Museado / NARA Collection grf-0054 — Collection grf-0054
Recent Folios
Login Register
English español (Spanish) magyar (Hungarian) हिन्दी (Hindi)

Survos folio page chat

VFW State Convention, Grand Rapids, MI, June 17, 1972

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

The original documents are located in Box D33, folder "VFW State Convention, Grand Rapids, MI, June 17, 1972" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box D33 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library VFW STATE CONVENTION, GRAND RAPIDS, MICH 9 A.M. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1972. THE SALT AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION HAVE, IN EFFECT, ALREADY BECOME A PART OF HISTORY THE SALT TREATY WILL IN TIME BECOME PART OF THE HERITAGE OF OUR PAST. "THE HERITAGE" THAT, IN THE WORDS CARVED ON THE NATIONAL ARCHI VES BUILDING IN WASHINGTON, "IS THE SEED THAT BRINGS FORTH THE HARVEST OF THE FUTURE." WHAT OF THE SEED -- THE SALT TREATY ITSELF? HAVE WE MADE UNWISE CONCESSIONS TO THE SOVIET UNION? HAVE WE PLACED OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE IN DANGER? HAVE WE PLACED OURSELVES IN A POSITION OF NUCLEAR INFERIORITY? of GERALD LIBRARY FORD -2- THE TERROR REMAINS, BUT THE BALANCE IS FROZEN IN TERMS OF A STANDOFF IN STRATEGIC WEAPONRY. IT IS TRUE THAT THE SOVIETS HAVE MORE ROCKET LAUNCHERS THAN WE HAVE HAVE/AND AND MORE POWERFUL WARHEADS. BUT WE HAVE GREATER NUMBERS OF WARHEADS AND WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGE IN ACCURACY AND IN ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. IN TERMS OF NUCLEAR TONNAGE, THE TOTAL IS ABOUT THE SAME. HAVE WE, THEN, ACHIEVED ANYTHING AT ALL? INDEED, YES. WE HAVE SLOWED THE RUSSIANS' HEADLONG RUSH TOWARD NUCLEAR SUPERIORITY, A SUPERIORITY WHICH COULD HAVE TEMPTED THEM INTO A NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. FURTHER STOCKPILING OF NUCLEAR FORD WEAPONS LAUNCHERS BY BOTH THE UNITED STATES LIBRARY -3- AND THE SOVIET UNION SIMPLY DID NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. BOTH OF US HAVE THE POWER TO DESTROY THE OTHER MANY TIMES OVER. THAT IN EFFECT, EFFECT IS INSANITY MULTIPLIED. SO WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO IS THIS. WE DID NOT GIVE ANYTHING AWAY AND WE SLOWED THE SOVIET MOMENTUM IN THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND PERHAPS THUS NUCLEAR AVOIDED A FUTURE HOLOCAUST TOUCHED OFF BY A SOVIET FIRST STRIKE. AS FOR THE EFFECT OF THE LIMITATION ON THE UNITED STATES, WE CAN STILL IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF OUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS. THE ONLY LIMITATION IS ON QUANTITIES -- AND THAT LIMITATION MAKES SENSE. WHAT OF THE HARVEST WHICH MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE SALT TREATY? -4- MY FERVENT HOPE IS THAT IT WILL LEAD TO FUTURE AGREEMENTS FURTHER REDUCING THE LEVEL OF NUCLEAR TERROR IN THE WORLD AND PERHAPS EVEN TO AT LEAST PARTIAL DISARMAMENT -- MUTUAL DISARMAMENT -- OF THE WORLD'S TWO GREAT SUPERPOWERS. IT IS WORTH NOTING, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT NO COLUMNIST OR COMMENTATOR SPOKE IN THE AFTERMATH OF PRESIDENT NIXON'S MISSION TO MOSCOW OF WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CALLED "THE SPIRIT OF MOSCOW." THIS IS GOOD. THIS IS HEALTHY. THIS IS REALISTIC. INSTEAD OF THE HEADY EUPHORIA GENERATED BY THE MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND PREMIER KOSYGIN AT GLASSBORO -- A MEETING THAT PRODUCED NOTHING -- WE HAVE AN ATTITUDE OF GOOD COMMON SENSE THAT GERALD LISARY -5- FOLLOWED THE PRODUCTIVE SUMMIT MEETING IN MOSCOW. THE MOSCOW MEETINGS WERE HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE, BUT WE DID NOT COME AWAY FROM THEM WITH OUR HEADS IN THE CLOUDS. OUR FEET ARE ON THE GROUND, AND WE ARE LOOKING STRAIGHT AHEAD. WE ARE HOPEFUL ABOUT THE "HARVEST OF THE FUTURE" BUT WE ARE NOT WRAPPING THOSE HOPES IN FOOLISH DREAMS. THERE ARE OF COURSE THOSE IN THE CONGRESS WHO NOW ARE CALLING FOR DEEP CUTS IN OUR DEFENSE BUDGET. THEY ARE DEMANDING SHARP SLASHES IN OUR DEFENSES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SALT TREATY WAS POSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE WE BARGAINED FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH. WHAT OF THE HARVEST OF THE FUTURE AS WE WIND DOWN THE WAR IN -6- VIETNAM, I BELIEVE WE ARE ENTERING ON AN ERA WHICH HOLDS GREAT PROMISE FOR THE FUTURE PEACE OF THE WORLD. I AM HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN TRULY HAVE A GENERATION OF PEACE -- THAT FUTURE GENERATIONS CAN SETTLE THE WORLD'S DIFFERENCES IN SOME OTHER FORUM THAN A VALE OF BLOOD AND TEARS. BUT LET THERE BE NO MISTAKE. WE CAN HAVE PEACE IN THIS AGE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONRY AND SO-CALLED WARS OF LIBERATION ONLY IF WE REMAIN STRONG. THE MOST CURSORY LOOK AT HISTORY TELLS US THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF ARMED AGGRESS!ON CAN NEVER BE DISMISSED. LET us, THEREFORE, BE ON GUARD AGAINST THOSE WHO PREACH THE FOOLISH DOCTRINE OF UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT. -7- OUR PRESIDENT HAS JOURNEYED TO MOSCOW AND TO PEKING ON MISSIONS OF PEACE. HE HAS OPENED UP A NEW ERA OF NEGOTIATIONS. HE HAS THAWED THE HOSTILITY AND SUSPICION THAT BREED INCIDENTS AND CONFRONTATION. IN LESS THAN A WEEK 1, Too, WILL BE MAKING A TRIP TO PEKING AND + EXPECT TO TALK WITH TOP CHINESE OFFICIALS WHILE THERE. I WILL BE SEEKING TO CONTINUE THE DIALOGUE THE PRESIDENT HAS STARTED AND TO OPEN WIDER THE DOOR TO CHINA. BUT I AM FULLY COGNIZANT, AS IS THE PRESIDENT, THAT WE IN AMERICA MUST KEEP UP OUR STRENGTH IF WE ARE TO ENJOY PEACE EVEN IN AN ERA OF NEGOTIATIONS. LET US NOT FORGET THE LESSONS OF HISTORY. WE MUST MAINTAIN OUR GERALD FORD LIBRARY -8- STRENGTH -- BOTH MILITARY AND SPIRITUAL. WE MUST MAKE SURE WE CAN COME TO REALIZE THE HARVEST OF THE FUTURE WHICH OUR PRESENT DIPLOMATIC ENDEAVORS ARE MAKING POSSIBLE. I SAY WE CAN AND SHOULD BE NO. 4 IN QUALITY IF NOT IN QUANTITY. I AM AWARE, AS IS EVERY TAXPAYER, OF THE HEAVY FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT MILITARY PREPAREONESS IMPOSES ON THIS COUNTRY. BUT DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE AGAINST POTENTIAL THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SAFETY? ARE THERE REALLY VERY MANY AMERICANS WHO BELIEVE THAT IT IS BETTER TO SUFFER DEFEAT THAN TO FIGHT? TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE LESSONS OF HISTORY. LIBRARY -9- WORLD WAR I ERUPTED DESPITE THE HAGUE PEACE TREATIES. WORLD WAR II WAS CAUSED BY A POWER-HUNGRY MADMAN, NOT BY AN ARMAMENTS RACE. IT MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF ENGLAND, FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN BETTER PREPARED. IT WAS FOR THESE VERY REASONS THAT AT THE END OF WORLD WAR AND II WE VOWED NEVER TO BE CAUGHT UNPREPARED AGAIN. WE DOOMED TO ONCE AGAIN REPEAT THE MISTAKE WE MADE FOLLOWING THOSE WORLD CONFLICTS? UNFORTUNATELY THE PASSAGE OF TIME THROWS A CLOAK OF IGNORANCE OVER THE BITTER ERRORS OF POSTWAR HISTORY. HALF OF TODAY'S AMERICANS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN WE FOUGHT WORLD WAR II. -10- THEY, AND OTHER AMERICANS IN THEIR EARLY TEENS, HAD NO DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THAT WAR OR ANY DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF IT. IF INDEED WE ARE INTERESTED IN PRESERVING THE PEACE WE CANNOT EVER AGAIN ALLOW ANY FOREIGN POWER TO ACHIEVE OVERWHELMING MILITARY SUPERIORITY VIS-A-VIS THE UNITED STATES. THIS IS NOT TO ARGUE AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO NEGOTIATE AN EAST-WEST DETENTE. WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE SUCH CONDITIONS. AS I HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, I STRONGLY SUPPORT PRESIDENT NIXON'S MISSIONS TO PEKING AND MOSCOW AND THE TERMS OF THE SALT AGREEMENTS. BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT WEAKNESS INVITES ATTACK, AND IT TAKES ONLY R.FORD LIBRARY -11- ONE AGGRESSOR NATION TO PLUNGE THE ENTIRE WORLD INTO WAR. NOW THAT WE HAVE PLACED A CHECKREIN ON THE NUMBERS OF U.S. AND SOVIET ROCKET LAUNCHERS, THERE WILL BE THOSE IN CONGRESS WHO WILL OPPOSE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE QUALITY OF U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE PRESIDENT'S PLANS TO MODERNIZE OUR NAVY. THIS I SAY, IS THE HEIGHT OF FOLLY. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE SOVIETS WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON QUALITATIVE IMPROVEMENTS IN THEIR NUCLEAR ARSENAL. AND AS FOR SEA POWER, THE SOVIETS HAVE BEEN AND ARE CONTINUING TO MOVE AHEAD WITH A NAVAL AND MARITIME PROGRAM THAT IS A TECHNOLOGICAL MARVEL. -12- SOVIET RUSSIA IS PREPARING A MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT WHICH BY 1975 COULD BE AHEAD OF OURS IN MANY RESPECTS. DURING THE PAST 10 YEARS THE RUSSIANS HAVE DEVELOPED THE WORLD'S FASTEST INTERCEPTOR AIRCRAFT, THE WORLD'S LARGEST STRATEGIC MISSILE, AND THE WORLD'S LARGEST HELICOPTER. THEY HAVE ALSO DEVELOPED MORE THAN 50 NEW SHIPS OF ALL CLASSES IN ADDITION TO A NEW ALL-PURPOSE LAND TANK, NEW ANTITANK WEAPONS, ARTILLERY AND AIRCRAFT. THESE NEW WEAPONS DID NOT EVOLVE OVERNIGHT. THEY WERE ON THE DRAWING BOARDS IN THE 1950s. WITH NO VISIBLE LETUP IN THE SOVIET RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE DECADE OF THE 1970s WILL SEE A STEADY FLOW OF NEW -13- SOVIET WEAPONS SYSTEMS THAT HAVE BEEN BLUEPRINTED DURING THE PAST DECADE. THIS IS WHY I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED $83 BILLION DEFENSE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 1973. WITH THIS BUDGET, PRESIDENT NIXON HAS INITIATED A BUILDUP CLEARLY INTENDED TO PREVENT THE SOVIET UNION FROM OUTCLASSING THE UNITED STATES MILITARILY. I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED STEPUP IN THE NAVY'S UNDERWATER LONGRANGE MISSILE SYSTEM (TRIDENT), THE MISSILE SUBMARINE PROGRAM AIMED AT REPLACING OUR AGAIN POLAR!S FLEET WITH BOATS WHOSE NEW MISSILES WILL HAVE THE SAME RANGE AS THE MINUTEMAN ICBM I SUPPORT NAVY MODERNIZATION AND THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD THREE PROTOTYPE GERALD IBRARY -14- B-1 SUPERBOMBERS FOR THE AIR FORCE. AND I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED 17 PER CENT INCREASE IN