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