Published October 1979 — Download PDF of the original newspaper column
Byrd's-Eye View By U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd A Responsible Press Over the last several months, the U.S. government has been trying to block publication of articles and letters describing in detail the making of a hydrogen bomb. The government recently abandoned its efforts after a small Wisconsin newspaper printed an 18-page letter outlining the fabrication of an H-bomb. Similar articles have since been published. Scientists are now debating the degree of danger to our nation's security posed by publication of the H-bomb articles. The general principles of the atomic bomb have been declassified for years. But, the specific engineering solutions to the complex problems involved in the hydrogen bomb are a legitimate security secret-for good reason. The explosive force of H-bombs ranges from one megaton (equivalent to one million tons of TNT) to 60 megatons. Many scientists emphasize that to produce a hydrogen bomb, a nation would need a large trained cadre of technologists, and a lot of money, about $1 billion to build power plants and factories to process uranium and other elements. Some scientists think that countries such as India, Israel, and South Africa may have the means to produce an H-bomb, and could make good use of the details in the published articles. The H-bomb controversy raises fundamental questions on the need to balance the constitutional right of individuals to publish and read what they want, and the right of the public to be protected from danger. Two serious problems have also surfaced. One is the fact that the security procedures governing access to highly sensitive technologies are not sufficiently stringent. It is disturbing that the key facts in the H-bomb articles were apparently culled from unclassified documents that are widely available. Americans have a right to demand that technical details of potent nuclear weapons not be divulged, whether in government reports later made available to the public, or through scientists' interviews with the press. We also have the right to expect the press to act responsibly with regard to our national safety. The difference between freedom and license is responsibility, the responsible exercise of freedom is essential to the maintenance of a free society and a free press. For the press to claim First Amendment rights while playing fast and loose with our national security is the equivalent of claiming a constitutional right to falsely yell '"Fire!" in a crowded theater. October 3, 1979