

with x·e3poct 1to the production process, the amounts of

fissionable materis lg and the amounts of raw material whi<b

were b:iiug producec1, that we were not spending enough money

on tha to

We felt almost from the very beginning of an increase

 1503

in Hanfordo We made a technical recommendation at the time

of how more could be gotten out of Hanford o About hastening

the construction of certain chemical plants for the

purification of the materialo It was our feeling that the

resultznt controversy when the President ordered Savannah River

that the whole controversy was worth the thingo

Q Ynu are getting ahead of meo

A You asked such a broad questiono

Q I am losing track of this o Just once more 0 to

search your memoryg and if you haven°t got any, all you

have to d:> is say so -- search your memory as to the !llorm in

which~ th~ nature of the circumstances in whi:h there was

before the General Advisory Committee in the capacity as such

at the October 29 --

MRo ROBB: 1949 meeting.

MR. MARKS: I am sorry.

BY MRo MARKS:

Q At the October 2~ 9 1949 meetingQ The sense that

you were appropriately considering the question of a crash

program for the Supero If you haven't got any memory 9 say soo

A The sense of whether we were considering a cnash

program for t he Super~,

Q · Do you have any memory as to how that question was

before you? Among lawyers we say how did the question come up

in the cae:e ~
 1~504

A You mean in detai 1 how it came up? You me;~n who

said what to whom, when? That I don't remember o. · l am sure

it was b3fore us.

~ You don't know who presented it?

A How it was presented, whether it was first presented

with cur preliminary meeting with the Commissioners, whether

it was first suggested by Dr. Oppenheimer, and then confirmed

in the pTeliminary meeting with the Commissioners, ~nd so on.

I really don't remembero At other meetings we have miuutes

and all this would have been spelled out.

Q To the e•,tent that you can tell it without getting

into any classified materia 1, what was the outcome of the GAC

meeting of October 1949?

A I will try to give it as best I can.

Q Let me break it down. Firstp is it fair to say that

the committee was in agreement with respect or essentially in

agreemen~ with respect to the technical factors involved in

the thermonuclear si tua ti on?

A It was hard to say whether there was an agreement

or not b<3cause what we were ta H>ingabout was such a vague

thing!> this object~ that I think different people had different

thoughts about it, You could just give a sort of borseback

thin.g and say, maybe something would come out in fivo yearsa

It is that sort of thing o l know in my own case I think I

tonk the dimmest technical view of this• and there are others
who were more otpimistic"

Q I think it has been indicated here that there was

some statement in the report of the GAC at that time to the

effect that it was the opinion that a concerted imaginative

effort might produce -- that there wE1s a 50-50 chance of

success in five years.

MR. ROBB: ln the interest of accuracy~ I think the

report says a better than even chanceo Let me check it to

make sure.

MRQ GARRISON: 1.'ha t is correct 0

BY MRc MARKS:

Q Was that supposed to be a concensus of the views?

A More or less. When you ar·e talking about something

as vague as this particular thing 11 you say a 50-50 chance

in fivu years~ where you don q.t know the kind of physica 1

factors and theory that goes into the problem~ I just want to

give my own impression that it was a field where we really

did no1; know what we were talking almut, e:xcept on the basis

of genural experienceo We didn°t even know whether this

thing contradicted the laws of physicso

Q You didn't know what?

A Whether it contradicted the laws of pbysicso

Q In other wordsv it could have been altogether

imposs:~ble.,

A It could have been. altogether impossibleo The thing

 1506

we we~e talking about. I want to be specifico

Q I understando

A We were talking within a certain defini to frame,;ork

of idaaso

,~ To the e:i,tent that you can mscri be them now and

confining yoursaf to that meeting 9 to the extent that you

can describe them without trespassing on c lassifie(l materia 11.1

what weJ·e the recommendations of the GAC?

A Thoy were complicated. We divided into two grcu?So

No, there were some recommendations to which I think we ~:l.•.

agreed D which were specific technica 1 recommendations.

Q Can you say what they had to do with in gene~al

terms?

A c.ertain improvements in weapons~ the production of

certain material which would be of great utility in ~eapons

and which we felt at the time might be fundamental i1 a super

were to be made o We recommended sharply a go-ahead :ln that o

We recommended certain directions of weapr.>ns and thex·e was

a thi:rd important recommendation which I don 9 t reco l l 3ct now

of a technical natureo

Q You have spoken of a division. Wh~t bad you

reference to there?

.A In addition to that there were supplt~mentary reports

on which Dr o Fermi and I formed a minority 11 an .i the other six

1

mombers present the maporityo That had more t.o do with this
 150'1

sphere where the political and the military impinge. One

group felt -- I don't like to speak for them because the

recm·d is there, 1 but my impression was -- that this projected

weapon was just no good as a weapon.

Q You mean the particular weapon?

A I am not talking from the technical but the military

opin~on. That it was not of great military utility. The

possible tar~ets were very few in number~ and so ono I could

e laborat eon that if I should ha asked, but I am speaking for

somebody e lst:'! v and there i3 a record~

Q That was the group with which you did not join?

Yes,, Of this specific design, Dr. Fermi and I

•
A

as ! recollect it now felt that in the first place as far as

we could see from the question of lating a deliberable weapon

one did not gain a tremendous amounto Secondly, we felt that

the whcle discussion raised an opportunity for tho President

of ti~ United States to make some political gesture which would

be such that it would strengthen our moral posit ion 9 should we

decide to go ahead with it~ That our position should be such

that depending on the reaction» we would go ahead or not,

whatflver going ahead were to meano

• Q What made you think that it was appropria·to for you

to speak about these rather non-technical

diplomatic aud military considerations?

mut more political$

A That is a good question~ However 9 somehow or o:ther

 1508

we didn't feel it was inappropriateo In our whole dealing

with the Commission~ we very often, er most oftenp raised the

quest ionn to be discussed o In other words, we would say we

want to discuss this and this thingo Would you please provide

us with documents, would youbring individuals to talk to us on

this, and we would address the Commission on questions~

On the ~ther hand~ we didn 9 t feel badly if they didn 1 t

act on our suggestions.. Sometimes they did and sometimes they

didn'to So we did not feel that this was inappropriate., I·t

would be very hard for me t.o te 11 you now why we thought it

was approprU1te 1 but we thought so"

Q After this meeting of the GAC, the outcome of

which you described --

A I might addp to add to your feeling on this,

the Joint Chiefs consentelDi to come and talk to us~ and gent l0mon

from the State Department came and talked to uso So we did not

have the feeling all along that we were going far beyond our

terms of reference; otherwise these people would not have showod

up.

Q If you can properly say so& Dr. Rabi, to what

extent and in what way did the appearance of the Joint Chiefs

or their representatives affect the course of your thinking

~nd your expression.of view?

A Oh,, dears that is very hard to remember" l can

only talk for myselfo 1 9 myselfQ I donqt want to talk for

 l::iOD

anybody -- I had the sort of discouraged feeling that they

were not very well briefed on the whole question of atomic

weapons and their military utilityo There was a ve~y great

pity" If they had been very well briefed on that we would

have been where we are now three or four years ago~

MRo ROBB: Three or four years what?

THE WITNESS: Three or four years ago.· That is tho

general feeling I got out of it~

BY MRo MARKS:

Q 'DHI the GAO have any responsibility for seeing to

it th~t the Joint Chiefs were briefed?

A Noo We did meet fairly frequently with tho Military

Liaison Committee.

Q Is it fair t~ say that tne GAC tried to keep the

Military Liaison Commit tee fully informed?

11 Our job was not to inform the Military Liaison

Committee. Our job was definitely to talk to the AEC and as

we interpreted it on the suggestion of the Chairman of the AEC

at ono time 9 to the President on some very special occasiono

We have tried then and since not to be the servant of the

MOC or to work directly through them or the Joint Congree:i.ona l

• Committee.. Our job is to work with the AEC as specified in the

law aud possibly with the Presidint.

Q After the Pres:id ent announced the decision to go

ahead with the hydrogen bomb in January of 1950, what a:t.:titude

 1510
and what steps, if any 9 did the GAC take with respect to tho

subject from then on?

A I think we started talking about the best ways and

means to do ito Wt was a very difficult question, because here

is a r;tatement from the President to do something tlmt nobody

knew how to doo This was just a ball of waxo So we were

really quite puzzled except in so far as to try to gat people

to go and look at the pnblemo

Q In that connection 9 did the GAC itself try to look

into i;he problem?

A In so far as we could, yeso We had people who

were quite expert and actually worked on it, chiefly of course

Dro Fermi, who went back to Los Alamos, summers and so on ~ and

took H lot of time with ito So we had a very important expert

right on the committeeo Of course, Dro Oppenheimer knew very

wel 1 the theoretical questions imaolved ~

Q Do you think the GAC had nny u;efulness in helping the

work on this particulaA subject?

A I think it did9 I think it had a great usefulness

some way indirect and some way direct 9 ways of trying to bring

out the solid factsa It is aw~ully hard to get at those factso

I rec~1 11 particularly one meeting, l think it was in the summer

of 1950 at Los Alamos# I am not sure of the dates,where we

actua ~~ ly got together a 11 the knowledgeable people we could

find 9 I tiink Dr. Bet.he was there ;and Fermi~ to try to produce
 1511

some kind of record which would tell us where we stoodo This

was before the Greenhouse testo

Q You mean what the state of the art was at that time?

A What the state of the art was, and where wo we go

Q How many of the laws of nature on the subject were

avai.Bb~~e?

