Nuclear Navy 1946-1962

This book by Hewlett and Duncan was written with the full cooperation of Naval Reactors and Rickover to tell the story of the programs first 15 years. A full transcript of the book is available as a link (courtesy of the DOE)

Book Forward

This book had its origins in a series of discussions with Admiral Hyman G. Rickover beginning in the spring of 1962. Having read The New World, the first volume in the Atomic Energy Commission's historical series, Admiral Rickover urged the authors to undertake a history of the naval nuclear propulsion program. Such a study, he believed, would reveal for the first time the truly significant aspects of the development of nuclear technology in the United States, a subject which, in his view, the New World had merely skirted. Although the authors of The New World found Admiral Rickover's suggestion an exciting possibility, work had already started on the second volume in the series and it was not feasible to take on another book. However, discussions with the admiral continued over the next six years with growing interest on both sides.

By 1968 the authors of the present book were completing Atomic Shield, the second volume in the Commission's historical series. Our research had reinforced our earlier impression that the Navy project deserved careful study. More than ever we were intrigued by the suggestion that Admiral Rickover and his group might have devised some especially effective approach to reactor development which others had not found. If Rickover had such a "magic formula," would it not be sensible to find out what it was so that others could use it?

The chance to write history that might have practical as well as intellectual value was certainly attractive, but we could foresee problems. The first was the obvious difficulty of defining Rickover's "formula." The challenge of trying to elucidate something Rickover and his own staff were unable to define was reason enough to hesitate. Even more serious in our view was the stress on administrative methods and engineering practices which such a study would seem to require. We were not specialists in public administration, management, or engineering. We could bring to the project only our talents and experience as historians. Rickover himself discounted this objection with the observation that the task required generalists rather than specialists. In his opinion the only person better qualified for the job would be a sociologist with exceptionally broad intellectual interests and experience.

These reservations still troubled us, but we were now fascinated with the idea of writing the history of the naval nuclear propulsion program. Finally, in October 1968, we agreed to write the book if: (1) we had complete and unrestricted access to all the records of the project and to all persons who had participated in it; (2) we would be free to determine the scope, content, and approach of the book; and (3) review of the manuscript would be limited to matters of security classification and factual accuracy. Admiral Rickover accepted these terms and added only one of his own: that we would not use our access to the project for any purpose other than writing this book.

Admiral Rickover and his staff have honored his agreement both in letter and in spirit. The admiral ordered his staff and the principal contractors to open all their files related to the nuclear propulsion project, to answer all our questions, to show us anything we wanted to see, to make available any personnel we wanted to interview. The result was a freedom of access, an openness, a degree of cooperation which historians seldom enjoy and cannot usually expect. This open access and freedom gave us the opportunity to check personal recollections against the record, to compare conflicting opinions, and to get beyond the legends and myths which had grown around the project. There we found an underlying consistency which gave us confidence that we were approaching the truth. Any failure to reach that goal must be attributed to our own limitations as historians and not to our sources.

The writing of this book thus became a challenging intellectual experience in which we found with increasing confidence that we could probe the thoughts and opinions of the principal protagonist in our study without fear of compromising our integrity. The entire manuscript was completed before the admiral or any member of his staff saw it. Then, true to his promise, the review was confined to points of factual accuracy. We evaluated each comment on its merits and accepted or rejected it accordingly.

The final version, as it appears in this book, represents the authors' opinions and conclusions alone. Before beginning our research, we reached a firm decision that, for better or worse, our product would be a historical analysis. That is, we would not attempt to use the analytical methods of the political scientist or sociologist, disciplines in which we have little competence. Rather, we proposed to use as best we could our abilities as historians to study the development of the Navy project as a historical process. We would attempt to place events in the larger historical context of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Navy, the Department of Defense, other parts of the executive branch, and the Congress. Because we did intend to write history in the sense of presenting a reasonably complete and well-rounded account of selected events and topics, we knew that we would have to terminate our study far short of the present. We decided that we would use the earliest possible cut-off date that would permit us to describe the Navy project in its fully evolved, if not final, form. As a result of these decisions, the opening chapters of this book take the form of a historical narrative. Beginning with chapter 5 we begin to shift from an almost purely narrative approach to a more analytical study. In the latter chapters we have selected those elements which seem to us to illustrate the principles of the Rickover approach to technological innovation. Some participants may complain that we have omitted themes which dominated their attention for months and years. Others will surely claim that we have not attributed appropriate credit to many individuals who gave all of their professional lives to this project. We have tried to be conscientious about such matters, but we have felt constrained to place a higher priority on our primary goal, which was to define the principles of the Rickover approach.

