Evening star., 1954-04-14

spring.
The Oppenheimer Charges
The bringing Of formal security risk charges
against Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer Is a shocking
development
It is shocking because this man, if he has
not been loyal to the United States, has been
in position to do us enormous damage. On this
point, however, it should be remembered that
not particle of proof of disloyalty has been
offered
It is also shocking because of the human
values involved DR.. Oppenheimer, at least as
much as any other man, is responsible for the
atomic superiority which has served since 1945
to shield this country from the threat of Soviet
Communist aggression. And !. every instinct
rebels against the suggestion that simultane-
ouSly, he has been traitor.
The letter from the Atomic Energy Com
mission to DR.. Oppenheimer says: I'm view of
these allegations which, until disproved, raise
questions as to your veracity, conduct and even
your loyalty, the commission has no other
recourse, in the discharge of its obligations to
protect the common defense and security but
to suspend your clearance until the matter has
been resolved"
The allegations and DR.. Oppenheimer's
responses to them, were published in full in
yesterdays Star. They afford at least tenta-
tive basis on which certain conclusions can
be formed.
One is that most of the allegations relate
to DR.. Oppenheimer's admitted weakness for
left-wing or Communist causes and individuals
in the late thirties and early forties. He made
disclosure of these activities before he was
cleared by General Groves to direct the atomic
bomb project. Thesesallegations were reviewed
again in 1947 by the Acc, and DR.. Oppenheimer
again was cleared. Why are these allegations
revived now? Is there new evidence which
bears on the correctness of earlier explanations?
The other allegations are concerned with
DR.. Oppenheimer's attitude toward development
of the hydrogen bomb.
The charges state that it was reported in
1945, that DR.. Oppenhemer had expressed the
view that there was reasonable possibility that
the hydrogen bomb could be made, but that
its feasibility appeared less certain than in the
case of the A-bomb when work on that weapon
was started. It was further reported, according
to the charges that the General Advisory Com
mittee, Of which DR.. Oppenheimer was chair
man, expressed the view, in the autumn of 1949
that IAN imaginative and concerted attack on
the problem has better than even chance of
producing the (H-bomb) weapon within five
years" Next, the charges said: "It was further
reported that in the autumn Of 1949 and sub
sequently, you strongly opposed the develop
ment of the hydrogen bomb: (D On moral
grounds, (2) by claiming that it was not
feasible, CD by claiming that there were
insufficient facilities and scientific personnel
to carry on the development, and a. that it
was not politically desirable" Finally, Dr.
Oppenheimer was accused on the basis of
reports, of being instrumental in persuading
other outstanding scientists not to work on the
H-bomb project, even after President Truman,
in January, 1850, had directed that the project
be gotten under way.
The implications of this are exceedingly
grave. For in the autumn of 1949 the Soviets
had tested their atomic device. And If Dr.
Oppenheimer believed in 1945 that there was
a reasonable possibility that we might make
the hydrogen bomb, the inference is that, in
1949, he also believed there was a. possibility
that the Russians might be able to make it,
Consequently, when he expressed his views in
1949, he presumably knew that if he prevailed
there would be possibility that the Russians
would build hydrogen bombs, and that we
would not have them.
It should be noted, however, that this is
based on conjecture. 1t should also be noted
that Dr. Oppenhemer's denial of these implica-
tions (as well as the charge that he intervened
with other SclentlStS) is strong and categorical
He comedies that he opposed the "crash" or rush
program to develop the H-bomb in 1949 since he
believed that because of our overall situation
at that time such a program might weaken
rather than strengthen the position of the United
States" He also says, and this stands in SEEM
ing contradiction to the allegation in the
charges, that the General Advisory Committee
was unanimous in opposing the crash program
1t is fair to say that events have vindicated
the judgment of those who wanted to push
ahead with the H-bomb project But the
accusations against DR.. Oppenheimer are not
that his judgment was faulty in 1949 The
accusations reflect on his veracity and his
loyalty These accusations are not entitled to
credence unless and until adequate proof is
forthcoming Fortunately, this inquiry is in
the hands Of men whose standing is such as
to inspire confidence that their findings will
be based on the evidence and will be fair to
all concerned.
He Likes Those Long Drives
That was story-book finish to yesterdays