A What ideas and what technical information was

available. We got this report and it was circulated by the

C ommissicn in var ipus places because there was some kind of

feelin{~ that here the President is given the directive and

somehow something is going to appear at the other end and it

was not appearingo

Q If you can tellp Dr. Rabip whatwas the connection

or relation between the meeting you have just described at Los

Alamos ac.d another meeting that has been testified here which

took plac.e, l believe, in 1951, in the late spring at

--------··~
Princetori?

A That was an entirely different llJIBtingo At th~t

meeting vie really got on the beam, because a new invention

____
----'"'

bad ocoux'.red.
', .. ..
~'- ' '
There we had a situation where you really could

talk abo~ito You knew what to calculate and so on, and you

were in the x·ea lm'lhbere you could apply scientific ideas which

were not some extrapolation ~ery far beyond the known. This

is sc•mathing which could be ca lculated,p which .could be studied_,

 1512

aneJ was :1n entirely different thing.,

Q Why did it take that long?

• A

A
Just the human mind.

There was the President's directive in January 1950 0

Why it took this long? One had to get rid of the

ideas that were and are probably no good., In other words, there

has been all this newspaper stuff about delayo The subject

which we discussed in the 1949 meeting~ that particular thing

has never been made and probably never will be made~ and we

still dou 9 t know tb this day whether something like that will

functiono

• Q
This other thing was something quite different, a

much more modestand more definite idea on wh:iil one c:muld goo

I interrupted you a while back when you displayed

some enthusiasm with the Savannah River Projecto Would you

try to fix in point of time when you intended that expression

of enthusiasm?

A Just as soon as we got some more money to matte

more plants which would make fissionable material and really

here was a policy of containmento

Q When was that?

A I specifically was worried about the whole thing

from 1947 on when we started to get a tough policy with Rus~ia

with a minuscle stbckpile and if our bluff were called 9 what

would we do? I felt all along i.f we ·are going to have a get
 "'=--

1513

tough policy$ we have to have someihing to back it up.

Q Did you and Dro Oppenheimer disagree about that?

A Nop oh, noo We were worried sick about that

particular situation. We were also worried about the situation

that the military did not know the meaning of these weapons and

somehow or other had a fixed ~dea that these necessarily were--

they could not be made to realize or did not realize~there was

some kind of breakdown in communication, that a 11 they had

to do wai:; to put the money on the lind and order 1 t, nnd this

would come out. There were very many important .military

uses~ So when the Savannah River project came along --

~ When was that?

A The date of Savannah River, I can't recallo

Q That ~ould havebeen some time in 1950?

A I don •t know o I can 9 t put a dale on 1 t. BlJt• it wus

extremely welcomeo

Q You say that you began to experie nee these worries

about talking tough and not having a big stick in 1947. Did the

GAC try to do anything about that, or did you feel you had

any responsibility to do something about it?

A Yes~ we did talk to the Commission about it 9 I

think< I am not quite sure we did. I ·think at our first

or second mmeting, whether it is in the record or not or in the

minutes, I a~ not sure, I know I myself kept on saying what

\re have to do -is to quin.tuple Hanford.o I am qui:te sure that

would have been unanimous in the committee. Also, there :we1·e

 1514

certain technical devices to increase the productiou and

we pressed on thato There was a very long delay just because

of co'.1servatism, and a new contractor 11 and so on, in doing

some ~xf those things o But the pressure of the GAC a 11 a long

Q When~u say all along, what do you meanp HM7, 1948:1

1949?

At alm~t every meetingo

Through a 11 of those years?

A That is righto Increased production of both

:f;issionE•ble mate1· ia l and of raw materia 1, and particularly we

kept on recommending a facility for the production of· uetltrons

which wc:i knew would be very useful in some way or other

witho~Jt particularly specifying where the use would come.

Q Was Savannah ~iver regarded by you as ono of the

great answers to that need which you have ju~t d~scribed?

A Oh 9 yes, I regarl Savannah River as the way we answered

the R~ssian success.

1~ I don't know whether you said ear lier what Dr.

Oppenhe].mer gs view was about that o

A l am quite sure that he was never in disagreement

with ·thutc
1~ Was never in disagreement?

;\ Yes o

Q Did he evidence your enthusiasm?

A l ~hink so. He is not the same enthusiastic fellow

 1'.315

as I am, but l was quite sure ho believed that it was a correct

stepo

Q Dro Rabi 11 there has been some questioning and sollllfl

talk by other witnesses about a subject which is somewhat

obscure to me, but perhaps if I just identify it, you may be

able to say something about it, namely 9 the question of a so-

cal led ~econd laboratoryo Is there anything that you can say

prope1\'lr on that subject?

i\ I will try and let Oro Beck:erleywatch me r,n it.

Q Maybe you better consult with Oro Beckerley first.

A That question came up again and againo Los Alamos

is an a'"1kward place apd so on, and various people kept' on

saying

Q May I interrupt you, Dr. Rabip When the term

"second laboratory" is used, is i't fair for me to assume that

what is being talked about is the second laboratory which

will ha 11e something to do primarily with weapons?

A That is what I am talking abouto I am just giving

you my 1:-ecollection of a whole series of discussions whl.ch came

up from time to timeo That competition is goodo Los Alamos

has been criticized for being too conservative and stoclgyc

Th.e sug1~estion that some other group utilizing ta lent which

fol' som1~ reason or another was unobtainable at Los Alamos

would br;J a good thing ..

I, mJse lf ~ I may say was not in favor of that, amid

 1516

my Dwn rECiason was -- and I think Dr. Oppenheimer st.u:red this

reason 9 Et least in part -- that Los Alamos was a miracle of a

laborato1·y" If you had looked at the dope sheet of the

people that were therej) you would not have expected in 19~5

that it vrould be just a tremendously successful laboratory

and of such a very high moraleo It was really a terrific

labora"tory 9 just a miracle of a placeo

As a result of establishing another laboratory, I was

at
afraid tlmt it would be takun/iLos Alamos as a criticism

and taking chances of spoiling moraleQ Those laboratories, as ~

I think lAr o Morgan wi 11 know, largely depend upon the few koy

people. If you are to lose them, you have lost the labq So

my own fc3e ling wasv they are doing remarkably well and why

upset tho applecarto There was a possibility also

that the:1 would lose some personnel in a sort of general division .. _

Finally it turned out in the expansion of the activities

of Los Alamos, these various tests and so on 9 that they used

a lot of the contractors all over the place. They do a

tremendO'lS amount of subcontracting a 11 over the place 4

Q All over the place?

A All over the United Stateso One very good group

in instrumentation was developed at Berkeley by Dro York ..

Then there was an additional circumstance that some

important contract on a subject which I won 9 t even anter was

c:ancelied there~ and personnel became available. and I think

 1317

it war; s: suggestion of the GAC that that group should be

combi~eci and another laboratory made whose chief terms of

referl'3nc:e would be in the realm of instrumentation for the

study of explosionso

Subsequently, and I think not on the direct

. x·ecom::nendation, although. I am not sure about the record~ bllt

this is my recollection, the tex·ms of refex-ence of that

labor3tory were expanded, so that it became an actucl second

weapons laboratory Q 1 thin&t in popular opinion such as Time

MagazinEJ, and so onp it is that laboratory which prodlJcecl ·::he

thermonuclear weapono That is a lie.

MRo GRAY: That is what, Doctor?

THE WITNESS: That is a lie 9

BY MRo MARKS:

Q Do you mean by that to say that what has been

produced came out of Los Alamos?

A Yes, sir~

~ There has been a good deal, ! think, of official

inf orma1:~ion about the present strength of the United State.s

in rela~ion to nuclear weapons, fission and fusiono ls

that in your opinion the result of work at Los Alamos?

A Yes, it is my unqualified opinion.

Q And not the second laboratory?

A Not the ~econd laboratory~ The second laboratory

has dono very good work on instriomentationo

 1518

Q There ha s also been some talk as a result of

questioning in these proceedings about the question of

continen·tal defense" Is there anything that you can say

•
properly about that subject 0 about your attitude on it, and about

Dr,. Oppe·11heimer?

A I can suggest the motivation and I think D~.

Oppenhei·ner and 1 agreed. It is three fold. One, wo think

that to protect the lives of Americans is worth anybody's

whileo Two, that one is in a stronger position in a war if

one is fighting from a protected citadel, rather than just

being op.en and just a slugging match with no defense guard

put up. Thirdly, and it is more political, that the existence

of such a defense would make us less liable to intimidation

and blackmail.

Behind this were some brand new ideas~ at least

new to m8, which came from some individuals in Cambridge,

part icu hr ly Dr o Zachar. ias ~ which made such a defense line

possible at a reasonable cost.

Q Who is Di:-" Zacharias?

A Dra Zacharias is a professor of physics at MIT. He

is the haad of their Division of Nuclear Scienceo During the

war he wls at the Radiation Laboratory at MIT on radar 0 He

spent a certain amount bf time at Los Alamoso He was the head

of the Hartwell Project 0 summer study for the Navy 9 which

had a la~ge effect on naval policy on.antisu~marine warfare,

am things of that sort o

Q Are you sure you are not mistaken about the Hartwil

business?

A Zacharias was the head of the Hartwell study. Then

also he :ran the summer study.

Q When you speak of the summer study, you mean tho

one that is popularly called Project Lincoln?

A No~ Project Lincoln is a big project and l~boratory

which exists. The summer study was a special group brought

together for a limited period of time of experts in 111iffe:rent

fields to look into the technical military question cf·i.;hc

possibilities of the defense of the United States.

Q Were you and Dro Oppenheimer concerned *t all with

that?

A I think we each spent a week or so at the beginning

and a week or so at the end of thiso We were not actually

members of the working party~

Q You were consultants?

A Consultantso

Q Does the attitude that you have described on the

subject of continental defense mean that you are opposed to a

powerful strategic air policy?'

A As far as I am concerned, I certainly am not o

Q Am not what?

