Isn't it quite obvious that in any "coldwar type" scenario it's advantageous to ban civilian research on anything you don't want you enemies to also get their h

Isn't it quite obvious that in any "coldwar type" scenario it's advantageous to ban civilian research on anything you don't want you enemies to also get their hands on? At least if: (a) you're arrogant enough to believe civilian researches will not outsmart military ones, or (b) you believe that what you got so far is "good enough" for military applications, or (c) you think that this might be helpful forcing scientists passionate about the banned fields to work for the military. Dunno which of do above is actually true about this topic, but for anything "banned in the '60s" it's important to think about the perspective of things in the 60s. Asides from the hippies and new age, this was the era when US military planners contemplated an unprovoked first nuclear strike on USSR simply because they knew the Russians where behind on ICBM tech but not for long. And on the other side the Russians where desperate developing bio and other unconventional weapons because they knew they were behind on nukes and needed something to fill the damn "gap". Psycho-chemical weapons combined with a new level of psychological warfare could've been seen as a pretty enticing "gap filler" material.