DOCSLIB.ORG

TRIAL of OPPENHEIMER Eduard Roth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TRIAL of OPPENHEIMER Eduard Roth 15 October 2012 TRIAL OF OPPENHEIMER (Nuclear fantasy in 4 weeks) All characters are invented. Any similarity with historical events is purely incidental. Eduard Roth 1 Main characters LEWIS STRAUSS: Chairman of the AEC ROGER ROBB: Prosecutor ROBERT OPPENHEIMER: Defendant LLOYD GARRISON: Oppenheimer’s attorney GORDON GREY: Chairman of AEC Security Board G.GREY, T.MORGAN, W.EVANS: Members of the panel Oppenheimer’s witnesses: L.GROVES, K.GLENNAN, K.COMPTON, J.LANDSDALE, H.BETHE, G.DEAN, G.KENNAN, D.LILIENTHAL, J.CONANT, E.FERMI, N.RAMSAY, I.RABI, N.BRADBURY, W.WHITMAN, L.DUBRIDGE, V.BUSCH, R.BACHER, J.VON NEUMANN Prosecutor’s witnesses: L.ALVAREZ, K.PITZER, E.TELLER, R.WILSON, W.BORDEN, E.LAWRENCE All action takes place in room 2022 of AEC building, Washington D.C. AEC=Atomic Energy Commission. 2 Week 1 - day 1 (12 april 1954) (Enter Grey) Grey: I open these hearings by reading a letter from the AEC general man- ager, Kenneth Nichols, dating december 1953, mentioning requirements in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, charging the commissioners to determine ‘character, associations and loyalty’ of individuals who work for the commis- sion and referring especially to section 10 of the Act that AEC employers do not endanger the common defense and security and requiring that indi- viduals be suspended if any information exists that employment would not be clearly consistent with the interests of national security. A panel will decide whether Dr. Oppenheimer can maintain his clearance or it has to be revoked. This panel is composed by myself, as chairman of the AEC Security Board, Thomas Morgan, industrialist, and Ward Evans, from the Chemistry Dpt. of Northwestern University in Chicago. The prosecutor is Roger Robb, Chief Counsel of the AEC, born in 1909 in Baltimore (Maryland) and with a law degree at Yale in 1933. Oppenheimer’s attorney is Lloyd Garrison, born in 1897 in New York, graduate at Harvard University Law School, Dean of Winsconsin University Law School since 1920 and member of the board of directors of the Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton, since 1953. Week 1 - day 2 (Enter Robb, Oppenheimer, Garrison, panel) Robb: Dr. Oppenheimer, can you tell us your name, profession and past activities ? Oppenheimer: I am Julius Robert Oppenheimer, born in a jewish family in 1904. I studied Physics at Harvard University and went to complete studies to G¨ottingen and Z¨urich. I came back and became professor at both Caltech and Berkeley, where I formed the best theoretical physics group in the US at the time. From 1942 until 1945 I was director of Los Alamos National Lab, New Mexico, as part of the Manhattan Project. In 1947 I was appointed director of the Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton. I have served as advisor for nuclear energy matters, in particular as chairman of the AEC. 3 Robb: Members of the panel, I will demonstrate that the statements of Dr. Oppenheimer are in contradiction with existing documents. These contra- dictions are not simple errors but are more deliberate, extensive and sinister than previously thought. Oppenheimer’s opposition to the Super made him an unacceptable risk. Moreover, this risk originates in Oppenheimer’s wan- derings with left organizations, falsehoods, evasions and misrepresentations. I advocate zero tolerance for this behaviour and ask to remove the clearance of Dr. Oppenheimer to consult secret information regarding our atomic en- ergy program. Garrison: Members of the panel, I will prove that Dr. Oppenheimer has al- ways been loyal to his country. That the services rendered by him to this country are outstanding, and his advice in nuclear matters is invaluable. That he is one of the most clever minds in this country and that removing his clearance would be an unjustified error, only possible in the context of hysteria and witch hunting triggered by senator McCarthy and coworkers. Oppenheimer: What impression made on you, members of the panel, the prosecutor ? I don’t know. In listening to him, I have almost forgotten who I am, so convincing was his speech. However, I assure you, he did not tell you a single word of truth. What amazed me, among so many