DOCSLIB.ORG

Atomic Shield, 1947 / 1952

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Atomic Shield, 1947 / 1952 VOLUME II A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION ATOMIC SHIELD, 1947 / 1952 RICHARD G. HEWLETT AND FRANCIS DUNCAN 1969 ii ATOMIC SHIELD / 1947-1952 Contents Foreword by the Chairman, Historical Advisory Committee xi Preface xiii 1 The Terrible Responsibility 1 2 Uncertain Mandate 17 The Veterans . 17 The Human Equation . 21 Personnel Security . 26 Labor Crisis . 29 Whither Research? . 30 Weapons . 36 Research and Development . 37 Field Operations . 39 Balancing Production and Research . 41 First Summation . 46 Report to the President . 51 Confirmation . 53 First Decisions . 58 Mission to Educate . 61 3 First Venture 63 Atomic Arsenal . 64 Adjusting Priorities . 68 Toward a Weapon Stockpile . 70 Reorienting the Laboratories . 73 Reactors at Clinton . 75 Reactors for the Military . 79 iii iv ATOMIC SHIELD / 1947-1952 Exit Monsanto . 84 Opening Doors for Research . 87 A Sobering Decision . 92 Construction at Hanford . 94 Talent Search . 95 Shadow of Security . 97 4 The Peaceful Image 107 Ingredients of a Research Policy . 108 Completing the Organization . 113 Clinton Again . 114 Reactors at Clinton . 116 Military Reactors . 117 Bohemian Grove . 119 Foreign Distribution of Isotopes . 121 A Policy for Research . 122 Biology and Medicine . 125 The Future of Nuclear Power . 127 A Course for Reactor Development . 129 The Reactor Development Group . 131 The Fate of Clinton . 134 Black Christmas . 137 Year-End Reflections . 139 5 Call to Arms 141 The Old Order Changes . 142 Relations with the Military . 143 New Life at Los Alamos . 146 Operational Responsibilities . 150 Activities at Sandia . 153 Plans for Sandstone ............................155 Production Planning . 156 Strengthening Production Operations . 160 Raw Materials . 163 Trouble in Europe . 165 6 Nuclear Arsenal 171 Change in Command . 171 Partners in Arms? . 176 Sandstone .................................179 CONTENTS v An Accoutrement of Power . 183 Consolidating Operations . 191 The Battle Rejoined . 197 7 Atomic Power: Quandary and Quagmire 205 Location of the High-Flux . 206 Military Pressures . 209 Centralization—Collapse . 214 Organization and the Navy . 218 Wilson Drafts a Program . 220 A Question of Safeguards . 223 Struggling Toward Decisions . 226 A Reactor for the Navy . 228 A Director and a Program . 230 Selecting the Idaho Site . 232 Implications of the Lexington Report . 233 Argonne and Westinghouse . 234 Shifting Goals at Schenectady . 235 Progress on the Materials Testing Reactor . 236 Summer Appraisal . 239 Priorities . 242 8 Research: New Approaches to a New Age 245 The National Laboratories . 246 Probing the Microcosmos . 250 The Accelerator: Key to the Nucleus . 251 Skirting the Relativistic Barrier . 253 Building for Higher Energies . 254 Looking Toward the Billion-Volt Range . 257 Creating for Discovery . 259 Radiation and the Plant World . 263 Radiation and Man . 266 Meeting the Demand . 267 Quest for the Meson . 269 Competition for Power . 271 Organizing Biology and Medicine . 273 Distribution of Radioisotopes . 274 Fellowships in the Nuclear Sciences . 275 Biomedical Research . 276 New Avenues for Basic Research . 277 vi ATOMIC SHIELD / 1947-1952 A New Species? . 281 9 Cooperation with the British: Untangling the Alliance 283 The Washington Scene . 283 The UN: A Falling Market . 286 Continuing Deadlock . 290 Forming a New Policy . 292 Need for Action . 296 Preparing a Position . 298 Negotiations . 303 The Modus Vivendi . 307 10 Cooperation with the British: Anxiety and Tension 309 News from Britain . 310 Challenge to Cooperation . 311 Breakdown . 314 The British Press Forward . 318 Formulating a New Policy . 320 Meeting at Blair House . 324 Quest for Congressional Support . 328 Preparing for Negotiations . 330 Negotiations-First Phase . 331 Interlude . 332 Negotiations Again . 334 Fuchs and Failure . 338 11 The Art of Administration 343 The Lilienthal-Wilson Approach . 344 Appropriations—Business as Usual . 347 The Special Relationship . 352 Reappointment—A Question of Strategy . 355 The President Acts . 358 Battle Avoided . 359 Decentralizing Security . ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Authority Review for the Former Staten Island Warehouse
