
Richard L. Garwin, a Creator of the Hydrogen Bomb, Dies at 97
Richard L. Garwin, an architect of America's hydrogen bomb, who shaped defense policies for postwar governments and laid the groundwork for insights into the structure of the universe as well as for medical and computer marvels , died on Tuesday at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. He was 97.
His death was confirmed by his son Thomas.
A polymathic physicist and geopolitical thinker, Dr. Garwin was only 23 when he built the world's first fusion bomb. He later became a science adviser to many presidents, designed Pentagon weapons and satellite reconnaissance systems, argued for a Soviet-American balance of nuclear terror as the best bet for surviving the Cold War, and championed verifiable nuclear arms control agreements.
While his mentor, the Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi, called him 'the only true genius I have ever met,' Dr. Garwin was not the father of the hydrogen bomb. The Hungarian-born physicist Edward Teller and the Polish mathematician Stanislaw Ulam, who developed theories for a bomb, may have greater claims to that sobriquet.
In 1951-52, however, Dr. Garwin, at the time an instructor at the University of Chicago and just a summer consultant at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, designed the actual bomb, using the Teller-Ulam ideas. An experimental device code-named Ivy Mike, it was shipped to the Western Pacific and tested on an atoll in the Marshall Islands.
Intended only to prove the fusion concept, the device did not even resemble a bomb. It weighed 82 tons, was undeliverable by airplane and looked like a gigantic thermos bottle. Soviet scientists, who did not test a comparable device until 1955, derisively called it a thermonuclear installation.
But at the Enewetak Atoll on Nov. 1, 1952, it spoke: An all-but-unimaginable fusion of atoms set off a vast, instant flash of blinding light, soundless to distant observers, and a fireball two miles wide with a force 700 times greater than the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. Its mushroom cloud soared 25 miles and expanded to 100 miles across.
Because secrecy shrouded the development of America's thermonuclear weapons programs, Dr. Garwin's role in creating the first hydrogen bomb was virtually unknown for decades outside a small circle of government defense and intelligence officials. It was Dr. Teller, whose name had long been associated with the bomb, who first publicly credited him.
'The shot was fired almost precisely according to Garwin's design,' Dr. Teller said in a 1981 statement that acknowledged the crucial role of the young prodigy. Still, that belated recognition got little notice, and Dr. Garwin long remained unknown publicly.
Compared with later thermonuclear weapons, Dr. Garwin's bomb was crude. Its raw power nonetheless recalled films of the first atomic bomb test in New Mexico in 1945, and the appalled reaction of its creator, J. Robert Oppenheimer, reflecting upon the sacred Hindu text of the Bhagavan-Gita: 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'
For Dr. Garwin, it was something less.
'I never felt that building the hydrogen bomb was the most important thing in the world, or even in my life at the time,' he told Esquire magazine in 1984. Asked about any feelings of guilt, he said: 'I think it would be a better world if the hydrogen bomb had never existed. But I knew the bombs would be used for deterrence.'
A Pivot to I.B.M.
Although the first hydrogen bomb was constructed to his specifications, Dr. Garwin was not even present to witness its detonation at Enewetak. 'I've never seen a nuclear explosion,' he said in an interview for this obituary in 2018. 'I didn't want to take the time.'
After his success on the hydrogen bomb project, Dr. Garwin said, he found himself at a crossroads in 1952. He could return to the University of Chicago, where he had earned his doctorate under Fermi and was now an assistant professor, with the promise of life at one of the nation's most prestigious academic institutions.
Or he could accept a far more flexible job at the International Business Machines Corporation. It offered a faculty appointment and use of the Thomas J. Watson Laboratory at Columbia University, with wide freedom to pursue his research interests. It would also let him continue to work as a government consultant at Los Alamos and in Washington.
He chose the I.B.M. deal, and it lasted for four decades, until his retirement.
For I.B.M., Dr. Garwin worked on an endless stream of pure and applied research projects that yielded an astonishing array of patents, scientific papers and technological advances in computers, communications and medicine. His work was crucial in developing magnetic resonance imaging, high-speed laser printers and later touch-screen monitors.
A dedicated maverick, Dr. Garwin worked hard for decades to advance the hunt for gravitational waves — ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein had predicted. In 2015, the costly detectors he backed were able to successfully observe the ripples, opening a new window on the universe.
Meantime, Dr. Garwin continued to work for the government, consulting on national defense issues. As an expert on weapons of mass destruction, he helped select priority Soviet targets and led studies on land, sea and air warfare involving nuclear-armed submarines, military and civilian aircraft, and satellite reconnaissance and communication systems. Much of his work continued to be secret, and he remained largely unknown to the public.
