« ZurückWeiter »
for peacetime purposes; and not merely a policing of its effect for military purposes.
And I would like, Mr. Chairman, if I may, to add one other thing that seems to me to be forgotten here, that is quite fundamental to my attitude and the answers to the questions that have been put.
When the fear that some other nation has the bomb comes upon the American people, it then has to concern itself with making itself at least as little vulnerable to its dangers as it can be. And when it reaches that stage, it then has to contemplate what would happen, for example, to the Central Government of the United States if a bomb drops halfway between the White House and the Capitol on Pennsylvania Avenue. You clean out the Government.
Are you going to let it continue to be concentrated for the future? Are you going to let great aggregations of population like New York City remain? And if you are not, what are you going to do about it? I do not think you are going to do anything about it except by totalitarian methods. The mere fear of that sort of thing, the mere reduction of the population of New York City by 20 percent, would so destroy real-estate values all the way through, that the whole economy of this country would be upset. And your effort to secure the least vulnerability when you once believe that the other fellow may have it you do not have to be sure that he does have it-means that you will have to use totalitarian methods to move the population and make it stand for the lower standard of living that has certainly got to be, if we have to throw away our capital equipment.
That is the issue that most affects my judgment on this thing. That is why I do not think I am giving anything away if I can get reasonable guaranties of agreement among the nations.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your opinion, Mr. Barnard, based upon your experience not as a scientist, of course, but based upon the gathering of information that has been available to you, as to how soon-not within specific months, but as to how reasonably soonwe may anticipate, the way the situation now stands, that some other nation, any other nation, may be able to produce a bomb without our aid?
Mr. BARNARD. I would say a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 15.
The CHAIRMAN. And therefore, assuming that we could preserve inviolate all of the secrets that we now possess as far as this bomb is concerned, independent of that, it is your opinion that other nations or some other nations may be able to produce, or reasonably may be able to produce, a bomb, on their own independent investigation and production, in a maximum of around 15 years?
Mr. BARNARD. That is fundamental in my thinking.
The CHAIRMAN. And if some other nation does produce the bomb within 5 to 15 years, then all the secrets that we possess about the bomb are completely worthless as far as our safety and peace of mind are concerned.
Mr. BARNARD. As a monopolistic thing, yes. We still would have the bomb and would be in just as good position as the other fellow. But this was a surprise attack weapon, and that is its greatest danger. It is not a weapon for military campaigns, but a destroyer of communications, and so on.
The CHAIRMAN. And I take it that your philosophy here, the reason you are supporting this report and the Baruch plan, is the hope that
by establishing some sort of reliable plan such as this, with definite controls and safeguards, we can stop the private or individual experimentation in the production of bombs by other nations and concentrate that in a group over which we have some control; is that correct? Mr. BARNARD. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Senator JOHNSON. A moment ago, Mr. Barnard, you spoke about poisoning plutonium and making it harmless. I do not want to argue the point with you, because in order to do so we would have to talk about things that ought not to be talked about in public. But I want to challenge your statement as being simply a scientific theory but in reality considerable of a hoax; and to hold that out to the people of the world is a cruel thing to do.
I do not care to argue the point with you, but I just simply want to offer my own expression. And I take it that in your discussion of this poisoning program which you have in mind, you are not speaking as a scientist.
Mr. BARNARD. That is correct. I am relying on the report of those who were scientists.
Senator CONNALLY. Just one more question.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Connally.
Senator CONNALLY. Mr. Barnard, if you make this available for industrial and commercial purposes, necessarily there would be a great many concerns applying for its use and wanting it; is that true?
Mr. BARNARD. I would not know about that, Senator. It depends altogether on the economics of it.
Senator CONNALLY. You just said awhile ago that they were just clamoring for it.
Mr. BARNARD. I did not say "clamoring."
Senator CONNALLY. You did not use the word, probably, but you used something similar. The point I am trying to make is that when you do that, do you not increase the danger of its being improperly used very greatly, through black markets and bootlegging, and so on?
Mr. BARNARD. That is possible.
