Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525748
label
Michigan Rural Teachers Association, Mt. Pleasant, MI, April 17, 1959
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525748
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Michigan Rural Teachers Association, Mt. Pleasant, MI, April 17, 1959
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Guided missiles
National security
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525748
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1959-04-30
month
4
year
1959
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1959-04-01
month
4
year
1959
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
0e425c172fb1b78b
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D15, folder "Michigan Rural Teachers
Association, Mt. Pleasant, MI, April 17, 1959" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D15 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
" U. S. DEFENSE: $41 BILLION OR MORE "
SPEECH BEFORE MICHIGAN RURAL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION April 17, 1959
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan
Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
It's certainly a pleasure for me to talk to this group
representing the Michigan Rural Teachers Association this ovening,
particularly at Mt. Pleasant. Here a newly-created university
with a long-standing tradition of academic achievement has rapidly
4,500
grown to its present enrollment of over 5,000, and turns out annually
highly competent additions to the teaching profession. Many of these
new teachers, I am sure, ultimately become part of our rural structure,
still a very vital cog in the Michigan educational system. Those
who reminisce about the "good old days" and the one-room schoolhouse
sometimes fail to realize that rural schools continue to educate a
sizeable proportion of our leaders of tomorrow in all fields of endeavor.
Most of you who are rural teachers, like those in other professions,
have at one time or another come to grip with fear. The fear of a child
falling from a swing, or of a student called on to recite with no
preparation- these are duplicated in other areas of life, as well.
--2--
In the military, the story is told of the combat team meeting
heavy shelling from the enemy on Omaha Beach. The commander of
the unit started shouting names from his roster to determine
casualties. Upon reaching one name, no answer was heard. He
screamed the name louder and more frantically, until one of the
men managed to interject, "Sir, that's your own name you keep
calling!"
Certainly fear removes our power of sense and logic, and
destroys our ability to think clearly. You in education had a
prime example of this when the first Sputnik was orbiting sent into space.
As Fred Hechinger points out in his book, "The Big Red Schoolhouse",
we had for years laughed away and shrugged off thoughts that Russia
could ever compete with us in anything, but the orbiting of Sputnik
meant that "overnight the American superiority complex took a nosedive"
and that "the new national mentality became that of an equally irrational
inferiority complex."
As you know, for some time thereafter everything about our
educational system was wrong and everything about Russia's was right.
When the hysteria began to clear away and the hue and cry died down,
--3--
Americans were free to see the essential facts about the situation.
As Vice-President Nixon said in New York in December, 1957, "Too
often we hear the superficial and pat formula that the answer to all
of our problems in the educational field is more classrooms, teachers,
scholarships and scientists. Action on these fronts is essential.
But we miss the target completely if we do not recognize at the
not
outset that our major problem is quality and/quantity of education."
Roger Freeman, the vice president of the Institute for Social
Science Research, said last month to the Economic Club of Detroit,
"Whether we like it or not, we are in competition with the Russians.
The travelers who reported on Russian education did not propose that
we copy the Soviet school system. But they did suggest that we cannot
fall behind in the 'war of the classrooms'. We can afford to spend
more money for education than other countries- but we cannot afford
to get less education for it." Mr. Freeman abronaly answered his own question
1
again,
"Do we need more dollars for education or more education for
our dollars?" The comparable question in the field of defense and
missiles is, "Do we need more dollars for defense or more defense for
our dollars?" Tonight I propose to deal with that question in terms
--4--
& other potent weapons
of the guided missile controversy and the contributions of missiles,
to our ability to deter aggression and to press home to an enemy a
successful, strategic attack.
Brigadier General Betts, executive assistant to the director of
guided missiles, feels we have reached a similar point in the
business of our strategic attack capability as we did in education
after the launching of Sputnik I. He said in New York, March 19,
"We have absolutely hit bottom with a completely irrational inferiority
complex on the subject of the intercontinental ballistic missile."
Before I get into the specific area of missiles and their
intricacies, let me make one thing very clear. Defense is a vital
thing, and one which cannot be sidetracked by wishful thinking. We
must have a defense system that will inspire, demand and secure the
complete confidence of Congress and the people. Representative Mahon,
chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said at the opening
of our hearings this session that "We want economy, but make sure we keep
up our guard, let us not neglect national defense, let us not put a
balanced budget or any other factor under the sun ahead of the defense
of the United States. That is the one thing which we cannot neglect."
--5--
As a seven year member of this committee may I assure that no
such danger of neglect exists. Secretary of Defense McElroy stated
at Detroit March 30 that "the charge has been made by some that the
size of the defense budget for the next fiscal year has been limited
in order that the budget might be balanced. This charge is simply
not true. There is no question that this Administration desires to
balance income and outgo. This is merely sound fiscal policy. But
such a desire did not have a determining influence on the size of the
defense budget. The determining influence on the budget was what
was required for national security."
President Eisenhower's guidance is providing and will provide
fully adequate defenses for the national security of the United States.
He has no intention of playing politics with the freedom of generations
of Americans still unborn. We not only must guard against the Soviet
threat in a military way, developing that kind of military security
that has the courage to out aside that which is outmoded, but also
we must have an America which develops with determination our productive
total
power-our national resources. We must have both.
--6--
May I say categorically the choice for America does not lie between
a sound economy with an inadequate defense posture or poor unsound
a
economy with an adequate defense. If either of these dire alternatives
a hopeless predicament
is inevitably our Nation's fate, then America is in a real bind,
now and in the future. I submit that America can and must face up
to the hard fact that if our free society is to be preserved we as a
nation can afford neither the luxury of an inadequate defense nor
an unsound economy stemming from habitual unbalanced federal budgets.
It is my firm conviction we must have adequate defense and a sound
economy. This nation must reject the philosophy that our only choice,
in order to prevent military surrender to the Russians, is to spend
ourselves into an economic and political defeat. Our basic choice is
between hard-headed spending for essentials and soft-headed spending
to satisfy the desires of every pressure group and the fears of every
melitary of enilime
frightened politician. This is the great task which history has thrust
upon us in the last half of the 20th Century and it is made more
challenging by the relatively recent threat by the Soviets to invade
in a big way the Free World's economic leadership.
The
--7--
In
This
For the Soviet threat is both a military and an economic one.
No less an authority than Allen Dulles, director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, told an audience recently that, while "We
must be ever mindful of the Soviet emphasis on the military applications
of science and technology in order to anticipate any attempts at a
breakthrough which would change the balance of military power, it is
most probable that the fateful battles of the cold war will, in the
forseeable future, be fought in the economic and subversive arenas."
In countless ways, the Communists demonstrate that military
force is but one of the means that they expect to use to take over
the world, so that some three billion people on this globe can live
under the domination of an atheistic dictatorship. The danger might
come more from an economic offensive and thus, while we debate budgets,
a recent audience
weapons and research, as Admiral Burke told the Charleston, South
Carolina, Chamber of Commerce, "We can lose the entire stamina and
integrity of our civilization if we do not recognize the challenge
presented to us by a nation sworn to take us over."