He became an adviser to such Presidents as Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He also became known as a voice against President Ronald Reagan's proposals for a space-based missile system, popularly called Star Wars, to defend the nation against nuclear attack. It was never built.
One of Dr. Garwin's celebrated battles had nothing to do with national defense. In 1970, as a member of Nixon's science advisory board, he ran afoul of the president's support for development of the supersonic transport plane. He concluded that the SST would be expensive, noisy, bad for the environment and a commercial dud. Congress dropped its funding. Britain and France subsidized the development of their own SST, the Concorde, but Dr. Garwin's predictions proved largely correct, and interest faded.
Clashing With the Military
A small, professorial man with thinning flyaway hair and a gentle voice more suited to college lectures than a congressional hot seat, Dr. Garwin became an almost legendary figure in the defense establishment, giving speeches, writing articles and testifying before lawmakers on what he called misguided Pentagon choices.
Some of his feuds with the military were bitter and long-running. They included fights over the B-1 bomber, the Trident nuclear submarine and the MX missile system, a network of mobile, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles that were among the most lethal weapons in history. All eventually joined America's vast arsenal.
While Dr. Garwin was frustrated by such setbacks, he pressed ahead. His core message was that America should maintain a strategic balance of nuclear power with the Soviet Union. He opposed any weapon or policy that threatened to upset that balance, because, he said, it kept the Russians in check. He liked to say that Moscow was more interested in live Russians than dead Americans.
Dr. Garwin supported reductions of nuclear arsenals, including the 1979 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II), negotiated by President Carter and Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet premier. But Dr. Garwin insisted that mutually assured destruction was the key to keeping the peace.
In 2021, he joined 700 scientists and engineers, including 21 Nobel laureates, who signed an appeal asking President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to pledge that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. Their letter also called for an end to the American practice of giving the president sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons; a curb on that authority, they said, would be 'an important safeguard against a possible future president who is unstable or who orders a reckless attack.'
The ideas were politically delicate, and Mr. Biden made no such pledge.
Dr. Garwin told Quest magazine in 1981, 'The only thing nuclear weapons are good for, and have ever been good for, is massive destruction, and by that threat deterring nuclear attack: If you slap me, I'll clobber you.'
A Whiz Kid at 5
Richard Lawrence Garwin was born in Cleveland on April 19, 1928, the older of two sons of Robert and Leona (Schwartz) Garwin. His father was a teacher of electronics at a technical high school during the day and a projectionist in a movie theater at night. His mother was a legal secretary. At an early age, Richard, called Dick, showed remarkable intelligence and technical ability. By 5, he was repairing family appliances.
He and his brother, Edward, attended public schools in Cleveland. Dick graduated at 16 from Cleveland Heights High School in 1944 and earned a bachelor's degree in physics in 1947 from what is now Case Western Reserve University.
In 1947, he married Lois Levy. She died in 2018. In addition to his son Thomas, he is survived by another son, Jeffrey; a daughter, Laura; five grandchildren; and one great-grandchild.
Under Fermi's tutelage at the University of Chicago, Dr. Garwin earned a master's degree in 1948 and a doctorate in 1949, scoring the highest marks on doctoral exams ever recorded by the university. He then joined the faculty, but at Fermi's urging spent his summers at the Los Alamos lab, where his H-bomb work unfolded.
After retiring in 1993, Dr. Garwin chaired the State Department's Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board until 2001. He served in 1998 on the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.
Dr. Garwin's home in Scarsdale is not far from his longtime base at the I.B.M. Watson Labs, which had moved in 1970 from Columbia University to Yorktown Heights, in Westchester County.
He held faculty appointments at Harvard and Cornell as well as Columbia. He held 47 patents, wrote some 500 scientific research papers and wrote many books, including 'Nuclear Weapons and World Politics' (1977, with David C. Gompert and Michael Mandelbaum), and 'Megawatts and Megatons: A Turning Point in the Nuclear Age?' (2001, with Georges Charpak).
He was the subject of a biography, 'True Genius: The Life and Work of Richard Garwin, the Most Influential Scientist You've Never Heard Of' (2017), by Joel N. Shurkin.
His many honors included the 2002 National Medal of Science, the nation's highest award for science and engineering achievements, given by President George W. Bush, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, bestowed by President Barack Obama in 2016.
