616
PARTISAN REVIEW
feasible, by claiming that there were insufficient facilities and scientific
personnel to carryon the development, and on the ground that it
was not politically desirable, is misleadingly simple. Actually, Dr.
Oppenheimer's position involved a combination of very complex
and subtle moral, political, strategic and technical considerations,
none of which can be understood except in relation to the others
and to the state of scientific development at the time of the dispute.
In 1949, although development
in
the fission field had far surpassed
our accomplishments during the war, there was no knowledge of
whether a thermonuclear weapon was even possible within the laws
of nature. In order to follow the few poor leads which were then
available in the fusion field, it looked as if there would have to be
diverted from the further perfecting and production of fission
weapons so much material and personnel that this area of develop–
ment would be seriously damaged- and in the pursuit of an idea
which one did not know would ever be feasible. Added to this ques–
tion of whether the concerted effort to reach so uncertain a goal was
worth its cost in diminished strength
in
the A-bomb field, there was
the question whether the super weapon,
if
it could be produced,
was in itself a sufficient addition to our arsenal to have validated
its pursuit. Would it be deliverable in terms that made it strategically
useful, against what kind of target would it be effective, what would
it accomplish that could not as well or better be accomplished by
a large enough number of varied atomic weapons such as we were
already producing so efficiently? It was Dr. Oppenheimer's opinion,
shared by many experts, that from a purely technological-strategic
point of view, the gamble was a bad one.
And this scientific-military position was implemented by a
moral-political position. Our efforts for the international control of
atomic weapons,
in
which Dr. Oppenheimer had played a major
role, had failed. Was the answer to start a race with Russia for
even more destructive weapons? It was Dr. Oppenheimer's reasoning
that if atomic weapons were ever to be outlawed, certainly this was
less likely to be accomplished in the atmosphere of a prodigious new
research for a still worse bomb than the A-bomb; and in the mean–
while we might lose our present lead over Russia in the A-bomb
field. Further-and this was an aspect of the argument which was
stressed even more by former Ambassador Kennan and other defense