Fortunately, the development of modern weapons has enabled America
--8--
to reasonably and efficiently build up a wide mix or diversification
of many weapon systems designed to hit the enemy from a combination
of launching locations. ICBM's and manned bombers from the United
long range
medium mange
States; manned bombers and IRBM's from overseas bases; deployed
tactical missiles of all three services; missiles from submarines at
sea; and the atomic capable tactical Air Force Units and attack carrier
striking forces deployed in strategic areas all constitute powerful
deterrent items in a retaliatory force second to none in the history
of the world. Furthermore, our mutual defense alliances such as NATO,
extending from Iceland and Norway in the North Atlantic to Turkey at
the eastern end of the Mediterranean, and SEATO in the Pacific add
to this retaliatory power. This big advantage, U. S. or allied bases
in their back yard and all around the compass, is a vital one, and
must not be lost sight of as we analyze the total U. S. and Free World
a defere program is the most B 58 carts - GOLD
military strength.
Admittedly, missiles are costly. Our American missile program
first hit the billion dollar mark for a 12 month period in fiscal 1952,
but by fiscal 1959, which is this year, the annual total has reached the
--9--
staggering sum of over $7 billion obligated for these most modern
weapons. One surface-to-surface ICBM, the first-generation Atlas,
shows an overall initial cost of $35 million per missile on the
firing line, at least until faster production drives down the
average production cost. To get a picture of this amazing price,
if 100 workers each making $5,000 a year were to turn over every
cent of their earnings for the next 70 years, their total wages
Range - 5,500 makes
would buy one Atlas.
Speed - 15,000 mph.
accuracy attached -
However costly these missiles are, their potential effectiveness
is without parallel. With the development of the Hounddog, an air-to-
surface missile, our Air Force using over 600 B-52 long-range bombers
will be able to fire missile-bombs at supersonic speeds 500 miles from
the target, thus avoiding the enemies' heaviest anti-aircraft fire. The
simpler solid-fuel Polaris missile is expected to be operational on at
least three submarines by 1960. The Nautilus and Skate submarine operations
in Arctic waters add tremendously to the military problems of the Soviet
Union. One Polaris submarine on station is the equivilant of approximately
2,000 to 4,000 deployed World War II B-29 aircraft loaded with conventional
--10--
bombs ready to make a simultaneous attack on several vital targets.
For comparative purposes, our entire planned ballistic missile attack
force is the equivilant of an operational inventory of something like
100,000 B29 aircraft using the most potent conventional bombs of the
last world conflict.
Despite this evidence of strategic attack acpability, the
advocates of overspending as well as some journalists have cast doubt
on the capability of our defense effort. Unfortunately, the public
generally cannot today get factual answers on many military issues
because of national security considerations, or because of muddled
facts due to the bias of the writer.
The term "Missile gap" has been coined to imply that within
a few years the Soviet Union may have such a lead in intercontinental
ballistic missiles capable of devastating nuclear attack that the United
States will be open to either diplomatic blackmail or destruction by
surprise attack. The most widely used figure is an alleged 3-1 lead by
Russia in ICBM's by 1962. Here again the lack of constructive analysis
begins to show, until people begin to think logically and look at the
-- 11 --
whole picture to see quality and direction, rather than quantity
alone.
Going in the right direction is important. A large lady on the
Baltimore and Ohio railroad coach recently sought to leave the train
at Cleveland. A train employee, seeing her difficulty, suggested she
turn around and back down. "Back down?" she indignantly replied, "I've
tried that four times. Every time I do, the porter pushes me up the
steps, says 'Have a good trip, lady', and I'm three stops past Akron now."
Our problem is certainly not amounts of money or amounts of missiles:
it is a matter of proper application of funds available and sound
direction of the programs with highest priority.
The important thing is not whether Russia has half as many or ten
times as many ICEM's as the United States. What is vital is that we
maintain enough strength to retaliate in strength after a first blow
is struck, and to retaliate in such force that no potential enemy will
& unacciptable
risk making such an initial thrust, knowing the unescapable destruction
of both military and other targets that will follow. Remarks by Secretary
of Defense McElroy and others in recent months tend to indicate that, while
the United States will continue its long-standing policy of non-aggression
--12--
it will not necessarily stand idly by and wait for Russia to attack
us. When a man sees robbers lurking around his house at night, he
calls the police or takes other appropriate action, but very rarely
sits in his living room watching television and awaiting the sound of
broken glass before taking action.
A look at the record to see what qualified, experienced military
personnel have to say should convince even the most ardent spender for
spendings sake that the current overall United States defense program
Massik
is fully adequate and that this program will remain so in the future.
Rada mile
Research and development money spent in the past is starting to
pay off. Thus, for fiscal 1960, we can spend slightly less on missiles
big dradends.
than in the current year but will expect to get more missiles in our
operational inventory. Development of large thrust liquid rocket engines,
effects of high temperatures on metals, breakthroughs in guidance and in
the whole field of aerodynamics have led our missile capability to the
point More, as one expert has said, Missiles cost money but, as far
? unbelemble adminisment
as the Russians are concerned, ? think we have arrived at a balance of
terror."
Satilla - Project Describe Sintry
--13--
What we must obviously avoid is a qualitative gap, not a
quantitative one. From the testimony of those who should know, our
top military strategists and scientific experts, we are keeping the
faith with our present defense operation and generally within our
1960 fiscal year budget request. And, despite our democratic ideals in
this country of making everyone part of the act for major decisions,
we must, as General Betts expressed it, "some day come face to face
with the fact that the problems of comparative military strength demand
the judgment of professional military people who have devoted their
entire careers to the study of these problems. At some point the
public and the Congress must accept on faith the judgment of senior
military leaders."
Take these remarks from the leading spokesmen of the military
services insofar as the adequacy of the 1960 budget requests of the
President relate to our national defense:
1. This is a statement by Secretary of Defense McElroy before my
Defense Appropriations subcommittee. "Last year I said to this
committee, 'The Nation is prepared to meet the threat it faces today.'
--14--
That statement is still true today, in January, 1959. Our forces
are fully capable of carrying out their assigned missions and will
continue to have this capability during the period covered by the
budget. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have gone on record with me that
they consider this budget adequate to provide for the essential
programs necessary for the defense of the Nation."
2. In questioning before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
I asked, "Are there any military targets in the Soviet Union or in the
satellites which would not be adequately covered from a military point
of view?", and the reply was, "We can hit them all." I continued, "You
can hit them all with these extra margins that are essential?" and the
reply was, "That is right."
Those replies were made by General N. F. Twining, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
3. At a January 28 press conference, President Eisenhower said,
"Our missile system is going forward as rapidly as possible under the
guidance of the finest scientists that we can accumulate. I believe
that we are making, within the relatively short space of time we have
had, remarkable progress. I think it is a matter for pride on the part
--15--
of America, and not a constant hang-dog attitude of humiliation."