    -. -“” i\lf 2’-L THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION Suite 4000, 955 L’Enfant P.!aza, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20024, Telephone: (202) 488-6000 7117-03.85.eav.15 20 August 1985 bee: A. Wallo F. Hoch (w/o) Mr. Arthur Whitman F. Newman (w/o) Division of Remedial Action Projects, NE-24 R. Johnson (w/o) U.S. Department of Energy Germantown, Maryland 20545 Dear Mr. Whitman: AUTHORITY REVIEW FOR THE FORMER STATEN ISLAND WAREHOUSE Aerospace has completed the analysis of the available documentation related to the former Staten Island Warehouse. The attachment is sub- mitted for your review to determine whether DOE has authority to pursue remedial action at the site under FUSRAP. As indicated in the summary of the attached analysis, it would appear that, except for export controls imposed by the State Department, the ore stored in the former Staten Island Warehouse was not under the control of the U.S. Government. The Manhattan District only purchased a portion of the U308 content of the ore, while African Metals Corpora- tion retained ownership of the radium and other precious metals that remained in the ore after processing. Further, the U.S. Government did not take custody of the ore until delivered by lighter free alongside ship to the Lehigh Valley Railroad at the Dean Mill Plant of the Archer- Daniels-Midland Company. As a result, it does not appear that DOE has authority under the Atomic Energy Act to take remedial actions, if needed, at this site. Based upon your review and final authority determination, Aerospace will prepare an elimination package to document the status of the site as it is turned over to the EPA for remedial action.
    [Show full text]
  • Junior Ranger Book Is for All Ages
    National Park Service Manhattan Project U.S. Department of the Interior National Historical Park NM, TN, WA Manhattan Project National Historical Park JUNIORat Hanford, RANGERWashington Turn the page to accept this mission Welcome friends! My name is Atom U235 Fission. I will be your guide as we explore the Hanford site of the Manhattan JR JR RANGER Manhattan a Project N Project National Historical Park G SITE, WA ER together. This project was So big it changed the world! How to earn points This junior ranger book is for all ages. You may find some activities harder than others. That’s okay. You choose what activities to complete by earning enough points for your age. 4 points —— ages 6-8 Points needed 6 points —— ages 9-11 to earn a badge 8 points —— ages 12-14 10 points —— ages 15 and older ACTIVITIES POINT VALUE YOUR POINTS Complete activities in 1 activity = the Junior Ranger Book. 1 pt Join a docent tour or 1 pt ranger program. Total: Watch a park film. 1 pt Download the park’s app. Learn about our other locations. 1 pt This QR code will take you to the free National Park Service app. Once you have the app, search for the Manhattan Project to explore the entire park including sites in New Mexico, Tennessee, and Washington. WHEN FINISHED: Return your book to the visitor center and be sworn in as an official junior ranger. PARENTS: Participate with your aspiring junior ranger to learn about this park as a family. NEED MORE TIME? Mail your book to Manhattan Project National Historical Park, 2000 Logston Blvd.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986
    Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Steven T. Wills June 2012 © 2012 Steven T. Wills. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwtaer Nichols Act of 1986 by STEVEN T. WILLS has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by Ingo Traushweizer Assistant Professor of History Howard Dewald Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT WILLS, STEVEN T., M.A., June 2012, History Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 Director of Thesis: Ingo Traushweizer The Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 was the most comprehensive defense reorganization legislation in a generation. It has governed the way the United States has organized, planned, and conducted military operations for the last twenty five years. It passed the Senate and House of Representatives with margins of victory reserved for birthday and holiday resolutions. It is praised throughout the U.S. defense establishment as a universal good. Despite this, it engendered a strong opposition movement organized primarily by Navy Secretary John F. Lehman but also included members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prominent Senators and Congressman, and President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger. This essay will examine the forty year background of defense reform movements leading to the Goldwater Nichols Act, the fight from 1982 to 1986 by supporters and opponents of the proposed legislation and its twenty-five year legacy that may not be as positive as the claims made by the Department of Defense suggest.
