Talk:Oppenheimer security clearance hearing

Communist sympathies??

Oppenheimer had sympathies with many left-liberal causes that were also being pushed by Communists in the 1930's (like old-age pensions and universal health insurance), but this is not to say he was in any sense a Communist. Indeed he reported that he'd read Marx's Capital, thought it made no sense, and decided the whole thing was nonsense. His brother Frank, however, was a Communist.

Remember, that back in the 1930's, civil rights was a Communist Plot, as was government-tax-supported health care for retirees. Nowadays in the US, as any Republican retiree will tell you, government-run health care is only a Communist plot when it involves younger people. ;) That's kind of the situation Oppenheimer was in. SBHarris 00:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The hearings were not about his opinions on old-age pensions. Oppenheimer had many Communist ties and sympathies. There is a lot of evidence that he was a member of the Communist Party, and held Party meetings in his house. Roger (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

None of his latest biographers (Pais, Thorpe, and my favorite, Bird) agree with you. So where are you getting this information? The main guy who testified about Oppenheimer's communist membership at the trial was not in the least believable given his other history, and at one point specifically put a communist meeting in Oppenheimer's house at a particular date, when he and his wife were demonstrably in New Mexico (as proven by a road accident). Nor has there been any new evidence after the opening up the former Soviet Union, as we have gotten with (say) the Rosenbergs. Basically, it's a bust. Worst still, it's the shearest hypocrisy to talk about Oppenheimer's contacts with Communists in the 1930's, long before the US became Stalin's bosom ally and began shipping him massive amounts of weapons. Then, decided he was an enemy again, and now it's fair to dig up 15 year-old associations and look at them in retrospect, with "modern" 1953-4 eyes. Shouldn't we have done that for all the weapons we had sent to Stalin since that time? Are government consultants supposed to waffle on their personal political beliefs according to what's officially fashionable, in any given year? That's a serious question.

As to your second point, in fact, the hearing very quickly degenerated into matters far beyond Oppenheimer's connections with the Commies in the 1930's, and his refusal to rat out his friend in 1943. For example, the prosecution allowed Teller to testify that he thought Oppenheimer's loyalty was not the problem, so much as his judgement about development of the H-bomb. But that's not a security issue, it's technical issue. So what's it doing in a security hearing? If you want your consultants to give you the answers you want about development of new weapons systems, you should pick your consultants from among military contractors! There are always plenty of them. And if you don't like the answers you're getting from a given consultant about the development of some superweapon that hasn't been demonstrated (some Starwars system, in todays' terms) you need to talk to many physicists, not just some guy who's the major grant-winner for the weapons system from the Air Force. (Take a look at the MIRACL laser: This problem hasn't gone away, you know, but we don't remove the security clearances of nay-sayers)

It didn't help that Truman had announced a push for the H-bomb in early 1950 (rather like Reagan and Starwars, again). But just because the president says it should be done, ala JFK, doesn't mean it can be done (think of Bush deciding to go to Mars on an Earth-orbit budget). Presidents can be fools and it's the job of their advisors to tell them when their great dreams can't be realized for the money they have to spend. From what we know of the history of the H-bomb (read Rhodes' Dark Sun), Oppenheimer opposed H-bomb development when given designs that would not have worked (and actually didn't work-- the "alarm clock/layer cake"), but changed his mind when presented with a design that had a chance to work (Teller-Ulam implosion). That's what you pay consultants for, not to be true-believers like Teller, who push for something maniacally, whether it has a chance or not.

If you know anything about Oppenheimer and Teller's relationship in the Manhattan project, you can see that Oppenheimer's worst piece of judgement was not firing Teller for insubordination in 1944, and sending him packing to any university that would have him. Teller would NOT help with the atomic bomb, which he considered boring. He was only interested in the hydrogen bomb. And Oppenheimer, when faced with this primadona that he didn't have to put up with (nobody should have to put up with such a man on a desperately short and time intensive project like Manhattan) actually paid Teller to work on the H-bomb, and allowed him a precious bit of his Manhattan director's time, each week! Incredible. And his thanks for this kindness to Teller, who was a narcissist of the first water, was to have Teller accuse him of unpatriotically bad judgement!

