He felt such a question was hardly a proper subject for a GAC recommenda~ .
tion. Dr, Buckley shared this view.
Dr. Rabi expressed grave doubts
that the Committee should make a recommendation | on the subject without
far more study, especially in viewof the imminence of Castle.
‘Dr. yonBo
Neumann agreed that it would be better to withhold a recommendationuntdl:
after Castle. |
.
,
|
.
The Committee agreed that a discussion of largerthermonuclear
Agenda,
weapons should be an item on the agenda for the next mecting.
Mecting
B, item 1)
|
|
7
(Appendix
-
|
‘The Comittee did not have an opportunity at this meeting to study
Small
the paper onsmall weapons (VGHuston-to-TIRabi, memorandum of October 2nd,
Neepons
with five attachnents) . With regard to this. subject, Dr. Wigner urged
that more attention should be given to defense measures, and that the .
“use of small atomic ‘bombs as; antiaircraft weapons should be thoroughly
considered,
This feeling 1
was shared by several nembers of the Coumittes.
The fact that Los Alamos and Livermore are pursuing the small weapons
question Was
¥
viewedadhfavor,
-
:
It was brought uP.agein |that great edvantages, 1particularly dn sual
a
weapons but actually in all sizeranges,wouldaccrue> from Smprovenents | |
ments in
o
‘
aa
sia
Chemical in chemical high explosives, il
hy
3
Sai
eeTe
“Neumannaagain referredto
improvement. in HE performance might be achieved, | The asual severe5 reds
ments on stability and surveillance behavior might be relaxed somewhat