(5 of 10)
In his letter Dr. Seaborg had said that he "would have to hear some good arguments before I could take on sufficient courage to recommend not going toward" a thermonuclear program. He noted that Dr. Ernest 0. Lawrence, director of the radiation laboratory at the University of California, was already proposing to get the program under way. If the GAC were asked to comment on the proposal, he wrote, "It seems to me clearly we should heartily endorse it." Despite this sharp exception to the GAC's "unanimous" stand, Dr. Oppenheimer originally had said that he did not recall the letter.
"An Odd Point of View." Among many scientists Oppenheimer is held in high esteem, and even awe. Yet a number of his colleagues came before the security board, in answer to subpoenas, and testified against him. Among them was Dr. Luis Alvarez, professor of physics at the University of California, who was on the staff at Los Alamos during World War II (he helped develop the detonating mechanism for the atomic bomb). In September 1949, after the Russians exploded an atomic bomb, Dr. Alvarez and Dr. Lawrence decided to push for development of the H-bomb. Nearly all of the scientists they reached were enthusiastic and anxious to get the program going, Dr. Alvarez testified. He expected Oppenheimer to be enthusiastic, too, because during World War II Oppenheimer had been anxious to get on with thermonuclear research. But in 1949, in the face of the Soviet threats, he found-Oppenheimer opposed.
Counsel Robb: What did he tell you?
Alvarez: He said he did not think the United States should build the hydrogen bomb, and the main reason he gave for this . . . was that if we built a hydrogen bomb, then the Russians would build a hydrogen bomb, whereas if we did not build a hydrogen bomb, then the Russians would not build a hydrogen bomb. I found this such an odd point of view that I don't understand it to this day . . .
Q: You testified that you talked to various individuals about your plan and the plans of others for the development of the thermonuclear weapon in early October 1949. Is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: At that time these individuals were enthusiastic for going ahead with it. Is that right?
A: That was my very strong impression.
Q: To your knowledge, were those conversations in advance of any talks that these people had with Dr. Oppenheimer?
A: I think that is so, sir . " .
Q: Subsequently these people changed their views. Is that right?
A: Quite drastically, yes.
Q: Did you learn at that time whether in the interim they had talked to Dr. Oppenheimer?
A: I am sure that in the interim they talked with Dr. Oppenheimer, because the interim extends until now.
Later, Dr. Alvarez was questioned by Dr. Ward V. Evans, professor emeritus of chemistry at Loyola University of Chicago, a member of the security board (also later was the one member to vote for restoring Oppenheimer's clearance).
Q: Do you think that Dr. Oppenheimer had considerable power with men like Conant, Bush and Groves?
A: I don't think power is the right word. Dr. Oppenheimer is certainly one of the most persuasive men that has ever lived, and certainly had influence. They respected his opinions and listened to him.