But yet the prophets of gloom and doom continue to chant, "41
billion dollars is not enough in one year. We must spend one, three or
five billion more." Certainly this viewpoint is unnecessary and, in fact,
wasteful in view of the urgent need for overall fiscal responsibility
at this time. Some of these critics have self-interest at heart, others
are baffled by security censorship and conflict of facts, while still
others are genuinely concerned about the security of our country.
Despite these cries that America has no defense against aggression,
we have the words of Secretary McElroy that we have a highly powerful
600+
composite: "The greatest force of heavy bombers in the world-the
1200+
greatest force of medium bombers in the world--the only carrier bomber
force in the world--plus tactical aircraft at forward bases, all capable
of carrying atomic weapons sufficient to destroy the Soviet Union if it
should attack us
Additional elements will be submarine based
ballistic missiles, blockbusters with an immense knockout punch.
...
We will have powerful intercontinental ballistic missiles, many in
hardened bases, Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles on the soil of our
--16--
Allies, constantly improving carrier striking forces, and,
tactical fighter-bombers stationed around the periphery of
Communist territory."
These facts indicate that all is in a healthy state insofar
as American defenses are concerned. Besides this, we have a
tremendous advantage in the man in the White House President
Dwight D. Eisenhower. He is a person who has long demonstrated
through six years in office a concern with the security of the
our
American people and the use of proper actions to safeguard that
welfare. He has an amount of military experience probably never
before equalled in a United States President. To thinking
Americans, this, together with Ike's clear sense of duty to
his country, should inspire even more confidence in our present and
future defense efforts.
An ancient Arabic legend calls to mind the man who felt a
premonition that his son was to meet death at home that very night.
Fearing for his boy's life, and panic-stricken over that fear, he rode
rapidly to Medina, a city some 50 miles away, in order to give his
--17--
son safekeeping with friends. On his way back, however, he encountered
Death himself, riding toward the city with the explanation, "I have
a rendezvous in Medina tonight.' " The selfish thinking, fear and attempts
to base an important decision on unsupported evidence led that man to
own
sacrifice his sen's life, according to the story.
So too we today often succumb to the fear of politically-motivated,
selfish or undocumented charges and denunciations, leading us to the
belief that more money in and of itself will resolve all defense problems.
Edmund Burke, 18th Century English political scientist, stated that "no
passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and
reasoning as fear." Certainly the headlines, public opinion polls and
general confusion in the area of our nation's defenses today justify
Mr. Burke's observations.
I would propose a four-point program here tonight to more positively
assist our civilian and military leaders in their current and future
defense efforts. As Admiral Burke, Chief of Naval Operations, has time
after time emphasized, "This is not a one-man job
it is a challenge
to one hundred and seventy million Americans
for your children
and your children's children, for as long as they live, they will live in
--18--
competition."
&
freene
my
suggetures
1. The American public must come to have confidence in the
judgment of top military experts, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces, the President of the United
States. These men are not infallible, but are favored by years of
military experience. They have access to classified information as
to the potentialities of the enemy plus the facts on our own forces,
and, more importantly, occupy a high position in the overall
budgeting process. Many persons in the Department of the Army, or
Navy, or Air Force, to be sure, would like more money for this program
or for that item. History clearly shows that no military leader has
ever had all the forces or funds he felt necessary for his single
segment of the Armed Forces. In terms of the overall fiscal policy
of our nation, there must be a place where responsible, experienced
persons take a look at the entire picture from their position where
all facts and figures are available. They are the ones who must say,
"Look here--this figure, in terms of our national security requirements
and in terms of our anticipated revenue, is the figure which will guarantee
--19--
us an adeouate national defense, both now and in future years."
These are the persons who have the overall intelligence reports,
information from all areas within the Defense and other departments,
and thus have a firmer grasp on this subject than do those with but
8 fragment of this information.
2. Responsible bipartisanism must arise in the Congress of the
United States to look at the policies and programs of our defense setup
as they relate to the future welfare of our country and not as they
affect the future dynasty of a particular political party or individual
within a party. This will be particularly effective if backed up by
staunch support from the grassroots of America.
3. The American people must join the military in their recognition
that war and defense have changed in the present age of missiles and
nuclear warheads. The U. S. cannot prevent or win the next war with
the obsolete weapons of previous conflicts. The need, for example, to
have a ballistic missile early warning system operational before the
Russians have developed their effective ICBM capability by far outweighs
any theoretical need for matching Russia in numbers--missile by missile
or, for that matter, submarine by submarine. No longer can United States
--20--
military posture be judged on the availability of one weapon alone.
The soldier in earlier decades fought with a rifle using a very
simple ballistic weapon, loaded it with an inexpensive cartridge,
aimed and fired at a target which he could see. Today the Atlas missile
has over 300,000 intricate, separate parts, a complex fuel control system,
a complicated guidance system and requires hundreds of skilled men to
get it ready for the final countdown. This illustrates one of the first
lessons of our defense effort--we must update our viewpoint when the facts
warrant, regardless of the cost, but at the same time we must be highly
41 misiles -tn many. cancellations
selective in where we invest our resources. Vision, effort and
judgment rather than money alone will keep America strong.
4. We must realize that, when all the facts and opinions I and
others have mentioned have been marshalled together, we must act in a
firm, positive manner to keep America in the forefront as a first class
power, the leader of the Free World. Debate may ensue as to the cost of
a program, or the value of one missile as compared to another, but in
the last analysis defense must continue to be based on estimates of
experienced, knowledgeable civilian officials and military leaders.
--21--
Almost 100 years ago, Abraham Lincoln was asked many questions
regarding national defense by Governor Andrew Curtin, of Pennsylvania,
in view of an imminent Civil War. The entire and complete reply
President Lincoln wrote consisted of one sentence--"I think the
necessity of being ready increases--look to it!"
As American citizens, though our total Armed Forces are of a
sound substance and though we can sleep safely at night knowing we are
protected hight and day by American and allied soldiers, sailors and airmen
in World-wide outposts, we still must "look to it". Our excellent
variety of defense forces and strategic attack capabilities, the
experienced judgment of our military leaders, and our expert use and
improvement of modern weapons like missiles must be supplemented to
the highest degree by sound, constructive public opinion. Then, and
only then, will we be ready, in the true sense of the word, both now and
in the future. you as teachers, leaders in your
community, can & must be in the foregront
in I brown this you vital will effort for our national sccurity,
Quotes
The important thing is not whether Russia has
half as many or ten times as many ICBM's as the
United States. What is vital is that we maintain
enough strength to retaliate in strength after a first
blow is struck, and to retaliate in such force that
no potential enemy will risk making such an initial
"U.S. Defense: $41 Billion Or More"
thrust, knowing the unescapable destruction of both
Representative Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
military and other targets that will follow.