DEFENSE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING THE EMPHASIS IN THIS FISCAL 1973 DEFENSE BUDGET RESTS ON INVESTMENT ITEMS SUCH AS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, MODERNIZATION, SHIP CONSTRUCTION, AND CREATION OF A STRONG TECHNOLOGICAL BASE TO OFFSET THE SOVIET STRIDES TOWARD A MORE EFFICIENT AND PRODUCTIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORT. I ENDORSE THIS COURSE. WILL THIS DEFENSE EFFORT CONSTITUTE A DISTORTION OF PRIORITIES? WILL WE BE SPENDING A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE U.S. TAX DOLLAR ON DEFENSE NEEDS? DEFENSE OUTLAYS IN FISCAL 1973, -15- IF APPROVED AS PROPOSED BY THE PRESIDENT, WILL BE DOWN TO 30 PER CENT OF ALL FEDERAL OUTLAYS -- THE LOWEST LEVEL PROPORTIONATELY, SINCE 1950. AT THE SAME TIME, HUMAN RESOURCES SPENDING WILL BE ALLOCATED 45 CENTS OUT OF EVERY FEDERAL DOLLAR. THOSE WHO WOULD ATTACK THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE BUDGET DESPITE THIS PRIORITIES RATIO SHOULD HEED THE WORDS OF AIR MARSHAL SIR JOHN SLESSOR, WHO SAID: "THE MOST IMPORTANT SOCIAL SERVICE A GOVERNMENT CAN RENDER IS TO KEEP ITS CITIZENS ALIVE AND FREE." LET US NEVER FORGET, THEN, THAT STRENGTH REMAINS THE KEY TO PEACE AND NATIONAL SECURITY. -16- CRITICS OF MILITARY SPENDING ARE FOND OF POINTING OUT THAT PRESIDENT EISENHOWER WARNED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAINST WHAT HE CALLED "THE MILITARY- INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX." BUT THEY NEVER QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT IKE SAID IN THAT FAREWELL ADDRESS OF HIS IN 1961. IKE SAID THIS: "UNTIL THE LATEST OF OUR WORLD CONFLICTS, THE UNITED STATES HAD NO ARMAMENTS INDUSTRY. AMERICAN MAKERS OF PLOWSHARES COULD, WITH TIME AND AS REQUIRED, MAKE SWORDS AS WELL. BUT NOW WE CAN NO LONGER RISK EMERGENCY IMPROVISATION OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; WE HAVE BEEN COMPELLED TO CREATE A PERMANENT ARMAMENTS INDUSTRY OF VAST PROPORTIONS. THIS CONJUNCTION OF AN IMMENSE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT AND A LARGE ARMS INDUSTRY GERALD R. LISEARY R.FORD -17- IS NEW IN THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE. THE TOTAL INFLUENCE -- ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, EVEN SPIRITUAL -- IS FELT IN EVERY CITY, EVERY STATE HOUSE, EVERY OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPERATIVE NEED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. YET WE MUST NOT FAIL TO COMPREHEND ITS GRAVE IMPLICATIONS. IN THE COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT, WE MUST GUARD AGAINST THE ACQUISITION OF UNWARRANTED INFLUENCE, WHETHER SOUGHT OR UNSOUGHT, BY THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. THE POTENTIAL FOR DISASTROUS RISE OF MISPLACED POWER EXISTS AND WILL PERSIST. WE MUST NEVER LET THE WEIGHT OF THIS COMBINATION ENDANGER OUR LIBERTIES OR DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES." NOTE THAT IKE CALLED ATTENTION TO THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ABUSE OF POWER -18- ON THE PART OF THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX BUT HE DID NOT URGE THAT THIS COMPLEX BE DISMEMBERED OR DESTROYED. INSTEAD HE SAID, "WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPERATIVE NEED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT." AND IN THAT SAME SPEECH, IKE SAID: "OUR ARMS MUST BE MIGHTY, READY FOR INSTANT ACTION SO THAT NO POTENTIAL AGGRESSOR MAY BE TEMPTED TO RISK HIS OWN DESTRUCTION." IKE KNEW, AS DOES RICHARD NIXON THAT WE COULD NEVER MOVE FROM AN ERA OF CONFRONTATION TO AN ERA OF NEGOTIATION EXCEPT FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH. IT IS A MATTER OF SOBER FACT THAT ONE CAN NEGOTIATE ONLY FROM STRENGTH. YET TODAY WE HAVE OUR UNILATERAL DISARMERS AND THE "RATHER BE RED THAN DEAD" CROWD. -19- THIS PRODUCES WHAT I CALL POLLUTION OF THE AMERICAN SPIRIT. IT IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS FORMS OF POLLUTION IN AMERICA -- AND ONE WE CANNOT FIGHT WITH DOLLARS. WE MUST FIGHT AGAINST THIS ADULTERATION OF THE SPIRIT WHICH HAS MADE AMERICA STRONG. WE MUST REVIVE THE VIRTUES OF AMERICANISM -- COURAGE AND HONOR, AS WELL AS JUSTICE, TRUTH, SINCERITY AND HARDIHOOD. WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT AMONG THE THINGS THAT WILL DESTROY AMERICA IS PEACE AT ANY PRICE. AND AS WE APPROACH THE CELEBRATION OF OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY, LET US REAWAKEN PATRIOTISM -- LOVE OF COUNTRY COURAGE WITH CONVICTION FAITH IN FREEDOM -20- AND DEVOTION TO DUTY. AS THE LATE GENERAL DOUGLAS MAc ARTHUR SAID: "BE NOT DECEIVED BY STRANGE VOICES HEARD ACROSS THE LAND DECRYING THIS OLD AND PROVEN CONCEPT OF PATRIOTISM. FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, IT HAS BEEN THE MAIN BULWARK OF OUR NATIONAL STRENGTH AND INTEGRITY. BE PROUD TO BE CALLED A PATRIOT, OR NATIONALIST, OR WHAT YOU WILL IF IT MEANS THAT YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY ABOVE ALL ELSE -- AND WILL PLACE YOUR LIFE, IF NEED BE, AT THE SERVICE OF YOUR FLAG." --END-- GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD alistribution: 5th District 11:00 a.m. 6/13/72 Moffice Copy AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH. REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE THE VFW STATE CONVENTION GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 9 A.M. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1972 FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY The SALT agreements entered into by the United States and the Soviet Union have, in effect, already become a part of history. The SALT Treaty will in time become part of the heritage of our past. "The heritage " that, in the words carved on the National Archives Building in Washington, "is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future." What of the seed--the SALT Treaty itself? Have we made unwise concessions to the Soviet Union? Have we placed our national defense in danger? Have we placed ourselves in a position of nuclear inferiority? The terror remains, but the balance is frozen in terms of a standoff in strategic weaponry. It is true that the Soviets have more rocket launchers than we have and more powerful warheads. But we have greater numbers of warheads and we have the advantage in accuracy and in advanced technology. In terms of nuclear tonnage, the total is about the same. Have we, then, achieved anything at all? Indeed, yes. We have slowed the Russians' headlong rush toward nuclear superiority, a superiority which could have tempted them into a nuclear first strike against the United States. Further stockpiling of nuclear weapons launchers by both the United States and the Soviet Union simply did not make any sense. Both of us have the power to destroy the other many times over. That, in effect, is insanity multiplied. So what it all comes down to is this. We did not give anything away, and we slowed the Soviet momentum in the nuclear arms race and perhaps thus avoided a future nuclear holocaust touched off by a Soviet first strike. As for the effect of the limitation on the United States, we can still improve the quality of our nuclear weapons. The only limitation is on quantities and that limitation makes sense. What of the harvest which may be produced by the SALT Treaty? My fervent hope is that it will lead to future agreements further reducing the level of nuclear terror in the world and perhaps even to at least partial (more) -2- disarmament--mutual disarmament--of the world's two great superpowers. It is worth noting, it seems to me, that no columnist or commentator spoke in the aftermath of President Nixon's mission to Moscow of what might have been called "the spirit of Moscow." This is good. This is healthy. This is realistic. Instead of the heady euphoria generated by the meeting between President Johnson and Premier Kosygin at Glassboro--a meeting that produced nothing-- we have an attitude of good common sense that followed the productive summit meeting in Moscow. The Moscow meetings were highly productive, but we did not come away from them with our heads in the clouds. Our feet are on the ground, and we are looking straight ahead. We are hopeful about the "harvest of the future" but we are not wrapping those hopes in foolish dreams. There are, of course, those in the Congress who now are calling for deep cuts in our defense budget. They are demanding sharp slashes in our defenses despite the fact that the SALT Treaty was possible only because we bargained from a position of strength. What of the harvest of the future? As we wind down the war in Vietnam, I believe we are entering on an era which holds great promise for the future peace of the world. I am hopeful that we can truly have a generation of peace--that future generations can settle the world's differences in some other forum than a vale of blood and tears. But let there be no mistake. We can have peace in this age of nuclear weaponry and so-called wars of liberation only if we remain strong. The most cursory look at history tells us that the possibility of armed aggression can never be dismissed. Let us, therefore, be on guard against those who preach the foolish doctrine of unilateral disarmament. Our President has journeyed to Moscow and to Peking on missions of peace. He has opened up a new era of negotiations. He has thawed the hostility and suspicion that breed incidents and confrontation. In less than a week I, too, will be making a trip to Peking and I expect to talk with top Chinese officials while there. I will be seeking to continue the dialogue the President has started and to open wider the door to China. But I am fully cognizant, as is the President, that we in America must keep up our strength if we are to enjoy peace even in an era of negotiations. (more) -3- Let us not forget the lessons of history. We must maintain our strength-- both military and spiritual. We must make sure we can come to realize the harvest of the future which our present diplomatic endeavors are making possible. I say we can and should be No. 1 in quality, if not in quantity. I am aware, as is every taxpayer, of the heavy financial burden that military preparedness imposes on this country. But does anyone really believe that we cannot afford an effective defense against potential threats