Plea for end to nuclear secrets

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33045, 12 October 1972, Page 17

Plea for end to nuclear secrets

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter—Copyrights LONDON, October 11. A United States nuclear physicist, Dr Edward Teller, the socalled “father of the Hbomb” made an impassioned plea today for the opening up of all secrets between the United States and the Soviet Union.

But at the same time he took a swipe at the defence policy of the Presidential candidate, Senator George McGovern, who said he was “arguing for the loss of our comfort, our safety and our freedom.”

The Hungarian-born scientist, in Britain on a lecture visit, said at a news conference that he thought the United States should open the next Strategic Arms Limitation (S.A.L.T.) Talks with the Soviet Union by declaring: “We will unilaterally open up all our secrets to you Russians and the world. Without openness no agreement is possible, no treaty can be checked. We are not going to have any secrets. “As long as you keep any, there is no point in talking. As soon as you open up, we shall be delighted to continue the conversation.” Dr Teller, aged 64, admitted that in one sense this was “a dirty trick” because at least in the nuclear field, he believed the Russians were ahead of the United States. He was asked to comment on Senator McGovern’s attack on President Nixon’s pledge to develop new weapons in areas not covered by the recent S.A.L.T. agree-

ment. The Democratic challenger called this “madness” saying Russia would match the United States dollar for dollar and missile for missile. Dr Teller said: “It is much better to develop something that the Russians match, than not to develop something and not match what the Russians are developing anyway.”

He said that there was something of an anti-tech-nology wave in the West, but not in the Soviet Union. “They are forging ahead.” “If we persist in wanting to be backward, we shall be backward, which will result in the loss of our comfort, in the- loss of our safety, and in the loss of our freedom. “It appears to me that Mr McGovern is arguing for the loss of comfort, our safety and our freedom, although I also feel that he does not know what he is doing.”