Meditations | Redactions

Archives Week: Day 2, Notes on Technique, and the “Second Fuchs”

by Alex Wellerstein, published December 20th, 2011

It’s Archive Week still, and I’m having a good time in the Legislative Archives, in downtown Washington, DC. I thought I would share an interesting document I came across today, with a few notes about my archive technique, along with an interesting document about the possibility of a “second Fuchs” at Los Alamos, from 1954.

The Legislative Archives are in a relatively old part of the National Archives. Lots of fancy chandeliers and wood panels and blocks of stone. It’s a pretty place to do research. They don’t make research rooms like this anymore:

A surreptitiously snapped photo of the main room. Faces blurred to protect the innocent.

My general archives setup is my laptop, my camera (a relatively unexciting Canon PowerShot SD450 Digital Elph), an extra battery (an absolute must), and the battery charger. I’m a minimalist when it comes to snapping photos of documents — I have a “just good enough” approach to it, which means I’m willing to sacrifice quality for speed. So I don’t use tripods, I don’t use fancy lighting, I don’t use a fancy camera, and I don’t use a scanner. I just snap them quickly and try to keep the lighting uniform. It’s probably not good enough to reprint in a book or article, but it works for research. My whole game plan is getting lots and lots of documents and reading them somewhere other than an archive, so when I’m in the archive, I’m just trying to vacuum up the entire thing into JPGs (which I late run some simple filters on and turn into PDFs). If I ever really need a better quality version of a document, I’ll have to get it when I’m back another time, but that has (so far) been extremely rare (at least in contrast to the volume of documents I process).

My basic technique, as taken with my cell phone camera.

The whole trick is to just make sure that the document more or less fits the frame and is in focus. The lighting just needs to be uniform — it doesn’t need to be bright (in fact, low contrast lighting is best). It’s easy to normalize a uniformly-lit document to reduce the grays and bring out the blacks. What’s hard is if you have lots of variation in the lighting — bright spots, or dark shadows, make normalization tough, and you end up with bad looking photos. You get better at holding your hand “just steady enough for the sensor” with practice.

If I’m really cooking, I can photograph a document every second or two. So when I know I want a whole folder of things, I can really get a lot. I shoot first, ask historiographic questions later.

Read the full post »

Meditations

Archives Week: Day 1, Legislative Archives

by Alex Wellerstein, published December 19th, 2011

This week is an Archives Week! Which means I’ll be spending the whole week in an archive, doing research, with the aim of posting something amusing for you, dear reader, each and every day of the week. This might seem ambitious, but the best part about working on nuclear history is that each and every archival box contains something so surreal it would knock Dali’s socks off. No doubt every giant bureaucracy produces its Kafkaesque moments, but mixing them with the potential to wipe out entire nations makes them into something sublime.

I’m camping out all week in the Legislative Archives, which are housed in the downtown DC National Archives building. Veteran researchers know that the downtown National Archives are not where most of the research records are kept (most were moved, some time back, to the Archives II facility in College Park). But the Legislative Archives are one of the exceptions, so I get to spend the week in the same building that the tourists all go to when they want to see original copies of the Constitution.

I’ll be looking primarily at the records of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE). The JCAE was created in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 to serve as the Congressional oversight committee for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). What this means, in a nutshell, is that the JCAE was a group of Senators and Representatives who spent most of their time being very unhappy with the AEC, with the ability to make life difficult for the AEC. They were immensely powerful, as Congressional committees go, and, because of the national security implications, incredibly secretive. They were also, on the whole, neither scientists, professional bureaucrats, or military men, so they often provided a, shall we say, “unique” take on the major nuclear issues of the day.

The LIFE archive’s caption for this photo is amusingly bad: “The whole entire room listening to David E. Lilienthal (bald man at table on R) testify.” Poor Lilienthal, he never caught a break… this is Lilienthal appearing in front of the JCAE during the “incredible mismanagement” hearings of 1949.

So keep an eye on this spot, and you’re sure to be rewarded with some amusing archival finds, just in time for the holidays!


Incidentally — so today’s post isn’t just a total bore — I tried to come up with some quantitative data on how secret the JCAE really was. (Though the heavy presence of graphs might indeed make it even more of a bore…)

Read the full post »

Visions

Classified Cover Sheets, Then and Now

by Alex Wellerstein, published December 16th, 2011

“Cover sheets” are pieces of paper that you put on top of a folder to indicate its classification status. They presumably exist to allow people with clearances to know, at a glance, what the highest level of classification of documents in a given folder is, without actually opening up the folder. They’re a reasonably simple part of the practice of secrecy: they help you quickly determine how secret something is supposed to be.

Today these are rather standardized. Below is one for SECRET/RESTRICTED DATA that I came across in the National Archives, denoting a variety of different classification statuses. My guess, based on the various form numbers assembled on them, is that this model form dates from the late 1980s, but it might be more recent than that.

These are terribly dull, but very effective. They scream out to you pretty vividly how fearfully they should be regarded, they are pretty unambiguous in their meaning, and they’re on attractive card stock. They tell you both what it is, and what you should be doing (or not doing) to the contents. These things are littered throughout the files of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Let’s look at some earlier models, though.

