FTR#444—Interview with Peter Vogel (The Author of The Last Wave from Port Chicago)—(Two 30-minute segments) (The
subjects of discussion are presented at length in Peter’s on-line book The Last Wave from Port Chicago,
available at www.portchicago.org.)
(Recorded on 2/1/2004.)
Note: FTR#’s
260-316, 317, 324, FTR#325 and succeeding programs are streaming on
Real Audio at www.wfmu.org/daveemory.
FTR#’s 01-270, 316-324 are available for download only, also on
Real Audio, on their Archive
Page.)
Note: Users of this web site are emphatically
encouraged to create a word document out of the program descriptions and do a
“search” on individual subjects in order to more completely reference those
items. Note: Users of this web site (as well as
the two WFMU web addresses noted above) are emphatically
encouraged to use the internet to disseminate as much of the audio and printed material as possible. It is all FREE!
Note: It is
recommended that listeners print the program descriptions for optimum
readability. It is emphatically
encouraged that listeners use the printed files on the Spitfire web site and
the audio files on the WFMU web sites to create their own research/teaching
databases.
Summary of FTR#444—(Note: The massive
volume of “For The Record” programs about 9/11 and related topics is summarized
and analyzed in the periodically-updated description for FTR#391. It is recommended that listeners use this
description and e-mail it to others. Also: The “meat” of the book “Martin
Bormann: Nazi in Exile” has been digested into an extended description for FTR#305. Listeners can now e-mail this
quintessentially important book to people around the world. In addition, the
professional history of the late Paul Manning, the book’s author, is presented
in the description “About Paul Manning.” This
enables listeners to acquaint others with Mr. Manning’s journalistic
credentials. Understanding the Bormann organization is essential to
comprehending the concept of “the Underground Reich.”) Following up information presented in Miscellaneous Archive Show M23 and FTR#’s 129, 163, this broadcast features the landmark
research of Peter Vogel on the Port Chicago explosion of 7/17/1944. One of the
largest man-made disasters in history, the Port Chicago explosion claimed the
lives of 320 sailors, 220 of them African Americans. Subsequently,
African-American sailors refused to continue loading ammunition at Port Chicago
and were convicted of Mutiny. Officially the explosion of conventional
munitions aboard an ammunition ship, the E.A. Bryan, the Port Chicago blast was
actually the test of an early atomic weapon, the autocatalytic uranium hydride
lateral implosion experimental device—named the Mark II. After relating Peter’s
long odyssey exploring the explosion and the official dissembling that
surrounds the event, the program relates the fascinating documentary trail
confirming the nature of the explosion and the chronology of this early,
significant step in the development of the atomic weapons.
Program Highlights Include: Peter’s proof that a sufficient amount of fissionable material for
testing a fission weapon was available in 1944 (despite official pronouncements
to the contrary); the negative reactions of Edward Teller (father of the
H-bomb) and Donald Kerr (director of Los Alamos National Laboratory) to Peter’s
inquiries about Port Chicago; the tremendous interest of the Los Alamos
National Laboratory in this (supposedly conventional) explosion; the background
of Captain William Parsons (the point man for the Los Alamos research on Port
Chicago); the characteristics of the explosion that pinpoint it as being a
nuclear fission blast; correspondence among some of the principals in the
Manhattan Project confirming that the Port Chicago explosion was a test of the
Mark II; indications that the Germans were working on a uranium hydride weapon;
Soviet espionage on the Manhattan Project that indicated awareness of the test
of Mark II; the possible significance of the Port Chicago explosion for the
revocation of Robert Oppenheimer’s security clearance; the significance of the
Port Chicago explosion in the history of African-American civil liberties.
Note: This description is formatted by
presenting the questions that Dave asked Peter Vogel, and then a synoptic
overview of Peter’s response. For more detailed information about the Port
Chicago explosion, see The Last Wave from
Port Chicago, available at: www.portchicago.org.
1.
