...AND MORE INNUENDO

But Mr Daly is the epitome of truthfulness compared to one William Lanouette, who advertises his book in a letter to the Wall St. J. (2/6/89) by smearing Dr Edward Teller. In July 1945, Physicist L. Szilard, then working for the Manhattan Project in Chicago, sent Teller a petition signed by many of his colleagues to demonstrate the A-bomb to Japan, rather than use it for an imme-diate attack. Teller, claims this poison pen, took the letter to direc-tor Oppenheimer "thus ensuring that the petition would not be circulated at the [Los Alamos] lab . . . All this Mr. Teller docu-ments in his latest book, Better a Shield Than a Sword." The second of the two lies is the more damnable, since it relies on few of the WSJ's one million plus readers getting the book and looking up what it really says.

On Feb. 8, I had the great privilege of talking to Dr Teller about the point (he will write his own letter to the WSJ). When Teller received the petition, he felt inclined to sign it, but did not think he could circulate it without the lab director's permission, and that was the reason why he took it to Oppenheimer. Moreover, he ex-pected him not only to agree, but to join in signing it. Instead, Oppenheimer explained to him why scientists should not use their prestige to meddle in political matters, why politicians in Washington were much better qualified to judge the Japanese mentality and reaction, etc., and forbade the petition to be cir-culated.

Teller acquiesced, but later found out that Oppenheimer had only just used his considerable influence and skill for vigorous political advocacy in favor of immediate bombing.

That much is confirmed in the book, which Mr Poison Pen quotes as evidence. In addition, Dr Teller told me (I quote from notes made in an untaped telephone conversation):

"There were two lessons for me in that episode. First, I vowed never to shut up again, and I think nobody will accuse me of not having kept my word in that respect. And second, this was the first time when I completely lost confidence in Oppenheimer."

What offended him was not his unexpected attitude, but his duplicity. "I still remember him as an excellent physicist, experienced in politics, and a capable director. I would not have minded his opinion. He could have told me many things to justify it, and I would have accepted that. But I found it despicable that he gave advice without living by it himself."