Mr, Libby said he agreed,
Mr. Strauss observed that even if no statement were issued the
actually say that the
“clean bomb’ principle had besn
iM,
Libty observed that,
in general,
if inferences
such as General
it was necessery to say something on the subject,
~6-
rediclogical weapons or that it would lead to pressures for stockpiling
that it would confirm for the U.5.5.R. the possibility of constructing
M:. Litty said that if the proposed statement were meade, it was conceivable
xymed Services Committee,
Gavin's May 23 statement bsfore the Air Force Subcommittee of the Senate
Mr, Vance said thet in view cf a series of events,
about such principles seemed logical they were generally accepted.
covered the principle.
discovered and that AEC would not be obliged to ecnfirm that it had dis-
statement did not
Mr. Strauss peinted cut thet Mr. Vance's
weavons which had indicated thet a fission-fsion-fissicon
reaction principle hed ceen used.
high yieid
statement on the effect of
Ee cbserved that the situation was
omewhat analogous to ARC's February 15, 1955,
svatement on the subject were issued.
principle if a
ir. Libby said he believed that the
Commission would te cbhliged to declassify tke ‘clean bomt'
such questions at a press conference.
the Commission tran to place the Fresident in the position of responding to
out that it would be more desirable to have a considered statement issued by
Mr. Vance pointed
weauons with reduced radioactive fallout since the President had stated
that this is one of the cbhjectives of Operation REDWING.
arg
President would later be asked whether the U. S. had made progress in develop-
tion in it.
statement, that it would be better not to disclose important weapons informa-
but he believed since the Secretary of State felt it urgent to make some
were no indication that falleut could be reducec.