lies, is that you should be warned against me because of my skills to make a speech. But what they call skill to make a speech is simply telling the truth. If this is what they call a good speaker, I am that one, but not in the manner they believe. You will not hear from me a speech with selected and well ordered words, but a speech without art, with the first words that come to my mind. But my speech will be fair, don’t expect anything else from me. Let’s go back at the origin and examine these accusations against me, written by Lewis Strauss and Teller. What did they say at the end ? They claim that Oppenheimer is guilty on earth and heaven, that he makes a good cause from a bad one, that he teaches young people to behave like him. You are all my witnesses and I ask you to inform yourself and report what you know, what you heard, you who followed all my actions. Tell me if I ever behaved as the prosecutor claims. You will realize that all these rumors they spread about me are false. Young people attached to me were my students. They took pleasure in listening to me and imitating me rather than other people who believe to know something but know nothing in reality. These people who know nothing take pleasure to say that there is a certain Oppenheimer who is misleading them. But what do I say that is so harmful ? They simply don’t know. They claim that I don’t do science, that I don’t believe in my country, 4 that I transform a bad political cause into a good one. They pretend to know the truth, but are ignorant and harmful. They are full of calumnies against me. These calumnies fuel the hate of Lewis Strauss and Teller against me. I would be amazed if I could remove so much hate from your minds, when it is so deeply rooted. Their calumnies are on my pursuit. Make an enquiry and you will not find anything true in them. Week 1 - day 3 (Enter Robb, Oppenheimer, Garrison, panel) Robb: Dr. Oppenheimer, do you know Giovanni Lomanitz, Bernard Peters, Joseph Weinberg and Philip Morrison ? Oppenheimer: Yes, they were all former students of mine at Berkeley. Robb: Are they communists ? Oppenheimer: I believe so. Robb: What about your brother Franck and his wife, are they communists ? Oppenheimer: yes. Robb: What about your wife Kitty, is she a communist ? Oppenheimer: yes, she is the widow of Joe Dallet, who died during the Span- ish Civil War. Robb: Don’t you think that there are too many communists around you ? Would you have employed them in the Manhattan Project ? Oppenheimer: I employ people on their scientific skills not on their political views. Robb: Were you a member of the communist party ? Oppenheimer: I never had a party card, but I was member of about every communist front in the West Coast before 1942. Robb: Did you give money to support the cause of communists during the Spanish Civil War ? Oppenheimer: I contributed $ 150 per month (about $ 2000 in present days). Robb: Did you inform general Groves and colonel Landsdale about these ac- tivities ? Oppenheimer: Of course, I filled a security questionnaire for the Manhattan project where I included all this. I personally informed general Groves and the head of security Colonel Landsdale in 1943. 5 Garrison: How were the relations between the USA and communist Russia at the time, 1942-45 ? Oppenheimer: We were allied against nazi Germany. Garrison: Why so many communists in California in the 1930’s ? Oppenheimer: Because the great depression had created large masses of peo- ple in total poverty. Garrison: Why did you contribute to the cause of Spanish Republicans dur- ing the Civil War ? Oppenheimer: Spain was a democratic country that was abandoned by pow- erful democracies like the USA, England or France, into the hands of the nazis and fascists. The only countries that helped Spain were communist Russia and Mexico. Week 1 - day 4 (Enter Robb, Oppenheimer, Garrison, panel) Robb: Late in june 1943, did you spend a night with your old girlfriend Jean Tatlock ? Oppenheimer: yes. Robb: That was when you were working on a secret project ? Oppenheimer: yes. Robb: Was she a member of the communist party ? Oppenheimer: yes. Robb: Do you think this is compatible with security ? Oppenheimer: yes, we talked love not war. Robb: Let’s now talk about Haakon Chevalier. Did he belong to the same secret unit of the communist party as you ? Oppenheimer: To the same tea party meeting, yes. Robb: What were you discussing ? Oppenheimer: Les fleurs du mal, le bateau ivre and jadis et nagu`ere. Robb: What is all that rubbish ? Oppenheimer: It’s neither rubbish nor reddish. Robb: You told us four different versions of your incident with Chevalier in the winter 1942-43. Which one is correct ? 