    [Show full text]
  • Molten-Salt Technology and Fission Product Handling
    Molten-Salt Technology and Fission Product Handling Kirk Sorensen Flibe Energy, Inc. ORNL MSR Workshop October 4, 2018 2018-10-16 Hello, my name is Kirk Sorensen and I’d like to talk with you today about fission products and their handling in molten-salt reactors. One of the things that initially attracted me to molten-salt reactor technology was the array of options that it gave for the intelligent handling of fission products. It represented such a contrast to solid-fueled systems, which mixed fission products in with unburned nuclear fuel in a form that was difficult to separate, one from another. While my focus will be on our work on molten-salt reactor fission product handling, many of the principles are general to molten-salt reactors as a whole. Fundamental Nuclear Reactor Concept In its simplest form, a nuclear reactor generates thermal energy that is carried away by a coolant. That coolant heats the working fluid of a power conversion system, which generates electricity from part of the thermal energy and rejects the remainder to the environment. coolant working fluid fresh fuel electricity Power Nuclear Heat Conversion Reactor Exchanger System spent fuel heated water or air coolant working fluid The primary coolant chosen for a nuclear reactor determines, in large part, its size and manufacturability. The temperature of the coolant determines the efficiency of electrical generation. Fundamental Nuclear Reactor Concept In its simplest form, a nuclear reactor generates thermal energy that is carried away by a coolant. That coolant heats the working fluid of a power conversion system, which generates electricity from part of the thermal energy and rejects the remainder to the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies
    A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D* MARCH 2017 *Andrew C. Kadak is the former president of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and professor of the practice at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He continues to consult on nuclear operations, advanced nuclear power plants, and policy and regulatory matters in the United States. He also serves on senior nuclear safety oversight boards in China. He is a graduate of MIT from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department.
    [Show full text]
  • 0409-TOFE-Elguebaly
    BBenenefitsefits ooff RRadadialial BBuuildild MinMinimimizatioizationn anandd RReqequuirirememenentsts ImImposedposed onon AARRIEIESS CComompapacctt SStetellallararatotorr DDeesigsignn Laila El-Guebaly (UW), R. Raffray (UCSD), S. Malang (Germany), J. Lyon (ORNL), L.P. Ku (PPPL) and the ARIES Team 16th TOFE Meeting September 14 - 16, 2004 Madison, WI Objectives • Define radial builds for proposed blanket concepts. • Propose innovative shielding approach that minimizes radial standoff. • Assess implications of new approach on: – Radial build – Tritium breeding – Machine size – Complexity – Safety – Economics. 2 Background • Minimum radial standoff controls COE, unique feature for stellarators. • Compact radial build means smaller R and lower Bmax fi smaller machine and lower cost. • All components provide shielding function: – Blanket protects shield Magnet Shield FW / Blanket – Blanket & shield protect VV Vessel Vacuum – Blanket, shield & VV protect magnets Permanent Components • Blanket offers less shielding performance than shield. • Could design tolerate shield-only at Dmin (no blanket)? • What would be the impact on T breeding, overall size, and economics? 3 New Approach for Blanket & Shield Arrangement Magnet Shield/VV Shield/VV Blanket Plasma Blanket Plasma 3 FP Configuration WC-Shield Dmin Magnet Xn through nominal Xn at Dmin blanket & shield (magnet moves closer to plasma) 4 Shield-only Zone Covers ~8% of FW Area 3 FP Configuration Beginning of Field Period f = 0 f = 60 Middle of Field Period 5 Breeding Blanket Concepts Breeder Multiplier Structure FW/Blanket Shield VV Coolant Coolant Coolant ARIES-CS: Internal VV: Flibe Be FS Flibe Flibe H2O LiPb – SiC LiPb LiPb H2O * LiPb – FS He/LiPb He H2O Li4SiO4 Be FS He He H2O External VV: * LiPb – FS He/LiPb He or H2O He Li – FS He/Li He He SPPS: External VV: Li – V Li Li He _________________________ * With or without SiC inserts.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Isotope Production in Liquid-Fluoride Reactors