to our national safety? Are there really very many Americans who believe that it is better to suffer defeat than to fight? Take a close look at the lessons of history. World War I erupted despite the Hague peace treaties. World War II was caused by a power-hungry madman, not by an armaments race. It might well have been prevented if England, France and the United States had been better prepared. It was for these very reasons that at the end of World Wars I and II we vowed never to be caught unprepared again. And we doomed to once again repeat the mistakes we made following those world conflicts? Unfortunately the passage of time throws a cloak of ignorance over the bitter errors of postwar history. Half of today's Americans were not alive when we fought World War II. They, and other Americans in their early teens, had no direct connection with that war or any direct knowledge of it. If indeed we are interested in preserving the peace we cannot ever again allow any foreign power to achieve overwhelming military superiority vis-a-vis the United States. This is not to argue against attempts to negotiate an East-West detente. We should do everything possible to achieve such conditions. As I have already indicated, I strongly support President Nixon's missions to Peking and Moscow and the terms of the SALT agreements. But the fact remains that weakness invites attack, and it takes only one aggressor nation to plunge the entire world into war. Now that we have placed a checkrein on the numbers of U.S. and Soviet rocket launchers, there will be those in Congress who will oppose improvements in the quality of U.S. nuclear weapons and the President's plans to modernize our Navy. This, I say, is the height of folly. (more) -4- There is no question that the Soviets will continue to work on qualitative improvements in their nuclear arsenal. And as for sea power, the Soviets have been and are continuing to move ahead with a naval and maritime program that is a technological marvel. Soviet Russia is preparing a military establishment which by 1975 could be ahead of ours in many respects. During the past 10 years the Russians have developed the world's fastest interceptor aircraft, the world's largest strategic missile, and the world's largest helicopter. They have also developed more than 50 new ships of all classes in addition to a new all-purpose land tank, new antitank weapons, artillery and aircraft. These new weapons did not evolve overnight. They were on the drawing boards in the 1950s. With no visible letup in the Soviet research and development program, it is quite possible that the decade of the 1970s will see a steady flow of new Soviet weapons systems that have been blueprinted during the past decade. This is why I strongly support the President's proposed $83 billion defense budget for fiscal 1973. With this budget, President Nixon has initiated a buildup clearly intended to prevent the Soviet Union from outclassing the United States militarily. I support the proposed stepup in the Navy's Underwater LongRange Missile System (Trident), the missile submarine program aimed at replacing our aging Polaris fleet with boats whose new missiles will have the same range as the Minuteman ICBM. I support Navy modernization and the proposal to build three prototype B-1 superbombers for the Air Force. And I support the proposed 17 per cent increase in defense research and development funding. The emphasis in this fiscal 1973 defense budget rests on investment items such as research, development, modernization, ship construction, and creation of a strong technological base to offset the Soviet strides toward a more efficient and productive research and development effort. I endorse this course. Will this defense effort constitute a distortion of priorities? Will we be spending a disproportionate share of the U.S. tax dollar on defense needs? Defense outlays in fiscal 1973, if approved as proposed by the President, will be down to 30 per cent of all Federal outlays--the lowest level, proportionately, since 1950. (more) -5- At the same time, human resources spending will be allocated 45 cents out of every Federal dollar. Those who would attack the President's defense budget despite this priorities ratio should heed the words of Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, who said: "The most important social service a government can render is to keep its citizens alive and free." Let us never forget, then, that strength remains the key to peace and national security. Critics of military spending are fond of pointing out that President Eisenhower warned the American people against what he called "the military-industrial complex." But they never quote exactly what Ike said in that farewell address of his in 1961. Ike said this: "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvi- sation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-- economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." Note that Ike called attention to the possibility of an abuse of power on the part of the military-industrial complex but he did not urge that this complex be dismembered or destroyed. Instead he said, "We recognize the imperative need for this development." And in that same speech, Ike said: "Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.' Ike knew, as does Richard Nixon, that we could never move from an era of confrontation to an era of negotiation except from a position of strength. (more) -6- It is a matter of sober fact that one can negotiate only from strength. Yet today we have our unilateral disarmers and the "rather be Red than dead" crowd. This produces what I call pollution of the American spirit. It is one of the most dangerous forms of pollution in America--and one we cannot fight with dollars. We must fight against this adulteration of the spirit which has made America strong. We must revive the virtues of Americanism--courage and honor, as well as justice, truth, sincerity and hardihood. We must recognize that among the things that will destroy America is peace at any price. And as we approach the celebration of our Independence Day, let us reawaken patriotism--love of country, courage with conviction, faith in freedom, and devotion to duty. As the late Gen. Douglas MacArthur said: "Be not deceived by strange voices heard across the land, decrying this old and proven concept of patriotism. From the very beginning, it has been the main bulwark of our national strength and integrity. Be proud to be called a patriot, or nationalist, or what you will if it means that you love your Country above all else--and will place your life, if need be, at the service of your Flag." Thank you. # # # 5th District Media a affice Copy AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH. REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE THE VFW STATE CONVENTION GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 9 A.M. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1972 FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY The SALT agreements entered into by the United States and the Soviet Union have, in effect, already become a part of history. The SALT Treaty will in time become part of the heritage of our past. "The heritage " that, in the words carved on the National Archives Building in Washington, "is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future." What of the seed--the SALT Treaty itself? Have we made unwise concessions to the Soviet Union? Have we placed our national defense in danger? Have we placed ourselves in a position of nuclear inferiority? The terror remains, but the balance is frozen in terms of a standoff in strategic weaponry. It is true that the Soviets have more rocket launchers than we have and more powerful warheads. But we have greater numbers of warheads and we have the advantage in accuracy and in advanced technology. In terms of nuclear tonnage, the total is about the same. Have we, then, achieved anything at all? Indeed, yes. We have slowed the Russians' headlong rush toward nuclear superiority, a superiority which could have tempted them into a nuclear first strike against the United States. Further stockpiling of nuclear weapons launchers by both the United States and the Soviet Union simply did not make any sense. Both of us have the power to destroy the other many times over. That, in effect, is insanity multiplied. So what it all comes down to is this. We did not give anything away, and we slowed the Soviet momentum in the nuclear arms race and perhaps thus avoided a future nuclear holocaust touched off by a Soviet first strike. As for the effect of the limitation on the United States, we can still improve the quality of our nuclear weapons. The only limitation is on quantities--and that limitation makes sense. What of the harvest which may be produced by the SALT Treaty? My fervent hope is that it will lead to future agreements further reducing the level of nuclear terror in the world and perhaps even to at least partial (more) -2- disarmament--mutual disarmament--of the world's two great superpowers. It is worth noting, it seems to me, that no columnist or commentator spoke in the aftermath of President Nixon's mission to Moscow of what might have been called "the spirit of Moscow." This is good. This is healthy. This is realistic. Instead of the heady euphoria generated by the meeting between President Johnson and Premier Kosygin at Glassboro--a meeting that produced nothing- we have an attitude of good common sense that followed the productive summit meeting in Moscow. The Moscow meetings were highly productive, but we did not come away from them with our heads in the clouds. Our feet are on the ground, and we are looking straight ahead. We are hopeful about the "harvest of the future" but we are not wrapping those hopes in foolish dreams. There are, of course, those in the Congress who now are calling for deep cuts in our defense budget. They are demanding sharp slashes in our defenses despite the fact that the SALT Treaty was possible only because we bargained from a position of strength. What of the harvest of the future? As we wind down the war in Vietnam, I believe we are entering on an era which holds great promise for the future peace of the world. I am hopeful