Chat Participant: Mr. Teller, what is your opinion of the recent allegations of China stealing nuclear secrets?

Edward Teller: Half a century ago I wrote an atomic alphabet. I'll recite the first two lines: A stands for atom, it is so small no one has ever seen it at all. B stands for bomb, the bombs are much bigger, so brother do not be too fast on the trigger.

[The relevant line is:] S stands for secret, you can keep it forever -- provided there is no one abroad who is clever. It is remarkable that atomic secrets have kept this long. What the Chinese know, probably they have invented it themselves. But I cannot be sure. That is a real possibility.

Chat Participant: Mr. Teller, in your opinion, was MAD -- or Mutual Assured Destruction -- the reason for peace throughout the '70s and '80s, or was it simply luck that the loaded gun never went off?

Edward Teller: I think it was very important that the Soviets, in addition to having a dictatorship and being able to maintain a big army, should not have also technical superiority. As it happened, luck may have been a part of it. But luck would have run out, had we not been prepared.

Chat Participant: Mr. Teller: Will you be proud of being known as the "father" of the H-bomb?

Edward Teller: I would have been ashamed not to work, when it was work needed to secure world stability. I was not proud, I did what was obvious.

Chat Participant: How close does Mr. Teller feel we ever came to "midnight" (midnight being nuclear war)?

Edward Teller: I don't know.

CNN Moderator: What was the atmosphere like in Los Alamos? Were the scientists friends?

Edward Teller: Los Alamos was cut off from the rest of the world. We had no other place to go for company. We had to be friends; we were friends.

CNN Moderator: In 1954 Robert Oppenheimer, the head of the Manhattan Project, was stripped of his security clearance. Some people felt that you betrayed him. What are your thoughts on Oppenheimer?

Edward Teller: Very, very strong, very disturbing. I was asked to testify [at Oppenheimer's 1954 security hearings]. I felt that I must not refuse. I went to Washington with the intention to testify for Oppenheimer. Within an hour, before my testimony started, the attorney for the other side came to see me, a Mr. Robb, and showed me in confidence Oppenheimer's sworn testimony that preceded mine. This was highly secret at the time. It is now declassified and available. In that testimony, Oppenheimer has been told that he had complained, or that he had stated, that one of his friends or collaborators [Haakon Chevalier] may have given away secrets to the Russians. In his immediately preceding testimony, he declared there was no basis for his accusations. He was then asked, in that case, why did you so testify? Oppenheimer's full answer was, "Because I was an idiot."

I had already testified that Oppenheimer did good work as director of Los Alamos. I was then asked the question, outright, should Oppenheimer be cleared? My answer, under the influence of Robb's information, my answer was: Oppenheimer, I believe, never did knowingly anything to harm the United States. But some of his actions were not possible for me to understand. I wish that the security would rest in hands that I understand better and therefore trust more.

Chat Participant: Dr. Teller, this is an honor. Question: How serious is the threat that terrorists could smuggle an atomic device into the U.S. and detonate it in a large city?

Edward Teller: I think the main danger is due to the fact that the world has become smaller, more interactive, and other governments already have the atomic bomb -- I believe governments of more than half the people of the world. I think the possibility for terrorists making atomic bombs, or stealing them, cannot be completely excluded. But that possibility is relatively small, compared to possible serious conflicts with other countries.

Chat Participant: Are you a proponent of the new missile defense system the U.S. is planning on implementing?

Edward Teller: To my knowledge, there is no new defense system. We have cut back, very seriously, our defense system in '92 or '93. It is now proposed to put back a not very big part of that money, but continue with a way for defense which I think is less hopeful than what we have pursued [in the 1980s]. I am not terribly confident in the decisions taken now. I think they are too late, and what's much more important they are too little.

Chat Participant: Do you think that a reliable missile defense system is achievable?

Edward Teller: I do not know whether it is achievable and in what length of time. But I know for sure if we won't try, we won't get it. And I feel reasonably sure that [what] we now do is entirely insufficient, and not quite in the right direction.

CNN Moderator: Some people, Carl Sagan in particular, blame you for much of the arms race. Do you regret any of your efforts?