'Ever since he was a Cleveland kid tinkering with his father's movie projectors, he's never met a problem he didn't want to solve,' Mr. Obama said in a lighthearted introduction at the White House. 'Reconnaissance satellites, the M.R.I., GPS technology, the touch-screen — all bear his fingerprints. He even patented a mussel washer for shellfish — that I haven't used. The other stuff I have.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Is NASA Ready for Death in Space?
In 2012 NASA stealthily slipped a morgue into orbit. No press release. No fanfare. Just a sealed, soft-sided pouch tucked in a cargo shipment to the International Space Station (ISS) alongside freeze-dried meals and scientific gear. Officially, it was called the Human Remains Containment Unit (HRCU). To the untrained eye it looked like a shipping bag for frozen cargo. But to NASA it marked something far more sobering: a major advance in preparing for death beyond Earth. As a kid, I obsessed over how astronauts went to the bathroom in zero gravity. Now, decades later, as a forensic pathologist and a perennial applicant to NASA's astronaut corps, I find myself fixated on a darker, more haunting question: [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] What would happen if an astronaut died out there? Would they be brought home, or would they be left behind? If they expired on some other world, would that be their final resting place? If they passed away on a spacecraft or space station, would their remains be cast off into orbit—or sent on an escape-velocity voyage to the interstellar void? NASA, it turns out, has begun working out most of these answers. And none too soon. Because the question itself is no longer if someone will die in space—but when. No astronaut has ever died of natural causes off-world. In 1971 the three-man crew of the Soviet Soyuz 11 mission asphyxiated in space when their spacecraft depressurized shortly before its automated atmospheric reentry—but their deaths were only discovered once the spacecraft landed on Earth. Similarly, every U.S. spaceflight fatality to date has occurred within Earth's atmosphere—under gravity, oxygen and a clear national jurisdiction. That matters, because it means every spaceflight mortality has played out in familiar territory. But planned missions are getting longer, with destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. And NASA's astronaut corps is getting older. The average age now hovers around 50—an age bracket where natural death becomes statistically relevant, even for clean-living fitness buffs. Death in space is no longer a thought experiment. It's a probability curve—and NASA knows it. In response, the agency is making subtle but decisive moves. The most recent astronaut selection cycle was extended—not only to boost intake but also to attract younger crew members capable of handling future long-duration missions. If someone were to die aboard the ISS today, their body would be placed in the HRCU, which would then be sealed and secured in a nonpressurized area to await eventual return to Earth. The HRCU itself is a modified version of a military-grade body bag designed to store human remains in hazardous environments. It integrates with refrigeration systems already aboard the ISS to slow decomposition and includes odor-control filters and moisture-absorbent linings, as well as reversed zippers for respectful access at the head. There are straps to secure the body in a seat for return, and patches for name tags and national flags. Cadaver tests conducted in 2019 at Sam Houston State University have proved the system durable. Some versions held for over 40 days before decomposition breached the barrier. NASA even drop-tested the bag from 19 feet to simulate a hard landing. But it's never been used in space. And since no one yet knows how a body decomposes in true microgravity (or, for that matter, on the moon), no one can really say whether the HRCU would preserve tissue well enough for a forensic autopsy. This is a troubling knowledge gap, because in space, a death isn't just a tragic loss—it's also a vital data point. Was an astronaut's demise from a fluke of their physiology, or an unavoidable stroke of cosmic bad luck—or was it instead a consequence of flaws in a space habitat's myriad systems that might be found and fixed? Future lives may depend on understanding what went wrong, via a proper postmortem investigation. But there's no medical examiner in orbit. So NASA trains its crews in something called the In-Mission Forensic Sample Collection protocol. The space agency's astronauts may avoid talking about it, but they all have it memorized: Document everything, ideally with real-time guidance from NASA flight surgeons. Photograph the body. Collect blood and vitreous fluid, as well as hair and tissue samples. Only then can the remains be stowed in the HRCU. NASA has also prepared for death outside the station—on spacewalks, the moon or deep space missions. If a crew member perishes in vacuum but their remains are retrieved, the body is wrapped in a specially designed space shroud. The goal isn't just a technical matter of preventing contamination. It's psychological, too, as a way of preserving dignity. Of all the 'firsts' any space agency hopes to achieve, the first-ever human corpse drifting into frame on a satellite feed is not among them. If a burial must occur—in lunar regolith or by jettisoning into solar orbit—the body will be dutifully tracked and cataloged, treated forevermore as a hallowed artifact of space history. Such gestures are also of relevance to NASA's plans for off-world mourning; grief and memorial protocols are now part of official crew training. If a death occurs, surviving astronauts are tasked with holding a simple ceremony to honor the fallen—then to move on with their mission. So far we've only