(4 of 10)
A: On the basis of what was then known ... a commitment be made to build this thing irrespective of further study and with a very high priority, a program in which alternatives would not have an opportunity to be weighed . . .
Q: Doctor, isn't it true that [you wrote] the report of the GAC?
A: I wrote the main report. Yes.
Q: Isn't it true that the report of the GAC and the annex to which you subscribed unqualifiedly opposed the development of the Super at any time?
A: At that time.
Q: At any time?
A: No, at least let us say we were questioned about that in a discussion with the commission, and we made it clear that this could not be an unqualified and permanent opposition . . .
Q: Didn't the annex to which you subscribed say in so many words: "We believe a super bomb should never be produced"?
A: Yes, it did.
Q: Do you interpret that as opposing only a crash program?
A: No. It opposed the program.
On the question whether the GAC was unanimous in its opposition to the development of the hydrogen bomb, Dr. Oppenheimer had additional difficulty.
Robb: Now I have a note here, Doctor, that you testified that there was a surprising unanimity, I believe that was your expression, at the GAC meeting of October 29, 1949, that the United States ought not to take the initiative at that time in an all-out thermonuclear program. Am I correct in my understanding of your testimony?
A: Right.
Q: In other words, everybody on the committee felt that way about it?
A: Everybody on the committee expressed themselves that way.
Q: How many people were on the committee?
A: There were nine on the committee.. One man was absent in Sweden.
Q: Who was that?
A: Seaborg [Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, professor of chemistry at the University of California].
Q: So you didn't know how he felt about it?
A: We did not . . . He was in Sweden, and there was no communication with him.
Q: You didn't poll him by mail or anything?
A: This was not a convenient thing to do.
Later that day Counsel Robb pulled that testimony out from under Dr. Oppenheimer.
Robb: You testified that you had no intimation from Dr. Seaborg prior to the GAC meeting of October 29, 1949, as to what his views on the subject were. I am going to show you a letter . . . dated October 14, 1949, addressed to you, signed "Glenn Seaborg," and ask you whether you received that letter prior to the meeting of October 29, 1949.
Oppenheimer: I am going to say before I see it that I had no recollection of it ...
Q: All right, Doctor. You told this board this morning that Dr. Seaborg did not express himself prior to the meeting of October 29,1949.
A: That is right. That was my recollection.
Q: Was that true?
A: No, that was not true.