Dave: “Tell us
about your discovery of a document entitled ‘History of 10,000-Ton Gadget’ at a rummage sale.” Peter: Explains that the information presented in the document he picked up at a
church rummage sale obviously describes the explosion of a nuclear fission
device. The tremendous heat generated by a nuclear blast causes the peculiar
formation of the mushroom cloud, which rises to a great height because of this
heat, then cools and “mushrooms out.” He did not recognize the reference to
Port Chicago, and (after a tip by professional colleagues) found the
description of the explosion of the Liberty Ship E.A. Bryan at the Port Chicago
Naval installation in San Francisco Bay on July 17, 1944. Three hundred and
twenty men died in the explosion (220 of them African-American sailors). When
African-American sailors refused to continue loading munitions, they were
convicted of mutiny in a landmark case for African-American civil liberties in
the United States.
2.
Dave: “You
presented the document to Edward Teller, the father of the H-Bomb. How did he
react? Why do you think he reacted that way?” Peter: After discussing the authors of the
report (Joseph O. Hirschfelder and William G. Penney), Peter relates his
presentation of the document to Edward Teller, the father of the H-bomb. Teller
reacted in a contentious fashion, informing Peter that he had a classified
document and stating that he would deny that he had ever seen the document. (In
Peter’s book, there are photographs of Teller reading the document.)
3.
Dave: “What was
the reaction of then Los Alamos National Laboratory Director Donald M. Kerr,
Jr. when you asked about the paper?” Peter:
Kerr told
Peter that he’d never be able to prove that the explosion was nuclear. Peter
told him he’d try. Kerr has since held important positions with the FBI and
CIA.
4.
Dave: “What were
the characteristics of the Port Chicago explosion that convinced you that it
was a nuclear explosion?” Peter:
After discussing the mushroom cloud
and the distinctive heat convection that forms a mushroom cloud, Peter explains
that the explosion lit the Bay Area as brightly as noon with a brilliant flash
of white light. That distinctive white color (characteristic of a nuclear
explosion) also derives from the extremely high temperatures generated by a
nuclear explosion. In addition, Peter notes that pilots in aircraft flying over
the Bay Area noted what appeared to be a Wilson Condensation Cloud—a large,
ring-shaped cloud produced by the detonation of a nuclear device over water.
(Although it is possible for a Wilson Condensation Cloud to be generated by a
powerful conventional explosion, the very large size of the ring-shaped cloud
around Port Chicago is almost certainly characteristic of a nuclear
detonation.)
5.
Dave:
“Officially, there was not supposed to have been enough fissionable material
available for a 1944 test. Relate to us what your investigation eventually
uncovered.” Peter: Upon penetrating the
official position that there was not enough U-235 available for a test of a
weapon prior to the 1945 Trinity explosion, Peter obtained documentation that,
in fact, enough material was available.
6.
Dave: “You
discovered that there was a tremendous amount of interest in the [supposedly
conventional] Port Chicago explosion on the part of the Los Alamos Laboratory.
Tell us about that, and the background of Captain William Parsons, who wrote
the study. Peter: Peter
relates that there was a tremendous amount of interest in the explosion on the
part of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and that the investigation was
supervised by Captain William Parsons, an expert in the development of Naval
guns. (The Hiroshima explosion involved the use of a modified 5-inch naval gun
barrel, used to achieve critical mass by firing a projectile of U-235 into the
main concentration of the fissionable load.) Parsons was the bombing officer on
board the Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Later,
Parsons supervised the Operations Crossroads tests conducted around Bikini
Atoll.
7.
Dave: “A critic
might raise the issue of residual radiation and what that might determination
that would have for your assertion about the Port Chicago explosion being a
Nuke. How would you address that issue?” Peter:
After
noting that the Port Chicago explosion was relatively low-yield and that the
blast was attenuated by the hull of the E.A. Bryan, Peter notes that the
background radiation level would have returned to normal within a relatively
short time after the explosion. Chapter 16 of the book deals with this issue.
8.
Dave: “Tell us
about the Mark II—What was the full name of this device and how did it differ
from the Marks I and II.” Peter: He notes that the Mark II
carried the lengthy name of “autocatalytic uranium hydride lateral implosion
experimental device.” In addition, Peter notes that the Mark I was the “Gun”
device used on Hiroshima and that the Mark III was the device used on Nagasaki.
The Mark II tested at Port Chicago had a relatively low yield of explosion 2-3
hundred tons. Robert Oppenheimer had projected the development of such a weapon
in 1939.
9.
