isan
-
1eee
M. W. Boyer, General Manager
,
PITT
Oh LLpfrs
Are?
October 15, 1953
one
P, W. MoDaniel, Comaission Member
PWMeDaniel/psr/ags
gt ean, OY
os
(30)
CPC Subgroup of Solentific Advisednok ae —
U.K. INCUIRIES ON WEAPONS ones
| W. he.
Le
R:DD: PWMeD
Date:
4 Nol Authorized for Public Reicase
By
Date
Date
Ertered in OpenNer
gy:
meinen
tj Authorized for Public Relea
se
By
OPENNET ENTRY
In the Conmission meeting yesterday Mr. Strauss said that Lord Cherwell
would probably ask what happened to a list of the questions on weapons
effeots which the British had lodged with the Commission in 1952,
I believe he was referring to
2h, 1952) following a meeting
on March 22, 1952. (This was
of 'S2 during which Cockcroft
questions submitted by the British (March
with Cockoroft in Room 213 (West Building)
one of a series of meetings in the Spring
reviewed the British program to assist the
Commission in determining whether several new areas of cooperation of
interest to U.X. might be undertaken.) The U.K. submitted the weapons
effeote questions simultaneously to General Loper, then Chief, Armed
Forces Special Weapons Project, who participated in the meeting, repre-
senting the Derartment of Defense, Those in attendance at the meeting
and a summary of the discussions held are given in Appendix "E" to AEC
190/78.
(Attachment 1)
As indicated in Paragraph 5, Appendix "G" AFC 190/80 (Attachment 2) the
Director, Division of Military Application, suggested that the Division
k
_
z
oF
¢ bi
&
OFPARTAAENT OF ENERGY DECLASSIFICATION &
; 22
383
bet
25 3s
|
y
3
os
of Biology and Medicina determine which of the U.K. questions could be
answered under Area 2 (Health and Safety) of the Technical Cooperation
Program, At a meeting on May 29, 1952, the Divisions of Biology and
Medicine and Military Application agreed that they would try to prepare
answers to the questions; a copy of the minutes of that meeting is at-
tached,
(Attachment 3) It soon became evident, however, that no real
constructive classified answers could be given under the existing Tech-
nical Cooperation Program and that mecial processing under the Section
10 Amendment would have to be undertaken, On this basis, the Division
of Military Application prepared a preliminary draft staff study intend-
gece yee
ed to cover this special field, This and other efforts with respect to
222393
by the Commission's general conclusion that U.K. security could not be
gzke Ze
roccscgal
oS
s>
9
z
§
ahs
other possible new fields of cooperation with the U.K. became confused
certified to be comparable to U.S, security. With respect to the weapons
effects questions, therefore, it was generally agreed, although not docu-
mented here, that it was futile to try to arrange for ocoperation with
the U.K. because the Commission could not certify as to the adequacy of
U.K. security.
(See, for example, Dean's testimony before the Joint
2 yo
Committee on Atomic Fnergy, April 17, 1953.)
2 sla
were abandoned in late 1952.
z 3 85
eZ ap
a= 3 3
Accordingly, 211 efforts
to process this staff paper (and others then in preliminary draft form)
ae
TJ have orally advised the British of this
“hen separcted from enclosurcs. bert: ‘his tocumen’
Prey,
eho ee SeeeeeL Tey)
<lussi
7. fication) ag
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
.
Oe aR