Despite these cries that America has no defense
Those who reminisce about the "good old days"
against aggression, we have the words of Secre-
and the one-room schoolhouse sometimes fail to
tary McElroy that we have a highly powerful com-
realize that rural schools continue to educate a
posite: "The greatest force of heavy bombers in the
sizeable proportion of our leaders of tomorrow in
world-the greatest force of medium bombers in
all fields of endeavor.
the world-the only carrier bomber force in the
world-plus tactical aircraft at forward bases, all
Most of you who are rural teachers, like those
capable of carrying atomic weapons sufficient to
in other professions, have at one time or another
destroy the Soviet Union if it should attack US.
come to grip with fear.
Besides this, we have a tremendous advantage
Certainly fear removes our power of sense and
in the man in the White House-President Dwight D.
logic, and destroys our ability to think clearly. You
Eisenhower. He is a person who has demonstrated
in education had a prime example of this when
through over six years in office a concern with the
the first Sputnik was sent into space. As Fred Hech-
welfare of the American people and the use of
inger points out in his book, "The Big Red School-
proper actions to safeguard that welfare. He has
house", we had for years laughed away and
an amount of military experience probably never
shrugged off thoughts that Russia could ever com-
before equalled in a United States President.
pete with US in anything, but the orbiting of Sput-
nik meant that "overnight the American superiority
1. The American public must come to have
complex took a nosedive", and that "the new na-
confidence in the judgment of top military experts,
tional mentality became that of an equally irra-
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander-in-
tional inferiority complex."
Chief of our Armed Forces, the President of the
United States.
As you know, for some time thereafter every-
thing about our educational system was wrong and
2. Responsible bipartisanism must arise in the
everything about Russia's was right. When the hys-
Congress of the United States to look at the policies
teria began to clear away and the hue and cry
and programs of our defense setup as they relate
died down, Americans were free to see the essen-
to the future welfare of our country and not as they
tial facts about the situation. As Vice-President
affect the future dynasty of a particular political
Nixon said in New York in December, 1957, "Too
party or individual within a party.
often we hear the superficial and pat formula that
the answer to all of our problems in the educa-
3. The American people must join the military
tional field is more classrooms, teachers, scholar-
in their recognition that war and defense have
ships and scientists. Action on these fronts is essen-
changed in the present age of missiles and nuclear
tial. But we miss the target completely if we do not
warheads.
recognize at the outset that our major problem is
quality and not quantity of eduation."
4. We must realize that, when all the facts and
opinions have been marshalled together, we must
We can afford to spend more money for edu-
act in a firm, positive manner to keep America in
cation than other countries-but we cannot afford
the forefront as a first-class power-the leader of
to get less education for it.
the Free World.
This nation must reject the philosophy that our
Our excellent variety of defense forces and sta-
only choice in order to prevent military surrender
tegic attack capabilities, the experienced judg-
to the Russians is to spend ourselves into an eco-
ment of our military leaders and our expert use
nomic and political defeat. Our basic choice is be-
and imporvement of modern weapons like missiles
tween hard-headed spending for essentials and
must be supplemented to the highest possible de-
soft-headed spending to satisfy the desires of every
gree by sound, constructive public opinion. Then,
pressure group and the fears of every frightened
and only then, will we be ready in the true sense of
politician.
the word, both now and in the future.
"U.S. DEFENSE:
$41 BILLION OR MORE"
Address before Michigan Rural Teachers Association
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan
April 17, 1959
Representative Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
It's certainly a pleasure for me to talk to this group representing
the Michigan Rural Teachers Association this evening, particularly at
Mt. Pleasant. Here a newly-created university, with a long standing
tradition of academic achievement, has rapidly grown to its present
enrollment of over 5,000, and turns out annually highly competent
additions to the teaching profession. Many of these new teachers, I am
sure, ultimately become part of our rural school structure, still a
very vital cog in the Michigan educational system. Those who reminisce
about the "good old days" and the one-reom schoolhouse sometimes fail to
realize that rural schools continue to educate a sizeable proportion of
our leaders of tomorrow in all fields of emdeavor.
Most of you who are rural teachers, like these in other professions,
have at one time or another come to grip with fear. The fear of a child
falling from a swing, or of a student called on to recite with no prepa-
ration-these are duplicated in other areas of life, as well. In the
military, the stary is told of the combat team meeting heavy shelling from
the enemy on Omaha Beach. The commander of the unit started shouting names
from his roster to determine casualties. Upon reaching one name, no answer
was heard. He screamed the name leuder and more frantically, until one of
the men managed to interject, "Sir, that's your own name you keep calling."
Certainly fear removes our power of sense and logic, and destroys our
ability to think clearly. You in education had a prime example of this when
the first Sputnik was sent into srace. As Fred Hechinger points out in his
book, "The Big Red Schoolhouse", we had for years laughed away and shrugged
off thoughts that Russia could ever compete with us in anything, but the
orbiting of Sputnik meant that "overnight the American superiority complex
took a nosedive", and that "the new national mentality became that of an
equally irrational inferierity complex."
As you know, for some time thereafter everything about our educational
system was wrong and everything about Russia's was right. When the hysteria
began to clear away and the hue and cry died down, Americans were free to see
--2--
the essential facts about the situation. As Vice-President Nixon said in
New York in December, 1957, "Too often we hear the superficial and pat
formula that the answer to all of our problems in the educational field is
more classrooms, teachers, scholarships and scientists. Action on these
fronts is essential. But we miss the target completely if we do not recognize
at the outset that our major problem is quality and/quantity of education."
Roger Freeman, the vice president of the Institute of Social Science
Research, said last month to the Economic Club of Detroit, "Whether we like
it or not, we are in competition with the Russians. The travelers who
reported on Russian education did not propose that we copy the Soviet school
system. But they did suggest that we cannot fall behind in the 'war of the
classrooms'. We can afford to spend more money for education than other
countries-but we cannot afford to get less education for it." Mr. Freeman
answered his own question as to, "Do we need more dollars for education or
more education for our dollars?" The comparable question in the field of
defense and missiles is, "Do we need more dollars for defense or more defense
for our dollars?" Tonight I propose to deal with that question in terms of
the guided missile controversy and the contributions of missiles to our
ability to deter aggression and to press home to an enemy a successful
strategic attack.
Brigadier General Betts, executive assistant to the director of guided
missiles, feels we have reached a similar point in the business of our
strategic attack capability as we did in education after the launching of
Sputnik I. He said in New York, March 19, "We have absolutely hit bottom
with a completely irrational inferiority complex on the subject of the
intercontinental ballistic missile."
Before I get into the specific area of missiles and their intricacies,
let me make one thing very clear. Defense is a vital thing, and one which
cannot be sidetracked by wishful thinking. We must have a defense system
that will inspire, demand and secure the complete confidence of Congress and
the people. Representative Mahon, chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, said at the opening of our hearings this session that "We want
economy, but make sure we keep up our guard, let us not neglect national
defense, let us not put a balanced budget or any other factor under the sun
ahead of the defense of the United States. That is the one thing which we
cannot neglect." As a seven year member of this committee may I assure that
no such danger of neglect exists. Secretary of Defense McElroy stated at
--3--
Detroit March 30 that "the charge has been made by some that the size of the
defense budget for the next fiscal year has been limited in order that the
budget might be balanced. This charge is simply not true. There is no
question that this Administration desires to balance income and outgo. This
is merely sound fiscal policy. But such a desire did not have a determining
influence on the size of the defense budget. The determining influence on
the budget was what was required for national security."