that we can truly have a generation of peace--that future generations can settle the world's differences in some other forum than a vale of blood and tears. But let there be no mistake. We can have peace in this age of nuclear weaponry and so-called wars of liberation only if we remain strong. The most cursory look at history tells us that the possibility of armed aggression can never be dismissed. Let us, therefore, be on guard against those who preach the foolish doctrine of unilateral disarmament. Our President has journeyed to Moscow and to Peking on missions of peace. He has opened up a new era of negotiations. He has thawed the hostility and suspicion that breed incidents and confrontation. In less than a week I, too, will be making a trip to Peking and I expect to talk with top Chinese officials while there. I will be seeking to continue the dialogue the President has started and to open wider the door to China. But I am fully cognizant, as is the President, that we in America must keep up our strength if we are to enjoy peace even in an era of negotiations. (more) -3- Let us not forget the lessons of history. We must maintain our strength-- both military and spiritual. We must make sure we can come to realize the harvest of the future which our present diplomatic endeavors are making possible. I say we can and should be No. 1 in quality, if not in quantity. I am aware, as is every taxpayer, of the heavy financial burden that military preparedness imposes on this country. But does anyone really believe that we cannot afford an effective defense against potential threats to our national safety? Are there really very many Americans who believe that it is better to suffer defeat than to fight? Take a close look at the lessons of history. World War I erupted despite the Hague peace treaties. World War II was caused by a power-hungry madman, not by an armaments race. It might well have been prevented if England, France and the United States had been better prepared. It was for these very reasons that at the end of World Wars I and II we vowed never to be caught unprepared again. And we doomed to once again repeat the mistakes we made following those world conflicts? Unfortunately the passage of time throws a cloak of ignorance over the bitter errors of postwar history. Half of today's Americans were not alive when we fought World War II. They, and other Americans in their early teens, had no direct connection with that war or any direct knowledge of it. If indeed we are interested in preserving the peace we cannot ever again allow any foreign power to achieve overwhelming military superiority vis-a-vis the United States. This is not to argue against attempts to negotiate an East-West detente. We should do everything possible to achieve such conditions. As I have already indicated, I strongly support President Nixon's missions to Peking and Moscow and the terms of the SALT agreements. But the fact remains that weakness invites attack, and it takes only one aggressor nation to plunge the entire world into war. Now that we have placed a checkrein on the numbers of U.S. and Soviet rocket launchers, there will be those in Congress who will oppose improvements in the quality of U.S. nuclear weapons and the President's plans to modernize our Navy. This, I say, is the height of folly. (more) -4-- There is no question that the Soviets will continue to work on qualitative improvements in their nuclear arsenal. And as for sea power, the Soviets have been and are continuing to move ahead with a naval and maritime program that is a technological marvel. Soviet Russia is preparing a military establishment which by 1975 could be ahead of ours in many respects. During the past 10 years the Russians have developed the world's fastest interceptor aircraft, the world's largest strategic missile, and the world's largest helicopter. They have also developed more than 50 new ships of all classes in addition to a new all-purpose land tank, new antitank weapons, artillery and aircraft. These new weapons did not evolve overnight. They were on the drawing boards in the 1950s. With no visible letup in the Soviet research and development program, it is quite possible that the decade of the 1970s will see a steady flow of new Soviet weapons systems that have been blueprinted during the past decade. This is why I strongly support the President's proposed $83 billion defense budget for fiscal 1973. With this budget, President Nixon has initiated a buildup clearly intended to prevent the Soviet Union from outclassing the United States militarily. I support the proposed stepup in the Navy's Underwater LongRange Missile System (Trident), the missile submarine program aimed at replacing our aging Polaris fleet with boats whose new missiles will have the same range as the Minuteman ICBM. I support Navy modernization and the proposal to build three prototype B-1 superbombers for the Air Force. And I support the proposed 17 per cent increase in defense research and development funding. The emphasis in this fiscal 1973 defense budget rests on investment items such as research, development, modernization, ship construction, and creation of a strong technological base to offset the Soviet strides toward a more efficient and productive research and development effort. I endorse this course. Will this defense effort constitute a distortion of priorities? Will we be spending a disproportionate share of the U.S. tax dollar on defense needs? Defense outlays in fiscal 1973, if approved as proposed by the President, will be down to 30 per cent of all Federal outlays--the lowest level, proportionately, since 1950. (more) -5- At the same time, human resources spending will be allocated 45 cents out of every Federal dollar. Those who would attack the President's defense budget despite this priorities ratio should heed the words of Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, who said: "The most important social service a government can render is to keep its citizens alive and free." Let us never forget, then, that strength remains the key to peace and national security. Critics of military spending are fond of pointing out that President Eisenhower warned the American people against what he called "the military-industrial complex.' But they never quote exactly what Ike said in that farewell address of his in 1961. Ike said this: "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvi- sation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-- economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. " Note that Ike called attention to the possibility of an abuse of power on the part of the military-industrial complex but he did not urge that this complex be dismembered or destroyed. Instead he said, "We recognize the imperative need for this development." And in that same speech, Ike said: "Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. if Ike knew, as does Richard Nixon, that we could never move from an era of confrontation to an era of negotiation except from a position of strength. (more) -6- It is a matter of sober fact that one can negotiate only from strength. Yet today we have our unilateral disarmers and the "rather be Red than dead" crowd. This produces what I call pollution of the American spirit. It is one of the most dangerous forms of pollution in America--and one we cannot fight with dollars. We must fight against this adulteration of the spirit which has made America strong. We must revive the virtues of Americanism--courage and honor, as well as justice, truth, sincerity and hardihood. We must recognize that among the things that will destroy America is peace at any price. And as we approach the celebration of our Independence Day, let us reawaken patriotism-- love of country, courage with conviction, faith in freedom, and devotion to duty. As the late Gen. Douglas MacArthur said: "Be not deceived by strange voices heard across the land, decrying this old and proven concept of patriotism. From the very beginning, it has been the main bulwark of our national strength and integrity. Be proud to be called a patriot, or nationalist, or what you will if it means that you love your Country above all else--and will place your life, if need be, at the service of your Flag." Thank you. # # #

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
bc23b0426a9493b0
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
4526439
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "4526439",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526439",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "VFW State Convention, Grand Rapids, MI, June 17, 1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526439",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Speeches"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Soviet Union",
        "Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-",
        "Arms control",
        "Federal budget",
        "National security",
        "Summit meetings"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526439.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526439.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526439.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "4526439",
    "label": "VFW State Convention, Grand Rapids, MI, June 17, 1972",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526439"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "4526439",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526439",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "VFW State Convention, Grand Rapids, MI, June 17, 1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526439",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Speeches"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Soviet Union",
        "Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-",
        "Arms control",
        "Federal budget",
        "National security",
        "Summit meetings"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526439.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526439.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526439.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526439",
    "naId": 4526439,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1972-06-30",
