 |
 |
 |
|
Conversations: 1951
January 5, 1951 MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILE SUBJECT: Conversation with Dr. I.I. Rabi Dr. Rabi telephoned me on his own initiative from the General Advisory Committee (GAC -- to the Atomic Energy Commission, AEC) meeting to say that he had just returned from his trip to Europe and was greatly disturbed by the lack of inclination to fight which he observed over there and wanted to reiterate the importance and urgency of naming a Scientific Adviser to the President. He came over to see me late in the afternoon. And saw me again briefly at the Statler after dinner. He thinks the United States must, as first priority, concentrate on defensive scientific developments as well as production such as radar, communications, anti-aircraft, antisubmarine etc. Thereafter we should get to new offensive developments. He thinks we cannot count on the Europeans. They have no will to fight. They fear war. He spent a week or two in Sweden and Denmark (with Bohr principally) and two weeks in Paris. He did not go to Germany. He says that the Europeans are very fearful of the Russians but are fearful of the United States also, though to a lesser degree. The latter he says is because they are afraid that "the U.S. will get them into war." He said that the sophisticated individuals in France talk anti-U.S.A. on the theory that this is the safer course for, they reason, in the event of war the U. S. will be easy going with them if they win whereas if the Russians conquer western Europe their only hope is to be known as anti-American by prior record. As indicated the purpose of his call was to urge the creation of a Scientific Adviser to the President. I told him of the National Science Foundation -- Conant development of which I had learned this morning and he told me more about it when he came over to my office. He had spoken with Conant, DuBridge and Oppenheimer, all at the General Advisory meeting. He said that Conant's presentation to Staats the night before reflected the view of the National Science Foundation but, he commented, the members of that Board are mostly not scientists. DuBridge he said is still strong for a Scientific Adviser to the President and was just talked down at the National Science Foundation meeting. Oppenheimer is for a Scientific Adviser to the President but shows no great enthusiasm. Rabi greatly respects DuBridge (he worked under him at the Radiation Lab of OSRD) and strongly recommends him for Scientific Adviser, as he had at our previous meeting. Between our late afternoon and our after dinner conversation Dr. Rabi had dinner with DuBridge, Buckley and others of the General Advisory Committee and he told me afterward that he thinks DuBridge would take the Scientific Adviser to the President job if the President asked him to do so and if he were not required spend absolutely full time on it. He thinks very highly of Killian not so of Conant. He thinks highly of Kelly but not for Scientific Adviser to the President. He greatly admires Oppenheimer but not for Scientific Adviser to the President. The story seems to be that the National Science Foundation Board prepared its slate of more than 8 names for Director which Conant will present to the President on Friday, January 5. Waterman was eighth or so. Hafsted was way down -- or maybe not on the list at all.[1] Bronk was number one. But Bronk said he would take the job only if the military stuff were included (apparently based on the permissive military paragraph in the Act[2]). This seems to be the reason for opposition to an independent Scientific Adviser to the President by the National Science Foundation, but this should become clear when I meet with Conant, Staats and Stauffacher on the morning of Friday, January 5. William T. Golden Spoke of GAC. Used to be more effective. The GAC recommended to AEC slate of 3 replacements for last 3 vacancies -- including Bacher. But none of their recommendees was appointed. ____________________________
|
|
|
|
