United States Atomic Energy Commission Volume XII; In the Matter Of: J. Robert Oppenheimer

Page 1

UNITED ST ATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter Of: ASSOCIATES IN PB.lNCIPAL CITIES

Page 2

UIUTED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the lla.tter of Atomic Energy Commission, The above entitled matter came 0111 for bearing, pursuant to recess, before the Board, at 9:30 a.m. PERSONNEL SECURITY BOARD: ALLAN B. ECKER, Counsel for J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Page 5

• show tbat following Dr. Bacher's appearance as a witness, the Chairmn conferred with Mr. Garrison and Ill'. Robb. The Cba.irllllln suggested to counsel that the Board was willing to strike tbat portion of Dr. Bacher'• testimony which related to the memorandum in the AEC fil-, dated llarch 14, largely on the ground that the memorandum in question was unsigned The Chair1111.n stated that his suggestion was also related to Ur. Garrison's objection that the memorandum in question introduced into the record statements about the . • Serbers which were unidentified in origin. The Chairman made it clear to counsel tbat the Board does not feel there is any question of impropriety, but wished to take into account fully every possible consideration of fairness as far as the record Mr. Robb indicated that be had no objection to this procedure. Ill'-. Garrison felt that it would be a mistake, once the record was formed, tostrike this portion of the recall. Is that correct, or is any of that incorrect? I • would like help on this, because I am simply trying to reflect what the facts are. llR, R<&: It is entirely correct as far as I am

Page 6

say that while I objected to tbe introduction of the document and the questions based on it, I still hold the vi-s that I th.en expressed. Tbe matter in fact having come before the Board and testimony having been had before us, I think that it should stand in the record. llR. GRAY: Under the circumstances, the record will Mil. GARRISClf: Ur. Chairman, before we begin with the witness, I would just like to ask if the minutes of that August 6, 1947, meeting that I asked for yesterday are 111tchell, the General Counsel, that he bas taken the natter up with the Commission. Both ii& and I have recoamended that they be made available, but they will not meet until this afternoon, at which time they will make the decision. MR. GRAY: I think the record ought to clearly show that only the Collllllission can make this decision. MR. ROBB: That is correct. I take it join in the request to the Commission and make it MR. GRAY: I think it is understood that the Board did join in that request.

Page 7

MR. ROBB: I think there is no question about that. llR. GRAY: General, I 111>uld like to ask whether you wish to testify under oath. You are not required to do so • J think in fairness i should say that all witneases have so GEMERAL McC<IUBACK: I am perfectly willing. liR. GRAY: Would you be good enough to raise your right hand, General? What is your full name? the testimony you - to give the Boa.rd.shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help ym God? GENERAL McCOIUIACK: l do, sir. was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: MR. GRAY: Will you be seated, please. I am required to remind you of the existence of the so-called perjury statutes. May we assu• that you are TBB WITNESS: I am familiar, yes, sir. MR. GRAY: I 8llll prepared to review the penalties, if you wish. THE WITNESS: It won't be necessary.

Page 8

lllR. GRAY: May I ask, General llcCormack, if in the course of your testtnony it becomes necessary for you to refer to or disclose restricted data, you notify m in advance so that we might take the necessary and appropriate steps in the interest of security? TBE WITNESS: All right, sir. MR. GRAY: Finally, I should say to you what I try to re•mber to say to all witnesses, that we consider these praaceedings a confidential matter between the Commission and its official!; on the one hand1 and Dr. Oppenheimr and his representatives and witnesses on the other. Tbe Co1m11ission is making no releases about these proceedings. On behalf of the Board, I express the hope that witnesses will tab the same v:Lew of the matter. TBE WIT.NESS: Xf I may ask, this is as regards lllR. GRAY: That is correct. THE WIT?mSS: Thank you. llR. GRAY: I should say further that in your case, there is no military requirement involved about participating in these proceedings and what you might say about them. X think I covered it as well as I could by saying that the Board considers these proceedings a confidential matter between the Commission and Dr. Oppeilbe:lmer, and tllleir various represemtivee TBE WITNESS: X had not meant to confuse, sir, but