covered the 'easy' questions. NASA and others are still grappling with harder ones. Consider the issue of authority over a death and mortal remains. On the ISS, it's simple: the deceased astronaut's home country retains jurisdiction. But that clarity fades as destinations grow more distant and the voyages more diverse: What really happens on space-agency missions to the moon, or to Mars? How might rules change for commercial or multinational spaceflights—or, for that matter, the private space stations and interplanetary settlements that are envisioned by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and other tech multibillionaires? NASA and its partners have started drafting frameworks, like the Artemis Accords—agreements signed by more than 50 nations to govern behavior in space. But even those don't address many intimate details of death. What happens, for instance, if foul play is suspected? The Outer Space Treaty, a legal document drafted in 1967 under the United Nations that is humanity's foundational set of rules for orbit and beyond, doesn't say. Of course, not everything can be planned for in advance. And NASA has done an extraordinary job of keeping astronauts in orbit alive. But as more people venture into space, and as the frontier stretches to longer voyages and farther destinations, it becomes a statistical certainty that sooner or later someone won't come home. When that happens, it won't just be a tragedy. It will be a test. A test of our systems, our ethics and our ability to adapt to a new dimension of mortality. To some, NASA's preparations for astronautical death may seem merely morbid, even silly—but that couldn't be further from the truth. Space won't care of course, whenever it claims more lives. But we will. And rising to that grim occasion with reverence, rigor and grace will define not just policy out in the great beyond—but what it means to be human there, too.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration cuts 'Safety' from AI Safety Institute
The Trump administration says it's reforming a Biden-era artificial intelligence safety institute, renaming and reformulating one of the only federal government departments dedicated to oversight of the burgeoning technology. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a news release Tuesday that the Trump administration would transform the former U.S. AI Safety Institute — which former President Joe Biden established in November 2023 — into the Center for AI Standards and Innovation. The reframing away from 'safety' is in line with the Trump administration's statements and actions signaling its belief that oversight efforts for AI companies could unnecessarily dull the United States' competitive edge in the space. 'For far too long, censorship and regulations have been used under the guise of national security. Innovators will no longer be limited by these standards,' Lutnick said in the release. 'CAISI will evaluate and enhance U.S. innovation of these rapidly developing commercial AI systems while ensuring they remain secure to our national security standards.' The U.S. AI Safety Institute was created to evaluate and test AI models and create standards for safety and security. It also formed a consortium on AI safety, which was made up of over 200 members, including OpenAI, Meta and Anthropic. Although it's unclear whether the transformation will mean any major changes to the institute's operations, the move appears to reflect the Trump administration's 'pro-innovation' approach to deregulating AI technology. Unlike Biden's executive order on AI and the former institute, the reformed center is set to focus on additional aspects like evaluating 'potential security vulnerabilities and malign foreign influence arising from use of adversaries' AI systems, including the possibility of backdoors and other covert, malicious behavior,' as well as 'guard against burdensome and unnecessary regulation of American technologies by foreign governments.' In January, the Chinese-created AI app DeepSeek heightened national security concerns around AI with its latest release, which made waves with its advancements. President Donald Trump said the app 'should be a wake-up call' about the prospect of international competition for American tech companies. Lawmakers introduced a bill to ban DeepSeek from government devices, and the Navy advised its members not to use it 'in any capacity.' The move to reform the institute appears to have been in development for a while. Reuters reported this year that no one from the U.S. AI Safety Institute's staff would attend an AI summit in Paris in February alongside Vice President JD Vance. The institute's inaugural director, Elizabeth Kelly, also announced she would step down that month. In his speech at the summit, Vance echoed Lutnick's sentiments, saying, 'We need international regulatory regimes that fosters the creation of AI technology rather than strangles it.' He also spoke about how he believes AI should be free from 'ideological bias.' Since he returned to office, Trump has made it clear that his administration wants to embrace the expansion of AI. Within his first week, Trump announced the creation of the $500 billion Stargate initiative in collaboration with OpenAI, Oracle and SoftBank, which aims to make the United States a world leader in AI. Trump also signed an executive order on AI in his first week in office that focuses on easing regulations on AI technology and revoking 'existing AI policies and directives that act as barriers to American AI innovation.' Biden's executive order on AI, which focused on safety and privacy standards for the technology, has been scrapped from the White House's website. This article was originally published on


Boston Globe
5 hours ago
- Boston Globe
China really wants to attract talented scientists. Trump just helped.