        "month": 6,
        "year": 1972
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1972-06-01",
        "month": 6,
        "year": 1972
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context 
{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526439.pdf",
    "mediaId": "bc23b0426a9493b0",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D33, folder \"VFW State Convention, Grand\nRapids, MI, June 17, 1972\" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech\nFile at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box D33 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nVFW STATE CONVENTION, GRAND RAPIDS, MICH\n9 A.M. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1972.\nTHE SALT AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO\nBY THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION\nHAVE, IN EFFECT, ALREADY BECOME A PART\nOF HISTORY\nTHE SALT TREATY WILL IN TIME\nBECOME PART OF THE HERITAGE OF OUR PAST.\n\"THE HERITAGE\" THAT, IN THE WORDS CARVED\nON THE NATIONAL ARCHI VES BUILDING IN\nWASHINGTON, \"IS THE SEED THAT BRINGS\nFORTH THE HARVEST OF THE FUTURE.\"\nWHAT OF THE SEED -- THE SALT\nTREATY ITSELF? HAVE WE MADE UNWISE\nCONCESSIONS TO THE SOVIET UNION? HAVE\nWE PLACED OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE IN DANGER?\nHAVE WE PLACED OURSELVES IN A POSITION\nOF NUCLEAR INFERIORITY?\nof GERALD LIBRARY FORD\n-2-\nTHE TERROR REMAINS, BUT THE\nBALANCE IS FROZEN IN TERMS OF A STANDOFF\nIN STRATEGIC WEAPONRY. IT IS TRUE THAT\nTHE SOVIETS HAVE MORE ROCKET LAUNCHERS\nTHAN WE HAVE HAVE/AND AND MORE POWERFUL WARHEADS.\nBUT WE HAVE GREATER NUMBERS OF WARHEADS\nAND WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGE IN ACCURACY\nAND IN ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.\nIN TERMS OF\nNUCLEAR TONNAGE, THE TOTAL IS ABOUT THE\nSAME.\nHAVE WE, THEN, ACHIEVED ANYTHING\nAT ALL? INDEED, YES. WE HAVE SLOWED THE\nRUSSIANS' HEADLONG RUSH TOWARD NUCLEAR\nSUPERIORITY, A SUPERIORITY WHICH COULD\nHAVE TEMPTED THEM INTO A NUCLEAR FIRST\nSTRIKE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.\nFURTHER STOCKPILING OF NUCLEAR\nFORD\nWEAPONS LAUNCHERS BY BOTH THE UNITED STATES\nLIBRARY\n-3-\nAND THE SOVIET UNION SIMPLY DID NOT MAKE\nANY SENSE. BOTH OF US HAVE THE POWER TO\nDESTROY THE OTHER MANY TIMES OVER. THAT\nIN EFFECT, EFFECT IS INSANITY MULTIPLIED.\nSO WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO\nIS THIS. WE DID NOT GIVE ANYTHING AWAY\nAND WE SLOWED THE SOVIET MOMENTUM IN THE\nNUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND PERHAPS THUS\nNUCLEAR\nAVOIDED A FUTURE HOLOCAUST TOUCHED OFF\nBY A SOVIET FIRST STRIKE.\nAS FOR THE EFFECT OF THE\nLIMITATION ON THE UNITED STATES, WE CAN\nSTILL IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF OUR NUCLEAR\nWEAPONS. THE ONLY LIMITATION IS ON\nQUANTITIES -- AND THAT LIMITATION MAKES\nSENSE.\nWHAT OF THE HARVEST WHICH MAY\nBE PRODUCED BY THE SALT TREATY?\n-4-\nMY FERVENT HOPE IS THAT IT WILL\nLEAD TO FUTURE AGREEMENTS FURTHER\nREDUCING THE LEVEL OF NUCLEAR TERROR IN\nTHE WORLD AND PERHAPS EVEN TO AT LEAST\nPARTIAL DISARMAMENT -- MUTUAL DISARMAMENT --\nOF THE WORLD'S TWO GREAT SUPERPOWERS.\nIT IS WORTH NOTING, IT SEEMS\nTO ME, THAT NO COLUMNIST OR COMMENTATOR\nSPOKE IN THE AFTERMATH OF PRESIDENT\nNIXON'S MISSION TO MOSCOW OF WHAT MIGHT\nHAVE BEEN CALLED \"THE SPIRIT OF MOSCOW.\"\nTHIS IS GOOD. THIS IS HEALTHY.\nTHIS IS REALISTIC.\nINSTEAD OF THE HEADY EUPHORIA\nGENERATED BY THE MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT\nJOHNSON AND PREMIER KOSYGIN AT GLASSBORO --\nA MEETING THAT PRODUCED NOTHING -- WE HAVE\nAN ATTITUDE OF GOOD COMMON SENSE THAT\nGERALD\nLISARY\n-5-\nFOLLOWED THE PRODUCTIVE SUMMIT MEETING\nIN MOSCOW.\nTHE MOSCOW MEETINGS WERE HIGHLY\nPRODUCTIVE, BUT WE DID NOT COME AWAY FROM\nTHEM WITH OUR HEADS IN THE CLOUDS. OUR\nFEET ARE ON THE GROUND, AND WE ARE LOOKING\nSTRAIGHT AHEAD. WE ARE HOPEFUL ABOUT\nTHE \"HARVEST OF THE FUTURE\" BUT WE ARE NOT\nWRAPPING THOSE HOPES IN FOOLISH DREAMS.\nTHERE ARE OF COURSE THOSE IN\nTHE CONGRESS WHO NOW ARE CALLING FOR DEEP\nCUTS IN OUR DEFENSE BUDGET. THEY ARE\nDEMANDING SHARP SLASHES IN OUR DEFENSES\nDESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SALT TREATY WAS\nPOSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE WE BARGAINED FROM\nA POSITION OF STRENGTH.\nWHAT OF THE HARVEST OF THE\nFUTURE AS WE WIND DOWN THE WAR IN\n-6-\nVIETNAM, I BELIEVE WE ARE ENTERING ON AN\nERA WHICH HOLDS GREAT PROMISE FOR THE\nFUTURE PEACE OF THE WORLD. I AM HOPEFUL\nTHAT WE CAN TRULY HAVE A GENERATION OF\nPEACE -- THAT FUTURE GENERATIONS CAN\nSETTLE THE WORLD'S DIFFERENCES IN SOME\nOTHER FORUM THAN A VALE OF BLOOD AND\nTEARS.\nBUT LET THERE BE NO MISTAKE.\nWE CAN HAVE PEACE IN THIS AGE OF NUCLEAR\nWEAPONRY AND SO-CALLED WARS OF LIBERATION\nONLY IF WE REMAIN STRONG.\nTHE MOST CURSORY LOOK AT\nHISTORY TELLS US THAT THE POSSIBILITY\nOF ARMED AGGRESS!ON CAN NEVER BE DISMISSED.\nLET us, THEREFORE, BE ON GUARD AGAINST\nTHOSE WHO PREACH THE FOOLISH DOCTRINE OF\nUNILATERAL DISARMAMENT.\n-7-\nOUR PRESIDENT HAS JOURNEYED\nTO MOSCOW AND TO PEKING ON MISSIONS OF\nPEACE. HE HAS OPENED UP A NEW ERA OF\nNEGOTIATIONS. HE HAS THAWED THE HOSTILITY\nAND SUSPICION THAT BREED INCIDENTS AND\nCONFRONTATION.\nIN LESS THAN A WEEK 1, Too, WILL\nBE MAKING A TRIP TO PEKING AND + EXPECT\nTO TALK WITH TOP CHINESE OFFICIALS WHILE\nTHERE. I WILL BE SEEKING TO CONTINUE THE\nDIALOGUE THE PRESIDENT HAS STARTED AND TO\nOPEN WIDER THE DOOR TO CHINA.\nBUT I AM FULLY COGNIZANT, AS\nIS THE PRESIDENT, THAT WE IN AMERICA MUST\nKEEP UP OUR STRENGTH IF WE ARE TO ENJOY\nPEACE EVEN IN AN ERA OF NEGOTIATIONS.\nLET US NOT FORGET THE LESSONS\nOF HISTORY. WE MUST MAINTAIN OUR\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-8-\nSTRENGTH -- BOTH MILITARY AND SPIRITUAL.\nWE MUST MAKE SURE WE CAN COME TO REALIZE\nTHE HARVEST OF THE FUTURE WHICH OUR\nPRESENT DIPLOMATIC ENDEAVORS ARE MAKING\nPOSSIBLE.\nI\nSAY WE CAN AND SHOULD BE\nNO. 4 IN QUALITY IF NOT IN QUANTITY.\nI AM AWARE, AS IS EVERY TAXPAYER,\nOF THE HEAVY FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT MILITARY\nPREPAREONESS IMPOSES ON THIS COUNTRY. BUT\nDOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE CANNOT\nAFFORD AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE AGAINST\nPOTENTIAL THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SAFETY?\nARE THERE REALLY VERY MANY AMERICANS WHO\nBELIEVE THAT IT IS BETTER TO SUFFER DEFEAT\nTHAN TO FIGHT?\nTAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE LESSONS\nOF HISTORY.\nLIBRARY\n-9-\nWORLD WAR I ERUPTED DESPITE\nTHE HAGUE PEACE TREATIES.\nWORLD WAR II WAS CAUSED BY A\nPOWER-HUNGRY MADMAN, NOT BY AN ARMAMENTS\nRACE. IT MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN PREVENTED\nIF ENGLAND, FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES\nHAD BEEN BETTER PREPARED.\nIT WAS FOR THESE VERY REASONS\nTHAT AT THE END OF WORLD WAR AND II\nWE VOWED NEVER TO BE CAUGHT UNPREPARED\nAGAIN.\nWE DOOMED TO ONCE AGAIN REPEAT\nTHE MISTAKE WE MADE FOLLOWING THOSE\nWORLD CONFLICTS?\nUNFORTUNATELY THE PASSAGE OF\nTIME THROWS A CLOAK OF IGNORANCE OVER THE\nBITTER ERRORS OF POSTWAR HISTORY.\nHALF OF TODAY'S AMERICANS WERE\nNOT ALIVE WHEN WE FOUGHT WORLD WAR II.\n-10-\nTHEY, AND OTHER AMERICANS IN THEIR EARLY\nTEENS, HAD NO DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THAT\nWAR OR ANY DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF IT.\nIF INDEED WE ARE INTERESTED IN\nPRESERVING THE PEACE WE CANNOT EVER AGAIN\nALLOW ANY FOREIGN POWER TO ACHIEVE\nOVERWHELMING MILITARY SUPERIORITY\nVIS-A-VIS THE UNITED STATES.\nTHIS IS NOT TO ARGUE AGAINST\nATTEMPTS TO NEGOTIATE AN EAST-WEST\nDETENTE. WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE\nTO ACHIEVE SUCH CONDITIONS. AS I HAVE\nALREADY INDICATED, I STRONGLY SUPPORT\nPRESIDENT NIXON'S MISSIONS TO PEKING AND\nMOSCOW AND THE TERMS OF THE SALT\nAGREEMENTS.\nBUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT\nWEAKNESS INVITES ATTACK, AND IT TAKES ONLY\nR.FORD LIBRARY\n-11-\nONE AGGRESSOR NATION TO PLUNGE THE ENTIRE\nWORLD INTO WAR.\nNOW THAT WE HAVE PLACED A\nCHECKREIN ON THE NUMBERS OF U.S. AND\nSOVIET ROCKET LAUNCHERS, THERE WILL BE\nTHOSE IN CONGRESS WHO WILL OPPOSE\nIMPROVEMENTS IN THE QUALITY OF U.S. NUCLEAR\nWEAPONS AND THE PRESIDENT'S PLANS TO\nMODERNIZE OUR NAVY. THIS I SAY, IS THE\nHEIGHT OF FOLLY.\nTHERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE\nSOVIETS WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON\nQUALITATIVE IMPROVEMENTS IN THEIR NUCLEAR\nARSENAL. AND AS FOR SEA POWER, THE\nSOVIETS HAVE BEEN AND ARE CONTINUING TO\nMOVE AHEAD WITH A NAVAL AND MARITIME\nPROGRAM THAT IS A TECHNOLOGICAL MARVEL.\n-12-\nSOVIET RUSSIA IS PREPARING A\nMILITARY ESTABLISHMENT WHICH BY 1975\nCOULD BE AHEAD OF OURS IN MANY RESPECTS.\nDURING THE PAST 10 YEARS THE\nRUSSIANS HAVE DEVELOPED THE WORLD'S\nFASTEST INTERCEPTOR AIRCRAFT, THE WORLD'S\nLARGEST STRATEGIC MISSILE, AND THE WORLD'S\nLARGEST HELICOPTER. THEY HAVE ALSO\nDEVELOPED MORE THAN 50 NEW SHIPS OF ALL\nCLASSES IN ADDITION TO A NEW ALL-PURPOSE\nLAND TANK, NEW ANTITANK WEAPONS,\nARTILLERY AND AIRCRAFT. THESE NEW\nWEAPONS DID NOT EVOLVE OVERNIGHT. THEY\nWERE ON THE DRAWING BOARDS IN THE 1950s.\nWITH NO VISIBLE LETUP IN THE\nSOVIET RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM,\nIT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE DECADE OF\nTHE 1970s WILL SEE A STEADY FLOW OF NEW\n-13-\nSOVIET WEAPONS SYSTEMS THAT HAVE BEEN\nBLUEPRINTED DURING THE PAST DECADE.\nTHIS IS WHY I STRONGLY SUPPORT\nTHE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED $83 BILLION\nDEFENSE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 1973.\nWITH THIS BUDGET, PRESIDENT NIXON\nHAS INITIATED A BUILDUP CLEARLY INTENDED\nTO PREVENT THE SOVIET UNION FROM\nOUTCLASSING THE UNITED STATES MILITARILY.\nI SUPPORT THE PROPOSED STEPUP\nIN THE NAVY'S UNDERWATER LONGRANGE MISSILE\nSYSTEM (TRIDENT), THE MISSILE SUBMARINE\nPROGRAM AIMED AT REPLACING OUR AGAIN\nPOLAR!S FLEET WITH BOATS WHOSE NEW\nMISSILES WILL HAVE THE SAME RANGE AS THE\nMINUTEMAN ICBM\nI SUPPORT NAVY MODERNIZATION AND\nTHE PROPOSAL TO BUILD THREE PROTOTYPE\nGERALD\nIBRARY\n-14-\nB-1 SUPERBOMBERS FOR THE AIR FORCE.