Hydrogen Bombs Quotes

The Scientific Project that developed the Atomic Bomb

Fermi was the scientist who organized and planned the first controlled nuclear chain reaction as a part of the Manhattan Project and was one of the major scientific advisors to the Atomic Energy Commission until he, Oppenheimer, and several other scientists opposed the development of the Super (the name Edward Teller had given to the proposed hydrogen bomb). The scientists knew that we had and could make enough atomic bombs to destroy any nation and to make it doable with just a few bombs as opposed to many they saw as of little military
value. They further expected that the Russians and some others would be forced to keep up with us in an arms race and that the bomb would never be able to be used without retaliation in kind and the destruction of most of America. The politicians and military did not really believe that the Russians had the scientific capability to develop hydrogen weapons and some thought if we had them and no one else did, we could dictate a “pax Americana” to the world. Others feared that Russia or some other country would develop a hydrogen weapon and then dictate to us. We did have a monopoly on the Super for a few years and America never dictated to the rest of the world. When other countries developed the weapons, we entered the era of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

Conant was also one of America’s premier scientists why had served on all the government policy committees about the atomic bomb development and use. He was the only scientist who had the respect of the greatest of the scientists and also was a respected government administrator with the confidence of the politicians. The “super” was the name then for the Hydrogen Bomb, a logical next step that could be taken according to the laws of physics. However J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Atomic Energy Commission General Advisory Committee he was chairing voted unanimously to NOT develop the Hydrogen Bomb at the time. The feeling was that if we did, the Russians would feel that they too would have to also, and their physicists were estimated to be easily capable of doing it. They thought that we could easily build more atom bombs—enough to wipe out Russian civilization if they attempted to use any of the atomic weapons they had built. The Chairman of the AEC and some other civilian officials who did not really understand the science but were they thought knowledgeable about international power politics, wanted to go ahead and build the “super” which Edward Teller had recommended and led the very few scientists on that side of the issue. The civilian hawks’ logic was that the Russians were so inferior to the United States that they could not have developed their atomic capability without having the information from their spies who had penetrated out program. If we built a supply of hydrogen weapons, they argued, the Russians could never gain parity if we maintained proper secrecy. They were not good enough scientists. Therefore we would dominate the world and could contain communism. Conant and most other American scientists knew that the Russians could develop supers and then we would be in a scientific arms race which in all probability we would not win every stage. Better they thought to have a stand off. However, the AEC Chairman started a campaign to destroy Oppenheimer’s credibility with the public as he was the public face of American Physics. The scientists lost the worst fight in American history between politicians and scientists. Conant, himself was appointed to literally be the peacetime ruler of West Germany and had a brilliant success there, but he was unable to stop the super development after Oppenheimer had been publicly castigated as a security leak. The Russians then developed their hydrogen weapons and the arms race continued throughout the Cold War as most of the scientists thought it would.

Wilson appears to be the first to use the "bang for the buck" phrase. In this original use, it was less of a metaphor than it usually in as it described atomic testing.

The Booklet told people that even under an atomic attack there would be many survivors and it was everyone’s job to increase the number of survivors by taking precautions like building fallout shelters and maintaining a supply of food and water at home and ducking under desks and tables if there was an atomic attack. The implication was that despite the great firepower of the then Hydrogen Bombs there would be great survivability. The suggestions for protection ranged from minimal likely effect to absurd. The Publication also bore the imprimatur of the Executive Office of the President for credibility and many people believed it.

Sandia is a company that has gotten almost all their business from the Federal Government for doing research and development of nuclear weapons. Based on this view and others the AEC and the military not only developed small atomic bombs with short range rockets that could be transported in jeeps, but actually developed a 51 lb. atomic bomb that a soldier carried on his back. The idea was for these solders to parachute behind enemy lines, place the bomb near an important enemy facility and escape the critical zone on foot before the bomb exploded. It was never used in combat and receded in interest except for the fact that it proved it was possible for a terrorist suicide bomber on foot to place and explode a nuclear weapon.

The article showed how a nuclear bomb worked. The Government attempted to suppress the publication by getting a Federal court injunction. Day and others claimed the article was based on public sources. It was. The U. S. Court of Appeals lifted the injunction and the article was published.

The Civil Service Commission was then in charge of all Federal Employees and performed the role that the Office of Personnel Management would later. In retrospect, this memo appears so ludicrous in that a nuclear attack, even in the early 1960’s would do so much damage that people would have a hard time finding a working post office if their office building had been destroyed and any transportation resources available would be used for food, water and medicine and not for civil servants forms to an agency that probably would have few remaining officials. However, at the time most people had very limited knowledge of the effect of nuclear weapons and those who did were only told about the Hiroshima type bomb and not the then new hydrogen nuclear weapons. The people who wrote and authorized this letter were not told how impractical their suggestions were given the lethality of the new ‘super’ bombs.

Regarding the decision to build a hydrogen bomb:

Teller had been a strong proponent of developing the H-bomb. Oppenheimer, however, was opposed on moral and strategic grounds. Politically, Oppenheimer had a strong following, having been the “Father of the Atomic Bomb,” and his opposition was hurting the political effort to vote the funds. The Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis L. Strauss, and some in the military decided that they would discredit Oppenheimer by claiming that he had communist leanings and his ideas were influenced by his pro-communist views. Oppenheimer was an easy victim as his brother had been a card-carrying communist and he had always known many left wing academic intellectuals in his university background. Despite the fact that all this had been known by the government security people for years and he had never let a secret leak, a hearing was held to determine whether Oppenheimer’s security clearance should be removed. The key testimony was given by General Groves, Oppenheimer’s former boss who had cleared Oppenheimer for security for years, and Teller. It was later discovered that Groves had been blackmailed into testifying against Oppenheimer. Later Teller, who defended his strong views contrary to Oppenheimer’s, regretted that he won his battle the way he did and told the world that Oppenheimer was a patriot and would never do anything knowingly to hurt his country. To the end of his career over 50 years afterward, there were still many scientists who would turn their backs on Teller at scientific meeting and would not even shake his hand.