A Opposed to it.. I am very much in favor of it. I

 1520
•
would like to see· it more effective than -it ts, and also I
•
'
would like to s;ee its bases better!protcicted than they areo

Q Are the two things compatible, the continental

•
defense yoft are talking about, and the strategic?

A Absolutelyo These are thw two arms.. One is the

punching arm and the other the guard. You have to have both,

in my opinion.

~! Do you know whether Dr. Oppenheimer's views are

materially different from yours on the subject?

•
A I don't think they are.. I think his emphasis might

be somewhat differento I donet think the views are different.,

I think the emphasis ,might be different.

Q In what way?

A Now we are getting into things which I would

prefel' not to answer.,

Q Why?

A Because it comes into questions of actual strategy

and t:a1ctics of which we have special knowledge and I cion 't

want to go into any d~tails of that sort~

Q All right. Just so that I will understand what you

are saying, I take it that you strongly favor, and to your

knowlodge Oppenheimer strongly favors 9 a powerful strategic

air policyo

A Yeso

Q And that you also favor an effective continerital

.
1521

defenseo

A Thnt is right o

Q And that you.regard the two things as not

incom{?at ible?

A No) no., I think they are just absolutely compl0-

mentary. They both have to be thereQ To put it in ~ wordt a

strategi~ air arm unlessyou are going to prevent a wnr is

a psychological weaponp a deterrento But the other fellow may

not be the same an\j you have to have some kind oil dofonse

before he does you irreparable damage P and furthermo::..·e, your

plans mar not go as you expect. They may miscarry" Unless

you have a defense, you are not getting another chanceo

DR~ GRAY: Let me interrupt for a moment to ask you

how mt:1ch longer do. you thin·k your direct wi 11 take?

MRo MARKS: Just two more questionso If you would

rather --

MR 0 GRAY: No, proceedo

BY· MR,. MARKS:

q Doctor, it can be gathered from the nature of

these proceedings that this board has the function of advising

the Commission with respect to a determination that the

Commission must make on whether permitting Dr. Oppenheimer

to have access to restricted data wi 11 not endanger the common

d~fense and security~

In formulating this advice,. the considerat.ions

 1522

suggested by the Atomic Enetgy Act to be takec into account

are the character, associations and loyalty of the individual

Ctillncerned.

Do you feel that you know Dr. Oppenheimer well enough

to comment on the bearing of his cbaracter 1 loyalty and

associations on this issue?

A I think Dr. Oppenheimer is a man of upstanding

character, that he is a loyal individual~ not only to tho

United States~ whi~b of course goes without saying in my minds

tut also to his friends and his organizations to which he is

attached ll let us say, to the institutions 9 and work very .

bard for his loyalties; an upright character 9 very upright

character~ very thoughtful, sensitive feeling in that respecto

With regard to the question of aasociation~ I might

say that I have seen the brief form of what would you .call it$

the report of Dr. Oppenheimer?

Q What is that?

A It is some documatlt .about 40 pages which is a summary.

Q When did you see it?

A Sometime in January.

Q How did you happen to see it?

A The Chairman of .the Commission asked me to take a

look at it.,

MR. GARRISON: What year?

THE WITNESS: This year. I would say that in spite

of tbe asnociations in. there, I do not believe that D;c.

Op;?enheirnnr is a security risk, End that these assoc ia ti ons in

th13 past nhoulci bar him from acc€1ss to security info~'.'r:m"tio.n

for the A~;omic Energy Commissiono

BY MR. MARKS])

_Q Tho repor-t you speak of, is tbat in amplificatior1

of the Ie·~ter of allegations or derogatory information which

yo11 have :~ead of General Nichols to Dr .. Oppenheimer?

A I don't know whether it was made as an amplification.

Q I am just trying to get some sense of what it is.

A I don·'t know. I uridorstood it to be a digest of

a very bit;; file.

Q I didn't understand clearly, Dr. Rabi 0 . You usod the

phrase "bar him". Would you mind repeating what you had in

mind?

A I will put it this way~ If I had tomake the

determi.na·tion, aftelC' having read this and knowing Di;. Glpponheimor

for a 11 the years I would know him, l would have con ti uued

him in hi 3 position as consultant to the Atomic Ener.gy

Commission, which h~ was before.

MR. llJARKS: That is a 11,.

DRo GRAY: Areyou ready to proce~d with the

exa mina ti on?

MRo ROBB: Mr. Cha.irman, it is now about l :15 0 l

am going to take 45 minutes anyway, and of course we·have nr

 1523

of the associations in there, I do not belie·ve that Dr.

Op~enheimer is a security risk, and that these associations in

thr:J past Bhould bar him from access to security infw·mation

for the Atomic Energy Commissiono

BY MR .. MARKS!>

Q The report you speak of~ is that in amplification

of the le~ter of allegations or derogatory information which

you have ~ead of General Nichols to Dr. Oppenheimer?

A I don't know whether it was made as an amplificationa

Q I am just trying to get some sense of what it iso

A I don't kuow.. I understood it to be a digest of

a very bii; file o

Q l didn't understand clearlyv Dr. Rabi. You used the

phrase "b:1r him" o Would you mind repeating what you had in

mind?

A I will put it this wayo If I had tomake the

determination 9 after having read this and knowing Dr. Oppenheimer

for a 11 the years I would know him 9 I would have continued

hLri in hi:; position as consu lta~t to the Atomic Energy

Commission, which h'fiJ was before.

MR~ ll.IARKS: That is allo

DR" GRAY: Areyou ready to proceed with the

ex:imination?

MRo ROBB: Mr. Chairman~ it is now a bout 1 :J5.. I

am going to take 45 minutes anyway 9 and of course we have no

lunch" I would much prefer to take a brief break to get a

cup of coffee and a sandwich before proceedingo

(Discussion off the recordo)

DRo GRAY: We will now recess nntil 2 o'clocko

MR 0
GARRISON: Mr, Chairman, is there any more news

about the schedule for next week? You said the Board might

ba calling witnessesg and would let us know what you have

decided~

MRo GRAY: I am afraid we will have to taltt about

that some at lunchg because I don't have anything new at the

momenta
(Thereupon at 1:05 Pomoo a recess was taken until

2:00 PoIDo, the same dayQ)

 1525

AFTERNOON SESSION

MRo GRAY: Shall we resume?

MRo~lARKS: It is agreeable to Dro Oppenheimer

thgt the proceedings continue this afternoon without his

presence ..

MRo GRAY; I just want to make it clear tha·:; it is

a matter of his own choosing, and not of Mr. Garrison, that

th-ay are :aot presen·t; this afternoon for the remainder of these

proceedings.

MR., MARKS: That is correct. He may be bacl.t before

we finis1h., but this is a matter of his own choosing.

MR" GRAY: Would you proceed, Mr. Robb.,

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MRo ROBB:

Q Dr. Rabi 9 you test fied that in the fall of 1949,

th•3 problr3m of the Super prO'gram had your attention quite

cousidera~oly.

A Yes.

Q And I believe you said that you talked with Dr.

Lawrence and Dr. Aluarez about it.

A Yes.

Q Could tha1; have been in October, just before the

n~eting of the GAC.

(Dr. Oppenheimer entered the roomo)

~mo GRAY: You are back now; Dr. Oppenheimero

 DH.o OPPENHEIMEii.: This is one of the few things l

am re:.1 l ly sure of.

THE WITNESS: I can't remember the exact date. I

think it was in the fallo It was before the GAC meGting.

BY MR. ROBB;

Q It was before the GAC meeting?

l\. I am quite sure.

Q Did Dr. Alvarez and Dr~ Lawrence come to sec you in

New York?

i\. That is right.

Q Together or did they come separately?

J\ Together~

Q What was the purpose of their visit to youg sir?

/\ Well, we are old friendse I don't remember what

the p~rpose was that they wanted to come up which I didn't

find 8Xtraordinary. Physicists visit one another. Both are

people 1 have known for a long time. But we did taltl.'. on this

thing which was in our mind.

Yes. To save time, didn°t th9y come to see you

with spEicial reference to the thermonuclear questbn or the

~ u per question?
A That may have been in their minds. It may have been

in their minds. We ~ot going on it right awayo

Q In all eventsD you talked about it?

A That is right. What was in their minds~ I don't know.

 1527

Q Do you recall what their views were on it as they

expressed them to you then?

A Their views were that they were extremely optimistic.

They are both very optimistic.gentlemen. They were extremely

optimistic about it. They had been to Los Alamos and talked

to Dr. TellerD who gave them a very optimistic estimate about

the thing and about the kind of special materials wtich would

be required. So they were all keyed up to go bang into ito

Q They thought we ought to go ahead with it?

.1\. I think if they had known then what we knew a year

later, I don't think they would have been so eager. But at

that tb1e they had a very optimistic estimate.

Q To help you ix the lime, was that after the Russian

explosion?

A After the Russian explosion.

Q Was that the main reason why they thought we ought

to get n long with the thermonuclear program?

A I don't know.

~ Beg pardon?

~ I would suppose soo As I testified before, what

I testified was that we felt we had to do something to

recover our lead.

Q Did you express your view to them on that subject?

A Yes, that we had todo something, and I think that I

may have inclined ·- this is something which 1 kept no notes

 1528

and SO Or.o

Q I understand, Doctor •.

A I think I may have inclined toward their view on

the basis of the information they said they had from Dr. Teller.

Q Did 1ou find ourself in any substantial disagreement

with their views as they expressed them then?

A It wasn't the case of agreement or disagreement.

I generally find myself when 1 talk with these two gentlemen

in a ver1 uncomfortable position. I like to be an enthusiasto

I love it. But those fellows are so enthusiastic that I have

to be a cons~rvative. So it always puts me in an odd position

to say, "Nows no. There, there," and that sort of thing. So

I was not in agreement in the sense that I felt they were as

usu~l, which is to their credit -- they have accomplished

very greEt things -- overly optimistic.

