the Super] would tend to confuse < unwittingly, hide that fact and makeit more difficult to find some other course.” AS we know now, the advice of the Oppenheimer committee was re- jected. Early in 1950 President Truman, acting on the basis of his own political judgment and on thetotality of the advice he had received on. the matter, issued directives designed to set in motion a major U.S. program to develop the hydrogen bomb. It is not possible here to give a full description of what happened next, but the following chronological outline of the Russian and American superbomb programs is designed to show how the “race” for the superbomb did in fact comeout, and to facilitate making judg- ments about the General Advisory Committee’s advice and about “what might have been.” First ofall, it is now known that both .st Russian atomic-bomb test. The oth- er (which actually took place first) was called George. It was a response to Joe I, as the first Russian atomic-bomb test was called by the U.S. intelligence establishment. Reduced to its essentials, the purpose of the experiment was to show, as a minimum, that a thermonuclear reaction could under ideal conditions be made to proceed in an experi- countries initiated high-priority programs for the development of a hydrogen bombat about the same time(late 1949~early 1950), and both had been seriously studying the subject for some - years beforethat. The first U.S. test series that included experiments designed to investigate thermonuclear explosions took place at Eniwetok in the spring of 1951. Known as Operation Greenhouse, the series included two thermonuclear experiments. proceed further along speculations, in- test of the booster principle. This experiment, it must be emphasized, was planned and programmed before the most promising possibility. This test was to play the role of a pilot plant in our — development.” mental device. This experiment came to play a key role in the Super program. As Teller later putit: “We needed a sig- nificant test. Without such a test no one of us could have had the confidence to One, with the code name Item, was a ventions and the difficult choice of the OPERATION ~ CASTLE OPERATION OPERATION GREENHOUSE OPERATION SANDSTONE ITEM GEORGE TRINITY CROSSROADS af i945 | 1946 [ 1947 [ 1048 | 1949 [ foso [ 1951 [ 1952 | 1953 | 1954 \ “JOE 1” | | | 1955 [ 1956 | | I MIKE AND/OR BRAVO ] } | 1958 | 1959 | FIRST RUSSIAN SUPERBOMB “JOE 4” | | i957 ITEM if KING 2 } 5 KT 1951 [| 1952 | 1953 | 1954 [ i955 [| 1956 | O @ U.S.S.R. €) ALL-FISSION BOMBS @ SUPERBOMBS OTHER MIXED FISSION/FUSION BOMBS | I I MIKE AND/OR BRAVO iTEM KING ? | FIRST RUSSIAN SUPERBOMB +? ts \ c \__ [1951 [ 1952 | 1953 | 1954[ 1955 [| 1956 [ 1957 [| 1958 [ 1959 | “JOE 4" TWO HYPOTHETICAL OUTCOMESare postulated in an effort to evaluate how much risk would have been involved in a U.S, decision not to proceed with the superbomb. Theyare depicted in this historical chart as branches of the time line representing the actual world (a). The first branch is referred to by the author as the “most probable alternative world” (6), the second as the “worst plausible 110 | 1959 “JOE 4" { | | | | i958 =<FIRST RUSSIAN SUPERBOMB alternative world” (c). Both branches originate at January, 1950, the date President Truman announced his decision to go ahead with the superbomb. Thecircles denote nuclear-test explosions; the labels are U.S. code names. Area of each circle is proportional to the region that could be destroyed by that bomb, Bombs of “nominal” size (less than 50 kilotons) have been omitted after 1950. = D = co po EIUCLA U.S. [| 1957 S S 3aD 3 —