President Eisenhower's guidance is providing and will provide fully
adequate defenses for the national security of the United States. He has no
intention of playing politics with the freedom of generations of Americans
still unborn. We not only must guard against the Soviet threat in a military
way, developing that kind of military security that has the courage to put
aside that which is outmoded, but also we must have an America which develops
with determination our productive power-our national resources. We must
have both.
May I say categorically the choice for America does not lie between a
sound economy with an inadequate defense posture or an unsound economy with an
adequate defense. If either of these dire alternatives is inevitably our
Nation's fate, then America is in a bind, now and in the future. I submit
that America can and must face up to the hard fact that if our free society
is to be preserved, we as a nation can afford neither the luxury of an
inadequate defense nor an unsound economy stemming from habitual unbalanced
federal budgets. It is my firm conviction we must have adequate defense and
a sound economy. This nation must reject the philosophy that our only choice
in order to present military surrender to the Russians is to spend ourselves
into an economic and political defeat. Our basic choice is betwen hard-headed
spending for essentials and soft-headed spending to satisfy the desires of every
pressure group and the fears of every frightened politican. This is the
great task which history has thrust upon us in the last half of the 20th
Century and it is made more challenging by the relatively recent threat by
the Soviets to invade in a big way the Free Worlds economic leadership.
For the Soviet threat is both a military and an economic one. No less
an authority than Allen Dulles, director of the Central Intelligence Agency,
told an audience recently that, while "We must be ever mindful of the Soviet
emphasis on the military applications of science and technology in order to
anticipate any attempts at a breakthrough which would change the balance of
military power, it is most probable that the fateful battles of the cold war
will, in the forseeable future, be fought in the economic and subversive arenas."
4
In countless ways, the Communists demonstrate that military force is
but one of the means that they expect to use to take over the world, so that
some three billion people on this globe can live under the domination of an
atheistic dictatorship. The danger might come more from an economic offensive
and thus, while we debate budgets, weapons and research, as Admiral Burke
told the Charleston, South Carolina, Chamber of Commerce, "We can lose the
entire stamina and integrity of our citilization if we do not recognize the
challenge presented to us by a nation sworn to take us over."
Fortunately, the development of modern weapons has enabled America to
reasonably and efficiently build up a wide mix or diversification of many
weapon systems designed to hit the enemy from a combination of launching
locations. ICBM's and manned bombers from the United States; manned bombers
and IRBM's from overseas bases; deployed tactical missiles of all three
services; missiles from submarines at sea; and the atomic capable tactical
Air Force Units and attack carrier striking forces deployed in strategic areas
all constitute powerful deterrent items in a retaliatory force second to none
in this world's history. Furthermore, our mutual defense alliances such as NATO
extending from Iceland and Norway in the North Atlantic to Turkey at the
Eastern end of the Mediterranean and SEATO in the Pacific add to this
retaliatory power. This big advantage, U. S. or allied bases in their back
yard and all around the compass, is a vital one, and must not be lost sight of
as we analyze the total U. S. and Free World military strength.
Admittedly, missiles are costly. Our American missile program first hit
the billion dollar mark for a 12 month period in fiscal 1952, but by fiscal
1959, which is this year, the annual total has reached the staggering sum of
over $7 billion obligated for these most modern weapons. One surface-to-surface
ICBM, the first-generation Atlas, shows an overall initial cost of $35
million per missile on the firing line, at least until faster production drives
down the average production cost. To get a picture of this amazing price, if
100 workers each making $5,000 a year were to turn over every cent of their
earnings for the next 70 years, their total wages would buy one Atlas.
However costly these missiles are, their potential effectiveness is without
parallel. With the development of the Hounddog, an air to surface missile,
our Air Force using over 600 B-52 long-range bombers will be able to fire
missile-bombs at supersonic speeds 500 miles from the target, thus avoiding
the enemies' heaviest antiaircraft fire. The simpler solid-fuel Polaris missile
is expedted to be operational on at least three submarines by 1960. The
--5--
Nautilus and Skate submarine operations in Arctic waters add tremendously to
the military problems of the Soviet Union. One Polaris submarine on station
is the equivalent of approximately 2,000 to 4,000 deployed World War II B-29
aircraft loaded with conventional bombs ready to make a simultaneous attack
on several vital targets. For comparative purposes, our entire planned
ballistic missile attack force is the equivalent of an operational inventory
of something like 100,000 B29 aircraft using the most potent conventional
bombs of the last world conflict.
Despite this evidence of strategic attack capability, the advocates
of overspending as well as some journalists have cast doubt on the capability
of our defense effort. Unfortunately, the public generally cannot today get
factual answers on many military issues because of national security
considerations, or because of muddled facts due to the bias of the writer.
The term "Missile gap" has been coined to imply that within a few years
the Soviet Union may have such a lead in intercontinental ballistic missiles
capable of devastating nuclear attack that the United States will be open to
either diplomatic blackmail or destruction by surprise attack. The most
widely used figure is an alleged 3-1 lead by Russia in ICBM's by 1962. Here
again the lack of constructive analysis begins to show, until people begin
to think logically and look at the whole picture to see quality and direction,
rather than quantity alone.
Going in the right direction is important. A large lady on the Baltimore
and Ohio railroad coach recently sought to leave the train at Cleveland. A
train employee, seeing her difficulty, suggested she turn around and back down.
"Back down?" she indignantly replied, "I've tried that four times. Every
time I do, the porter pushes me up the steps and says, 'Have a good trip, lady',
and I'm three stops past Akron now." Our problem is certainly not amounts of
money or amounts of missiles: it is a matter of proper application of funds
available and sound direction of the programs with highest priority.
The important thing is not whether Russia has half as many or ten times
as many ICBM's as the United States. What is vital is that we maintain enough
strength to retaliate in strength after a first blow is struck, and to
retaliate in such force that no potential enemy will risk making such an
initial thrust, knowing the unescapable destruction of both military and other
targets that will follow. Remarks by Secretary of Defense McElroy and others
in recent months tend to indicate that, while the United States will continue its
long-standing policy of non-aggression,it will not necessarily stand idly by
and wait for Russia to attack us. When a man sees robbers lurking around his
house at night, he calls the police or takes other appropriate action, but very
rarely sits in his living room watching television and awaiting the sound of
broken glass before taking action.
A look at the record to see what qualified, experienced military personnel
have to say should convince even the most ardent spender for spendings sake
that the current overall United States defense program is fully adequate and that
this program will remain so in the future.
Research and development money spent in the past is starting to pay off.