Q Except for that 1ou agreed with their thought that

we ought to do something, as you put it, to regain ous.· position?

A That is right. I felt ver! strongly. I spoke t~

everybody I could properly speak to, as I said earlier,

mlking about whatwe could do to get back this enormous lead

which we had at that time. This of course was one of the

possibilities.

Q Was it before that or after that you talked to

Dr. Oppenheimer?

A I really don't remember the sequence of events at

 1529

that time and when I saw Dr. Oppenheimer, whether he was away

for the ~;ummer or I was, or. what, I wish I could testify.

I don't keep a diary.

C I understand. All I want is your best recollection,

Doctor. Wheneveryou talked to Dr. Oppenheimer, did he express

hiLs vi:9Wr<> on this ma tter'l

A It is very hard to answer. I just don't recollect

to tell you a specific time at a specific placewhere I spoke

to Oppenheimer.

Q May I help you a little bit? It is difficult to

separatewhat he might have told you before the meeting with

what he Baid at the meeting.

A To which meeting are, you talking?

c The meeting of October 29.

A I don't really remember that we met before the meeting

or immed:Lately before the meeting, or that he told me

something- of that sort. I just don't remember. My actual

rec( llection is that I learned the purpose of the meeting at

1

the meet:lng, but I am not certain. I just can't tell.

O At all events, the views expressed by Dr. Oppenheimer

at the m<~eting were not in accord with those expressed to you hy

Alvarez and Lawrence, were they?

A No, the meeting was a very interesting one. I t

was a rather solemn meeting. I must say that Dr. Oppenheimer

as Chairman of the meeting always conducted himself in such a

 1530

way as to elicit the opinions of the members and to stimulate

the discussion. He is not one of these chairmen who sort of

takes it their privilege to holdthe floor; the ve~y opposite.

G-enerally he might express his ow11 view last and very rarely

in a strong fashion, but generally with considerable reservations.

When he reported to the Commission, it was always a miracle

to th~3 c ther members on the committee how hecould summarize

three days of discussions and give the proper weight tothe

opinion of every member, the proper shade, and it rarely happened

that sou:e member would speak up and say, "This isn't exactly

what J( n:eant." It was a rather miraculous perforinance.

0 DDctor, as Chairman of the GAC, do you bave custody

of the 1rinutesof the GAC?

I\ In what sense do you mean, sir? Do I possess them

in my office in New York?·

Q Yes, sir.

A No, sir.

q Where would those be?

A In the AEC building in our office.

Q In all events there were no minutes of this October

29th r11eeting?

i'l I don't think there were minutes. There was a report.

q Yes.

A When we got down to a sort of settled procedure, we

had the minutes. But at the end of the meeting there was a
 1531

verbal renort from the Chairman GAC to the Chairman AEC

and then a written report swnmarizing certain conclus:i.ons and

recommendations,and if there were differences of opinim,

trying to g~ve the proper shade and tone, telling the date of

the next meeting, and if we know, the kind of questions we

would lik 1 ~ to take up at the next meeting.

Q Do youTecall any mention at that meeting of October

29, 1949, :>f a comn1m'lication from Dr. Seaborg about the problem

under dis«::ussion?

A I can't recollect. I don't know. l might add

it would not have been very significanC:, because my feeling is

now that 'Jle came into the meeting without any clea.r ideas,

that ir, the course of an extremely exhausting discussion to and

fro, ex:amining _all the possibilities we each became clearer

as to what this thing meant. So anybody who didn't participate

in the discussion wouldn't have p-otten what we conceived at

that ti.me to be that kind of clarity.

c You said somebody from the Joint Chiefs came to talk

to you . Do you remember who that was?

.
A As I remember it' I think it was General Bradley.

Q You said your impression was that General Bradley

was not very well briefed.

A On atomic energy, that is right.

Q Doctor, whose business was it to brief General

Brad:tey, anyway?

•
 A I suppose the Military Liaison Committee.

Q I see. You mean between the AEC and the Joint Chiefs?

A Yes, that is the way of communication, I presume.

Q Who was on that committee?

A That is a matter of record. I am sorry, I can't

remember who happened to be the chairman. The military

personnul changed all the time. The chairman changed all the

time. Por the life of me, I can't remember at present who it

was then.

0 I have a note here and I think I wrote down your

exact language: "If they had been well briefed, we would have

been where we are now three or four years ago." Collld you

explain that to us?

A Sure. If they had been well briefed and understood

what atomic weapons meant in the whole thine, the sort of

thing that the new look is talking about, we would have put up

the kind of factories which we have at Paducah and we are

(\
.
setting up in Iowa and at Savannah River, and the increase in

facilit:i'.es in Hanford and so on, and we would have gone to town

and spent the kind of money earlier that we spent later. That

:i.s what I mean.

MR. GRAY: Just at that point, youmean with respect

to A bombs, if I can refer to it that way?

•
THE WITNESS: The materials are similar.
' .
MR~ GRAY: So you had in mind also the thermonuclear?
 1533
..
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, everything. ·You 'can design ,

so that the materials which enter are more or less inter-

.
changeable. You can do that with that .in mind. In fact, that

is what ~vas done .

MR. ROLANDER: For clnrity, you said Iowa; did you

mean Chio?

THE WITNESS: l meant Ohio. Thank you. Portsmouth.

BY MR. ROBB:

Q You spoke of a meeting at Princeton in 195l, is

that rigi1t?

A Yes .
•
Q That was after Dr. Teller's discovery, if ue may

call it r;uch, wasn't it?

A At that point I wouldn't call it Dr. Teller's

discover;!. I think Dr. Teller had a very important part in it,

but I would not malte a personal attribution.

Q 1 was nottrying to decide that, but merely to ident:fy

it. Itwns after some discovery was made which was e~:tremely
'•

promisin1~.

A Not discovery; invention.

0 Invention, yes,sir. .. Was there any discussion at

that maei:i ng as to whether or nOtl the President ' s directive to

pDceed w:L th the thermonuclear peirmi tted you to go ahead with

the deve:.opment of that invention? Do I make myself clear?

•
A No.

'j_
 1534

r Was there any d'.iscussion about whether or not you

could go ahead with the work on that invention, with the

exploi.tation and d.avelopment of it j_n the terms of the

President's orders or directive?

A The only discussion, as I recall, sir, were the ways

and means of going ahead, and how to get certain questions

settled. There were certain technical questions d. what

would happen under certain circumstances in this design. It

was amenable to theoretical calculations by some very good man,

lthink Dr. Bethe W•ent and did it.

O But there was no discussion about whether or not the

terms of the President's directive permitted you to go to work

on that invention?

A No, I don't recall any. It would be hard for me to

see why there should have been.

(
1
Doctor, I notice tbis sentence in the report of the

GAC of the October 29, 1949, meeting, which I am told I may

read s.loud:

"It is the opinion of the majority that the Super

progrEi.m itself should not be undertaken and that the Commission

and its contractors understand that construction of neutron

producing reactors is not intended as a step in the Super

progr::~m."

Doctor, were the neutron producing reactors to which

you had reference there the same type that were constructed
at Sava:1nah?
A Yes, sir. They were onstructed wi 1h that in mind.

They we:re dual purpose. The de ign could be optimized ir

one dir•3Ction or another direct on and a balance was made, as

I remem·oer .

~ Is it appropriate to sk the Doctor when they were

constructed?

DR. BECKERLEY: I thi that is a matter of public

record.

THE WITNESS: It is a matter of record, and I would

not try to test my memory on that.

BY MR. ROBB:

Q In all events, when they were constructed, they were

constructed with a view that they would be 11 step in the Super

progr811l'?

A That they could be a step in the Super program. We

were ir. a wonderful position, we could go one way or the other.

Q Doctor, you said that the Chairman of the Atomic

Enerfty Commission, Jr. Strauss, in January of this year had

asked you to take a look at the FBI report which he hadon

Dr. Opr:enbeimer.

A Yes.

o Did you mean to say by that that be asked you to

come to bis office for that purpose?

A We talked about the case, of course. He informed me

 •
153G

of the thing.

c; Yes.

l~ He thought as Cha irm:an of the General Advisory

-e Commit tee I ought to know the con tents of tha. t report. I thinlt

if I had asked for

\
the full report, I would have got ten it.

I may say that that record is not something I wanted to see.

c No, I understand that.

A In fact, I disliked the idea extremely of delving

into the private affairs in this way of a friend of mine, but

I was finally convinced that it was my duty to •o so.

Q Certainly. What 1 ha.din mind, Doctor, was that you

did not mean to suggest that Mr. Strauss sent for you and

said to you in effect, ''Look what I have now."

A Oh, no.

Q I was sure of that.

ll. No.

Q Did you go to see him on that occasion on your own

voli t:lor.. or did he send for you?

A I go see him every time 1 am in Washington and spend

an hour or two with him discussing all sorts of problems

which refer to the GAC, AEC relit ions. I am going to see him

this afternoon if I get away from here in time.

Q Certainly, Doctor, don't answer this question

unless you want to, but did you go to see Mr. Strauss on one

occas:lon. more or less in behalf of Dr. Oppenheimer'?

 1537
A Just epedially for that purpose?

Q Well, among other purposes. You may have bad other

purposes.

A We have talked about this every time I met him.

~ Yes , I can quite unders tan.d that.

A Yes. I have talked to Mr. Strau~s on this certainly

in behalf of Dr. Oppenheimer, but even more in behal:.? of the

security of the United States. To tell you frankly, I have

very grave misgivings as to the nature of this charge, still

have, and the general public discussion which it has aroused,

and the fear that as a result of such a discussion important

security information absolutely vital to the United States

may bi. t by bit inadvertently leak out. I am very much worried

about that.