6 Oppenheimer: Chevalier asked me to spy for the Soviet Union and I refused. Robb: Did you tell the truth to Colonel Pasch ? Oppenheimer: No. Robb: Why ? Oppenheimer: I was an idiot. Garrison: Were you trying to protect Chevalier ? Oppenheimer: Yes. Garrison: Why not simply omitting the incident to general Groves ? Oppenheimer: I wanted to demonstrate to general Groves that I had broken with my communist past. Week 1 - day 5 (Enter Robb, Oppenheimer, Garrison, panel, Groves) Robb: Give your name, profession and past activities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report 2013.Pdf
    ATOMIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION Preserving & Interpreting Manhattan Project History & Legacy preserving history ANNUAL REPORT 2013 WHY WE SHOULD PRESERVE THE MANHATTAN PROJECT “The factories and bombs that Manhattan Project scientists, engineers, and workers built were physical objects that depended for their operation on physics, chemistry, metallurgy, and other nat- ural sciences, but their social reality - their meaning, if you will - was human, social, political....We preserve what we value of the physical past because it specifically embodies our social past....When we lose parts of our physical past, we lose parts of our common social past as well.” “The new knowledge of nuclear energy has undoubtedly limited national sovereignty and scaled down the destructiveness of war. If that’s not a good enough reason to work for and contribute to the Manhattan Project’s historic preservation, what would be? It’s certainly good enough for me.” ~Richard Rhodes, “Why We Should Preserve the Manhattan Project,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 2006 Photographs clockwise from top: J. Robert Oppenheimer, General Leslie R. Groves pinning an award on Enrico Fermi, Leona Woods Marshall, the Alpha Racetrack at the Y-12 Plant, and the Bethe House on Bathtub Row. Front cover: A Bruggeman Ranch property. Back cover: Bronze statues by Susanne Vertel of J. Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie Groves at Los Alamos. Table of Contents BOARD MEMBERS & ADVISORY COMMITTEE........3 Cindy Kelly, Dorothy and Clay Per- Letter from the President..........................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Site July 16, 1945
    Trinity Site July 16, 1945 "The effects could well be called unprecedented, magnificent, beauti­ ful, stupendous, and terrifying. No man-made phenomenon of such tremendous power had ever occurred before. The lighting effects beggared description. The whole country was lighted by a searing light with the intensity many times that of the midday sun." Brig. Gen. Thomas Farrell A national historic landmark on White Sands Missile Range -- www.wsmr.army.mil Radiation Basics Radiation comes from the nucJeus of the gamma ray. This is a type of electromag­ individual atoms. Simple atoms like oxygen netic radiation like visible light, radio waves are very stable. Its nucleus has eight protons and X-rays. They travel at the speed of light. and eight neutrons and holds together well. It takes at least an inch of lead or eight The nucJeus of a complex atom like inches of concrete to stop them. uranium is not as stable. Uranium has 92 Finally, neutrons are also emitted by protons and 146 neutrons in its core. These some radioactive substances. Neutrons are unstable atoms tend to break down into very penetrating but are not as common in more stable, simpler forms. When this nature. Neutrons have the capability of happens the atom emits subatomic particles striking the nucleus of another atom and and gamma rays. This is where the word changing a stable atom into an unstable, and "radiation" comes from -- the atom radiates therefore, radioactive one. Neutrons emitted particles and rays. in nuc!ear reactors are contained in the Health physicists are concerned with reactor vessel or shielding and cause the four emissions from the nucleus of these vessel walls to become radioactive.