You couldn't make this kind of thing up-- they'd say you had made bad, unbelievable fiction, ala Ayn Rand. But it really happened just this way. I would suggest reading The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller, and the Superbomb which is a bit dated, but tells a lot of this tale. Also Rhodes' first book. SBHarris 04:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

evidence ? you mean wiretaps? Doubtful - you cite statements by biased persons! Juror1 (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

JRO was all in favor of bombs as long as the USSR was an ally, and against them when the USSR was an enemy. Yes, that was very suspicious. Some of his many Communist ties are detailed over at J. Robert Oppenheimer. Explain this Teller stuff all you want, but the hearings were about JRO Communist ties, of which there were dozens. Roger (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read the section? At a number of points it says JRO was not a party member, but a "fellow traveler". Since this is the late 1930's, so what?

As to the other, you have your facts wrong. JRO switched from opposing the H-bomb in 1949 (the year the Soviets demonstrated their own atomic weapon, but before it had happened), to supporting it in 1951 (after the president had announced developement in 1950, a workable design had been put forward in 1951, and when it was clear that the Soviets would develop their own H-bomb soon). And the Soviets were even farther from being allies in 1951-- you will remember that they'd stomped out of the U.N. security council when the Korean war started in 1950, thus allowing the U.N. police action to take place against the coummunist-supported North Korea, over the USSR's stated oppostion. So your facts are not only wrong, but completely bass-ackwards. JRO opposed the bomb when the Soviets were toothless former allies, but supported it once the Soviets became a nuclear power in open support of Communist aggression in Korea.

I quote from the JRO article, which sums it up: "Oppenheimer's critics have accused him of equivocating between 1949, when he opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb, and 1951, when he supported it. Some have made this a case for reinforcing their opinions about his moral inconsistency. Historian Priscilla McMillan has argued,[50] however, that if Oppenheimer has been accused of being morally inconsistent, then so should Rabi and Fermi, who had also opposed the program in 1949. Most of the GAC members were against a crash hydrogen bomb development program then, and in fact, Conant, Fermi and Rabi had submitted even more strongly worded reports against it than Oppenheimer. McMillan's argument is that because the hydrogen bomb appeared to be well within reach in 1951, everybody had to assume that the Russians could also do it, and that was the main reason why they changed their stance in favor of developing it. Thus this change in opinion should not be viewed as a change in morality, but a change in opinions purely based on technical possibilities." This is what JRO himself said. SBHarris 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about whether JRO deserved to lose his clearance. I just want the article to be historically accurate. JRO was a commie fellow traveler who lied about his commie connections, and people like that always lost their clearances, as far as I know. I think that it is very misleading to make a big deal out of Teller and these other side issues, when JRO was going to lose his clearance anyway if he were subjected to the same standards as everyone else. Roger (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

if he wanted to lie about commie (such juvenile use of the slang)connections he would not even have brought up fact that someone had tried to get info from him via his freind, all he did was try to hide his 1st degree contact but still tell Security that a probe had been made, and while you write nonsense I have subject matter expertise, you do not. Juror1 (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that the prosecution didn't introduce any new information about Communist connections past 1943, which was the time the government ought to have decided whether to give JRO "clearance" or not. They knew all this stuff-- it was old hat. They made him the head of the atom bomb program. Yes, they tried to somehow tie it in with JRO's actions WRT the H-bomb later, but as noted, a lot of not at all Commie people like Conant, Fermi and Rabi felt the same way about that program, so it's a difficult argument to make. JRO's opposition had very good other reasons, just as his fellow scientists' had, but nobody gave him the benefit of the doubt. Considering his service record to his country, a science and technical and political balance act that probably nobody else could have done, I think he merited the benefit of the doubt, to say the least.