C'· Doctor, do you approve of Dr. Oppenheimer's course

of giving the letter from General Nichols and bis reply to

the nE1wspapers?

A I don't know his motives on that. In his position,

I think I would have done the same thing.

O I just wanted to get your views dn it.

A Yes.

Q You said, sir, that you would rather not answer with

respect to the matter of continental defense?

A No, I did not.

May I finish my question? As to the difference in

emphasi:.; between you and Dr. Oppenheimer?

A No, sr, I don't recall I said that.

q I misunderstood you.

A It was a possible difference in emphasis of the

method of employment of a strategic air force.

r I see. That is what I was trying to say.

A In the method of employment. In other words, this

is a ltind of military question and runs into problemi:; of target

sel0cti<:>n, things of that sort. For that reason, since this

isnot just an AEC quest:bn for which I understand th,e members

of this panel are cleared, but refers to DOD questions, I

would rather not talk about it.

In other .words, you feel that would be classified

infm!."'mation which you should not disclose even to the members

of this Board?

A That is right. I don't want to skirt around and niaybe

fall into somethi;ig.

• l\ffi. ROBB: I see. I think that is all I would like

to ask, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GRAY: Doctor Rabi, you mentioned this morning

that at the October 1949 meeting of the GAC, General Bradley

came, to the best of your recollection, and you said also there

was :a State Department man. Do you remember who that was?

THE WITNESS: Ithink it was Mr. Kennan.

MR. GR.Al'! You mentioned a meeting at Los Alamos in

 1539

the sumn:er, I believe, of 1950?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

DR. GRAY: Thatwas before the Princeton meeting, of

couise, to which you referred'?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

DR. GRAY: Was Dr. Oppenheimer at the meeting in the

summer cf 1950?

Tim WITNESS: Yes, indeed. I don't remember exactly.

Tle meetj.ng, I think, was a meeting of the Sm committee on

Weapons. I think there were three subcommittees of the General

Advisory Committee which were sort of specialized, one weapons,

oneon reactor and one on research. I think that was the

Weapons Subcommittee. I don't recall the full attendance at

that neeting, but Dr. Oppenheimer was there.

tin.. GrtAY: With respect to the development of the

H bomb -- I don't know how to refer to it exactly, but yai

know wha t I am talking about -- and the issue of who was

for and who was against, was it your impression that Dr.

Oppenheimer was unalterably apposed to the development?

THE WITBESS: No, I would not say so, because wfte1

we had those two statements, which were written by different

groups which were put in, I distinctly remember Dr. Oppenheimer

sayin€: he would be wiling to sign both.

MR. GRAY: My question was bad, because. "unalterably"

is a pretty strong word, and y~u have already test.ified that.
 15'-10

subsequeat to the President's decision he encouraged &he

progra.m and assisted in it.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

tm. GRAY: So I think this was a bad question.

Tim WI'.ll1lESS: I was really testifying as to that time,

that theJ~e were two statements of attitudes which differed,

and he said he would be ready to sign either or both.

MR. GRAY: He would have been willing to sign the

one which you signed'?

THE WITNESS: Tba t Fermi and I did, yes.

MR. GRAY: Would you have considered those two

reports :1bsolutely consistent?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. GRAY: Yourself?

THE WITNESS: No. I ~just answered your quest ion about

being un:1l terably opposed.

MR. GRAY: There was a real difference?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, there was a real difference.

There wa3 no difference as far as a crash program was concerned.

That they thought was not in order.

MR. GRAY: I have one other question. You testified

very clearly, I think, as to your judgment of Dr. Oppenheimer

as a man, referr1.ng to his character, his loyalty to the

Uni tee; States, and to his friends and to ins ti tu tions with

whibh he might be identified, and made an observation about

 1541

associations.

As of today would you expect Dr. Oppenheimer's

loyal t:f to the country to take precedence over loyalty to an

indvidual or to some other institution?

THE WITNESS: I just don't think that anything is

higher in his mind or heart than loyalty to his country. This

sort al'. desire to see it grow and develop. I might amplify

my other statement in this respect, and that is something we

talked of. through the years. When we firist met in 1929,

Americ:in physics was not really very much, certainly not

coneornint with the great size and wealth or the country. We

were v1~r~r much concerned with raising the level of American

physic:;. We were sick and tired of going to Eur&pe as learners.

We wanted to be independent. I must say I think that our

generation, Dr. Oppenheimer's and my other friend that I can

mention, did that job, and that ten years later we were at the

top of the heap, and it wasn't just because certain refugees

came m1t of Germany, but because of what we did here. This was

a cons ::ious motivation.

1
Oppenheimer set up this school of

theoretic:al physics which was a tremendous contribution. In

fact, I don't lmow how we cauld have carried out the scientific

part of the war without the contributions of thepeopj_,.3 who

worl~ed vn. th Oppenheimer. They made their contributions very

willingl~r and very enthusiastically and singlemindedly.

MR. GRAY: Perhaps I could get at my question this way.

You are familiar, if you have road the Nichols letter and read

the summary of a file which Chairman Strauss handed ;,rou, with

the ehev:tlier episode to some e:a:tent, I take it.

THE .WITNESS: l know of the episode, yes.

MR.• GRAY: Would you expect Dr. Oppenheimer today

to fo110'N' the cour:;e of action he followed at that t:l.me in

1943?

THE •Wl'INESS: You mean refuse to give infm:•rna tian 't

Is that what you m<3a n?

MR. GRAY: Yes.

THE WI'l'NESS: I certa:inly do. At the r:resont time

I think he would clamp him into jail if he asked such a

question.

MR. GRAY: I am sorry.

Tim WITNESS: At the present time if a man came to

him with a proposal like that, he would see that he goes to

jail. .it least that is my opinion of whathe would do in

answer t':> this hypothetical question ..

l\ffi. GRAY: Do you feel tha.t security is relative,

that som;,thing that was all right in 1943, would not be all

right in 1954 '? "

THE WITNESS: If a man in 1954 came withsuch a

propo$al, my God -- it would be hor1·ifying.

~m. GRAY: Supposing a man came to you in 1943.

THE WITNESS: I \'>UUld have thrown him out.

 1543

MR. GRAY: Would you have done anything more about it?

THE WITNESS: I <bl't think so. Unless I thought he

was ju:;t a poor jackass and didn't know what he was doing.

But I would try to find out what motivated him and what was

behind i~:, and get after thatat any time. If somebody asked

meto vio:Late a law and an oath --

r.m. GRAY: I hope you are not taking offense at my

asking this question, but this is a perfectly serious question

beca.se ~rou have testified without equivocation, I think,

and in the highest possible terms of Dr. Oppenheimer's

characte1~. his loyalty, and with certain reservations about

his earl:r associations. As Mr. Marks pointed out in the

question leading to this testimony, these are things wh:ith the

Atomic Ellergy Act says must be taken into account in this

matter o:f clearance. I trust you understand this is a very

solemn duty that this Board has been given.

THE WITNESS: I certainly do, sr.

MR. GRAY: There have been those who have testified

that men of character and stand~lng and loyalty t1a t this

episide :3hould simply be disregarded. I don't think that is

an unfai:l" summary of what some of the witnesses have said. Do

you feel that this is ju~;t a matter that is of no consequence?

THE WITNESS: I do not thiik any of it is of no

consequence. I think you have to tale the matter in its whole

context, For example, there are men of unquestioned loyalty

who do not know enough of the subject -- I am taldng now df

the atomic energy field -- so that in their ordinary speech

they don' t know what they are saying. Thf might give away veiy

important things.

MR. GRAY: That would be true of me, I am sure •

•
THE WITNESS: It certainly has been true of a lot of

military stuff that you see published. It makes yotu• hair

stand on end to see high officers sny, and people in Congress

say some of the things they say. But with a man of D1~ •

Oppenheimer's knowledge, who knows the thing completely, and

its iuplications and its importance 1 and ·the different phases,

believing as I do in bis fundam,ental loyalty, I think to whom-

every he talked he wouldlmow how to stay completely clear of

sensitive inforna tion.

MR. GRAY: In any event, ! suppose --

THE Wl'INESS: I think there is a very large

distinction there.

MR. GRAY: In any event, l believe you did testify

that you would be quite convinced -- I am not sw.•e you did

are you quite convinced that as of today Dr. OppenhGiner's

course of action would be in accord with what you would do,

rather than what he didin respect to the matter of this sort.

I can't say what a :man will do, but we only can apply

subject:te tests in these matters as far as your testimony

as to character, loyalty and so forth, are concerned. So this

 1545

is all subjective, but would you expect without any real

question in your mind that today Dr. Oppenheimer would follow

the kind of course that you wodld approve of today with respect

to this ml.tter?

THE WITNESS: I think I can say that with ce~:-tainty.

I think there is no question in my mind of his loyalty i n

that wa.y. You know there always is a problem of that sort. I

mean the world has been divided into sheep and goats. I mean

the country has been divided into sheep and goats. There are

the people who are cleared and those who are not cleared. The

people against whom there has been some derogatory in:forr4ation

and wha.tnot. What it may mean and so on is difficult. It is

really a question in one's personal life, should you

refuse to enter a room in which a person is present against

whom there is derogatory information. Of course, if you are

extremE}lyprudent and want your life circumscribed that way,

no question would ever arise. If you feel that you want to

live a more normal life and have confidence inyour own

integrj.ty and in your record for integrity, then you might act

more freely, but which could be criticized, either for being

foolhardy or even worse.