Senator CONNALLY. Would you not have to have a tremendous inspection force to police all these different private individuals and concerns that were supposed to be using it only for industrial purposes and might be bootleegging it out to other nations?
Mr. BARNARD. I think that is right.
Senator CONNALLY. That is all.
Senator MCMAHON. Mr. Barnard, I had no objection to Senator Johnson's denomination of it as a hoax, and I certainly for one would be glad to discuss it, but I think the record should show that Dr. Oppenheimer, who is in charge of Los Alamos, was the one who gave us the information about the neutralization about plutonium.
Now, of course, he may be right or may be wrong. But I guess, Mr. Barnard, you went on his advice, did you not?
Mr. BARNARD. That was supplemented by a special session of which Arthur Compton was head, that dealt specifically with that question as to whether Oppenheimer was right. And I think they said "Yes," with some qualification on it.
Senator MCMAHON. I am not contradicting you, Senator Johnson, you understand.
Mr. BARNARD. Now, do not forget that Thomas is a chemical scientist on this thing, and just as reliable as Oppenheimer, although not so good at exposition.
But there was something greater than that involved, because some one summoned these two men, and Compton and other men had a meeting here in Washington and gave a statement almost immediately thereafter saying that that was essentially correct.
Senator JOHNSON. I simply want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am relying, too, on Dr. Oppenheimer, along with other scientists, for my statement that this is a cruel hoax.
Oppenheimer did not say so, but part of the information that I received from him has led me to that conclusion, myself. And scientists other than Dr. Oppenheimer have expressed themselves on the denaturing, the watering of it down, the diluting.
Senator MCMAHON. Mr. Barnard, you stated in answer to the chairman's question that you believe it would be from 5 to 15 years before any other nation was successful in making this bomb. A year ago, you completed this report; did you not?
Mr. BARNARD. Yes, sir.
Senator MCMAHON. Did you then have in mind 5 to 15 years? Mr. BARNARD. Something in that order. It is bound to be specula
Senator MCMAHON. So that a year is gone now.
now, instead of 5 to 15.
Is that right?
And it is 4 to 14,
Mr. BARNARD. Yes. That indicates a degree of rescission that I do not think I had.
Senator MCMAHON. I just wanted to indicate that time does pass. Mr. BARNARD. Time is running out on us.
Senator MCMAHON. As a matter of fact, when you say 4 to 14, or 5 to 15, you have no way of knowing, and neither have I, that it will not be 2 years, or two years and a half.
Mr. BARNARD. That is quite correct, sir.
Senator MCMAHON. I do, too, but it might be.
Mr. BARNARD. The scientific part of it might all be in the hands of others at this time, and if somebody should prove to me it was, I would not be greatly surprised today.
But the technological and industrial developments required to go with it seem to me to be a barrier which puts the 5 to 15 in the picture. Now, we are the greatest technologists of the world.
We are not the only ones. The Germans were very good. But I do not think too many others were.
And it is the genius of this country to do that kind of thing. It had tremendous resources to do it with. I judge from all I read that the resources of all other countries are at a very low ebb from one end of the world to the other. That is a very important factor as to the feasibility of actually producing industrially the plutonium bomb, I should think.
But I am getting now out beyond my range. I am not a technologist in the fields involved here.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?
Senator McKELLAR. You said that this is a totalitarian method that you have suggested; that your committee has suggested.
Mr. BARNARD. I did not know I said that. Senator MCKELLAR. I took it down: "Totalitarian methods." I understood you to say that. You said it would take totalitarian methods to handle it properly.
Senator VANDENBERG. No, I think he said it would take a totalitarian method to defend against others if they had it.
Mr. BARNARD. Exactly, sir.
Senator MCKELLAR. To defend against others if they had it. Well, why bring that up, when you have testified that we have it now, and we have not given it away except to two.
And I do not think we have given it away to those two. We have evidence in this record that it has not been given away to those two. Why do you want to put it in the hands of this totalitarian body, when we now own it?
Mr. BARNARD. Because I do not think our present ownership will be a protection to us.