\nAND I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED\n17 PER CENT INCREASE IN DEFENSE RESEARCH\nAND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING\nTHE EMPHASIS IN THIS FISCAL 1973\nDEFENSE BUDGET RESTS ON INVESTMENT ITEMS\nSUCH AS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,\nMODERNIZATION, SHIP CONSTRUCTION, AND\nCREATION OF A STRONG TECHNOLOGICAL BASE\nTO OFFSET THE SOVIET STRIDES TOWARD A\nMORE EFFICIENT AND PRODUCTIVE RESEARCH\nAND DEVELOPMENT EFFORT. I ENDORSE THIS\nCOURSE.\nWILL THIS DEFENSE EFFORT\nCONSTITUTE A DISTORTION OF PRIORITIES?\nWILL WE BE SPENDING A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE\nOF THE U.S. TAX DOLLAR ON DEFENSE NEEDS?\nDEFENSE OUTLAYS IN FISCAL 1973,\n-15-\nIF APPROVED AS PROPOSED BY THE PRESIDENT,\nWILL BE DOWN TO 30 PER CENT OF ALL\nFEDERAL OUTLAYS -- THE LOWEST LEVEL\nPROPORTIONATELY, SINCE 1950.\nAT THE SAME TIME, HUMAN\nRESOURCES SPENDING WILL BE ALLOCATED\n45 CENTS OUT OF EVERY FEDERAL DOLLAR.\nTHOSE WHO WOULD ATTACK THE\nPRESIDENT'S DEFENSE BUDGET DESPITE THIS\nPRIORITIES RATIO SHOULD HEED THE WORDS\nOF AIR MARSHAL SIR JOHN SLESSOR, WHO\nSAID: \"THE MOST IMPORTANT SOCIAL SERVICE\nA GOVERNMENT CAN RENDER IS TO KEEP ITS\nCITIZENS ALIVE AND FREE.\"\nLET US NEVER FORGET, THEN, THAT\nSTRENGTH REMAINS THE KEY TO PEACE AND\nNATIONAL SECURITY.\n-16-\nCRITICS OF MILITARY SPENDING\nARE FOND OF POINTING OUT THAT PRESIDENT\nEISENHOWER WARNED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE\nAGAINST WHAT HE CALLED \"THE MILITARY-\nINDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.\" BUT THEY NEVER QUOTE\nEXACTLY WHAT IKE SAID IN THAT FAREWELL\nADDRESS OF HIS IN 1961.\nIKE SAID THIS: \"UNTIL THE LATEST\nOF OUR WORLD CONFLICTS, THE UNITED STATES\nHAD NO ARMAMENTS INDUSTRY. AMERICAN\nMAKERS OF PLOWSHARES COULD, WITH TIME AND\nAS REQUIRED, MAKE SWORDS AS WELL. BUT\nNOW WE CAN NO LONGER RISK EMERGENCY\nIMPROVISATION OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; WE HAVE\nBEEN COMPELLED TO CREATE A PERMANENT\nARMAMENTS INDUSTRY OF VAST PROPORTIONS.\nTHIS CONJUNCTION OF AN IMMENSE MILITARY\nESTABLISHMENT AND A LARGE ARMS INDUSTRY\nGERALD R. LISEARY R.FORD\n-17-\nIS NEW IN THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE. THE\nTOTAL INFLUENCE -- ECONOMIC, POLITICAL,\nEVEN SPIRITUAL -- IS FELT IN EVERY CITY,\nEVERY STATE HOUSE, EVERY OFFICE OF THE\nFEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WE RECOGNIZE THE\nIMPERATIVE NEED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. YET\nWE MUST NOT FAIL TO COMPREHEND ITS GRAVE\nIMPLICATIONS. IN THE COUNCILS OF\nGOVERNMENT, WE MUST GUARD AGAINST THE\nACQUISITION OF UNWARRANTED INFLUENCE,\nWHETHER SOUGHT OR UNSOUGHT, BY THE\nMILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. THE POTENTIAL\nFOR DISASTROUS RISE OF MISPLACED POWER\nEXISTS AND WILL PERSIST. WE MUST NEVER\nLET THE WEIGHT OF THIS COMBINATION ENDANGER\nOUR LIBERTIES OR DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES.\"\nNOTE THAT IKE CALLED ATTENTION\nTO THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ABUSE OF POWER\n-18-\nON THE PART OF THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL\nCOMPLEX BUT HE DID NOT URGE THAT THIS\nCOMPLEX BE DISMEMBERED OR DESTROYED.\nINSTEAD HE SAID, \"WE RECOGNIZE THE\nIMPERATIVE NEED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.\"\nAND IN THAT SAME SPEECH, IKE\nSAID: \"OUR ARMS MUST BE MIGHTY, READY\nFOR INSTANT ACTION SO THAT NO POTENTIAL\nAGGRESSOR MAY BE TEMPTED TO RISK HIS OWN\nDESTRUCTION.\"\nIKE KNEW, AS DOES RICHARD NIXON\nTHAT WE COULD NEVER MOVE FROM AN ERA OF\nCONFRONTATION TO AN ERA OF NEGOTIATION\nEXCEPT FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH. IT IS\nA MATTER OF SOBER FACT THAT ONE CAN\nNEGOTIATE ONLY FROM STRENGTH.\nYET TODAY WE HAVE OUR UNILATERAL\nDISARMERS AND THE \"RATHER BE RED THAN DEAD\"\nCROWD.\n-19-\nTHIS PRODUCES WHAT I CALL\nPOLLUTION OF THE AMERICAN SPIRIT. IT IS\nONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS FORMS OF\nPOLLUTION IN AMERICA -- AND ONE WE CANNOT\nFIGHT WITH DOLLARS.\nWE MUST FIGHT AGAINST THIS\nADULTERATION OF THE SPIRIT WHICH HAS MADE\nAMERICA STRONG.\nWE MUST REVIVE THE VIRTUES OF\nAMERICANISM -- COURAGE AND HONOR, AS WELL\nAS JUSTICE, TRUTH, SINCERITY AND HARDIHOOD.\nWE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT AMONG THE THINGS\nTHAT WILL DESTROY AMERICA IS PEACE AT ANY\nPRICE.\nAND AS WE APPROACH THE\nCELEBRATION OF OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY, LET\nUS REAWAKEN PATRIOTISM -- LOVE OF COUNTRY\nCOURAGE WITH CONVICTION FAITH IN FREEDOM\n-20-\nAND DEVOTION TO DUTY.\nAS THE LATE GENERAL DOUGLAS\nMAc ARTHUR SAID: \"BE NOT DECEIVED BY\nSTRANGE VOICES HEARD ACROSS THE LAND\nDECRYING THIS OLD AND PROVEN CONCEPT OF\nPATRIOTISM. FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, IT\nHAS BEEN THE MAIN BULWARK OF OUR NATIONAL\nSTRENGTH AND INTEGRITY. BE PROUD TO BE\nCALLED A PATRIOT, OR NATIONALIST, OR\nWHAT YOU WILL\nIF IT MEANS THAT YOU LOVE\nYOUR COUNTRY ABOVE ALL ELSE -- AND WILL\nPLACE YOUR LIFE, IF NEED BE, AT THE\nSERVICE OF YOUR FLAG.\"\n--END--\nGERALD R. LIBRARY FORD\nalistribution: 5th District 11:00 a.m. 6/13/72\nMoffice Copy\nAN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.\nREPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nBEFORE THE VFW STATE CONVENTION\nGRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN\n9 A.M. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1972\nFOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY\nThe SALT agreements entered into by the United States and the Soviet Union\nhave, in effect, already become a part of history.\nThe SALT Treaty will in time become part of the heritage of our past. \"The\nheritage \" that, in the words carved on the National Archives Building in\nWashington, \"is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future.\"\nWhat of the seed--the SALT Treaty itself? Have we made unwise concessions to\nthe Soviet Union? Have we placed our national defense in danger? Have we placed\nourselves in a position of nuclear inferiority?\nThe terror remains, but the balance is frozen in terms of a standoff in\nstrategic weaponry. It is true that the Soviets have more rocket launchers than\nwe have and more powerful warheads. But we have greater numbers of warheads and\nwe have the advantage in accuracy and in advanced technology. In terms of nuclear\ntonnage, the total is about the same.\nHave we, then, achieved anything at all? Indeed, yes. We have slowed the\nRussians' headlong rush toward nuclear superiority, a superiority which could have\ntempted them into a nuclear first strike against the United States.\nFurther stockpiling of nuclear weapons launchers by both the United States\nand the Soviet Union simply did not make any sense. Both of us have the power to\ndestroy the other many times over. That, in effect, is insanity multiplied.\nSo what it all comes down to is this. We did not give anything away, and\nwe slowed the Soviet momentum in the nuclear arms race and perhaps thus avoided a\nfuture nuclear holocaust touched off by a Soviet first strike.\nAs for the effect of the limitation on the United States, we can still improve\nthe quality of our nuclear weapons. The only limitation is on quantities and that\nlimitation makes sense.\nWhat of the harvest which may be produced by the SALT Treaty?\nMy fervent hope is that it will lead to future agreements further reducing\nthe level of nuclear terror in the world and perhaps even to at least partial\n(more)\n-2-\ndisarmament--mutual disarmament--of the world's two great superpowers.\nIt is worth noting, it seems to me, that no columnist or commentator spoke\nin the aftermath of President Nixon's mission to Moscow of what might have been\ncalled \"the spirit of Moscow.\"\nThis is good. This is healthy. This is realistic.\nInstead of the heady euphoria generated by the meeting between President\nJohnson and Premier Kosygin at Glassboro--a meeting that produced nothing-- we have\nan attitude of good common sense that followed the productive summit meeting in\nMoscow.\nThe Moscow meetings were highly productive, but we did not come away from\nthem with our heads in the clouds. Our feet are on the ground, and we are looking\nstraight ahead. We are hopeful about the \"harvest of the future\" but we are not\nwrapping those hopes in foolish dreams.\nThere are, of course, those in the Congress who now are calling for deep\ncuts in our defense budget. They are demanding sharp slashes in our defenses\ndespite the fact that the SALT Treaty was possible only because we bargained from\na position of strength.\nWhat of the harvest of the future? As we wind down the war in Vietnam, I\nbelieve we are entering on an era which holds great promise for the future peace\nof the world. I am hopeful that we can truly have a generation of peace--that\nfuture generations can settle the world's differences in some other forum than a\nvale of blood and tears.\nBut let there be no mistake. We can have peace in this age of nuclear\nweaponry and so-called wars of liberation only if we remain strong.\nThe most cursory look at history tells us that the possibility of armed\naggression can never be dismissed. Let us, therefore, be on guard against those\nwho preach the foolish doctrine of unilateral disarmament.\nOur President has journeyed to Moscow and to Peking on missions of peace.\nHe has opened up a new era of negotiations. He has thawed the hostility and\nsuspicion that breed incidents and confrontation.\nIn less than a week I, too, will be making a trip to Peking and I expect\nto talk with top Chinese officials while there. I will be seeking to continue the\ndialogue the President has started and to open wider the door to China.\nBut I am fully cognizant, as is the President, that we in America must keep\nup our strength if we are to enjoy peace even in an era of negotiations.\n(more)\n-3-\nLet us not forget the lessons of history. We must maintain our strength--\nboth military and spiritual. We must make sure we can come to realize the harvest\nof the future which our present diplomatic endeavors are making possible.\nI say we can and should be No. 1 in quality, if not in quantity.