Edward Teller: I am a little surprised to be blamed more than the Soviet leadership. I can tell you, had I not stated that the hydrogen bomb is possible, President Truman would have had a unanimous answer. The question [was] asked in secret of a few people, whether the hydrogen bomb should be pursued. Had we not pursued the hydrogen bomb, there is a very real threat that we would now all be speaking Russian. I have no regrets.

Chat Participant: Mr. Teller: Do you think that "Star Wars" is a real and workable idea? Would it not be easier, cheaper and more secure to stop bombs before they are even produced?

Edward Teller: I do not know how to make sure that the Chinese or the Hindus or some other country, like Saddam Hussein['s Iraq], does not find out what is relatively easy to find out. It is remarkable that a weapon like the hydrogen bomb, half a century after it has been invented, has managed to contribute to stability, and has never been used. I hope this will continue.

CNN Moderator: Were the scientists at Los Alamos looking beyond the war with Japan, to a possible conflict with the Soviet Union?

Edward Teller: I don't believe that there was any unanimity on the question. It was hardly discussed, maybe not at all. The Soviets and ourselves were at that time allies.

CNN Moderator: Did you believe that the U.S. had a potential future problem with the U.S.S.R.?

Edward Teller: I felt very certain that we must find out what can be found out. I did not feel responsible, and I was not responsible, for political decisions. After many years of careful discussion and hesitations, my confidence in the Soviet government was not high. One of my very excellent Soviet physicist friends was an ardent communist who worked [with me] in Leipzig, Lev Landow. After he got back to the Soviet Union, he was arrested as a capitalist spy. My opinion of the Soviet government was low, and I am thinking that my low opinion was justified.

Chat Participant: Mr. Teller, do you feel power from fusion is an obtainable goal in the next decade or two? Also, do you believe that a process such as "cold fusion" is possible?

Edward Teller: I believe that cold fusion is not apt to be practicable. I think fusion is possible, but believe it is almost certainly too expensive, too difficult. Fission and nuclear reactors, properly handled, can remain safe. And I believe that is a much more possible and necessary [way to provide] access to world energy.

Chat Participant: What were your feelings when you found out about the Soviets stealing vital bomb secrets?

Edward Teller: There was someone in Los Alamos, a German by the name of Klaus Fuchs, he was an excellent scientist, contributed to our program and actually was a good friend. He was rather taciturn, which did not seem to me too strange, but I think now that I understand that he was a spy, I do understand why he felt embarrassed. When I heard that Fuchs was a spy, one of my reactions was: now I understand why he behaved, an intelligent man, so strangely, why he was so reserved, why he seemed to be so cautious in everything he said.

Chat Participant: Do you feel secure that democracy will last in Russia?

Edward Teller: I know much too little to feel secure about it. I wish I had reason to have more confidence. The Russian people had a bad government under the czars. They had a worse government under the communists. It is no surprise that they don't quite know how to handle democracy. From what little I understand, I don't believe that there is anything like real democracy in Russia now, and I believe that to help Russia to become a democracy remains, again, an important problem.

Chat Participant: Has the invention of the A-bomb stabilized or destabilized the world today?

Edward Teller: I am firmly convinced that scientists must find out what can be found out. I am happy that the country that found it out first is one that was not inclined to misuse it. That is why I happily and willingly worked for it. I think that stability does not come from weapons; stability [comes] from human intentions, and from the power of those with proper intentions to make them work. In this sense, I was delighted to work for the American government. And I find it a little strange that Soviet scientists, who actually in their majority hated the communist government, did work strongly and effectively on the atomic and hydrogen bombs.

Chat Participant: Mr. Teller, what was the most difficult part of making the hydrogen bomb?

Edward Teller: Psychologically the most difficult part was this: By the time we were ready to work on it, the war was over and most scientists believed we shall now simply forget about further weapons. You realize that at that time, military preparedness was not an easy thing to argue, and for me, being a foreigner in this country, having no friends in this country except scientists, it happened to be incredibly difficult to go against the opinion of the majority of my colleagues. Yet I felt I had to do it.

Chat Participant: What do you think of Einstein's claim that the letter he wrote to FDR about the potential for nuclear weapons was the greatest mistake of his life?