    Medical Isotope Production in Liquid-Fluoride Reactors Kirk Sorensen Flibe Energy Huntsville, Alabama kirk.sorensen@flibe-energy.com 256 679 9985 Flibe Energy was formed in order to develop liquid-fluoride reactor technology and to supply the world with affordable and sustainable energy, water and fuel. Liquid-Fluoride Reactor Concept Reactor Containment Boundary Turbine Coolant LiF-BeF2-UF4 LiF-BeF2 outlet Primary HX Gas Heater Gas Cooler Generator Reactor core Compressor Coolant inlet Drain Freeze valve Tank Electrical Warm Recompressor Main Compressor Turbine Generator Saturated Air Cool Dry Air Gas Heater High-Temp Low-Temp Gas Cooler Recuperator Recuperator Cooling Water Accum Surge Short-Term Gas Holdup Cryogenic Long-Term Gas Holdup Storage Accum Surge ea Fluor Decay Scrub Decay Tank KOH Bi(Th) Bi(Pa,U) Isotopic Quench metallic Th feed H2 ulFluorinator Fuel 2Reduction H2 HF Electro Bi(Th,FP) Bi(Li) Cell metallic HDLi feed F2 Water Water Coolant Coolant Torus Torus Drain Tank Waste Tank 7 Fuel Salt ( LiF-BeF2-UF4) Fresh Offgas UF6-F2 200-bar CO2 7 Blanket Salt ( LiF-ThF4-BeF2) 1-day Offgas F2 77-bar CO2 7 Coolant salt ( LiF-BeF2) 3-day Offgas HF-H2 Water 7 Decay Salt ( LiF-BeF2-(Th,Pa)F4) 90-day Offgas H2 Waste Salt (LiF-CaF2-(FP)F3) Helium Bismuth The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment was an experimental reactor system that demonstrated key technologies. Lanthanide Fission Products Alkali- and Alkaline-Earth Fission Product Fluorides c ORNL-TM-3884 THE MIGRATION OF A CLASS OF FISSION PRODUCTS (NOBLE METALS) IN THE MOLTEN-SALT REACTOR EXPERIMENT R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paradox of Planning in World War II
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Rockoff, Hugh Working Paper The Paradox of Planning in World War II Working Paper, No. 1995-13 Provided in Cooperation with: Department of Economics, Rutgers University Suggested Citation: Rockoff, Hugh (1996) : The Paradox of Planning in World War II, Working Paper, No. 1995-13, Rutgers University, Department of Economics, New Brunswick, NJ This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/94307 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu 95-13 April 1996 The Paradox of Planning in the United States during World War II* Hugh Rockoff Department of Economics Rutgers University New Brunswick NJ 08903-5055 908-932-7857 For Discussion Only I.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program
    Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program By Robert Alvarez Formed over 6 billion years ago, uranium, a dense, silvery-white metal, was created “during the fiery lifetimes and explosive deaths in stars in the heavens around us,” stated Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias.1 With a radioactive half-life of about 4.5 billion years, uranium-238 is the most dominant of several unstable uranium isotopes in nature and has enabled scientists to understand how our planet was created and formed. For at least the last 2 billion years, uranium shifted from deep in the earth to the rocky shell-like mantle, and then was driven by volcanic processes further up to oceans and to the continental crusts. The Colorado Plateau at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, where some of the nation’s largest uranium deposits exist, began to be formed some 300 million years ago, followed later by melting glaciers, and erosion which left behind exposed layers of sand, silt and mud. One of these was a canary-yellow sediment that would figure prominently in the nuclear age. From 1942 to 1971, the United States nuclear weapons program purchased about 250,000 metric tons of uranium concentrated from more than 100 million tons of ore.2 Although more than half came from other nations, the uranium industry heavily depended on Indian miners in the Colorado Plateau. Until recently,3 their importance remained overlooked by historians of the atomic age. There is little doubt their efforts were essential for the United States to amass one of the most destructive nuclear arsenals in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Beahan Remembers Nagasaki
