The Old Lion Still Roars

"The President's statement bears some analogy with President Roosevelt's interest in Einstein's letter about the atomic bomb. In historic importance, the two are comparable."

That may sound like an extravagant appraisal of President Reagan's proposal to develop a defense against nuclear missiles. But it comes from the only man who had a hand in both those decisions, 44 years apart. As a young refugee from Hungary, Edward Teller was part of the group of physicists who persuaded Albert Einstein to draft his famous 1939 letter advising F.D.R. that a nuclear bomb could be designed. Teller went on to help develop it and, in the 1950s, win universal recognition as the "father of the hydrogen bomb." Now, gray and limping at 75 but booming out sharply worded opinions in a voice as powerful and confident as ever, Teller is one of the advisers who convinced Reagan that a missile-killing system based on laser-and particle-beam technology is feasible.

Teller's influence these days is indirect. A senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, he serves the Government only as a member of the Air Force scientific advisory board. But the highly hawkish views that have made him a suspect figure to many fellow scientists win him respect from the Reagan White House, where he is an honored guest. He was among the 13 scientists who dined at the mansion last week. More to the point, Reagan's science adviser, George Keyworth, 31 years younger than Teller, has long admired the old lion and included him in a group of outside scientists who reviewed antimissile technologies for the President last summer and found them promising. Says Teller about "my President": "He has endorsed high technology as a means by which a more stable world can be created. Such confidence in imaginative approaches . . . is remarkable news."

Reagan did not need to consult Teller personally or even through Keyworth; he could have learned the aged physicist's views by picking up a newspaper or magazine. Teller has been arguing for an antiballistic-missile system since the mid-1960s. He fell silent after the signing of the treaty banning such systems in 1972, a grievous mistake, in his opinion, but has taken up the cudgels again in a spate of articles during the past two years. His opinions, as summarized for TIME Correspondent Dick Thompson last week, dismiss contrary opinion as vigorously as ever.

>On how long it would take to develop a working antimissile system: "Fission was discovered late in 1938, and the first atomic bomb exploded in the summer of 1945. To my mind, our job today is comparable; perhaps more difficult, perhaps more easy. I tend to be an optimist."

> On the necessity for it: "We need to be in a situation where we are not subject to nuclear blackmail, where no matter how other conflicts come out we can at least be safe at home, without allies. I don't believe that the United States can maintain its happy position in the world--I don't even think we can survive--without high technology."

> On the balance of nuclear power: "If we have a defensive advantage, the Soviets can be very sure that this is no real danger to them. They know we are not going to use it; we are not going to start a nuclear war. But if the Soviets should have a defensive advantage, that would be dangerous."

> On the interim period: "We need a good defense, and a good defense of necessity is preceded by a marginal defense and later by a better defense. We will be able to defend ourselves if we stand behind the President." This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.