    [Show full text]
  • Character List
    Character List - Bomb ​ Use this chart to help you keep track of the hundreds of names of physicists, freedom fighters, government officials, and others involved in the making of the atomic bomb. Scientists Political/Military Leaders Spies Robert Oppenheimer - Winston Churchill -- Prime Klaus Fuchs - physicist in ​ ​ ​ designed atomic bomb. He was Minister of England Manhattan Project who gave accused of spying. secrets to Russia Franklin D. Roosevelt -- ​ Albert Einstein - convinced President of the United States Harry Gold - spy and Courier ​ ​ U.S. government that they for Russia KGB. Narrator of the needed to research fission. Harry Truman -- President of story ​ the United States Enrico Fermi - created first Ruth Werner - Russian spy ​ ​ chain reaction Joseph Stalin -- dictator of the ​ Tell Hall -- physicist in Soviet Union ​ Igor Korchatov -- Russian Manhattan Project who gave ​ physicist in charge of designing Adolf Hitler -- dictator of secrets to Russia ​ bomb Germany Haakon Chevalier - friend who ​ Werner Reisenberg -- Leslie Groves -- Military approached Oppenheimer about ​ ​ German physicist in charge of leader of the Manhattan Project spying for Russia. He was designing bomb watched by the FBI, but he was not charged. Otto Hahn -- German physicist ​ who discovered fission Other scientists involved in the Manhattan Project: ​ Aage Niels Bohr George Kistiakowsky Joseph W. Kennedy Richard Feynman Arthur C. Wahl Frank Oppenheimer Joseph Rotblat Robert Bacher Arthur H. Compton Hans Bethe Karl T. Compton Robert Serber Charles Critchfield Harold Agnew Kenneth Bainbridge Robert Wilson Charles Thomas Harold Urey Leo James Rainwater Rudolf Pelerls Crawford Greenewalt Harold DeWolf Smyth Leo Szilard Samuel K. Allison Cyril S. Smith Herbert L. Anderson Luis Alvarez Samuel Goudsmit Edward Norris Isidor I.
    [Show full text]
  • J. Robert Oppenheimer
    Priscilla J. McMillan The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Birth of the Modern Arms Race VIKING VIKING Published by the Penguin Group Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 100I4, U.S.A. Penguin Group (Canada), 10 Alcorn Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4V 3B2 (a division of Pearson Penguin Canada Inc.) Penguin Books Ltd, 80 Strand, London WC2R oRL, England Penguin Ireland, 25 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, Ireland (a division of Penguin Books Ltd) Penguin Books Australia Ltd, 250 Camberwell Road, Camberwell, Victoria 3124, Australia (a division of Pearson Australia Group Pry Ltd) Penguin Books India Pvt Lrd, II Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-no 0I7, India Penguin Group (NZ), Cnr Airborne and Rosedale Roads, Albany, Auckland 1310, New Zealand (a division of Pearson New Zealand Ltd) Penguin Books (South Africa) (Pry) Ltd, 24 Srurdee Avenue, Rosebank, Johannesburg 2196, South Africa Penguin Books Lrd, Registered Offices: 80 Strand, London WC2R oRL, England First published in 2005 by Viking Penguin, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Copyright © Priscilla Johnson McMillan, 2005 All rights reserved Photograph credits appear on page 374- LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA McMillan, Priscilla Johnson. The ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer / Priscilla J. McMillan. p. ern. Includes index. ISBN 0-670-03422-3 I. Oppenheimer, J. Robert, 1904-1967. 2. Physicists-United States-Biography. 3. Manhattan Project (U.S.) 4- Atomic bomb-United States-s-History. 5. Nuclear physics- United States-Histoty-20th century. 6. Teller, Edward, 1908- I.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: the PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: THE PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S. ATOMIC INTELLIGENCE, 1942-1949 Vincent Jonathan Houghton, Doctor of Philosophy, 2013 Dissertation directed by: Professor Jon T. Sumida Department of History The subject of this dissertation is the U. S. atomic intelligence effort against both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in the period 1942-1949. Both of these intelligence efforts operated within the framework of an entirely new field of intelligence: scientific intelligence. Because of the atomic bomb, for the first time in history a nation’s scientific resources – the abilities of its scientists, the state of its research institutions and laboratories, its scientific educational system – became a key consideration in assessing a potential national security threat. Considering how successfully the United States conducted the atomic intelligence effort against the Germans in the Second World War, why was the United States Government unable to create an effective atomic intelligence apparatus to monitor Soviet scientific and nuclear capabilities? Put another way, why did the effort against the Soviet Union fail so badly, so completely, in all potential metrics – collection, analysis, and dissemination? In addition, did the general assessment of German and Soviet science lead to particular assumptions about their abilities to produce nuclear weapons? How did this assessment affect American presuppositions regarding the German and Soviet strategic threats? Despite extensive historical work on atomic intelligence, the current historiography has not adequately addressed these questions. THE PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S. ATOMIC INTELLIGENCE, 1942-1949 By Vincent Jonathan Houghton Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2013 Advisory Committee: Professor Jon T.
