Read PDF Balancing Scientific Openness and National Security Controls at the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Balancing Scientific Openness and National Security Controls at the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Balancing Scientific Openness and National Security Controls at the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories book. Happy reading Balancing Scientific Openness and National Security Controls at the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Balancing Scientific Openness and National Security Controls at the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Balancing Scientific Openness and National Security Controls at the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories Pocket Guide.

This led to heated debates between supporters of TNWs and proponents, such as Edward Teller and Lewis Strauss, of a crash program to develop thermonuclear weapons. Oppenheimer lobbied energetically to prevent the development of the hydrogen bomb while pushing for the adoption of TNWs in war plans. While he was ultimately unsuccessful in the former objective — the thermonuclear crash program was approved by Truman in January — his influence proved decisive for the incorporation of battlefield nuclear weapons in plans to defend Western Europe.

Through his consulting with various committees and organizations, he was able to extend his military contacts, which proved instrumental for the mass-production of tactical weapons. Oppenheimer succeeded in building upon the interest of proponents of an Army-centered defense strategy in battlefield nuclear armaments during the lates, earning increasing support for the new armaments from both military officials and senators. His eloquence and persuasiveness earned him the support of prestigious men such as Kennan and Lilienthal in his various battles for international control and against unnecessary secrecy, but ultimately proved to be insufficient to redirect American policy.

Ironically, these would ultimately jeopardize the security of the world once the preponderance of power upon which support for TNWs had been based was balanced by the Soviets.

He graduated with a First Class Degree in with a dissertation on the ethicality of armed drones, later moving to the London School of Economics to complete a Masters in History of International Relations, graduating with a distinction. This paper formed the basis of his Masters thesis, written under the supervision of professor Matthew Jones, and he would like to thank for Professor Jones for advice and support. See Ferenc M. This is a problematic definition, as modern bombers could deliver TNW-like bombs with yields of tens of kilotons over longer ranges for strategic campaigns.

The tactical weapons here discussed refer to devices such as the Mk-7 gravity bomb, which supporters in the lates and earlys believed could be used against military forces or assets on the battlefield.

Citation metadata

McCausland eds. Robert Oppenheimer Papers. French and P. Kennedy eds. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson Jr. Robert Oppenheimer, speech given at an award ceremony on October 16 th , , reprinted in Alice Kimball Smith and Charles Weiner eds. Barnard, Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, Dr. Charles A. Thomas, Harry A. Winne, David E. See also Abraham Pais and Robert P.

Crease, J. Lilienthal to Herbert Marks, January 14 th , , box 46, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Lilienthal, The Journals of David E. Lilienthal, Vol. Robert Oppenheimer, The Open Mind, See also Michael A. Day, The Hope and Vision of J. Robert Oppenheimer London: World Scientific, , Robert Oppenheimer in Time , Vol.

LII, no. Hershberg, James B. McMillan, The Ruin of J. I, Frisch and Richard G. Stevens eds. Kennan, Memoirs: , Vol. I New York: Pantheon Books, , Miscamble, George F. Robert Oppenheimer , 6. Robert Oppenheimer , See for instance Pais and Crease, J. Etzold and John L. Gaddis eds. Robert Oppenheimer to Harry S. Although the concrete effects of the revised guidance are not yet fully apparent, the directives in this area are creating significant ambiguity and can intrude on communications that are far distant from DOE' s security mission. As a result, the policy will have a detrimental effect on communications that serve U.

Instead of creating new control regimes, DOE should rely on the control systems that are already in place across the government —such as the controls on classified information and on export of certain technical data. The protection of truly important information is likely to be more effective if DOE devotes attention to the information of central importance—if it builds high fences around narrow areas —rather than by allowing the effort to be diffused and diluted by encompassing unclassified information of marginal or non-existent significance to national security.

Physical security requirements should also be tailored to the level of risk presented by the specific location at which the work is performed. As DOE has recognized, its university-like laboratories e. Even at the weapons laboratories, heightened levels of protection should be directed at those areas in which classi. In short, there should be a graded regime that follows the basic principle that the level of security should be tailored to the magnitude of the risks.

Energy's secrets: Finding the balance

Beware of prejudice against foreigners. Over the past half-century foreign-born individuals have contributed broadly and profoundly to national security through their work at the national laboratories. Many of the current employees of the laboratories are foreign-born and some are foreign nationals, including individuals from sensitive countries. These persons are making very significant contributions to the laboratories ' work. To the committee's knowledge, no such employees have ever been identified as the source of losses of classified information in recent decades.

Department of Energy (DOE)

The most notorious recent spies—for example, Aldrich Ames and the Walker family—were native-born U. Under the circumstances, there can be no justification for focusing counterintelligence and security efforts on those individuals who happen to be foreign nationals or who are of any particular national or ethnic background. Moreover, such a focus not only would be unfair, but also would be counter-productive. Approximately 52 percent of all doctoral students in the U.

See also S.

National Security, the Assault on Science, and Academic Freedom | AAUP

Levin and P. Klaus Fuchs, a German national and spy for the Soviet Union who was present at Los Alamos during World War II as part of the British scientific delegation, is the only foreign national of whom the committee is aware who was employed at a weapons laboratory and was connected with espionage activities.

The individual identified in the press as the possible source of recent losses at Los Alamos of classified information to the People's Republic of China is a U. This estimate is based on questionnaire responses by those doctorate recipients who indicated citizenship. Foreign students, for this purpose, includes both those with temporary visas and permanent resident status.

  • Transmembrane Transporters.
  • The Openness Imperative – Foreign Policy.
  • Angels Dont Play This Haarp: Advances in Tesla Technology?
  • The Renaissance in Historical Thought (RSART: Renaissance Society of America Reprint Text Series);

Washington, D. Arlington, Va. We live in an age in which information is of central importance to U. We should expect that espionage aimed at obtaining this information will be attempted.

  1. Character and cops : ethics in policing!
  2. The Openness Imperative.
  3. Report of the President –02;
  4. Dancin’ and Romancin’ the Fundamentals.
  5. استعراض بحث.
  6. Navigation menu!
  7. But this does not mean that we should terminate all channels of international information flow through which weapons-related information might arguably leak. The world is awash in scientific discoveries and technological innovations. If the United States is to remain the world's technological leader, it must remain deeply engaged in international dialogue, despite the possibility of the illicit loss of information.

    Furthermore, international cooperation and communication related to nuclear arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, and the protection of nuclear materials bring substantial direct benefits to U. As a result, the objective of U. In the case of the national laboratories, this is best assured by a policy of informed protection of truly important information, while preserving openness in other areas. This report addresses consequences of current and proposed restrictions on international contacts by the U. Finally, the report reviews current policies and proposals designed to enhance security at the weapons laboratories, primarily those related to restrictions on foreign contacts by DOE scientists.

    Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Top Authors

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book. Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text. To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter. Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.