31.12.2012 Views

The Genius of Louis Pasteur

The Genius of Louis Pasteur

The Genius of Louis Pasteur

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Beam Technology Report<br />

Teller Confirms X-ray Laser Breakthrough<br />

by Charles B. Stevens<br />

U.S. experiments have shown that<br />

the nuclear-explosive-powered X-ray<br />

laser can be designed to send a beam<br />

1,000 miles with a spread <strong>of</strong> no more<br />

than 5 feet, Dr. Edward Teller told the<br />

Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee<br />

May 9. Teller's formal testimony,<br />

as well as his remarks in the<br />

question and answer period, shot<br />

down the various myths circulated by<br />

the Soviets and the anti-beam-defense<br />

lobby that the X-ray laser won't work.<br />

This degree <strong>of</strong> focusing, which is<br />

thousands <strong>of</strong> times better than what<br />

SDI critics have claimed to be physically<br />

possible, means that a single Xray<br />

laser device could destroy upwards<br />

<strong>of</strong> tens <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> nuclear warheads<br />

and missiles at any stage <strong>of</strong> their<br />

trajectory. This stunning level <strong>of</strong> firepower<br />

would completely undermine<br />

the military credibility <strong>of</strong> any massive,<br />

salvo-type, surprise first strike. In fact,<br />

whichever nation struck the first blow<br />

in a nuclear war could find itself in the<br />

embarrassing position <strong>of</strong> being "disarmed"<br />

by the X-ray laser, while the<br />

victim nation maintains its full range <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>of</strong>fensive firepower; in other words,<br />

the opposite result <strong>of</strong> what the firststrike<br />

nation intended.<br />

Specifically, if one X-ray laser device—popped-up<br />

into space above the<br />

Arctic ice by a submarine at any time<br />

during the 20 minutes it takes ICBM<br />

warheads to travel from the Soviet<br />

Union to North America—could destroy<br />

10 times the existing Soviet warhead<br />

inventory, then hundreds or<br />

thousands <strong>of</strong> such defensive systems<br />

could readily defend against any conceivable<br />

surprise first strike.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Soviets are not only working on<br />

this X-ray laser concept, but they are<br />

ahead <strong>of</strong> the United States. Teller confirmed<br />

the March 25 report to Congress<br />

<strong>of</strong> Strategic Defense Initiative director<br />

Lt. General James Abrahamson<br />

that the Soviets are two to five years<br />

ahead in X-ray laser development.<br />

Doing the 'Physically Impossible'<br />

Almost a year ago, in a front-page<br />

New York Times article, William Broad<br />

Stuart K. Lawis<br />

Edward Teller: <strong>The</strong> principle for the Xray<br />

laser "is established," he told the<br />

Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,<br />

May 9.<br />

reported that scientists at Lawrence<br />

Livermore National Laboratory had<br />

demonstrated focusing <strong>of</strong> X-ray laser<br />

beams in an underground nuclear test<br />

on March 23,1985. <strong>The</strong> test disproved<br />

the public contention by Soviet scientists<br />

and U.S. SDI critics that it was<br />

physically impossible to develop X-ray<br />

laser optics for beam focusing, as was<br />

baldly asserted in the 1984 Congressional<br />

Office <strong>of</strong> Technology Assessment<br />

report on SDI. This OTA report<br />

was chiefly authored by Ashton Carter<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Massachusetts Institute <strong>of</strong> Technology,<br />

and later endorsed by such<br />

leading scientists as Dr. Charles<br />

Townes <strong>of</strong> Stanford University. However,<br />

the report was sharply criticized<br />

as inaccurate by the national laboratories.<br />

In fall 1985 and then later in the winter,<br />

various publications, led by coverage<br />

in the Los Angeles Times and Science<br />

magazine, claimed that Lawrence<br />

Livermore scientists had misrepresented<br />

their X-ray laser tests. Based on<br />

leaks <strong>of</strong> classified reports, these publications<br />

maintained a campaign <strong>of</strong> calumny<br />

and slander against the Livermore<br />

tests and against SDI advocates<br />

like Drs. Edward Teller and Lowell<br />

Wood.<br />

More recently, Nobel Laureate Hans<br />

Bethe <strong>of</strong> Cornell University reportedly<br />

has been passing on disparaging reports<br />

on the top secret Livermore results.<br />

In particular, Bethe has been<br />

quoted as stating that the Livermore<br />

experimental diagnostic measurements<br />

are not capable <strong>of</strong> distinguishing<br />

between a laser beam output and<br />

simple "superfluorescence." Sources<br />

report, however, that Bethe did not<br />

raise his questions about "superfluorescence"<br />

during any <strong>of</strong> the classified<br />

reviews <strong>of</strong> the program.<br />

Teller Sets Record Straight<br />

Since this original controversy, a<br />

further X-ray laser test was reported to<br />

have been carried out at the beginning<br />

<strong>of</strong> 1986. Teller's May 9 testimony, stating<br />

that the principle "is established"<br />

and giving a detailed projection <strong>of</strong><br />

"beam divergence," was the first <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />

statement since that test. It is a direct<br />

refutation <strong>of</strong> the reported statements<br />

<strong>of</strong> Bethe as well as the articles<br />

in the Los Angeles Times and Science<br />

magazine.<br />

In June, the U.S. General Accounting<br />

Office issued a review <strong>of</strong> the X-ray<br />

laser experiments that criticized the<br />

press campaign against the program.<br />

<strong>The</strong> report was requested by anti-SDI<br />

congressmen Edward Markey (D-<br />

Mass.) and Bill Green (D-N.Y.). "In our<br />

opinion, there was no 'design flaw' in<br />

the diagnostic instrumentation as<br />

mentioned in the Los Angeles Times<br />

article," the transmittal letter <strong>of</strong> the<br />

GAO report states. <strong>The</strong> GAO report<br />

also noted that the program "was not<br />

being arbitrarily accelerated."<br />

Teller testified to Congress not only<br />

that has the U.S. program been quite<br />

successful, but that the Soviets are<br />

probably two to five years ahead in development<br />

<strong>of</strong> an X-ray laser system.<br />

Teller said it is natural that the Soviets<br />

have shown no interest in President<br />

Reagan's proposal to share SDI technology<br />

with them in the future, because<br />

they are ahead <strong>of</strong> us in strategic<br />

Beam Technology Report FUSION September-October 1986 45

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!