Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-08-22
TREATY
Two Clash Sharply
With Others on Pact

veloped by rejecting on the
past controversy over the ny
drogen bomb:
1T was once said that the
thermonuclear weapon, even If
it could be built, could be trans
ported to a target only by OK
cart" he said. "At that time I
was one of a very small minor
ity, which included DR.. Teller,
believing the contrary and con-
tending against great odds be-
cause of our conviction that
world freedom was at stake"
he said.
Il wished with all my heart
that the ox-cart forecast would
prove to be right and the H
bomb impossible to make. i
The point is that weapons have
undergone great changes which
could not have been demon
strated without testing. With
out testing they could not have
been put into manufacture and
into our arsenalS. There is no
end in sight to invention, and
we have no monopoly in in
genuity."
Almost every other witness
who has testified before the
committee-including DR.. Ed
ward Teller, the treaty's most |
outSpoken foe-has said devel-
opment of a 100-megaton bomb |
is not necessary. They have
said such a bomb has very
limited military application. |
and in many ways is less eff
cient than bombs in the 20-40
megaton category, which the
United States already possesses.
The administration has said
that a decision not to develop
a 100 : megaton bomb was
taken in 1854 and adhered to
in subsequent years. The only |
other witness who favored the |
big bomb was Gen. Curtis E. |
LeMay, Air Force Chief of
Staff.
While DR.. Libby was on the |
stand. Chairman Fulbright of |
the Foreign Relations Commit
tee expressed concern over the
conflicting scientific views on
the treaty given to his COM
mittee. 49,
The Arkansas Democrat told
DR.. Libby the lack Of unani-
nifty by several noted scien-
lists was making the commit
tees evaluation Of the treaty |
very difficult"
He noted that on many i'm
portant points we've had con-
Trajectory testimony" Over
all. Senator Fulbright said the
advocates of treaty ratification
had a numerical preponder-
ance." but he said it was hard |
to evaluate the testimony of |
one noted scientist against
that of another.
The chairman referred spe-
officially to the sharp differ
ences between DR.. Teller, famed
nuclear phyicist, who is
against ratification, and Har-
old Brown, the Pentagon's top
scientific expert, who yeSter-
day strongly supported rati-
fication.
Joins Teller as Foe
The director of one of the
Nations leading nuciear lab
oratories yesterday joined with
DR.. Teller in opposing Senate
ratification.
For almost the same reasons
as DR.. Teller, DR.. John S. Fos-
ter, jr., head of the famed |
Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,
Livermore, Calf, told the COM
mittee that from purely
technical military considera-
tons, the proposed treaty ap-
pears to me Instantaneous"
On the other hand, DR.. Norris
E. Bradbury, director Of the
Los Alamos Scientific Labora-
tory, testified that. speaking
for himself and "the majority
of my staff" the treaty can be
ratified with only mild risks
to our national defense pos
ture."
Whereas DR.. Teller called the
treaty "a first step toward war"
because 1t reduced Americas
defenses, DR.. Bradbury said it
might be "the first real even If
small, step in the direction of
prevention of a nuclear war"