Senator MCKELLAR. You do not think it will be a protection. Do you think in 5 to 15 years, just speaking generally-I will not get down to the 4 to 14-someone will have it anyhow, and therefore, we had better give it away right now, without money and without price? Mr. BARNARD. Not without money and without price. Senator MCKELLAR. For what are we going to give it?'
Mr. BARNARD. The price is an agreement that we can rely upon, and an international authority that can see that the agreement is kept
Senator MCKELLAR. Well, have there not been international agreements not to go to war, from time immemorial? And have any of them ever been kept?
Mr. BARNARD. Not that I know of.
Senator MCKELLAR. Well, why do you think the world is going to reform as soon as this plan of Mr. Acheson's and Mr. Lilienthal's is adopted?
Mr. BARNARD. Include Mr. Barnard there, will you, Senator?
Senator MCKELLAR. Mr. Barnard; yes. Why do you think as soon as your plan is adopted, we can make an agreement with the other nations of the world not to go to war with this bomb, when we have never been able to make such an agreement before?
Nations of the world have never been able to make it before. What is your way of reaching that conclusion?
Mr. BARNARD. Never before have the nations of the world had in their hands the means to destroy their entire civilization. I hope that enough people of intelligence in all the countries of the world see that kind of danger now in the hands of the people, a danger that they never had before, and will at least try to do something about peace. Senator MCKELLAR. I may be mistaken about it, but I remember that a few years ago when Mr. Hitler was about to control the world, he absolutely destroyed Russia, went way over to the Caspian Sea. And, in order to protect Russia, we had to send our supplies and men and machine guns and other instruments of warfare all the way around. the world to the Caspian Sea, in order to keep Russia from being finally destroyed.
What is there about this situation that makes you think that any agreement that we now make, any international agreement, will be kept any better than the other international agreements?
Mr. BARNARD. Because it would be an association of all the nations of the world together for that purpose.
Hitler was trying to make war. This international organization, the United Nations, is trying to make peace. It may not succeed. Senator MCKELLAR. There is war going on in many parts of the world now.
Mr. BARNARD. Well, civil war, at least.
Senator MCKELLAR. Well, war is war. It kills people. And there are nations in the Far East where we are fighting. They are fighting in Russia. They have until a short time ago been fighting in Greece. And in that situation, why do you think that we ought to give the greatest war secret that has ever been invented by any nation or any people or any man or any set of men; give it to the world, without money, or without price?
Mr. BARNARD. I have answered you before, Senator. We are not giving it without price.
Senator MCKELLAR. The only price is an agreement to keep the peace. I do not think that is much security. I differ with you. You are a man high in business, and I have great respect for you. I am not saying anything about you by innuendo or anything like that.
I am just saying that I have great doubts about whether you are correct; not only great doubts, but I am sure you are incorrect. Mr. BARNARD. I wish I could be guaranteed to be correct, but I know I cannot.
Senator MCKELLAR. I quoted you here as saying that you were talking to Mr. Lilienthal, and I want to know which one said these words: "People accuse me of being a Soviet."
Mr. BARNARD. "Socialist."
Senator MCKELLAR. Well, that is just the same thing. Were you quoting Mr. Lilienthal at that time?
Mr. BARNARD. I was quoting Mr. Lilienthal.
Senator MCKELLAR. He has said that people called him a Socialist; is that right?
Mr. BARNARD. He said: "Those who call me a Socialist would not believe that I would agree to this kind of proposition."
Senator MCKELLAR. That was not your statement?
Mr. BARNARD. I am not a Socialist. No, sir.
Senator MCKELLAR. Are you a leftist?
Mr. BARNARD. No; I do not believe in Government ownership of power, including TVA. And Mr. Lilienthal's arguments never convinced me.
Senator McKELLAR. All right.
I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?
Thank you, Mr. Barnard.
We have a couple of witnesses here whose testimony I believe will be very short. We may want to ask Mr. Barker some questions at length. I think we may want to have him at the afternoon session. Therefore, I will call Rev. Vincent O'Connell, of Notre Dame Seminary at New Orleans, La.; is the Reverend O'Connell here? (No response.)