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