Edward Teller: I don't know of an explicit claim of Einstein to that effect. I can tell you that he signed the letter to President Roosevelt which helped us start our work. That letter was not written by Einstein. That letter was written by my friend, Leo Szilard. Einstein read it and signed it. Reading somebody else's letter and then signing it, and then later rejecting it, seems to me behavior I don't want to comment on, except for mentioning the fact.

Chat Participant: Do any countries, other than the U.S. and Russia, have H-bomb capability, or are the weapons of these "rogue states" just crude A-bombs?

Edward Teller: I do not know, and whatever little knowledge or evidence I have is secret. But in general, it is likely that in addition to the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. it is probable that the Chinese have it, and also probable that the Hindus have it, and I think probable that others have it as well. Secrets will not keep. Secrets will not keep because it is not so hard to rediscover them. Particularly the fact that somebody else has done it, the fact that a solution exists, makes it much easier for someone to keep after it and succeed.

CNN Moderator: Have you returned to Hungary since the end of the Cold War? What were the effects of war and communist government there?

Edward Teller: I did return twice or three times. I enjoyed it. If I may immodestly say so, I was particularly happy to find that the Hungarians give me credit to have contributed to the withdrawal of the Soviets from Hungary.

I think the Soviet occupation had [one] great and beneficial effect on Hungary. In Hungary, remembering the situation at the beginning of the century, people were in the habit of blaming each other for past mistakes. I found with pleasure and admiration that the Hungarians, having survived Soviet occupation, don't spend a lot of time blaming each other but are looking constructively toward a stable future in which practically everybody is invited to participate and contribute.

CNN Moderator: One of your projects, Operation Plowshares, seems strange in retrospect. What was the idea behind it?

Edward Teller: In retrospect, it seems to me extremely strange that it was abandoned. It was a good idea, it should be revived, it will be revived. When new powers are discovered, they should be used in a beneficial way. We could create harbors where they are needed, what could contribute to underground mining by underground explosions of appropriate size, change the materials into a form in which it can more easily reach the surface. In the short time tests were conducted in the United States and in the Soviet Union, a lot of progress was made, and then we stopped because we were frightened. I think this new, powerful tool will have future applications, and people will find it very strange that we stopped it.

CNN Moderator: Just as background, what was Operation Plowshares?

Edward Teller: Operation Plowshares is the use of nuclear explosives for productive purposes, or for science.

CNN Moderator: For example?

Edward Teller: One possible use could be, for instance, a harbor, to excavate a harbor, where this would be of a great useful purpose. To change the course of a river, to change the constitution of a substance underground which you want to bring to the surface. Either to change a material into a soluble form, or to make a viscous material less viscous.

Another possibility is scientific use. Experiments in the Soviet Union have contributed to find out the detailed geological structure of relatively shallow layers under continents.

We now know without any doubt that 65 million years ago there has been a catastrophic collision of an asteroid, 10 or 15 miles in diameter, with the Earth which led to the extinction of many species and actually introduced the modern geological age. This event may be repeated. A similar event last time occurred 90 years ago, in Siberia, but was much smaller. It occurred in a place where nobody lived and apart from one or two people possibly nobody was hurt. Such events could be prevented in the future. Small ones, which are likely to occur in the next million years, can be prevented, and should be prevented, with conventional rather than nuclear means. Big ones like the meteorite 65 million years ago, probably will require a nuclear explosion and could avert a really major catastrophe. That collision, it is now believed, killed 90 percent of all living beings and terminated 30 percent of all genera. It was the end of a geological age and fortunately the beginning of a new one.

Chat Participant: How many underground nuclear explosions were done in the continental U.S. for peaceful purposes? Was there any proliferation of radioactivity reported, and if so, where did it drift?

Edward Teller: There was some radioactivity underground. I feel quite certain that absolutely no one was hurt. I don't remember the number [of explosions], it may have been two or three, it may have been six, I don't know.

Chat Participant: What did you do after the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty?

Edward Teller: I believe that the test ban is very hard to enforce, and I believe test bans without ability to find out whether they have been violated or not, are not a proper procedure. I think instead of banning, we should look into the possibility of international undertakings which will benefit everyone. Instead of saying what should not be done, we should say what is being done. And I think what should be banned is not testing, but secret testing. And if something is to be done in this way, it should be done as far as possible with international cooperation and for the international well-being.