Thus, for fiscal 1960, we can spend slightly less on missiles than in the
current year but will expect to get more missiles in our operational inventory.
Development of large thrust liquid rocket engines, effects of high temperatures
on metals, breakthroughs in guidance and in the whole field of aerodynamics
have led our missile capability to the point where, as one expert has said,
"Missiles cost money but, as far as the Russians are concerned, I think we
have arrived at a balance of terror."
What we must obviously avoid is a qualitative gap, not a quantitative one.
From the testimony of those who should know, our top military strategists and
scientific experts, we are keeping the fàith with our present defense operation
and generally within our 1960 fiscal year budget request. And, despite our
democratic ideals in this country of making everyone part of the act for major
decisions, we must, as General Betts expressed it, "some day come face to face
with the fact that the problems of comparative military strength demand the
judgment of professional military people who have devoted their entire careers
to the study of these problems. At some point, the public and the Congress
must accept on faith the judgment of senior military leaders."
Take these remarks from the leading spokesmen of the military services
insofar as the adequacy of the 1960 budget requests of the President relate
to our national defense:
1. This is a statement by Secretary of Defense McElroy before my Defense
Department subcommittee on appropriations. "Last year I said to this
committee, 'The Nation is prepared to meet the threat it faces today. That
statement is still true now, in January, 1959. Our forces are fully capable
of carrying out their assigned missions and will continue to have this
capability during the period covered by the budget. The Joint Chiefs of Staff
have gone on record with me that they consider this budget adequate to provide
for the essential programs necessary for the defense of the Nation. "
2. In questioning before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I asked,
-- 7
"Are there any military targets in the Soviet Union or in the satellites which
would not be adequately covered from a military point of view?", and the
reply was, "We can hit them all.' I continued, "You can hit them all with
these extra margins that are essential?" and the reply was, "That is
right."
Those replies were made by General N. F. Twining, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
3. At a January 28 press conference, President Eisenhower said, "Our
missile system is going forward as rapidly as possible under the guidance of
the finest scientists that we can accumulate. I believe that we are making,
within the relatively short space of time we have had, remarkable progress.
I think it is a matter for pride on the part of America, and not a constant
hang-dog attitude of humiliation.
But yet the prophets of gloom and doom continue to chann, "41 billion
dollars is not enough in one year. We must spend one, three or five billion
more." Certainly this viewpoint is unnecessary and, in fact, wasteful in
view of the urgent need for overall fiscal responsibility at this time. Some
of these critics have self-interest at heart, others are baffled by security
censorship and conflict of facts, while still others are genuinely concerned
about the security of our country.
Despite these cries that America has no defense against aggression, we
have the words of Secretary McElroy that we have a highly powerful composite:
"The greatest force of heavy bombers in the world-the greatest force of
medium bombers in the world-the only carrier bomber force in the world--
plus tactical aircraft at forward bases, all capable of carrying atomic
weapons sufficient to destroy the Soviet Union if it should attack us
...
Additional elements will be submarine based ballistic missiles, blockbusters
with an immense knockout punch.
We will have powerful intercontinental
ballistic missiles, many in hardened bases, Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles
on the soil of our Allies, consistently improving carrier striking forces, and,
tactical fighter-bcmbers stationed around the periphery of Communit territory."
These facts indicate that all is in a healthy state insofar as American
defenses are concerned. Besides this, we have a tremendous advantage in the
man in the White House--President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He is a person who has
demonstrated through over six years in office a concern with the welfare of the
American people and the use of proper actions to safeguard that welfare. He has
an amount of military experience probably never before equalled in a United
States President. To thinking Americans this, together with Ike's clear sense
-- 8
of duty. to his country, should inspire even more confidence in our present
and future defense efforts.
An ancient Arabic legend calls to mind the man who felt a premonition
that his son was about to meet death at home that very night. Fearing for
his boy's life, and panic-stricken over that fear, he rode rapidly to Medina,
a city some 50 miles away, in order to give his son safekeeping with friends.
On the way back, however, he encountered Death himself, riding toward the
city with the explanation, "I have a rendezvous in Medina tonight." The
selfish thinking, fear and attempts to base an important decision on un-
supported evidence led that man to sacrifice his son's life, according to the
story.
So too we today often succumb to the fear of politically-motivated,
selfish or undocumented charges and denunciations, leading us to bhe belief
that more money in and of itself will resolve all defense problems. Edmund
Burke, 18th century English political writer, stated that "no passion so
effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear."
Certainly the headlines, public opinion polls and general confusion in the
area of our nation's defenses today justify Mr. Burke's observations.
I would propose a four-point program here tonight to more positively
assist our civilian and military leaders in their current and future defense
efforts. As Admiral Burke, Chief of Naval Operations, has time after time
emphasized, "This is not a one-man job
it is a challenge to one hundred
and seventy million Americans
for your children and your children's
children, as long as they live, will live in competition."
1. The American public must come to have confidence in the judgment
of top military experts, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander-in-Chief
of our Armed Forces, the President of the United States. These men are not
infallible, but are favored by years of military experience, They have
access to classified information as to the potentialities of the enemy plus
the facts on our own forces, and, more importantly, occupy a high position
in the overall budgeting process. Many persons in the Department of the Army, or
Navy, or Air Force, to be sure, would like more money for this program or for
that item. History clearly indicates no military leader has ever had all the
forces or funds he felt necessary for his single segment of the Armed Forces.
However, in terms of the overall fiscal policy of our nation, there must be a
place where responsible, experienced persons take a look at the entire picture
from a position where all facts and figures are available. They are the ones who
must say, "Look here-this figure, in terms of our national security requirements
and
- 9
in terms of our anticipated revenue, is the figure which will guarantee us an
adequate national defense, both now and in future years." These are the
persons who have the overall intelligence reports, information from all areas
within the Defense and other departments, and thus have a firmer grasp on this
subject than de those with but a fragment of this information.
2. Responsible bipartisanism must arise in the Congress of the United
States to look at the policies and programs of our defense setup as they
relate to the future welfare of our country and not as they affect the future
dynasty of a particular political party or individual within a party. This
will be particularly effective if backed up by staunch support from the
grassroots of America.
3. The American people must join the military in their recognition that
war and defense have changed in the present age of missiles and nuclear warheads.
The U. S. cannot prevent or win the next war with the obsolete weapons of
previous conflicts. The need, for example, to have a ballistic missile early
warning system operational before the Russians have developed their effective
ICBM capability by far outweighs any theoretical need for matching Russia in
numbers--missile by missile or for that matter, submarine by submarine. No
longer can the United States military posture be judged on the availability
of one weapon alone. The soldier in earlier decades fought with a rifle
using a very simple ballistic weapon, loaded it with an inexpensive cartridge,
aimed and fired at a target which he could see. Today the Atlas missile has over
300,000 intricate, separate parts, a complex fuel control system, a complicated
guidance system and requires hundreds of skilled men to get it ready for the
final countdown. This illustrates one of the first lessons of our defense
effort--we must update our viewpoint when the facts warrant, regardless of
the cost, but at the same time we must be highly selective in where we invest
our resources. Vision, effort and judgment rather than money alone will keep
America strong.