\nI am aware, as is every taxpayer, of the heavy financial burden that\nmilitary preparedness imposes on this country. But does anyone really believe\nthat we cannot afford an effective defense against potential threats to our\nnational safety? Are there really very many Americans who believe that it is\nbetter to suffer defeat than to fight?\nTake a close look at the lessons of history.\nWorld War I erupted despite the Hague peace treaties.\nWorld War II was caused by a power-hungry madman, not by an armaments race.\nIt might well have been prevented if England, France and the United States had\nbeen better prepared.\nIt was for these very reasons that at the end of World Wars I and II we\nvowed never to be caught unprepared again. And we doomed to once again repeat\nthe mistakes we made following those world conflicts?\nUnfortunately the passage of time throws a cloak of ignorance over the\nbitter errors of postwar history.\nHalf of today's Americans were not alive when we fought World War II. They,\nand other Americans in their early teens, had no direct connection with that war\nor any direct knowledge of it.\nIf indeed we are interested in preserving the peace we cannot ever again\nallow any foreign power to achieve overwhelming military superiority vis-a-vis the\nUnited States.\nThis is not to argue against attempts to negotiate an East-West detente.\nWe should do everything possible to achieve such conditions. As I have already\nindicated, I strongly support President Nixon's missions to Peking and Moscow and\nthe terms of the SALT agreements.\nBut the fact remains that weakness invites attack, and it takes only one\naggressor nation to plunge the entire world into war.\nNow that we have placed a checkrein on the numbers of U.S. and Soviet rocket\nlaunchers, there will be those in Congress who will oppose improvements in the\nquality of U.S. nuclear weapons and the President's plans to modernize our Navy.\nThis, I say, is the height of folly.\n(more)\n-4-\nThere is no question that the Soviets will continue to work on qualitative\nimprovements in their nuclear arsenal. And as for sea power, the Soviets have\nbeen and are continuing to move ahead with a naval and maritime program that is a\ntechnological marvel.\nSoviet Russia is preparing a military establishment which by 1975 could be\nahead of ours in many respects.\nDuring the past 10 years the Russians have developed the world's fastest\ninterceptor aircraft, the world's largest strategic missile, and the world's\nlargest helicopter. They have also developed more than 50 new ships of all classes\nin addition to a new all-purpose land tank, new antitank weapons, artillery and\naircraft. These new weapons did not evolve overnight. They were on the drawing\nboards in the 1950s.\nWith no visible letup in the Soviet research and development program, it is\nquite possible that the decade of the 1970s will see a steady flow of new Soviet\nweapons systems that have been blueprinted during the past decade.\nThis is why I strongly support the President's proposed $83 billion defense\nbudget for fiscal 1973.\nWith this budget, President Nixon has initiated a buildup clearly intended\nto prevent the Soviet Union from outclassing the United States militarily.\nI support the proposed stepup in the Navy's Underwater LongRange Missile\nSystem (Trident), the missile submarine program aimed at replacing our aging\nPolaris fleet with boats whose new missiles will have the same range as the\nMinuteman ICBM.\nI support Navy modernization and the proposal to build three prototype B-1\nsuperbombers for the Air Force.\nAnd I support the proposed 17 per cent increase in defense research and\ndevelopment funding.\nThe emphasis in this fiscal 1973 defense budget rests on investment items\nsuch as research, development, modernization, ship construction, and creation of\na strong technological base to offset the Soviet strides toward a more efficient\nand productive research and development effort. I endorse this course.\nWill this defense effort constitute a distortion of priorities? Will we\nbe spending a disproportionate share of the U.S. tax dollar on defense needs?\nDefense outlays in fiscal 1973, if approved as proposed by the President,\nwill be down to 30 per cent of all Federal outlays--the lowest level,\nproportionately, since 1950.\n(more)\n-5-\nAt the same time, human resources spending will be allocated 45 cents out\nof every Federal dollar.\nThose who would attack the President's defense budget despite this\npriorities ratio should heed the words of Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, who said:\n\"The most important social service a government can render is to keep its citizens\nalive and free.\"\nLet us never forget, then, that strength remains the key to peace and\nnational security.\nCritics of military spending are fond of pointing out that President\nEisenhower warned the American people against what he called \"the military-industrial\ncomplex.\" But they never quote exactly what Ike said in that farewell address of\nhis in 1961.\nIke said this: \"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States\nhad no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as\nrequired, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvi-\nsation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments\nindustry of vast proportions. This conjunction of an immense military establishment\nand a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--\neconomic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every State house,\nevery office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this\ndevelopment. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the\ncouncils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted\ninfluence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The\npotential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We\nmust never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic\nprocesses.\"\nNote that Ike called attention to the possibility of an abuse of power on\nthe part of the military-industrial complex but he did not urge that this complex\nbe dismembered or destroyed. Instead he said, \"We recognize the imperative need\nfor this development.\"\nAnd in that same speech, Ike said: \"Our arms must be mighty, ready for\ninstant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own\ndestruction.'\nIke knew, as does Richard Nixon, that we could never move from an era of\nconfrontation to an era of negotiation except from a position of strength.\n(more)\n-6-\nIt is a matter of sober fact that one can negotiate only from strength.\nYet today we have our unilateral disarmers and the \"rather be Red than\ndead\" crowd.\nThis produces what I call pollution of the American spirit. It is one of\nthe most dangerous forms of pollution in America--and one we cannot fight with\ndollars.\nWe must fight against this adulteration of the spirit which has made America\nstrong.\nWe must revive the virtues of Americanism--courage and honor, as well as\njustice, truth, sincerity and hardihood. We must recognize that among the things\nthat will destroy America is peace at any price.\nAnd as we approach the celebration of our Independence Day, let us reawaken\npatriotism--love of country, courage with conviction, faith in freedom, and\ndevotion to duty.\nAs the late Gen. Douglas MacArthur said: \"Be not deceived by strange voices\nheard across the land, decrying this old and proven concept of patriotism. From\nthe very beginning, it has been the main bulwark of our national strength and\nintegrity. Be proud to be called a patriot, or nationalist, or what you will\nif it means that you love your Country above all else--and will place your life, if\nneed be, at the service of your Flag.\"\nThank you.\n# # #\n5th District Media\na affice Copy\nAN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.\nREPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nBEFORE THE VFW STATE CONVENTION\nGRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN\n9 A.M. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1972\nFOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY\nThe SALT agreements entered into by the United States and the Soviet Union\nhave, in effect, already become a part of history.\nThe SALT Treaty will in time become part of the heritage of our past. \"The\nheritage \" that, in the words carved on the National Archives Building in\nWashington, \"is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future.\"\nWhat of the seed--the SALT Treaty itself? Have we made unwise concessions to\nthe Soviet Union? Have we placed our national defense in danger? Have we placed\nourselves in a position of nuclear inferiority?\nThe terror remains, but the balance is frozen in terms of a standoff in\nstrategic weaponry. It is true that the Soviets have more rocket launchers than\nwe have and more powerful warheads. But we have greater numbers of warheads and\nwe have the advantage in accuracy and in advanced technology. In terms of nuclear\ntonnage, the total is about the same.\nHave we, then, achieved anything at all? Indeed, yes. We have slowed the\nRussians' headlong rush toward nuclear superiority, a superiority which could have\ntempted them into a nuclear first strike against the United States.\nFurther stockpiling of nuclear weapons launchers by both the United States\nand the Soviet Union simply did not make any sense. Both of us have the power to\ndestroy the other many times over. That, in effect, is insanity multiplied.\nSo what it all comes down to is this. We did not give anything away, and\nwe slowed the Soviet momentum in the nuclear arms race and perhaps thus avoided a\nfuture nuclear holocaust touched off by a Soviet first strike.\nAs for the effect of the limitation on the United States, we can still improve\nthe quality of our nuclear weapons. The only limitation is on quantities--and that\nlimitation makes sense.\nWhat of the harvest which may be produced by the SALT Treaty?\nMy fervent hope is that it will lead to future agreements further reducing\nthe level of nuclear terror in the world and perhaps even to at least partial\n(more)\n-2-\ndisarmament--mutual disarmament--of the world's two great superpowers.\nIt is worth noting, it seems to me, that no columnist or commentator spoke\nin the aftermath of President Nixon's mission to Moscow of what might have been\ncalled \"the spirit of Moscow.