2. IF THE H-BOMB IS DEEMED TO BE DECISIVE OR FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE A-BOMB, SHOULD INTERNATIONAL CONTROL OF HYDROGEN WEAPONS TAKE PRIORITY OVER CONTROL OF ORDINARY ATOMIC WEAPONS? SHOULD THE UNITED STATES PROPOSE A SEPARATE PLAN EXCLUSIVELY DESIGNED TO REGULATE H-BOMBS? The official United Nations proposals for international control of atomic energy apparently involve the assumption that A-bombs are so unique technically and so menacing as to set them apart from conventional weapons and to justify separate consideration in the United Nations and a separate regulatory system. If the step from A-bombs to H-bombs is considered to be as great as the step from conventional weapons to A-bombs, does it follow that hydrogen warfare should become the subject of a separate control proposal and should receive separate consideration in the United Nations? Are the technical facts of atomic and hydrogen weapons so intimately related that both must be controlled if either is to be controlled? Are the political facts such that the two problems must be regarded inseparably? AUTHOR’S COMMENT Since the H-bomb requires the A-bomb as a trigger, it becomes obvious that the two problems are inseparable. 3. IS THE EXISTING UNITED NATIONS PLAN TECHNICALLY ADEQUATE TO CONTROL H-BOMBS? The United Nations plan has been couched in such a manner that an international agency would possess discretionary authority in defining and controlling materials and processes that may be employed to manufacture nuclear weapons of mass destruction. For instance, the _Second Report_ of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission defines “atomic energy” as including “all forms of energy released in the course of, or as a result of, nuclear fission _or of other nuclear transformation_.” “Source material” is taken to mean “any material containing one or more key substances in such concentration as the international agency may by regulation determine.” “Key substance” is defined to mean “uranium, thorium _and any other element from which nuclear fuel can be produced, as may be determined by the international agency_.” (p. 71). Similarly, the report defines “nuclear fuel” as “plutonium, U-233, U-235, uranium enriched in U-235, material containing the foregoing, _and any other material which the international agency determines to be capable of releasing substantial quantities of atomic energy through nuclear chain reaction of the material_.” (p. 71.) The _report_ likewise observes that: “Dangerous activities or facilities are those which are of _military significance_ in the production of atomic weapons. The word “dangerous” is used in the sense of _potentially dangerous to world security_.” (p. 70). [Italics supplied throughout.] Does such breadth of phraseology mean that manufacturing processes and source materials needed in the production of H-bombs could be properly controlled, through the existing UN plan?