Page 9

before coming, I told my immediate ccmmander where I was going and tbe purpose. lt Wll.nted you to know that. llR. GRAY: Tbat ls essential, I think. You have to tell him 1111n you return where you have been and what ym have been doing, perhaps? THE WITNESS: Your exprience would indicate that. Q General McCormack, for the record will you state your rank and branch of service, and your present post, please? A I am a major general in the tJ. s. Air Force. Uy present position is Vice Commander of the Air Research and Development Command, stationed at B.'1.ltimore, Maryland. Q You are appearing as a witness at the request of the A That is right. r Could you tell us a little bit about your present command, what the Air Research and Development Comnand is? A The Air Force, unlike the Army or Navy, has consolidated all of its research and developlllent creative engineering activities in a single command, and all of its procurement, productlon~upply and service activities in another The first is the Air Research a.nd Development Command, and the second 1s the Air Materiel· Command. These two functions are put together 1n· s11parate packages 1n tbe Navy, in the

Page 10

Bureau of Ordnance, Bureau of Aeronautics, and so forth. The Air Force as the field operating organ:Lzation and not as Washington policy staff, we have purview over all research and development activities directly supported and sponsored . by the Air Force, and are responsible for liaison w1 ti corresponding corellary complementary activites of interest to us in other services and indeed in science and industry and Q Does this command include such portions of research and development as have to do with develop-nt and use of A We carry the Air Force responsibility in that field, although the 1111.jor responsibility of course rests with the 'Q About how large is the. personnel of this command? A Approximately 40,000 total on the government rolls, roughly half military and half civilian, of whom some 29,000 could be said to be engaged in research, development and testin( activities. The rest are supporting groups. Q You formerly were Director of the Division of Military Application of the Atomic Energy CODDission? A From February 1947 to August 1951 • Q And was it in that connection that you had your A Yes, principi. lly. I have seen him a few times since

Page 11

leaving the Counisslon, but not at all during the past year. Q During the time when you were Director of the Divisiot of Military Applicatiaiof the Atomic Energy CODDission, did you have occasion to observe the work of the General Advisory COIDlllittee in so far as that affected matters with which you · were familiar, and particularly the work of Dr. Oppenheimer? A l would say I got a rather good view of :U;. It was the usual practice -- I don't kDCJW how many departures there were _,;_ to invite me or my staff in when the GeneralAdvisory Colll14i.ttee was discussing in preliminary fashion 1111.tters affecting my operating responsibility. Q Would you care to comment on the contributiaiof the General Advisory Committee, and particularly of Dr~ Oppenheimer toward helping the atomic energy program, and in particular as far as you could observe it. A I have worked with a number of advisory committees in my business. l think the General Advisory Committee was the outstanding one of my experience in terms of its qualifications, its interest in the work, and its consistent effort to be helpful in broadening the base of weapons development, of pushing out intoother areas of lldlitary interest, generally to the full extent. I speak in terms of my own responsibility which was below the policy level as regards the Commission, Just generally I would Sfl¥ the committee was continuously interested

Page 12

in doing the very best they could by the weapons program, A committee, of course, is limited in the impact it can have as opposed to the administrative orgad.ization • Q Did you work fairly closely with the cOllllllittee and Dr. Oppenheimer durina this :lur years or S>that you were director of the Division of Military Applications? A I saw the committee very frequently. The record would indicate how many -tings they held during that period but I have it in mind that it must have been four to six a year. In addition to that, I saw members of the committ- passing through Los Alamos, through the Commission Building in A Yes, I saw a great deal of Dr. Oppenheimer. the relative division of atomic weapons between strategic air use and use for tactical purposes and continental defense, or is that a very mixed ~P question? If yai understand, will you a1&wer the question I should have put? A I take your question to relate to the division of weajp()ns in the stockpile or thtt division of effort for developing new weapons • Q Perhaps you will answer both. A I don't think the General Advisory Comittee er Dr. Oppenheimer were concerned with the division of actual weapons.