Chat Participant: Mr. Teller, are you officially a U.S. citizen today?

Edward Teller: I am. I immigrated in 1935, and approximately five years later I became a citizen.

CNN Moderator: Critics argue that ABM systems will lead to a new arms race, the development of missiles to evade such systems. How can such a system not lead to greater instability?

Edward Teller: I think the absence of defense encourages people to make missiles. If there is a good defense they will not make missiles because they will not be useful. I think a missile defense will prevent an arms race and I wonder about the people who can argue the other case. It is so wrong, that it is very difficult to argue it.

Chat Participant: What do you think is the most important scientific advancement that we, as a country, should strive for today?

Edward Teller: That question I very definitely can answer. I don't know, and nobody knows. The biggest advances are surprises. How to find the surprise is the big problem for everyone.

Chat Participant: Mr. Teller, what do you think has been your most significant work?

Edward Teller: My most significant and difficult work was to inform our government, on being asked, that indeed the hydrogen bomb is possible and should be done. What I would like to do most are entirely different things, which are much harder to explain. For instance, details in the behavior, the spectrum, of molecules. [It] is being written by chemists not with one formula but as a resonance alternation between two formulas. [Together with collaborators, we pointed out that these two formulas belong to the stable state of benzene and to its first excited state and a complete explanation must include the spectroscopy in which these two states participate.] My work is an activity which I like and prefer. Except for the Second World War, I never would have done anything else.

Chat Participant: Mr. Teller, does this country do enough to encourage its young students to become scientists?

Edward Teller: No. A lot is being done today to tell people that too fast progress will lead to difficulties. This is a new and dangerous phenomenon. You know about cloning -- the discovery that from one cell of a mammal you can reproduce the whole mammal. That this has resulted in the cutback of research funds. When I came to the United States in 1935, cloning would have been welcomed as a wonderful discovery. And appreciation in what is new is the reason that the United States has progressed so far and why it has become so strong. I think that the main danger is, that we no longer appreciate real progress.

Chat Participant: What ethical standards should a scientist apply to his work?

Edward Teller:I as a scientist have two jobs, and a third job I do not have. One job is to make science, to find out what there is, to construct new things, to increase human capabilities. That is one remarkably successful thing which has been through the centuries very remarkable in its cumulative advantages.

The second job that I have is more difficult: to explain what has been found. Remarkable discoveries at the beginning of the century, like relativity and quantum mechanics, which could and should have an influence on people's thinking altogether. [These subjects are] still not understood by the great majority of the people, even by the majority of the intellectuals. I think our second job is to explain, so that what has been found is also generally understood, and there we are falling badly behind.

The third responsibility might be to say how is it to be used, what has been found. And that responsibility I claim the scientist does not have. In a democracy kings should not make the decisions, capitalists should not make the decisions, movie stars should not make the decisions, scientists should not make them either. People in general must make the decisions, and we scientists must look to it that people understand what they are deciding about. I think our job is to increase human knowledge, human power, human understanding and make sure that the human society in general keeps up. Then it is up to the democratic society to make the right decisions.

Chat Participant: What were your thoughts upon seeing or hearing about the Trinity test?

Edward Teller: I was deeply impressed, and within minutes my thought was: it soon will happen again, and will be much more than an experiment. I was glad it worked, it had to work, it did work, it was clear that many difficult decisions would have to follow.

CNN Moderator: We have time for one more question.

Chat Participant: Mr. Teller, just as I was finishing high school, the U.S. canceled the superconducting supercollider. Was that a wise choice?

Edward Teller: I do not know. The superconducting supercollider is a very interesting and a very expensive undertaking. ... It is very hard for me to judge how much of [the cost] was justified. I agree that it would have been wonderful to proceed. We must realize that it was to be expensive not only in money, but also in the routine jobs that many scientists would have to perform. I think this is an excellent question, and I only wish I would know how better to answer it.

CNN Moderator: Any final thoughts you'd like to add?

Edward Teller: I am very much afraid that this discussion did not permit me to say how important science is, how beautiful science is, did not permit me to say that the freedom of science was what made America great, and the fear of science which is beginning to prevail is an enormous danger.