Similarly, some will complain that in cutting off the book at the end of 1962, we have excluded some of the most pertinent issues in evaluating the Rickover approach. We are not able, for example, to present Rickover's running battle with the Department of Defense over the use of nuclear power in surface ships or the bitter controversy which was carried on with Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and his aides over the application of systems analysis in the decision-making process. Acknowledging these omissions, we contend that reliable historical analysis simply is not yet possible for the years after 1962. Too many of the protagonists, including Rickover and his key staff, are still active; too many of the issues are still alive and in contention; too little hindsight is available to provide historical perspective. As these words are being written, Admiral Rickover is still in charge of the organization, and the project as he created it continues to grow and evolve. We hope we have been able to capture its essential characteristics from the limited perspective we enjoy. We must leave the final judgments to another generation of historians.

Because this book has been sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission and because we did our research and writing as government employees, we were granted unrestricted access to the records of the Commission and the Navy Department as well as those of the Division of Naval Reactors. Many of these records are still classified for reasons of national security and cannot be made available to the public, but we were able to convey the substance of these records in the text of this book. Although we believe that we have been able to give a balanced and accurate account of our subject within the constraints of security classification, those constraints have affected the text in subtle if not always important ways. We have, for example, been unable to present the technology of nuclear propulsion with the kind of engineering detail available in the classified records.

Furthermore, in discussing the impact of nuclear propulsion on fleet operations, particularly in chapter 11, we have not been able to present all the issues which historians operating without classification restraints would want to present to their readers. Given the problems of writing contemporary history of classified subjects, we know of no solution other than to warn our readers that such discrepancies exist. We stand by our original contention, however, that these discrepancies are minor and do not impair the fundamental integrity of our narrative or conclusions.

So many people have given us assistance and encouragement that it is impossible to name them all, but we do wish to thank individually some who went far beyond their professional or official duties to help us. We are especially indebted to the members of the Commission's historical advisory committee. Serving without compensation, the members were willing to read and criticize successive drafts of the manuscript and to subject themselves to the agonies which historians always suffer in trying to clarify their thinking. Many of the better qualities of this book are the result of the committee's efforts, but we the authors assume responsibility both for the final judgments and the errors that may appear.

We are also grateful to the Atomic Energy Commission and its staff for making it possible for us to write this book as a part of the agency's history program. Both the members of the Commission and the staff understood our needs, made all records available, and gave us the freedom to draw our own conclusions. We particularly express our appreciation to Chairman Dixy Lee Ray and her predecessors, James R. Schlesinger and Glenn T. Seaborg. For administrative support and protection we depended upon Woodford B. McCool, the secretary of the Commission, and his successor, Paul C. Bender. Robert E. Hollingsworth, the general manager, and his deputy, John A. Erlewine, assured us unstinting support from the staff. Literally hundreds of individuals from high-ranking government officials to anonymous shipyard workers and seamen gave us their impressions of the project. Those whose comments were recorded by name in our notes are in the section on sources. We feel obliged, however, to single out for special mention here a few persons whose assistance went far beyond what we would expect to receive in a normal interview. Admirals Arleigh A. Burke and Robert B. Carney, both former Chiefs of Naval Operations, and Admiral James L. Holloway, Jr., former Chief of Naval Personnel, not only were generous in their time for interviews but also permitted us to use their personal files and memoirs in the Navy History Division. We are also deeply in debt to several present and former members of Admiral Rickover's senior staff, including William Wegner, David T. Leighton, Lawton D. Geiger, Louis H. Roddis, Jr., and James M. Dunford, for giving us almost countless hours of their time to explain activities during their years with the project. We cannot begin to express the debt we owe to our own staff. John V. Flynn, our research assistant during the early years of the project, not only did yeoman's service in reviewing hundreds of boxes of records but also brought his mastery of naval nomenclature and specialized technical subjects to bear on many portions of the draft. Alice L. Buck completed several long-term research projects which helped us decide how to treat a number of subjects which lay outside our specialized knowledge and experience. We were also fortunate to obtain for some months the services of L. Robert Davids, a historian with experience in the Navy, who helped us to understand some of the intricacies of naval administration. Roger M. Anders served ably as our research assistant during the last two years of the project. Betty J. Wise typed the entire manuscript in more drafts than we care to remember and checked editorial style and references. Somehow she also found time to carry on the essential administrative activities of the office so that we could concentrate on research and writing. Without her skill and understanding of our needs we could not have completed this book.

Seldom have historians had a more challenging assignment than the one we faced in writing this volume. During a period of sharply increasing awareness of the implications of technological innovation we were privileged to trace the development of a technology which has profoundly affected both the civilian and military spheres of our society. We have also had the exceptional advantage of being able to observe some of that development in the making and to question those who directed the project. Our hope in undertaking this volume was to throw some light on how technological innovation was accomplished in a major government program. How well we have met our goal is for others to say.

Richard G. Hewlett

Francis Duncan

Germantown, Maryland

April 25, 1973