Page 13

in stockpile. That is much the question of the design of the -apon for the purpose for which it was created which was one in accordance with military requiren.nts and tbe program laid out on tba t basis. With recard to contemplating future uses of fissionable material when weapona might be developed and fabricated. my recollection is that the General Advisory Committee and of course Dr. Oppenhei-r as its leader and spokesman, were very strongly in favor of developing new types which would open new uses for tactical applications, particularl My recollection may be faulty on this point but I think up to the time I left the CoDllliasion, the use of atom:lc weapons in air defense was not/clear enough picture for any stron1. views one way or another. Q Was it your impression that Dr. Oppenheimr was in favor of limiting the use of atomic weapons for strategic air purposes or strategic air bombing? A Setting up a limit which would be effective in a campaign? Not to my knowledge. 'Q Was he in favor of cutting down the proportion of fissionable materials that went into strategic air bombing? A As best I can remember t.his arose only once during the period of my association with Dr. Oppenhei-r, and it bad more to do with contemplated future uses. if I can make this clear. I recall Dr. Oppenheimer's being a proponent of the

Page 14

school that if you are to get the full military developmental and operational interest in atomic weapons for tactical use, you bad to give them something realistic to put in their thinking, such u an understanding that as these uses are developed, material will be available. This is my statement of the the&is, not Dr. Oppenheimer's. My recollection is tbat this was a line of !:ts thinking as I understood it. Q Did tba t involve cutting down the amount of m. terial available for strategic air bombing or did he thidt there would be enough for both? A I had not recalled the thesis as btmg an arbitrary reduction as against some future date, but rather as a factor fer planning. War plans are different • Q I am not talking about war plans. A What you use weapons far when you actually start using them !s what the situation requires. I don't recall Dr. Oppenheimer ever denying tbat. Q Did he indicate that this use of atomic weapons was an ever-expanding business, and you have enough materials both for tactical uses and strategic? A That I think is a fair statement • Q By the way, your present command covers both so-called continental defense and tactical and strategic use of atomic weapons in so far as the Air Force is concerned?

Page 15

A That is right. Q In the course of your meeting and acquaintanceship with Dr. Oppenheimer, did you feel you ca.a to know him quite Q Do you have an opinion as to Dr. Oppenheimer's loyalty to the United States? A I hever llad a question as to it. Q Do you have an opinion as to whether he is a security risk, as to his discretion in the • e of classified materials, whether it is safe to trust him with sue~? A Nothing in my associations with him would raise the question with me. JIR. SILVERJMAN: That is all. Q General, you spoke of the role of the GAC towards helping the atomic energy weapons program. I assume tba t you followed the debate in the GAC in OCtober 1949 'irith respect to the development of the thermonuclear weapon? A Yes, although I was not specifically present at the time. Perhaps I was not entirely clear in my previous answer, although ll think I was. That debate was a debate at the Commissiods'policy level. I was speaking of my relations with the GeneralAdvisory COiliillittee. in carrying out the policies

Page 16

that -re decided upon. Q Were you supposed to represent the views of the military at that tim in respect to the thermonuclear weapon? • A No. The llilitary Liaison Commtttee is the normal organization under the law. I was en operating staff officer of the COllBllissii:>n. l did my best to carry military thinking into the Cominission, yes, but the form.l responsibility rested with the Military Liaison Committee. respect to the development of the thermonaclear weapon?' A In my understandiq tbe milit1L17 interest -s a very definite interest in going forward.with it if indeed it • proved to be technically feasible, although qul9Stions of scale and rate of effort and what you cut off your programs to encompass n- efforts, these were questiom. But on the broad question of going ahead, I think the military interest was Q In other words, it -s a weapon the military wanted? A J:f it could be made, yes. Q After the meeting of the GAC of OCtober 29, 1949, and the report wh:lda they m.de on that meeting, d:ld you read A l mustbave, although l don't recall any of its particulars.· The only thing …