4. We must realize that, when all the facts and opinions I and others
have mentioned have been marshalled together, we must act in a firm, positive
manner to keep America in the forefront as a first-class power-the leader
of the Free World. Debate may ensue as to the cost of a program, or the value
of one missile over another, but in the last analysis defense must continue
to be based on the estimates of experienced, knowledgeable civilian officials
and military leaders. Almost 100 years ago Abraham Lincoln was asked many
questions regarding national defense by Governor Andrew Curtin, of Pennsylvania,
in view of an imminent Civil War. The entire and complete reply President
-- 10 --
Lincoln wrote consisted of one sentence--"I think the necessity of being
ready increases-look to it!"
As American sitizens, though our total Armed Forces are of a sound
substance and though we can sleep safely at night knowing we are protected
night and day by American and allied soldiers, sailors and airmen in world-
wide outposts, we still must "look to it". Our excellent variety of defense
forces and strategic attack capabilities, the experienced judgment of our
military leaders and our expert use and improvement of modern weapons like
missiles must be supplemented to the highest possible degree by sound,
constructive public opinion. Then, and only then, will we be ready in the true
sense of the word, both now and in the future.
"U.S. DEFENSE:
$41 BILLION OR MORE"
Address before Michigan Rural Teachers Association
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan
April 17, 1959
Representative Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
It's certainly a pleasure for me to talk to this group representing
the Michigan Rural Teachers Association this evening, particularly at
Mt. Pleasant. Here a newly-created university, with a long standing
tradition of academic achievement, has rapidly grown to its present
enrollment of over 5,000, and turns out annually highly competent
additions to the teaching profession. Many of these new teachers, I am
sure, ultimately become part of our rural school structure, still a
very vital cog in the Michigan educational system. Those who reminisce
about the "good old days" and the one-reom schoolhouse sometimes fail to
realize that rural schools continue to educate a sizeable proportion of
our leaders of tomorrow in all fields of endeavor.
Most of you who are rural teachers, like these in other professions,
have at one time or another come to grip with fear. The fear of a child
falling from a swing, or of a student called on to recite with no prepa-
ration-these are duplicated in other areas of life, as well. In the
military, the stary is told of the combat team meeting heavy shelling from
the enemy on Omaha Beach. The commander of the unit started shouting names
from his roster to determine casualties. Upon reaching one name, no answer
was heard. He screamed the name leuder and more frantically, until one of
the men managed to interject, "Sir, that's your own name you keep calling."
Certainly fear removes our power of sense and logic, and destroys our
ability to think clearly. You in education had a prime example of this when
the first Sputnik was sent into srace. As Fred Hechinger points out in his
book, "The Big Red Schoolhouse", we had for years laughed away and shrugged
off thoughts that Russia could ever compete with us in anything, but the
orbiting of Sputnik meant that "overnight the American superierity complex
took a nosedive", and that "the new national mentality became that of an
equally irrational inferierity complex."
As you know, for some time thereafter everything about our educational
system was wrong and everything about Russia's was right. When the hysteria
began to clear away and the hue and cry died down, Americans were free to see
--2--
the essential facts about the situation. As Vice-President Nixon said in
New York in December, 1957, "Too often we hear the superficial and pat
formula that the answer to all of our problems in the educational field is
more classrooms, teachers, scholarships and scientists. Action on these
fronts is essential. But we miss the target completely if we do not recognize
at the outset that our major problem is quality and quantity of education."
Roger Freeman, the vice president of the Institute of Social Science
Research, said last month to the Economic Club of Detroit, "Whether we like
it or not, we are in competition with the Russians. The travelers who
reported on Russian education did not propose that we copy the Soviet school
system. But they did suggest that we cannot fall behind in the 'war of the
classrooms'. We can afford to spend more money for education than other
countries--but we cannot afford to get less education for it. Mr. Freeman
answered his own question as to, "Do we need more dollars for education or
more education for our dollars?" The comparable question in the field of
defense and missiles is, "Do we need more dollars for defense or more defense
for our dollars?" Tonight I propose to deal with that question in terms of
the guided missile controversy and the contributions of missiles to our
ability to deter aggression and to press home to an enemy a successful
strategic attack.
Brigadier General Betts, executive assistant to the director of guided
missiles, feels we have reached a similar point in the business of our
strategic attack capability as we did in education after the launching of
Sputnik I. He said in New York, March 19, "We have absolutely hit bottom
with a completely irrational inferiority complex on the subject of the
intercontinental ballistic missile."
Before I get into the specific area of missiles and their intricacies,
let me make one thing very clear. Defense is a vital thing, and one which
cannot be sidetracked by wishful thinking. We must have a defense system
that will inspire, demand and secure the complete confidence of Congress and
the people. Representative Mahon, chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, said at the opening of our hearings this session that "We want
economy, but make sure we keep up our guard, let us not neglect national
defense, let us not put a balanced budget or any other factor under the sun
ahead of the defense of the United States. That is the one thing which we
cannot neglect." As a seven year member of this committee may I assure that
no such danger of neglect exists. Secretary of Defense McElroy stated at
--3--
Detroit March 30 that "the charge has been made by some that the size of the
defense budget for the next fiscal year has been limited in order that the
budget might be balanced. This charge is simply not true. There is no
question that this Administration desires to balance income and outgo. This
is merely sound fiscal policy. But such a desire did not have a determining
influence on the size of the defense budget. The determining influence on
the budget was what was required for national security."
President Eisenhower's guidance is providing and will provide fully
adequate defenses for the national security of the United States. He has no
intention of playing politics with the freedom of generations of Americans
still unborn. We not only must guard against the Soviet threat in a military
way, developing that kind of military security that has the courage to put
aside that which is outmoded, but also we must have an America which develops
with determination our productive power--our national resources. We must
have both.
May I say categorically the choice for America does not lie between a
sound economy with an inadequate defense posture or an unsound economy with an
adequate defense. If either of these dire alternatives is inevitably our
Nation's fate, then America is in a bind, now and in the future. I submit
that America can and must face up to the hard fact that if our free society
is to be preserved, we as a nation can afford neither the luxury of an
inadequate defense nor an unsound economy stemming from habitual unbalanced
federal budgets. It is my firm conviction we must have adequate defense and
a sound economy. This nation must reject the philosophy that our only choice
in order to prevent military surrender to the Russians is to spend ourselves
into an economic and political defeat. Our basic choice is betwen hard-headed
spending for essentials and soft-headed spending to satisfy the desires of every
pressure group and the fears of every frightened politican. This is the
great task which history has thrust upon us in the last half of the 20th
Century and it is made more challenging by the relatively recent threat by
the Soviets to invade in a big way the Free Worlds economic leadership.