In one's normal course at a university, one does come

across people who have been denied clearance. Should you

never sit down and discuss scientific matters with them,

al though they have very interesting scientific things to say'l

 MR. GRAY: No, I would not think so.

THE WITNESS: That is the sort of question you are

putting, Dr. Gray, and I am answering to the best of my ability.

MR. GRAY: I am wondering whether it is, D:r. Rabi.

Lat me say this. I think there is not anybody who i:;

prepax·ed to testify that he can spot a Communist wi t:1 complete

infallibility. I know that there have been people ·,1~10 s1~rprisGd

me th2,t I had an acquaintanceship wi.th who turned out to be

Communists. I don't think it is unfair to say that ·.vi tnesses

including Dr. Oppenheimer himself have testified tba·i: there

were people \do later turned out to be Communists, to their

surpri.se, who they identified.

I am asking against the background of the security of

this country which must be paramount, it seems to me, perhaps

unhappily, to any other consideration or personal

ins ti tut ion, can we afford to makei it a matter of intl:i.vidual

judgment as to whether a person is dangerous, in thi:::; case Mr.

Chevalie:r. I don't know that he has ever appeared bafore any

commi tter; or anything else. I don't know whether he is a

member o:f the CommunistParty or not. It is conceivable that he

might ha'Te been I mm afraid I am making an argument now, but

it is all a part of this question. Against what! believe to

bethe commitments involved in joinint the Communist Party,

can it b<~ a matter of individual judgment whether it does no

harm to c~i ther fail to report what seems to be an espionage

 1547

attempt or to discussin however clear terms infornation which

is of a classified nature. That is the most confused question

you e·1Jer had put to you, and I think I should eliminate the

last part in any event, because the Chevalier incident did

not, as I understand it, involve disclosure of informa tiai.

There wa:; none ot that involved. I don't want the record to

make it .appear that I am implying that. This was simply a

question of not taking immediate security precautions either

in respect to reporting the incident, a later mm:ter of

declining to disclose the name of the man who made the· approach

and cert1in other less than frank aspects. I believe ycusaid

you did not think that was a proper course to follow, and you

would ex:?ect Dr. Oppenheimer to follow a different course today.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. GRAY: Which implies, certainly, I think that

JOU think he should follow a different course today.

THE WITNESS: I emf t say anything but yes. We have

all lear:ned a whole lot since that time. A lot of things

which we:ire quite different at one. time but different in another.

You have to become accustomed to life in this kind of life

when you are involved in this kind of information.

MR. GRAY: You are saying that in your judgment Dr.

Oppenheimer has changed?

THE WITNESS: He has learned.

MR. GRAY: All right,

 THE WITNESS: I think he was always a loyal American.

There wae; no doubt in my mind as to that. But he has 1earned

more tbe way you have to live in the world as it is now. We

hope at Heme future time that the carefree prewa}' days will

return.

DR. EVANS: Dr. Rabi, would you tell us son~thing

.about your ezLrly education?

D:HE WITNESS: I am a {!;raduate of Manual Training

Iti.gh School in Brooklyn, a graduate of Cornell University VJith

a degree of bachelor of chemistry -- we are fellow chemists.

DR. EVANS: I am glad you had some chemist~y.

THE WITNirns: I had an awful lot of chemistry. Then

I worked after that for a year in analytical laboratories,

.
the Peaso Laboratory, which were an affiliate of the Lederle

Laboratories in New York, and then for various things for a

few yeari;. I went back to Cornell, I think it was in 1923, for

graduate work in chemistry, but during the course of setting

up my program, I decided to change to physics. I spent a

year at Cornell in graduate work and then went to Columbia

where I transferred, where I took my doctor's degree in 1927.

I an oldc3r than Dr. Oppenheimer, but his degree, I think, is

older than mine, or about the same vintage.

During that period I supported myself by instructing

in pbysi•'!S at the College of the City of New York. 'rhen I got

a fellow::;hip from Columb:ta, and went to Europe to study

 1549

theoretical physics, first at Munich and then to Copenhagen,

and then to Hamburg.

While there I bad an idea for an experimental

problem a.nd changed back to doing experimental physics. After

my experj.ment was done, I went to Leipzig with Professor

Heisenberg back to taeoretical physics, where I first met Dr.

Oppenhein~r briefly on his visit, and after Dr. Heisenberg went

to the United States far a lecture tour, I went to Zurich, where

Dr. Oppenheimer was working on Stellar, and we found ourselves

sympathetic.

At the ·end of ttiat summer I went to Columbia as a

lectur1;,,r in physics. I have been at Columbia ever since,

except fnr a five year period during the war. I enlisted -

enlisted is the wrong word -- I left Columbia in Novamer 1940

to join the Radiation Lab at MIT, which was concerned with

the pr1>duction of microwave radar, the research and development

of micirowave radar, and stayed there thraghout the war.

My connection with Los Alamos, I was never on their

payroll, but went there as a radiation lab man.

DR. EVANS: Let me ask you another question that

bas noth:Lng particularly pertinent to this proceeding.

Is Geo:rgEi Pegram still active?

THE WITNESS: Wonderfully. He is doing two men's

·work. He is 78, you know. Recently he has had a heart attack.

Be is clw.irman of a committee which handles all the research

 1550

contracts which amount to many, many millions for the university.

MR. GRAY: I think the record will have to show

that he is a native North Carolinian.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, a graduate of Trini.ty College.

Hico father was professor of chemistry.

DR. EVANS: I wish you would tell him that Dr.

Evans 11sked about him.

THE W'l TNESS: I would be delighted to.

DR. EVANS: Now, another question. Were you as

a scie11ti.fic man particularly surprised when you heard that the

Russia11S had fired a bomb, or would you have expected it?

THE WITNESS: I was astonished thatit caine that soon.

I will tell you this was a peculiar kind of psychology. If

you had asked anybody in 1944 or 1945 when would the Russians

have it, it would have been five years. But every year that

went by you kept on saying five years. So although I was

certain they would get it --

DR. EVANS: You were certain they would get it?

THE WITNESS: I was certain that they would get it,

but it was a stunning shock.

DR. EVANS: You \\Ould be pretty certain right now

that they will get the thermonuclear?

THE WITNESS: In time. Wha.t I am afraid of is this

controversy over this case may hasten the day because of the

sort ()f a ttri tioo of the security d technical inform:riion, all

 •

1551
sorts of stuff appearing in the newspapers and magazines and

so on &tat sort of skirts around it. You know you have a

filter eystem for information. You put bits and p1.eces

together. They already know something. If Fuchs transmitted

the inf onD:ion they have essentially the object which we were

talki11g about in 1949. So they have a start, and :if they can

reconB tr·uc t our 1 ine of thinking, it is almost inevitable

they will get it. I don't mind telling you gentlemen I am

very, r1ery deeply concerned.

DR. EVANS: You understand, of murs~, our position

on th:ls Board, do you not?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is not your problem,

but I think it is the problem of the Government of the United

States.
/

DR. EVANS: Did you know that some of the people

that were educated with Dr. Oppenheimer, listened to his

lectures:, and turned out to be Communists?

THE WITNESS: Educated with him?

DR. EVANS~ It was in that school that he conducted--

THE WIT1''ESS: You mean v.ho studied with him?

DR • EVANS: Yes .

THE WITNESS: I have heard that, but I can't --

this :ls not direct information.

DR. EVANS: You have met some Communists, have you,

Dr. Rabi?
 THE WITNESS: I have met people who l•ter said they
'
were Coirmunists. At Los Alamos I met Mr. Hawkins, who said

hehad been a Communist, and this other chap, what is the name,

I can''t remember at this moment. I certainly knew Frank

Oppenbei.mer from the time he was a kid in high school.

DR. EVANS: You didn't meet any of thos at the

Radiaticin Laboratory like Bernie Peters?

THE WITNESS: I met Peters just fleetingly ODce or

twice. I don't recall any actual conversations with Peters.

DR. EVANS: D~. Rabi, if you were approached by someone

attempting to secure from you security information, would you

report j_ t immediately, or would you consider it for quite a

long tirne?

THE WITNESS: Are you talking about April 21, 1954?

DR. EVANS: Oh, no.

THE WITNESS: What date are you talking about?

DR. EVANS: I am talking about the Chevalier incident.

What date wa.s that?

MR. ROBB: Late 1942 or early 1943.

THE WITNESS: I v.ould like to have the question,

since this is a crucial question, put more fully so tbat I can

answer the point rather than make up the question, so to speak.

DR. EVANS: You are giving me a big job, aren't you?

THE WITNESS: This is not child's play here.

DR~ EVAN8: If you had been working on security

 15-53

material, material that had a high priority, and someone came

to you ~.nd told you that they had a way of getting that

material to the Russians, what would yruhave done immediately?

THE WITNESS: You mean if it was just someone that I

didn't know?
DR • EVANS: No, someone that you knew. Suppose. 1

was a friend of yours and I came and told you.

THE WITMESS: And I thought that you were a

complatoly innocent party or not? I think that is the nub of

the quention, what I would have done at that tima. I can't

say what I would have done at thattime. I kind of think I

would hn.ve gone after it and found out just what this was abol't.

DR. EVANS: That is all.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. MARKS:

Q Dr. Rabi, what do you mean you woold havegone after

it and :found out what this was about?

A I would have tried to see that the proper authcrities

found out what these people meant to do, what the thing was.

I know a number of times during the war I heard funny noises

in my tt~lephone and got the security officers after it.

Q Dr. Rabi, Mr. Robb asked· you whether you had spoken

to C:hai:rman Strauss in behalf of Dr. Oppenheimer. Did you mean

to sugg1~st in your reply -- in your reply to him you said you

did among other things -- did you mean to suggest that you
had dcne thatat Dr. Oppenheimer s instigation?
1

A No, I had no communication. from Dr. Oppenh1~imer before

these chirges were filed, or since, except that I called him

once to just say that I believed in him, with no further

discussi:>n.