\"\nThis is good. This is healthy. This is realistic.\nInstead of the heady euphoria generated by the meeting between President\nJohnson and Premier Kosygin at Glassboro--a meeting that produced nothing- we have\nan attitude of good common sense that followed the productive summit meeting in\nMoscow.\nThe Moscow meetings were highly productive, but we did not come away from\nthem with our heads in the clouds. Our feet are on the ground, and we are looking\nstraight ahead. We are hopeful about the \"harvest of the future\" but we are not\nwrapping those hopes in foolish dreams.\nThere are, of course, those in the Congress who now are calling for deep\ncuts in our defense budget. They are demanding sharp slashes in our defenses\ndespite the fact that the SALT Treaty was possible only because we bargained from\na position of strength.\nWhat of the harvest of the future? As we wind down the war in Vietnam, I\nbelieve we are entering on an era which holds great promise for the future peace\nof the world. I am hopeful that we can truly have a generation of peace--that\nfuture generations can settle the world's differences in some other forum than a\nvale of blood and tears.\nBut let there be no mistake. We can have peace in this age of nuclear\nweaponry and so-called wars of liberation only if we remain strong.\nThe most cursory look at history tells us that the possibility of armed\naggression can never be dismissed. Let us, therefore, be on guard against those\nwho preach the foolish doctrine of unilateral disarmament.\nOur President has journeyed to Moscow and to Peking on missions of peace.\nHe has opened up a new era of negotiations. He has thawed the hostility and\nsuspicion that breed incidents and confrontation.\nIn less than a week I, too, will be making a trip to Peking and I expect\nto talk with top Chinese officials while there. I will be seeking to continue the\ndialogue the President has started and to open wider the door to China.\nBut I am fully cognizant, as is the President, that we in America must keep\nup our strength if we are to enjoy peace even in an era of negotiations.\n(more)\n-3-\nLet us not forget the lessons of history. We must maintain our strength--\nboth military and spiritual. We must make sure we can come to realize the harvest\nof the future which our present diplomatic endeavors are making possible.\nI say we can and should be No. 1 in quality, if not in quantity.\nI am aware, as is every taxpayer, of the heavy financial burden that\nmilitary preparedness imposes on this country. But does anyone really believe\nthat we cannot afford an effective defense against potential threats to our\nnational safety? Are there really very many Americans who believe that it is\nbetter to suffer defeat than to fight?\nTake a close look at the lessons of history.\nWorld War I erupted despite the Hague peace treaties.\nWorld War II was caused by a power-hungry madman, not by an armaments race.\nIt might well have been prevented if England, France and the United States had\nbeen better prepared.\nIt was for these very reasons that at the end of World Wars I and II we\nvowed never to be caught unprepared again. And we doomed to once again repeat\nthe mistakes we made following those world conflicts?\nUnfortunately the passage of time throws a cloak of ignorance over the\nbitter errors of postwar history.\nHalf of today's Americans were not alive when we fought World War II. They,\nand other Americans in their early teens, had no direct connection with that war\nor any direct knowledge of it.\nIf indeed we are interested in preserving the peace we cannot ever again\nallow any foreign power to achieve overwhelming military superiority vis-a-vis the\nUnited States.\nThis is not to argue against attempts to negotiate an East-West detente.\nWe should do everything possible to achieve such conditions. As I have already\nindicated, I strongly support President Nixon's missions to Peking and Moscow and\nthe terms of the SALT agreements.\nBut the fact remains that weakness invites attack, and it takes only one\naggressor nation to plunge the entire world into war.\nNow that we have placed a checkrein on the numbers of U.S. and Soviet rocket\nlaunchers, there will be those in Congress who will oppose improvements in the\nquality of U.S. nuclear weapons and the President's plans to modernize our Navy.\nThis, I say, is the height of folly.\n(more)\n-4--\nThere is no question that the Soviets will continue to work on qualitative\nimprovements in their nuclear arsenal. And as for sea power, the Soviets have\nbeen and are continuing to move ahead with a naval and maritime program that is a\ntechnological marvel.\nSoviet Russia is preparing a military establishment which by 1975 could be\nahead of ours in many respects.\nDuring the past 10 years the Russians have developed the world's fastest\ninterceptor aircraft, the world's largest strategic missile, and the world's\nlargest helicopter. They have also developed more than 50 new ships of all classes\nin addition to a new all-purpose land tank, new antitank weapons, artillery and\naircraft. These new weapons did not evolve overnight. They were on the drawing\nboards in the 1950s.\nWith no visible letup in the Soviet research and development program, it is\nquite possible that the decade of the 1970s will see a steady flow of new Soviet\nweapons systems that have been blueprinted during the past decade.\nThis is why I strongly support the President's proposed $83 billion defense\nbudget for fiscal 1973.\nWith this budget, President Nixon has initiated a buildup clearly intended\nto prevent the Soviet Union from outclassing the United States militarily.\nI support the proposed stepup in the Navy's Underwater LongRange Missile\nSystem (Trident), the missile submarine program aimed at replacing our aging\nPolaris fleet with boats whose new missiles will have the same range as the\nMinuteman ICBM.\nI support Navy modernization and the proposal to build three prototype B-1\nsuperbombers for the Air Force.\nAnd I support the proposed 17 per cent increase in defense research and\ndevelopment funding.\nThe emphasis in this fiscal 1973 defense budget rests on investment items\nsuch as research, development, modernization, ship construction, and creation of\na strong technological base to offset the Soviet strides toward a more efficient\nand productive research and development effort. I endorse this course.\nWill this defense effort constitute a distortion of priorities? Will we\nbe spending a disproportionate share of the U.S. tax dollar on defense needs?\nDefense outlays in fiscal 1973, if approved as proposed by the President,\nwill be down to 30 per cent of all Federal outlays--the lowest level,\nproportionately, since 1950.\n(more)\n-5-\nAt the same time, human resources spending will be allocated 45 cents out\nof every Federal dollar.\nThose who would attack the President's defense budget despite this\npriorities ratio should heed the words of Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, who said:\n\"The most important social service a government can render is to keep its citizens\nalive and free.\"\nLet us never forget, then, that strength remains the key to peace and\nnational security.\nCritics of military spending are fond of pointing out that President\nEisenhower warned the American people against what he called \"the military-industrial\ncomplex.' But they never quote exactly what Ike said in that farewell address of\nhis in 1961.\nIke said this: \"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States\nhad no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as\nrequired, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvi-\nsation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments\nindustry of vast proportions. This conjunction of an immense military establishment\nand a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--\neconomic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every State house,\nevery office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this\ndevelopment. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the\ncouncils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted\ninfluence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The\npotential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We\nmust never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic\nprocesses. \"\nNote that Ike called attention to the possibility of an abuse of power on\nthe part of the military-industrial complex but he did not urge that this complex\nbe dismembered or destroyed. Instead he said, \"We recognize the imperative need\nfor this development.\"\nAnd in that same speech, Ike said: \"Our arms must be mighty, ready for\ninstant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own\ndestruction.\nif\nIke knew, as does Richard Nixon, that we could never move from an era of\nconfrontation to an era of negotiation except from a position of strength.\n(more)\n-6-\nIt is a matter of sober fact that one can negotiate only from strength.\nYet today we have our unilateral disarmers and the \"rather be Red than\ndead\" crowd.\nThis produces what I call pollution of the American spirit. It is one of\nthe most dangerous forms of pollution in America--and one we cannot fight with\ndollars.\nWe must fight against this adulteration of the spirit which has made America\nstrong.\nWe must revive the virtues of Americanism--courage and honor, as well as\njustice, truth, sincerity and hardihood. We must recognize that among the things\nthat will destroy America is peace at any price.\nAnd as we approach the celebration of our Independence Day, let us reawaken\npatriotism-- love of country, courage with conviction, faith in freedom, and\ndevotion to duty.\nAs the late Gen. Douglas MacArthur said: \"Be not deceived by strange voices\nheard across the land, decrying this old and proven concept of patriotism. From\nthe very beginning, it has been the main bulwark of our national strength and\nintegrity. Be proud to be called a patriot, or nationalist, or what you will\nif it means that you love your Country above all else--and will place your life, if\nneed be, at the service of your Flag.\"\nThank you.\n# # #"
}