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Bomb by John Lamperti
    November, 2012 Thoughts on Making the Bomb by John Lamperti I recently finished reading Martin Sherwin and Kai Bird’s monumental American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer.1 It's an admirable book, although I think the title might better have been American Faust. (No less than Freeman Dyson said Oppenheimer made a "Faustian bargain."2) There have been many books about Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb project in general; I've read some but not all of them. This one seems to be definitive. Everything we need to know is there – and it's a fascinating read. Two things struck me especially, and neither was directly about Oppenheimer. One was the ideological rigidity, and the blindness, of the crowd of Army and FBI "security" operatives who dogged Oppenheimer and the whole Manhattan Project from the beginning. To a man (no women are mentioned) they were obsessed with the pre-war leftist politics of many of the scientists, which they found highly suspicious and probably indicative of disloyalty. But while these agents were hounding leftists and "premature anti-fascists" (as supporters of the Spanish Republic were called) at Los Alamos and elsewhere and finding little or nothing, real spies were sending real scientific information to the USSR under their noses, apparently unsuspected. If the "security" people, especially Lt. Col. Boris Pash of Army Counter– Intelligence, had been given free rein, Oppenheimer and many others (but not the actual spies!) would have been banished from the Project and the "Trinity" test, as well as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, might never have happened.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics, Physicists and the Bomb
    editorial Physics, physicists and the bomb Scientists involved in nuclear research before and after the end of the Second World War continue to be the subjects of historical and cultural fascination. Almost 70 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the military, historical and moral implications of the nuclear bomb remain firmly lodged in the public’s consciousness. Images of mushroom clouds serve as powerful reminders of the destructive capability that countries armed with nuclear weapons have access to — a capability that continues to play a primary role in shaping the present geopolitical landscape of the world. For physicists, the development of the nuclear bomb generally brings up conflicting feelings. On the one hand, physicists played a central role in helping to create it; on the SCIENCE SOURCE/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY PHOTO SOURCE/SCIENCE SCIENCE other, they were also among the first to realize © its terrifying power. This contradiction is most Manhattan Project physicists at Los Alamos. From left to right: Kenneth Bainbridge, Joseph Hoffman, famously epitomized by Robert Oppenheimer, Robert Oppenheimer, Louis Hempelmann, Robert Bacher, Victor Weisskopf and Richard Dodson. the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who, on witnessing the first test of the atomic bomb, the Trinity test, in July 1945, in this context that the public can truly come race following the Second World War, there was reminded of a quote from the Hindu to feel the growing sense of disillusionment is no question that Churchill was an early scripture Bhagavad Gita: “Now, I am become of those scientists as they realized their goal; and influential champion for government- Death, the destroyer of worlds.” a sense of lost innocence, that knowledge that sponsored science and technology in Britain.
    [Show full text]
  • William T. Golden October 1950 – April 1951
    Impacts of the Early Cold War on the Formulation of U.S. Science Policy Selected Memoranda of William T. Golden October 1950 – April 1951 Edited with an Appreciation by William A. Blanpied Foreward by Neal Lane Copyright © 1995, 2000 American Association for the Advancement of Science 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005 The findings, conclusions, and opinions stated or implied in this publication are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Directors, Council, or membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. William T. Golden Contents Contents Foreword....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ 7 A Brief Biography ........................................................................................................................................ 8 William T. Golden’s Chronicle of an Era: An Appreciation ....................................................................... 9 Decision Memorandum F.J. Lawton, Decision Memorandum for the President, October 19, 1950................................................ 34 Conversations: 1950 Herman
    [Show full text]
  • An Atomic History Chapter 2