Another time I called on him and his attorney at

the suggestion of Mr. Strauss. I never hid my opin:ton from Mr.

Strauss that! thought that this wh:>le proceeding was a most

unfortunate one.

DR. EVANS: What was that?

THE WITNESS: That the suspensi>n of the clearance

of Dr. Oppenheimer was a very unfortunate thing and should not

havebeen done. In other words, there he was; he is a

consultant, and if you don't want to consult the guy, you

don't consult hir.1, period. Why you have to then proceed to

suspend clearance and go through all this sort of thing, he

is only there when called, and that is all there was to it.

So it didn't seen1 to me the sort of thing that called for

this kind pf proceeding at all against a man who had accomplished

what Dr. Oppenheimer has accomplished~ The1·.e is a real positive

record\, the way I expressed it to a friend of mine. We have

(

an A t~mb and a whole series of it, and we have a vmle

series of Super bombs and what more do you want, mermaids?

This :i.s just a tremendous achie~lTement. I f the end of that

road :l.s this kind of hearing, v.h ich can't help but be
 1555

humilia.ting, I thought itwas a pretty bad show. I still think

so.

BY MR. MARKS:

Q Dr. Rabi, in response to a question of the Chairman,

the substance of which I believe was, was Dr. Oppenheimer

unalterably opposed to the H bomb development at the time of

the October 1949 tJAC meeting, I think you said in substance no,

and then you added by way of explanation immediately after

the two ~.nnexes or whatever they were --

A During the discussion.

Q During the discussion he said he would b e willing

to sign Eiither or both. Can you explain what you meant by

that rather paradoxical statement?

A No, I was just reporting a recollection.

Q What impression did you have?

A What it means to ne is tba t he was not unalterably

opposed, but on sum, adding up everything, he thought it

would have been a mistake at that time to proceed with a crash

program uith all that entailed with this object that we didn't

understand, when we had an awfully good program on hand in the

fission field, which we did not wish to jeopardize. At least

we did not feel it should be jeopardized. It turned out in

the events that both could be done. Los Alamos just simply

rose to the occasion and worked miracles, absolute miracles.

MR •. M\. RKS: That is all ..

 1556

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. ROBB:

Q Doctor, on the occasion when you were in Mr. Strauss'

office, a.nd he showed you the report that you testified about,

how long would you say that meeting lasted?

A I can't remember.
q A few minutes?
A I don't knowwhether it was a few minutes or half an

hour. If you were Mr. Straess, there are calls coming in all

thetimo from all over, from the White House, and what not.

Q Didyou look at the report in Mr. Strauss' office?

A No. I put it in an envelope and went to our GAC

office.. I read it there, and then brought it back.

0 Dr. Rabi, gettizg back to the hypothetical qm st ions

that have been put to you by the Cha:l nnan and Dr. Evans about

the Cheva.lier incident, if you had been put in that bypothetical

position and had reported the matter to an intelligence

officer, you of course would have told the whole truth about

it, wouldn't you?

A I am naturally a truthful person.

1.~ You would not have lied about it?

A I am telling you what I th:ink now. The Lord alone

knoww what I would have done at that time. This :ls what I
think 110\li •

Q Of course, Doctor, as you say, only God knows what

 1557

is in a man's mind and he1art, but give us yourbest judgment

of wha.t you wodld do.

f, This is what I think now I hope that is wh.a t I

would have done then. In other words, I do not -- X take a

serious view of that -- I think it is crucial.

Q You say what?

A I take a serious view of that incident, but I don't

think it is crucial.

0 Of course, Doc tor, you don't know what Dr.

Oppenheimer's testimony before this Board about that incident

may ha,,ve been, do you?

A No.

Q So perhaps in respect of passing judgment on that

inc idemt, the Board may be in a better pos iti.on to judge than

you?

A I have the highest respect for the Board. I am not

going to make any comment about the Board. They are working

vay hs~rd, as I have seen.

o Of course, I realize you have complete confidence

in thEl Board. But my point is that perhaps the Board may be

in possession of information which is not now available. to you

about the incident.

A It may be. On the other hand, I am in jlossession of

a long experience with this man, going back fo 1929, which is

25 years, and there is a kind of seat of the pants feeling which

I myself lay great weight. In other words, I might even

venture to differ from the judgI!lent of the Board without impugn-

ing theii:- integrity at all.

O I am confining my question to that one incident,

Doctor. I think we have agreed that the Board may be in

possession of informa.tion from Dr. Oppenheimer's own lips about

that inc:ident which :is not now available to you, is that correct?

A This is a statement?

'~ Yes.

A I accept your statement.

Q And therefore it may well be that the Board is now

in a better position than you, so far as that incident is

concerned, to evaluate it?

A An incident of that sort they may be. I can't say

they are not. But on the other hand, I think that any incident

in a man's line of something of that sort you have to take it

in sum.

Q Of course.

A You have to take the vrhole story.

(' Of course •

A That is what novels are about. There is a drammatic

moment and the history of the man, what made him act: what

he did and what sort of ~rson he was. That is what you are

really doing here. You are writing a man's life.

Q Of course, but as a scientist, uoctor, and

 1559
evaluating, we will say, an explosion you perhaps would be in

a better position to evaluate an explosion laving witnessed

it and having first hand knowledge about it than somebody who

had not, is that right?

A If you put it in that \Vay, I don't know the trend of

your que·stion. I am not fencing with you. I really want to

know wha. t you are getting at.

Q I am not fenci11g with you either.

A If you are say:l.ng that an eye witness to something

can givEi a better accoun·: of it than a historian, tha. t I don't

know. Historians would deny it. It is a semantic

questt>n, but if you want to be specific about it --

q I will put it this way. As a scientist, you would

say that one having all the facts about a particular physical

manif<3station or reaction would be in a better position

to eva.luate that than so:nebody who did not have all d the

facts or might not know one of the facts?

A A lot of the things about this are not the sort of

things v•hich you term just facts. We have Mr. Morganhere, for

example, whc has been th13 head of a big business which he

built up. He gets as ma::ty facts as possible, but I am sure

beyond that there is a lot of experience and color which make

his judE:ment. In a. cou:rrt of law it might be so:methiig else.

Ultima.tEily you go to a jury who have facts, and then they

add a whole lot of things which your heart identifies as facts

and their experience in life to a s:Ltua tion. I was af1"'aid

your question was tending to put me in the position of a

so-called fiction scientist who looks at certain facts and

measurements, and we are not talking about such ~L situation.

Q Let me get back again to the concrete. Would you

agree: Doctor, that in evaluating the Chevalier incident

one should consider what Dr. Oppenheimer says happenGd in

that incident, together wihl the testimony oi' persons

such ~~s yourself?

A Wait a minute. I didn't testify to that incident

because I haee only he~rd about it.

Q Together with testimony of persons such as yourself

about Dr. Oppenheimer.

Yes, that is right.

Q Very well; therefore, one who had heard Dr.

Oppenheimer describe the incident and had heard your testimony

would be in a better position to evaluate it than wne who had

not hEtard Dr. Oppenheimer describe :lt, is that correct?

h I will put it this way. I think this committee is

going into this and they will be in as good as position as it

is humanly possible to be for people who have never met this

man bufore to make a judgment about it. I certainly reserve

the r:l.ght to my own opinion on this, because I am in the

posse~;sion of a long- period of association, with all sorts

of minute reactions. I have seen his mind work. I have seen

 1561

his sentiments develop. For example, I have seen in the last

few years somewhing which surprised me, a certain tendency of

Dr. Oppenheimer to be inclined toward a preventive war.

Nothin.g went all the way. But talldng and thinking about it

quite se:riously. I have to add everything of that sort. All

sorts of color and form my own opinion. But I am not on this

Board, ard I think this Board is trying to do what it can iu

this 'business of getting testimony, the kind of people to

come talk to them, the evaluation of the people and the kind

of insight, whether they are just loyal Pl>Ple or whether they

have thought about the problem, and so on. It is a tough job.

But D!rertheless, I say I will still stick to my right to have

my own opinion.

q Certainly, Doctor. To su111 up, I suggest to you

what I did to Dr. Conant, and he agreed, tluE in deciding about

a matter such as the Chevalia' incident, one must consider all

the available relevant evidence, is that rigllt?

A Certainly.

0 And that would include what actually happened and

what people such as yourself, who know Dr. Oppenheim;er, say

about Dr. Oppenheimer.

L You are talking about the job of the committee; yes.

(' Yes.

MR. ROBB: Thank you, Doctor.

MR. GRAY: Do you have· any more questions?

 MR. MARKS: l think I better ask one more quostion,

if the Board will indulge me.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. MARKS:

0 Dr. Rabi, in view of the quite serious questions which

quite properly have been asked you in regard to th:i.!:> so-cc~lled

Chevaller episode, I would like 1D try to summarize for

you wha.t I understand the testimony to be, and ask you b.ov1

that wc1uld affect the opinions you have expressed.

As I understand the testimony, it is that Ch::?valicr

who wa!;: an old friend of Dr. Oppenheimer, a member eif t!.:~e

facul t3' in Romance Languages at _the University of Cal:l.fornia,

was at his house on an occasion in the early part of 1943,

and at that time Dr. Oppenheimer found himself at 01-;.e po:.tnt in

the vi~:it alone with Dr. Chevalier, who said that ho understcod

from Eltenton that Eltenton had a way of getting information

to the Russians. I think it is fair to say that the testimony

is that Oppenheimer reacted en:.phatically in rejecting as wrnng

any i::onsidera tion of such a ma ttar, and used very strong language

to Chel'alier, and that Oppenheimer was thereafter convinced

that Chevalier had entirely dropped the matter.

