The H-Bomb Secret

CONTENTS THE "SECRET" REVEALED by ErwinKnoll I THE H·BOMB SECRET by Howard Morland 3 To know how is to ask why WRESTLING WITH LEVIATHAN by ErwinKnoU 13 The Progressive knew it would win ATOMIC SECRECY: FUEL FOR THE COLD WAR by John BueU 18 The myth served a powerful few A NATION BESET BYCONFUSION AND FEAR by Ron McCrea 25 THE WAYTHE PRESS SAW IT 27 LETTERS ON THE H·BOMB CONTROVERSY 30 A POSTSCRIPT by Howard Morland 33 ERRATA (December, 1979) by Howard Morland 35 BONANZA by Ron Carbon 36 AFTERTHOUGHTS-MARCH, 1981 by Ron Carbon (back cover) COMMENT The 'secret' revealed he fr ont cover of this magazine was designed fo r the patiently explained to our friends that the Founders, in their April 1979 issue. Only the date has been changed. wisdom, had not written a "mediation" process into the Bill T Howard Morland's article, "The H- bomb Secret, " of Rights. and all of the material on Pages 14 through 23, was set in We discovered that some of our fe llow citizens (and some type fo r the April issue. Not a word, not a comma has been of our colleagues in the media) believethe First Amendment changed. to be obsolete -a scrap of paperrendered useless by the de For more than six months - from March 9, when Federal mands of "national security." We discovered that our own District Judge Robert W. Warren issued, at the Govern Government believes the. First Amendment was exploded ment's request, a temporary restraining order barring by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 - or at least publication of Morland's article, through September 28, rendered "inoperative" by the Atomic Energy Act of1954. when the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated We were determined to disabuse our fellow citizens, our Judge Warren's injunction - the cover design and reproduc colleagues in the media, and our Government of these un tion proofs were locked in a bank vault, "protected" from fo rtunate, undemocraticnotions. We were prepared to throw public scrutiny by an unprecedented act of censorship. all of our resources into the fight, and to find resources we It is not a perfect article, and had it not been the subject of did not even know existed. We were resolved, of course, to a historic prior restraint case, we would make some changes protect and preserve this magazine - but we were prepared, in it today. Howard Morland has learned that his article con if necessary, to sacrifice even The Progressive fo r the princi tains some technical errors; it is one of the many ironies of ple at stake. the case that the Government's attempt at suppression resulted in the disclosure of fa r more technical information rior restraint- the lawyers' term for censorship than is contained in "The H-bomb Secret." In rereading the has always been regarded as an especially obnoxious proofs, we have fo und at least one typographical error and abuse of governmental authority. It has been despised one inaccuracy we should have caught in the first place: We -Pand rightly so - in the American constitutional tradition put Representative Ronald V. Dellums in the wrong Con and, fo r that matter, in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, fo r gressional district. centuries. The reason should be obvious: When the Stateim But what makes publication of "The H-bomb Secret" in poses prior restraint, it places its own conduct beyond public this issue of The Progressive important is that the article ap scrutiny; it deprives the ci tizenry of its right to fo rm an inde pears exactly the way Morland wrote it; exactly the way we pendent judgment as to the justice or injustice of its conduct. intended to publish it last spring, and exactly the way the Censorship is an indispensable device to those who would Government of the United States attempted to suppress it. wield power unchecked. Its publication is a triumph for the First Amendment. In 1643 the British parliament enacted a law conferring on Early last March, we could have acquiesced in the Govern a Committee of Examinations the power "to regulate print ment's offer to "rewrite" Howard Morland's article in a ing: that no book, pamphlet, or paper shall be henceforth fo rm that the U.S. Department of Energy would not find printed, unless the same be first approved and licensed by "obj ectionable. " We wasted few words in declining that such, or at least one of such, as shall be thereto appointed." magnanimous offer. It was against that law that Milton directed his fa mous We could have simply and quietly acceded to the Govern Areopagitica. "Henceforth, " he wrote, "let no man care to ment's demand for censorship on grounds of "national learn, or care to be more than worldly wise; fo r certainly in security" - as other publications have. We refused. higher matters to be ignorant and slothful, to be a common We could have complied with the entreaties of many of steadfast dunce, will be the only pleasant life and only in re our fr iends that we submit the matter to "mediation" by a quest.'' panel of "experts, " thus avoiding enormously costly litiga What we learned last spring is that the Government of the tion and, perhaps, heading off an adverse court decision. We United States is convinced it must keep the people of this na- THE PROGRESSIVE I 1 tion ignorant and slothful so that they can lead the only pleas veloped for a third of a century, to open that system of ant life while the world marches toward nuclear Armaged secrecy to public discussion and debate, and to engage in that don. debate far more of the American people than we could ever But we also learned that the spirit of freedom still have hoped to reach through the pages of The Progressive. flourishes in our country- even after three decades of Cold We hope that debate will be a beginning- a beginning of War, witchhunts, and obsession with a kind of "national a process in which all of the nuclear policies pursued by out security" that seems to grow more elusive the more Governrilent will be held up to public scrutiny and review. relentlessly it is pursued. We hope that the process will end in a reversal of those policies and an end to the suicidal nuclear arms race in which We learned, to be sure, that freedom has many fair we have been unwitting, uninformed participants. We hope, weather friends. But we also learned that it has devoted and of course, that when Americans know the facts they will unwavering defenders. Among them are citizens who had share our views- but most of all we hope they will come to never heard of The Progressive, did not share its political know the facts. We are willing to take our chances with the perspectives, did not care about the nuclear issues involved judgments of an iriformed·people; that is called democracy. in our struggle, but were simply outraged by the very idea of People who want to be ignorant and free, as Madison ob censorship. served, want that which never was and never will be. We learned, to be sure, that a Federal judge would violate Read Howard Morland's article, "The H-bomb Secret." 200 years of legal precedents against prior restraint. But we Feel free to challenge his facts, or the conclusions he draws also learned that we could receive a fair and full hearing in from them. Feel free to question our editing of the article, the appellate courts, and that we could muster a formidable our judgment in publishing it. But most of all, feel free - array of legal talent in our behalf and in behalf of the First more free than any of us were for the six months and nine Amendment. We believe we would have won the right to teen days when the article could not be printed by us or read publish Howard Morland's article in the courts if the by you. And feel more free than any of us were even before Government had not aborted the case by moving to vacate March 9, for we are certain we have made it more difficult the iQjunction. We believe that is why the Government for the Government to be a censor, and less likely that its moved to vacate the injunction. next attempt at censorship will succeed. We learned, to be sure, that the costs of defending freedom can be astronomic, and could easily destroy a publication like The Progressive. But we also learned that among our readers and outside our readership there are peo ple willing to help defray those costs. We have found some of those people, and we hope to find the others whose help we need. A to be safegauded We learned, most significantly, that our country still pro prlaclple vides the promise of freedom - and that the promise grows The following statement support- . a small publication of political stronger when it is put to the test. ing The Progressive and the First commentary. Amendment was endorsed by the "We believe that The editor or publisher of The Nation, Progressive is fighting to protect orne fundamental questions raised by The Progressive Columbia Journalism Review, the First Amendment rights of ev in its First Amendment fight remain unresolved as this Society, Village Voice, Harper's, ery publicationin America. includ issue goes to press. We asked the Seventh Circuit Court The AtlanticMonthly, Ms., Scien ing those with which we are associ tific American.

Load more