    An Atomic History 0-3 8/11/02 7:31 AM Page 18 Chapter Two 19 THE FERMI-SZILARD PILE AND URANIUM RESEARCH The first government funding for nuclear research was allocated to purchase graphite and uranium oxide for the chain reaction experiments being organized by Fermi and World War II and the Manhattan Project Szilard at Columbia University in February 1940.2 This work, which began in New York 2 City, soon spread to Princeton, the University of Chicago, and research institutions in California.3 Even at this stage, the scientists knew that a chain reaction would need three major components in the right combination: fuel, moderator, and coolant. The fuel would contain the fissile material needed to support the fission process. The neutrons generated by the fission process had to be slowed by the moderator so that they could initiate addi- tional fission reactions. The heat that resulted from this process had to be removed by the coolant. Fermi’s initial research explored the possibility of a chain reaction with natural urani- The 1930s were a time of rapid progress in the development of nuclear physics. um. It was quickly determined that high-purity graphite served as the best neutron moder- Research accelerated in the early years of the Second World War, when new developments ator out of the materials then available.4 After extensive tests throughout 1940 and early were conceived and implemented in the midst of increasing wartime urgency. American 1941, Fermi and Szilard set up the first blocks of graphite at Columbia University in government interest in these developments was limited at first, but increased as the war September 1941.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Version for Printing
    Monday, November 29, 2004 Atrium Exhibit Shows Role Monday, November 29 of IT in Physics SAFER 2:30 p.m. Particle Astrophysics Seminar - Even the best of us make mistakes. Curia II Studies show that human beings make 5- Speaker: N. Gnedin, University of 7 mistakes an hour. Sometimes these Colorado mistakes are trivial and have little effect Title: Simulating Reionization: Yesterday, on what we are doing. At other times the Today, and Tomorrow consequences are more significant. 3:30 p.m. DIRECTOR'S COFFEE For example, over BREAK - 2nd Flr X-Over 77% of the 4:00 p.m. All Experimenters' Meeting - occurrences in DOE's John Urish setting up the sculpture Collision Curia II Occurrence Reporting Event (Click on image for larger version.) Processing System Straight back from its successful Tuesday, November 30 (ORPS) cite personnel 3:30 p.m. DIRECTOR'S COFFEE participation in the SC2004 error as a causal factor. Additionally, BREAK - 2nd Flr X-Over supercomputing trade fair in Pittsburgh, mistakes can occur because the 4:00 p.m. Accelerator Physics and the joint Fermilab/SLAC Computing the organization behind the employee has Technology Seminar - 1 West Quantum Universe exhibit is now on view created a situation that allows it to Speaker: P. Bauer, Fermilab in the Wilson Hall atrium. The exhibit happen. Title: Materials Research for shows how progress in information Superconducting RF Cavities at Fermilab technology is now indispensable to At Fermilab, we rely heavily on job particle physics research. planning and hazard analysis to identify and address ES&H hazards. By Monday, November 29 Computing the Quantum Universe is a six- approaching human performance as a Potato Au Gratin sided enclosure, with posters on the outer potential hazard in the workplace, Monte Cristo $4.75 walls, and flat-panel screens with mistakes can be avoided.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954
    In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954 Author(s): Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein Source: Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1989), pp. 267-347 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27757627 Accessed: 09-09-2019 20:44 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences This content downloaded from 206.253.207.235 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 20:44:00 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms PETER GALISON* AND BARTON BERNSTEIN** In any light: Scientists and the decision to build the Superbomb, 1952-1954 If the development [of the hydrogen bomb] is possible, it is out of our powers to prevent it. All that we can do is to retard its completion by some years. I believe, on the other hand, that any form of international control may be put on a more stable basis by the knowledge of the full extent of the problem that must be solved and of the dangers of a ruth less international competition.
    [Show full text]
  • N Meeting in Baltimore on June 8, 2015 from 11:30AM-1PM
    NMRO June 2015 From the NMRO President BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dear Colleagues, This is the last Scintillator for this term as we prepare to welcome the new executive officers and board of director members who will begin their yearlong term following the annual NMRO luncheon meeting in Baltimore on June 8, 2015 from 11:30AM-1PM. This past year has been a productive one for Lida Jafari MD our group, and key changes have been made that I believe will set us up for further success in the Lida Jafari MD, the new representative to Alexander Antoniou, MD, International Affairs Committee of the ACNM, MA future. Since this is a resident-run organization, many of us eventually graduate and move on to join committees at both ACNM and/or is completing the second year of NM residency SNMMI. However, we remain pillars of support for the resident organization and in the program at Greater Los Angeles Veteran will always serve as “alumni”. This sense of community is part of what makes this Affairs/UCLA. Prior to nuclear medicine residency, a great organization to be a part of. Dr. Jafari completed a year of general surgery Below is a list of highlights of some of our accomplishments this past year: in the Yale affiliate, St Mary’s Medical Center, Connecticut. Dr. Jafari’s academic background • Education: Free case reviews (IMAIOS platform); board preparation included research in the physiology of tissue question bank (official release in June, 2015); 4-part MRI Webinar perfusion and the impact of negative pressure series; and new recommended reading list and updated online wound management.
    [Show full text]