    1111P''' ASSOCIATION OF RICE ALUMNI VOLUME 42, NUMBER 1 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1985 Eyewitness to History: Beahan Remembers Nagasaki 46 INSIDE The many interfaces of Clarence Miller Frank Lloyd Wright at Rice,1933 '55 Homecoming 1985 preview Coateiii4 SEPT.-OCT. 1985, VOL. 42, NO. 1 EDITOR The road to recovery 8 Suzanne Johnson Despite a depressed oil economy, enhanced oil recovery remains an important process with DESIGN a positive future. Chemical engineering professor Clarence Miller '61 discusses the process Carol Edwards and the work at Rice that has kept him at the forefront of enhanced oil recovery research. SCIENCE EDITOR B.C. Robison SPORTS EDITOR Eyewitness to history 12 Bill Whitmore Bombardier aboard the B-29 Bock's Car on its historic mission over Nagasaki, Japan, on Aug. CONTRIBUTORS 9, 1945, Kermit Beahan '40 recalls for Sallyport the mission that, in effect, ended World War Francis W. Vesey '29 PHOTOGRAPHERS Todd Malcolm '87 Philippe Paravicini '86 The art of dreaming 14 STUDENT ASSISTANT Joshua Pailet '72 left Rice with an accounting degree and a lot of dreams. In the past 13 Shelly Unger '86 years, those dreams — and his ever present camera — have taken him cross-country photo- OFFICERS OF THE graphing America aboard the Bicentennial Freedom Train, found him visually chronicling ASSOCIATION OF RICE ALUMNI the 1984 Louisiana Exposition, and led him into the business of running one of the country's President, G. Walter McReynolds '65 first fine art photography galleries. President-Elect, Gwynne E. Old '59 1st Vice-President, Bridget Rote Jensen '53 2nd Vice-President, Nancy Moore Eubank Homecoming '85 16 '55 Treasurer, Russ H.
    [Show full text]
  • ROSS GUNN May 12, 1897–October 15, 1966
    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES R O S S G U N N 1897—1966 A Biographical Memoir by P H ILI P H . AbELSON Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 1998 NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS WASHINGTON D.C. ROSS GUNN May 12, 1897–October 15, 1966 BY PHILIP H. ABELSON OSS GUNN WAS ONE of the most versatile physicists of the Rearly and mid-twentieth century. He made significant contributions to knowledge in many fields of science and technology. He created novel instrumentation, much of which was designed to facilitate studies of natural phenomena such as thunderstorms. In the course of his career he obtained more than forty patents. From 1927 to 1947 Gunn was a research physicist on the staff of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. In 1934 he was appointed technical adviser for the entire laboratory. In that role he interacted with important naval personnel. In March 1939 he wrote a memorandum to Admiral H. G. Bowen, chief of the Navy’s Bureau of Ships, outlining the tremendous advantages that could be expected from the use of atomic energy in submarine propulsion. In the latter years of World War II Gunn was simulta- neously superintendent of the Mechanics and Electricity Division, superintendent of the Aircraft Electrical Division, and technical director of the Army-Navy Precipitation Static Project, as well as technical adviser to the naval administra- tion. He also fostered development of the liquid thermal diffusion method for separation of uranium isotopes.
    [Show full text]
  • Eisenhower and the Gaither Report: the Influence of a Committee of Experts on National Security Policy in the Late 19501
    Eisenhower and the Gaither Report: The Influence of a Committee of Experts on National Security Policy in the Late 19501 David Lindsey Snead Richmond, Virginia B.A., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univenity, 1990 M.A., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uuivenity, 1991 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the Univenity of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History Univenity of Virginia January 1997 ii (c) Copyright by David Lindsey Snead All Rights Reserved January 1997 iii Eisenhower and the Gaither Report: The Influence of a Committee of Experts on National Security Policy in the Late 19505 by David Lindsey Snead Melvyn P. Leffler, Chairman (ABSTRACT) As the United States reeled from the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik in late 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower received a top secret report prepared by a committee of leading scientific, business, and military experts. The panel, called the Gaither committee in recognition of its first chairman, H. Rowan Gaither, Jr., emphasized both the inadequacy of U.S. defense measures designed to protect the civil population and the vulnerability of the country's strategic nuclear forces in the event of a Soviet attack. The Gaither committee viewed these defense measures--ranging from a missile system to defend the continental United States to the construction of shelters to protect the population from radioactive fallout-and the maintenance of sufficient strategic forces to launch military strikes against Soviet targets as essential for the preservation of U.S. security. It concluded that in the case of a surprise Soviet nuclear attack the United States would be unable to defend itselfwith any degree of success.
    [Show full text]