(6 of 10)
Q: Looking by hindsight, do you think he showed good judgment in the fact that he opposed this bomb in the light of present conditions?
A: I think he showed exceedingly poor judgment. I told him so the first time he told me he was opposed to it. I have continued to think so. The thing which I thought at that time was the overpowering reason for building the hydrogen bomb was [that] if we did not do it, some day we might wake up and read headlines and see pictures of an explosion such as we saw a month or so ago, only this would be done off the coast of Siberia. I felt sure that this would be one of the most disastrous things that could possibly happen to this country. I thought we must not let this happen.
"Elements of the Mystic." Wendell Mitchell Latimer, professor of chemistry at the University of California and associate director of the university's radiation laboratory, painted the same picture as Dr. Alvarez. Dr. Latimer wanted to move ahead with thermonuclear development right after the Russians exploded an atom bomb in 1949.
Robb: Do you recall whether you talked to any other scientists ...'?' Latimer: Yes ... I talked to everybody I could ... I tried to build up pressure for it ...
Q: What was the reception to your suggestions received at that period of time? I am speaking of the time two or three weeks after the Russian explosion.
A: It was favorable, I would say. We met practically no opposition, as I recall.
Q: Will you tell us whether or not that situation changed?
A: It definitely changed.
Q: When?
A: Within a few weeks. There had been a lot of back pressure built up, I think, primarily from the Advisory Committee [the GAC].
Q: Did you ascertain the source of any of this opposition?
A: I judge the source of it was Dr.
Oppenheimer.
Q: Why?
A: You know, he is one of the most amazing men that the country has ever produced in his ability to influence people.
It is just astounding the influence that he has on a group. It is an amazing thing. His domination of the General Advisory Committee was so complete that he always carried the majority with him, and I don't think any views came out of that committee that weren't essentially his views . . .
Q: Would you care to give the board, sir, any comments you have, upon the basis of your knowledge of Dr. Oppenheimer, as to his character, his loyalty and his associations? . . .
A: That is a rather large order.
Q: I know it is, Doctor.
A: His associations at Berkeley were well known—the fact that he did have Communist friends. I never questioned his loyalty. There were elements of the mystic in his apparent philosophy of life that were very difficult to understand . . .
A man's motives are just something that you can't discuss, but all his reactions were such as to give me considerable worry about his judgment as a security risk.