Sonemonths later after L•:>s Alamos had been set up

and Oppenheimer was there as director, the securi t~r o:f f:lce:;.,,

Lansdale, mentioned to Oppenheimer that there was trouble of

some k:f.nd at Berkeley. The indication was that some of the

young physicists had committed indiscretions

On the occasion of Dr. Onpenheimer's next visit

to Berkeley he sought out the security officers there, told

them that he unders toal that there was trouble of sone kind,

said that he thought that a man Eltenton would bear watching.

The next day the secu1:-i ty officers asked Oppenheimer

to talk to them further about the incident. At that tirre they

asked him to explain the circumstances which had moved

him tc' suggest the name lUtenton. Dr. Oppenheimer said that

there had been an intermediary.

The security officers asked him to name the

intermediary. He declined to do so. The security o:lficers

asked him whom the intermedia~y had approached. Oppenheimer

said people on the project, and in the course of a long

interview it appears that they suggested there were two or

three such people. He did not name himself or Chevalier as

the pe·op le dmncern13d .

In the course of a long conversation at th.at time

with the security officers, he inent:i.oned also that a man at

the Scvi1st consulate was involved, and there was some

reference to microfilm, although the transcript of the

conferen::e between Oppenheimer and the security officers is not

clear as to the context in which microfilms were mentioned.

Later Colonel Lansdale,a few weeks later, again

intervie·Ned Oppenheimer and asked him to name the in·t.ermediary.
 1564

Cppenheiner again declined, and on all of these occasions he

gave as his explanation that he didn't want people to get in

troubl1;'.! who had act•d properly and innocently, that ho thrught

he was revealing the name of the only person who could possibly

be guilty of real wrongdoing.

Some time after he fefused to give the true story

to Larmcll.ale or give the names to Lansdale, General Groves

talked to him and as~ed him to name the intermediary. On that

occasion Oppenheimer said, ''I won't give you the names unless

you order me to." Groves said, "I don't want to orc1er you.

Think abcut it."

Shortly after tlat, Groves again came to Oppenheimer

and saj~d, ''I need to have the name. If you don't give

it to ne, I w.i.l have to order you to," and at that time

Oppenheitter gave the name of Chevalier as the intermediary.

In the course of questioning Dr. Oppenheimer about

these circumstances, counsel for the Board put the question to

him Wh(tther the story that he had told the security officers

on the occasion of the interview that I have described at

BerkelEtY wasn't a fabrication and a tissue of lies, and to

this, I think, l>ppenheimer responded, ''Right".

A Right it was.

Q He acclpted. counsel's characterization. I may say

ths1t this occurred in the course of a very thorough cross

examim,tion ..
 1565

MR. ROBB: Had you finished, Mr. Marks?

MR. MARKS: Yes.

MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, that was a rather long

questl.on.

MR. MARKS: I was about to ask a question.

MR. ROJBlB: I thought you were finished. It was a

rather l 1Jng statement, and I don't u1ant the record to show

tba t I a·.n accepting as a completely accurate statement the

entire circumstances but of course l a.m not going to object to

it. I h;ive not objected to any questio9, and I don't intend to.

r.m. GRAY: Certainly it will be obvious in tho record

that thi:s was stated as· Mr. Marks' summary.

MR. ROBB: Yes, certainly.

MR. GRAY: 6n that basis he will now ask the question.

MR. ROBB: Certainly. I am sure Mr. Marks understands.

MR. MARKS: I understand perfectly.

MR. GRAY: That was not the question.

MR. MARKS: No, it wasn't. I thought Mr. Robb

wished to make a correction. I understand exactly your point,

Mr. Robb.

I ask you, Dr. Rabi, whether this account of my

impressie>n of the essentials of what has been brought out

here l,~a.e,s you to wish to express any further comment?

THE WITNESS: The only comment I can make on this right

off if.l tl1.at it :iS part and parcel of· the kind of· foolish
 1566

behavit1r that occurred in the eai•ly part of the record,,

that there were very strong personal loyalties there, and I

take it in mentioning Eltenton ha felt he had discharged his

full ot)ligation. My comment is that it vras a very foolish

action: but I would no1; put a sirciister implication to it. The

Teco~d is full of actions before Oppenheimer became toe sort

of statesman he is now of that sort of thing.

BY MR. MARKS:

Q Are you confident or a:re you not confident, Dr.

Rabi , vrhichever it is -- let me put it this way. Are you

confidunt that Dr. Oppenheimer would not make the kind of

mistakEi again?

A I certainly am. He is a man who learns with extra-

ordinal'y rapidity.

Q Would you agree that incident involved a conflict in

loyal ti.es?

A The question is viether to tty mind, whether it

involvEtd a conflict of loyal ties within his own heart. I

don't think it did in his own heart, at least from what you

tell me, and taking the sum total. Apparently Chevalier was

a man uf whom he was very fond personally, They shared a

mutual interest, I presume, of French literature. I don't think

I have met the bentleman. By pointing the finger at Eltenton

I thinl: he felt that he bad done the necessary thing for the

prCttection of security. I think if he thought about it more

prr5foundly at the time, and were not so tremendously occupied
 1567

and burdened by the Los Alamos problems , he might h~.ve Jlcen

that E~nd ·::his was certainly something that he could not hope·

to l<.:e(1p quiet. ltt was a great mistake in judgment and

eV{J:i·yth~.ng e.:~sa. He should have swallowed that bitter pill

at once. Bnt I read 110 sinister implication in it.

O Wo~~ld you be CClnfident or would you not be confident

::oti?,;_7 he would resolve the question of his respnnsibili ty

Pt I think he would be very conscious of his l;)OSition,

not to, ir:ipaii• his usefulness to the United States. Even though

he mig·ht not have shared certain fears, he would not have taken

that pal'ticular responsibility of withholding tk:tt inforir.ation

and have run that particular personal danger of doing it. I

think he is just a much more mature person than he was then.

im. MARKS: That is all.

MR. ROBB: May I ask one more question?

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. ROBB:

Q This is a purely hypothetical question, Doctor. I

just w;1nt to get your reaction to it.

Suppose on all the evidence this Board should not

be sat:isfied that Dr. Oppenheimer in his testimony here has

told thi~; Board the whole truth; what would you say then about

whether cir not he ought to be cleared?

 A It dcpenc:'.~: o>,; th<:! nature of the sort of thing he

·,v _hheld. There ma~; be elements of one's private life tl:.3. t do

not concern this Boturd ·.J>r any1bods else.

(' Suppose the Boa1:d should not be satisfied that he

h~.d told the truth O?." the whole tru.th,abo'ltAt soma w.aterial

~'1f.tter; what would y•::>u nay then?

A It would dk~pend again on the nature of the mat.arial

!:n.tter. If I agreed tlu:'.t the matt~r ws.s material and ge::'mane

to this 1 th~n I would be ·>.re:~:.r sorry.

Q What'?

A I would be very sorry.

Q You mean you w:muld feel that they could not clear him?

A I feel it would be a very tough question.

(.) Wouldn't you f·ael tha. t they couldn't clear him, or

would you rather not ansi;ver th::tt?

A It is th1e sort o:f hypothetical question which to me

goes under the :terms of a rather meaningless question, with

all due respect, in the sense that I want to know the material

fact, and I would want the reason we don't have an

individual but a boa;:d is that I would want to discuss it

with others to help b:·cirig out our own feelings, and so forth.

Q Certainly.

A So therefore 1 feel that to anEwer a hypothetical

question in this way without putting myself into the position

ns a member of the Board, and wba t would be the outcome of my

 l!.>69

discussions and weighing of this thing wi1h the other members

of the Board, I think an answer to that sort of thinrE is some-

thing· I could not give, because I haven't got the ci:rcumstances

under which to answer it. •

Q But the circumstances might be such --

A If you want to set me up on the Board, then I would

come out with an answer.

Q No, let me ask you on<3 more question. 'ihc

circuntStnces might be such that you wouldfeel that the Board

should not clear hin1 if that happened?

h There aertainly are circumstances which I can

picture where the Board could not clear him. You know the sort

of evi.dence that Thoreaux refers to of finding a trout in the

milk; I am pretty sure it is adultery. I am not saying there

is no evidence where I would be doubtful. I would rather be

more specific about it.

MR. GRAY: I am sure thnt Dr. Rabi understands that

this Uoard has reached no conclusion. The Board has no view

or pm;ition, and will reach none until the bearings me

concJ.uded. I am not suggesting tbat counsel's question was

improper. I wish, however, to say for the record that it

clearly is a hypothetical question.

MR. ROBB: That is why I prefaced it by saying it

was hlrpothetical.

MR. GRAY:: I know you did.. I know you didn't intend

to lead Dr. Rabi to the conclusion that the Board had reached

a conclusion on anything. I don't mind counsel giving their

view of the testimony on either side. I do object to anythi~

that i:;uggests that this Board has reached any kind of conclusion.

MR. ROBB: Of course I had no such intention. That is

why I prefaced my question by saying this is indeed a hypo-

thetical question.

I think that is a~l, Doctor. Thank you.

MR. GRAY: We can now thank you very much, Dr. Rabi.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

(Witness excused.)

MR. GRAY: Does that conclude your witnesses for today?

MR. GARRISON: Yes.

MR. GRAY: We will recess until 9:30.

MR. GARRISON: Could we make it 10?

MR. GRAY: I would be glad to talk to the Board

about it. My inclination is against it.

I am sorry . I would 1 ike to accomoda te you , but the

Board feels we should start at 9:30.

(Thereupon at 3:25 p.m., a recess was taken until

Thursday, April 22, 1954, at 9:30 a.m.)