If your last point is that there was due process because McCarthyism was unfair and JRO got treated no more unfairly than anybody else in the country, it's not valid. A lot of unfair institutions from the witchhunts to the inquisition to slavery have affected many people over the ages. Their victims are still worth studying. JRO as much as (say) Galileo. SBHarris 02:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to argue USA security policy. I think that your opinions are quite extreme, and I am just arguing for a balanced article. Roger (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP is not here for "balance" if you mean we should have the same amount of space arguing that Stalin was a nice guy, as that he was not a nice guy. WP:NPOV means that views are to be presented in rough proportion to their number of supporters, scholarship, and quality/reputation. If you examine the many scholarly sources on this trial, you will find that the vast preponderance of views of people who have published on this, think JRO got a very bad shake, even by the standards of the time (as, BTW, did almost all JRO's collegues from all parts of the political spectrum; Teller was ostricized. In fact, politically Lewis Strauss also paid dearly and never held public office again). This article should thus present that as the majority view, since it IS the majority view. MY view doesn't count and (in the nicest possible way) neither does yours. But if you read up on this subject, you'll find that the scholars agree with me. My opinion here is not "extreme" but is the majority view by far. You're welcome to introduce sources that support YOUR view. Good luck. SBHarris 00:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The article says that there is "substantial evidence" that he was in the CPUSA. I think that this needs to be directly supported by an inline footnote. I don't have access to the book cited that evidently is the source, but the Google Books excerpts don't show this. In various other ways this article has been a bit slanted against JRO, and I have tried to fix. Figureofnine (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some references to the many pieces of evidence should be included. But you just removed one piece of evidence from the JRO article yourself! If you want to see the evidence, then please stop removing it. [1] Roger (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're referring to the Crouch testimony, which I removed because it was identical, word for word, to what is in this article. It remains here. Are you saying that sentence on "substantial evidence" is sourced to Crouch? Figureofnine (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No. There are many pieces of evidence for JRO's Communist sympathies. His friends, his relatives, the meetings at his house, the essays he wrote, his politics, etc. There are even those who say that there is evidence that JRO was a Communist spy. Here is a book that discusses his commie ties. [2] Roger (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Attribution added. Figureofnine (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Communist or a "Commie"?

Apart from the latter-day Dr Strange Loves or hard-right cheerleaders, how many people now use the term "commie"? Almost as if the Cold War never ended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.153.97 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Since the US government nullified the AEC decision in 2022, is the introduction of the article really neutral? I think it has become pretty clear that the hearings were in fact an expression of McCarthyism and not a neutral hearing with regards to national security. I would argue it gives a false false balance in the beginning, leaving open the option that it was in fact a fair hearing. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I've made it clearer at the ending of the lead section that the fairness of the proceeding has been contested for years. That does need to be there. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Nation Hero or "Cry Baby"?

"Time magazine literary critic Richard Lacayo, in a 2005 review of two new books about Oppenheimer, said of the hearing: "As an effort to prove that he had been a party member, much less one involved in espionage, the inquest was a failure. Its real purpose was larger, however: to punish the most prominent American critic of the U.S. move from atomic weapons to the much more lethal hydrogen bomb." After the hearing, Lacayo said, "Oppenheimer would never again feel comfortable as a public advocate for a sane nuclear policy."

So, despite the seemingly endless debate, is not the defence of the US atomic policy a major reason for for such Character Assassination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.153.97 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Docs on Commons

Hi, FYI I created a category on Commons and uploaded all public domain documents I could find, including the whole transcript of the hearings. Yann (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Title

Is there any sentiment to reconsidering the title of the article, perhaps to Oppenheimer security clearance hearing? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Since there is no opposition since I posted this three weeks ago, it does not appear to be controversial and I will change it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)