Read the full post »

Redactions

General Groves and General LeMay “chat” about Hiroshima

by Alex Wellerstein, published December 14th, 2011

Yesterday I had the honor of having a generously long meeting with Hans Kristensen, Steven Aftergood, and Stan Norris, all at the Federation of American Scientists. We had a nice free-wheeling conversation that had a tendency to return back to General Leslie Groves a number of times. Stan is, as most people reading this blog probably know, the author of the authoritative biography of General Groves, Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the Manhattan Project’s Indispensable Man (Steerforth Press, 2002).

One thing that came up a number of times is the fact that Groves spent most of his time on the Manhattan Project not at Los Alamos, not at Oak Ridge, not a Hanford, but in the “New War Building” (now the Old State Department building) on 21st and Virginia, Northwest, Washington, D.C., not too far from where my wife and I regularly walk the dog on the weekends. Groves’ office, which now has a plaque noting its special status, was on the fifth floor.

Historians of science in particular are fond of emphasizing the importance of space in thinking about how ideas are transmitted, how technology is built, how organizations are run. Knowledge doesn’t just instantly transmit from one place to another: it has to be reduced to a transmissible form, it has to be put into systems of transmission, it have its meaning mangled in various ways as it jumps from one human brain to another.

The Manhattan Project had a lot of space. The numerous sites involved in the project were physically quite separated from one another, in an age where rail travel was still the most common form of long-range transportation, and where key Manhattan Project personnel were banned from using airplanes on the grounds that they were too valuable to risk to such a dangerous mode of transportation.

Tinian, the island from which the atomic raids on Japan were launched, was farther still. With a 15 hour time difference from Washington, D.C., on the other side of the International Date Line, it was no trivial thing to get in touch with someone on the tiny air-strip island. So when Groves knew that the Hiroshima bomb was finally scheduled to be used, he fretted about nervously. He had dinner at the Army-Navy Club, with his family, and then informed them that he was going to spend the night at his office, on a cot. Hours later than he had hoped it would be (there had been a delay in getting him the news), he finally heard that the Hiroshima raid had been a success.

This week’s document is of a “special teletype conference” between Major General Leslie Groves and Major General Curtis LeMay, the architect of the (horrific) strategic bombing campaign in the Pacific, and who under whose auspices the atomic bombs were actually being dropped.1

Read the full post »

  1. Teletype conference transcript between Leslie R. Groves and Curtis LeMay (6 August 1945), in Correspondence (“Top Secret”) of the Manhattan Engineer District, 1942-1946, microfilm publication M1109 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1980), Roll 1, Target 6, Folder 5, “Events Preceding and Following the Dropping of the First Atomic Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” Subfile 5H, “Damage Reports.” Note that the “cleaned up” version of the transcript has the date 8 August 1945, but this cannot be correct given the content of the conversation, as someone else has long ago noted on the document. []
Meditations

Edward Teller’s “Moon Shot”

by Alex Wellerstein, published December 12th, 2011

Edward Teller is one of those terribly flawed, terribly interesting, terribly odd characters. I have to admit I probably have more sympathy for him than I ought to. His flaws were just so relatable, so human: he was deeply afraid of the Soviet Union, genuinely enthusiastic about the prospects of technology-based solutions, and, to put it frankly, could be wounded quite seriously by the thoughts and actions of others. When he mis-remembered things, I think he honestly mis-remembered them. When he argued for things, I think he honestly believed them.

Teller was plenty wrong on a number of subjects, but I don’t see him as particularly malicious. I find him far less odious than, say, Lewis L. Strauss, who was, by comparison, vindictive, petty, and—when it suited his purposes—a liar. Teller just wanted to be considered a helpful genius, and instead he is largely regarded as a nuke-kook and a war-monger. I like stories of unintended consequences, so I guess I like Teller’s story quite a bit, and feel for the guy.

Edward Teller working his charm on Representative Chet Holifield, 1957.

Teller wanted to be regarded as a man with many brilliant ideas. Somewhere I read, or heard, the argument that he got this bug from his interactions with Peter Kapitza, who was famous for being an “idea man.” Wherever the source, it does seem like something he pursued self-consciously. Unfortunately the consequence of having many ideas is that many of them are going to be quite bad, and Teller was famously poor at sorting out which ones were worth saving. Herbert York, who worked with Teller quite a bit in the 1950s, put it this way to me:

A lot of people get a bad idea and then sort of are amused by it and drop it. Teller’s bad ideas he kept persisting, for ten, twenty, thirty years, in bad ideas, it’s always bad ideas. And at least in nuclear technology he didn’t have a lot of good ideas. He’s famous for the breakthrough on the hydrogen bomb, but that’s it! It’s hard to name another idea that really mattered. And even that one, it was actually, there were a lot of people throwing things back and forth. And they had been there, and he pulled it out again. He does deserve credit for that.1

York’s exaggerating a bit — the guy had some history with Edward Teller, to say the least — but the sentiment that 95% of Teller’s ideas were bad ones is one you find repeated quite a lot by his colleagues.

All of this is a prelude for discussing what I consider to be one of the more amusing, and less-well-known ideas to have Teller’s name associated with it. I like to call it Teller’s “Moon Shot,” but it’s probably not what you think it is. (Or maybe it is. It depends how much of the Edward Teller mindset you’ve internalized…)

Read the full post »

  1. From an interview I did with York in 2008. Some notes and quotes from the interview are here. []