Scientists from China are under particular pressure, as US officials have said that they may pose a national security threat by funneling valuable knowledge to China. Chinese-born scientists have been investigated or even arrested. Last week, the Trump administration said it would work to 'aggressively revoke' the visas of Chinese students in 'critical fields.' As a result, many scholars are looking elsewhere. Advertisement And Chinese institutions have been quick to try to capitalize. Universities in Hong Kong and Xi'an said they would offer streamlined admission to transfer students from Harvard University. An ad from a group with links to the Chinese Academy of Sciences welcomed 'talents who have been dismissed by the U.S. NIH,' or National Institutes of Health. 'The United States is shooting itself in the foot,' said Zhang Xiaoming, an anatomy expert who last year left the Baylor College of Medicine, in Texas, to lead the medical education program at Westlake University, a research university in the tech hub of Hangzhou. 'Since I went to the United States more than 30 years ago, so much of its research has been supported by foreigners, including many Chinese,' said Zhang, who emphasized that he was speaking for himself, not his employer. 'Without foreigners, at least in the field of scientific research, they can't go on.' Advertisement On its own, China had become more attractive to scientists in recent years because of the huge investments the country has made in research. Westlake is a prime example. Established in 2018 by several high-profile scientists who had returned to China from the West, Westlake's campus exudes technological advancement. A spaceshiplike tower looms over rows of research laboratories. Computing centers and animal testing facilities cluster around a central lawn, in a shape designed to evoke a biological cell. In its main academic building, portraits of dozens of professors are on display — all of whom were recruited from overseas. There is Guan Kunliang, a biochemist who won a MacArthur 'Genius' grant while in Michigan; Cheng Jianjun, a materials engineer honored multiple times by the National Science Foundation; Yu Hongtao, a Harvard-educated cell biologist who received millions in funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Maryland. Recruitment notices advertise high compensation, in line with those at top foreign universities. Westlake has been perhaps the most successful Chinese university at recruiting overseas talent, but it is far from the only one. Between 2010 and 2021, nearly 12,500 scientists of Chinese descent left the United States for China, according to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The rate of departure was accelerating: More than half of them left in just the five years between 2017 and 2021. Advertisement Chinese scientists have long flocked to American universities, lured by the promise of a world-class education and resources that their home country could not provide. In the 1980s, Chinese scientists who visited the United States would collect disposable test tubes to reuse in China, said Rao Yi, a neurobiologist at Peking University in Beijing, who studied and worked in the United States for two decades. In recent years, more scientists have been returning to China, drawn partly by government recruitment programs promising them millions of dollars in funding as well as housing subsidies and other perks. China's spending on research and development is now second only to the United States. And Chinese institutions such as Tsinghua and Zhejiang University now routinely rank among the best in the world for science and technology. The investment is part of a plan to turn China into a scientific superpower, especially in strategically important fields such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors,and biotechnology. 'The scientific and technological revolution is intertwined with the game between superpowers,' China's leader, Xi Jinping, said last year. At the same time, the United States has been pushing scientists away for years, in particular by investigating their ties with China. Lu Wuyuan, a protein chemist formerly at the University of Maryland, was one of those targeted. He was investigated by the National Institutes of Health for allegedly failing to disclose research ties to China — ties he said Maryland knew about. After 20 years at the university, he quit in 2020. Most of the cases brought under the so-called China Initiative eventually collapsed. Many researchers criticized the campaign as racial profiling. Lu, who now works at Fudan University in Shanghai, said that many of his friends mused about leaving the United States, but most chose to stay because they had built lives there. Advertisement The Trump administration's assault on research funding may change that. 'If they cut so much funding, I believe that may be the last straw for many people,' Lu said. Still, China faces its own issues in poaching talent. Even at home, scientists are not spared political scrutiny. Chinese universities face limits on free expression, and China's Ministry of State Security has warned that scholars returning from overseas may be spies. Multiple Chinese-born scientists — both those who had returned to China, and those still in the United States — emphasized that they did not want to get entangled in politics. They were just trying to do good work. The simple fact was, many agreed, that it was increasingly easier to do so in China. 'It's hard to survive in America. And China is developing so fast,' said Fu Tianfan, 32, an artificial intelligence researcher who left Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in December to join Nanjing University. 'Whether it was the best choice,' he said, 'it may take some time to say.'