Dave: “Let’s turn
to some of the key documents you uncovered during your investigation. Tell us
about a 7/4/1944 memorandum written by Harvard University President James
Conant to General Groves.” Peter: This memorandum projects
that the Mark II should be ready for operational use and indicates a provisional
intent to proof-fire the Mark II, obligatory if Mark II were to be vouched
feasible for operational use.
10.
Dave: “Another
document discussed in Chapter 13 of your book concerns a conversation that
occurred just hours before the Port Chicago explosion. Tell us about that
conversation and its significance.” Peter:
Relates the discussion at the University of Chicago in which Conant urges
Oppenheimer to test the Mark II as soon as possible. In this conversation, it
is stated that, if successful, the Mark II could be “put on the shelf” and work
on the more powerful weapons could be accelerated. This conversation
establishes explicit intent to proof fire the Mark II.
11.
Dave: “Yet
another document reproduced in chapter 13 of your book is a ‘Report to General
Groves on Visit to Los Alamos on August 17, 1944.’ This informs the general of
a decision taken at Los Alamos. Tell us about that decision and its
significance.” Peter: This
conversation relates a decision to put the Mark II on the shelf, after which it could be
readied for operational use in 3-4 months’ time. The significance of this decision lies in the fact that it indicates
(in light of the previous documentation) that the Mark II was successfully
test-fired. In addition, there is
discussion of possibly improving the Mark II if the explosive-lens development
goes badly. (These explosive lenses were integral to the development of the
Mark III.)
12.
Dave: “The August
17 memorandum also contained some specific discussion of damage radii. Explain
the “Class B” damage discussion and its significance.” Peter: In this discussion, it is agreed that the B-level
damage radius—damage beyond repair—for Port Chicago is .75 miles. Again, this
information confirms the nature of the Port Chicago explosion—a test of the
Mark II.
13.
Dave: “Tell us
how the Port Chicago test—with 2-3 hundred tons TNT equivalent from the Mark II
plus the conventional ordinance—anticipated the optimal air-burst effectiveness
of the Mark II.” Peter: He
relates that the
combined explosive equivalent of the Mark II and the conventional ordinance
approximated the damage produced by the 1,000 tons equivalent of TNT of an
optimal Mark II air burst.
14.
Dave: “Shortly
after the Port Chicago explosion, the nature of the work at Los Alamos shifted
in a significant way. Explain the change in the nature of the lab’s work.” Peter: Peter relates that the work at Los Alamos shifted
to developing the explosive lens technology that would be used in the Fat-Man
(Nagasaki) weapon. He notes that the development of the explosive lenses also
figured in the projected development of the H-bomb.
15.
Dave: “What was
the S-1 Executive Committee and what did they have to say about German atomic
research?” Peter: This was a group that
preceded the formal establishment of the Manhattan project. It projected that
Germany might have a Uranium hydride weapon available for operational use by
mid-1944. This would have made the
development and testing of the Mark II all the more imperative.
16.
Dave: “In your
book you disclose that Soviet espionage into the American atomic research
program had unearthed information about a uranium hydride weapon. Tell us about
Igor Kurchatov and his speculation about the progress of U.S. research.” Peter: Kurchatov was in charge of reviewing information about atomic espionage
for Soviet espionage chief Lavrenti Beria. He had information in early 1945
that the U.S. appeared to have developed and tested a Uranium hydride weapon.
Peter relates that he hasn’t seen any clue as to the identity of the American
spy who provided the information about the Mark II to the Soviets.
17.
Dave: “In a
purely speculative mode, Peter, do you think the Kurchatov observations and the
Mark II explosion at Port Chicago bear in any way on the issue of Robert
Oppenheimer having his security clearance lifted?” Peter: He speculates that Oppenheimer may have been
bothered by the deaths of 320 sailors and that this may have been a factor in
Oppenheimer’s impeachment during the McCarthy period. Obviously, any public
discussion of Port Chicago might have become a major propaganda football during
the Cold War. Interestingly, Captain Parsons died of a massive heart attack the
day after Oppenheimer lost his security clearance. Peter concludes the
discussion by noting that he has called for a reversal of the convictions of
the Port Chicago “mutineers.” In addition, he notes that there has been some
media interest by major outlets in the U.S. and Britain. It remains to be seen
if they bring the projected coverage of the Port Chicago explosion to fruition.
18.
Be sure to read
Peter’s on-line book The Last Wave from Port Chicago, available at: www.portchicago.org.