Anthony's+H-Bomb

The first time a nuclear bomb was successfully exploded, human beings had, for the first time, a weapon that could destroy the planet, not just each other; and being human beings, what would be the first thing we do after successfully building this bomb? Build a better one of course. On October 30, 1949, J. Robert Oppenheimer wrote his report to the General Advisory Committee about the Hydrogen Bomb, or as it is referred to in his report “the super bomb” (the bigger and more explosive brother of the original atomic bomb). He writes that much more theoretical work must be done to make actually happen, there are ideas in place of how it would work. However, he goes on to say that “We all hope that by one means or another, the development of these weapons can be avoided.” His reasoning behind this is as followed, “We base our recommendation on our belief that the extreme dangers to mankind inherent in the proposal wholly outweigh any military advantage that could come from this development. Let it be clearly realized that this is a super weapon; it is in a totally different category from an atomic bomb. The reason for developing such super bombs would be to have the capacity to devastate a vast area with a single bomb. Its use would involve a decision to slaughter a vast number of civilians. We are alarmed as to the possible global effects of the radioactivity generated by the explosion of a few super bombs of conceivable magnitude. If super bombs will work at all, there is no inherent limit in the destructive power that may be attained with them. Therefore, a super bomb might become a weapon of genocide.” Before it is even detonated, it is realized that this weapon could destroy a small portion of the Earth completely. In response to this, a rational man would believe that this is something that should just be left alone. It simply is too big of a bomb. The only purpose would to be to kill a large number of people, not destroy a military installation, hence the use of the word genocide. The response given by the President of the United States on building this bomb was “It is part of my responsibility as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to see to it that our country is able to defend itself against any possible aggressor. Accordingly, I have directed the Atomic Energy Commission to continue work on all forms of atomic weapons, including the so-called hydrogen or super bomb. Like all other work in the field of atomic weapons, it is being and will be carried forward on a basis consistent with the over all objectives of our program for peace and security.” Wait, what? The President believed that this bomb was necessary for our national security. Now this was written in 1950, just as the Cold War was coming into full swing, and there was a lot of fear that the Soviets would build something similar and use it against America. However, the man who oversaw the building of the first atomic bomb, Oppenheimer himself, even said in a way that this was just too much. The amazing thing here is the logic behind all of this. The original atomic bomb was already able to destroy a vast amount of land, and kill thousands upon thousands of people, and that power was proven in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, the government and military is after an even bigger bomb, a bomb whose explosive capacities were limited only by the amount of deuterium in it, and how much weight the transport vessel could carry. In other words, the bomb could get almost as big as someone wanted it. Was this really necessary? Do we really need one bomb that could destroy an entire country, or an entire continent, or the entire planet? It seems to be a little over the top, but the reasoning must have been if we can blow up Earth in five bombs, why not find a way to do it in one. Now I understand that there was a fear of Soviet Russia, and their atomic abilities, but at what point do you draw the line?