For the Soviet threat is both a military and an economic one. No less
an authority than Allen Dulles, director of the Central Intelligence Agency,
told an audience recently that, while "We must be ever mindful of the Soviet
emphasis on the military applications of science and technology in order to
anticipate any attempts at a breakthrough which would change the balance of
military power, it is most probable that the fateful battles of the cold war
will, in the forseeable future, be fought in the economic and subversive arenas."
4
In countless ways, the Communists demonstrate that military force is
but one of the means that they expect to use to take over the world, so that
some three billion people on this blobe can live under the domination of an
atheistic dictatorship. The danger might come more from an economic offensive
and thus, while we debate budgets, weapons and research, as Admiral Burke
told the Charleston, South Carolina, Chamber of Commerce, "We can lose the
entire stamina and integrity of our citilization if we do not recognize the
challenge presented to us by a nation sworn to take us over."
Fortunately, the development of modern weapons has enabled America to
reasonably and efficiently build up a wide mix or diversification of many
weapon systems designed to hit the enemy from a combination of launching
locations. ICBM's and manned bombers from the United States; manned bombers
and IRBM's from overseas bases; deployed tactical missiles of all three
services; missiles from submarines at sea; and the atomic capable tactical
Air Force Units and attack carrier striking forces deployed in strategic areas
all constitute powerful deterrent items in a retaliatory force second to none
in this world's history. Furthermore, our mutual defense alliances such as NATO
extending from Iceland and Norway in the North Atlantic to Turkey at the
Eastern end of the Mediterranean and SEATO in the Pacific add to this
retaliatory power. This big advantage, U. S. or allied bases in their back
yard and all around the compass, is a vital one, and must not be lost sight of
as we analyze the total U. S. and Free World military strength.
Admittedly, missiles are costly. Our American missile program first hit
the billion dollar mark for a 12 month period in fiscal 1952, but by fiscal
1959, which is this year, the annual total has reached the staggering sum of
over $7 billion obligated for these most modern weapons. One surface-to-surface
ICBM, the first-generation Atlas, shows an overall initial cost of $35
million per missile on the firing line, at least until faster production drives
down the average production cost. To get a picture of this amazing price, if
100 workers each making $5,000 a year were to turn over every cent of their
earnings for the next 70 years, their total wages would buy one Atlas.
However costly these missiles are, their potential effectiveness is without
parallel. With the development of the Hounddog, an air to surface missile,
our Air Force using over 600 B-52 long-range bombers will be able to fire
missile-bombs at supersonic speeds 500 miles from the target, thus avoiding
the enemies' heaviest antiaircraft fire. The simpler solid-fuel Polaris missile
is expedted to be operational on at least three submarines by 1960. The
Nautilus and Skate submarine operations in Arctic waters add tremendously to
the military problems of the Soviet Union. One Polaris submarine on station
is the equivalent of approximately 2,000 to 4,000 deployed World War II B-29
aircraft loaded with conventional bombs ready to make a simultaneous attack
on several vital targets. For comparative purposes, our entire planned
ballistic missile attack force is the equivalent of an operational inventory
of something like 190,000 B29 aircraft using the most potent conventional
bombs of the last world conflict.
Despite this evidence of strategic attack capability, the advocates
of overspending as well as some journalists have cast doubt on the capability
of our defense effort. Unfortunately, the public generally cannot today get
factual answers on many military issues because of national security
considerations, or because of muddled facts due to the bias of the writer.
The term "Missile gap" has been coined to imply that within a few years
the Soviet Union may have such a lead in intercontinental ballistic missiles
capable of devastating nuclear attack that the United States will be open to
either diplomatic blackmail or destruction by surprise attack. The most
widely used figure is an alleged 3-1 lead by Russia in ICBM's by 1962. Here
again the lack of constructive analysis begins to show, until people begin
to think logically and look at the whole picture to see quality and direction,
rather than quantity alone.
Going in the right direction is important. A large lady on the Baltimore
and Ohio railroad coach recently sought to leave the train at Cleveland. A
train employee, seeing her difficulty, suggested she turn around and back down.
"Back down?" she indignantly replied, "I've tried that four times. Every
time I do, the porter pushes me up the steps and says, 'Have a good trip, lady',
and I'm three stops past Akron now." Our problem is certainly not amounts of
money or amounts of missiles: it is a matter of proper application of funds
available and sound direction of the programs with highest priority.
The important thing is not whether Russia has half as many or ten times
as many ICBM's as the United States. What is vital is that we maintain enough
strength to retaliate in strength after a first blow is struck, and to
retaliate in such force that no potential enemy will risk making such an
initial thrust, knowing the unescapable destruction of both military and other
targets that will follow. Remarks by Secretary of Defense McElroy and others
in recent months tend to indicate that, while the United States will continue its
long-standing policy of non-aggression,it will not necessarily stand idly by
and wait for Russia to attack us. When a man sees robbers lurking around his
house at night, he calls the police or takes other appropriate action, but very
rarely sits in his living room watching television and awaiting the sound of
broken glass before taking action.
A look at the record to see what qualified, experienced military personnel
have to say should convince even the most ardent spender for spendings sake
that the current overall United States defense program is fully adequate and that
this program will remain so in the future.
Research and development money spent in the past is starting to pay off.
Thus, for fiscal 1960, we can spend slightly less on missiles than in the
current year but will expect to get more missiles in our operational inventory.
Development of large thrust liquid rocket engines, effects of high temperatures
on metals, breakthroughs in guidance and in the whole field of aerodynamics
have led our missile capability to the point where, as one expert has said,
"Missiles cost money but, as far as the Russians are concerned, I think we
have arrived at a balance of terror."
What we must obviously avoid is a qualitative gap, not a quantitative one.
From the testimony of those who should know, our top military strategists and
scientific experts, we are keeping the faith with our present defense operation
and generally within our 1960 fiscal year budget request. And, despite our
democratic ideals in this country of making everyone part of the act for major
decisions, we must, as General Betts expressed it, "some day come face to face
with the fact that the problems of comparative military strength demand the
judgment of professional military people who have devoted their entire careers
to the study of these problems. At some point, the public and the Congress
must accept on faith the judgment of senior military leaders."
Take these remarks from the leading spokesmen of the military services
insofar as the adequacy of the 1960 Budget requests of the President relate
to our national defense:
1. This is a statement by Secretary of Defense McElroy before my Defense
Department subcommittee on appropriations. "Last year I said to this
committee, 'The Nation is prepared to meet the threat it faces today. I That
statement is still true now, in January, 1959. Our forces are fully capable
of carrying out their assigned missions and will continue to have this
capability during the period covered by the budget. The Joint Chiefs of Staff
have gone on record with me that they consider this budget adequate to provide
for the essential programs necessary for the defense of the Nation."
2. In questioning before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I asked,
-- 7
"Are there any military targets in the Soviet Union or in the satellites which
would not be adequately covered from a military point of view?", and the
reply was, "We can hit them all." I continued, "You can hit them all with
these extra margins that are essential?" and the reply was, "That is
right."
Those replies were made by General N. F. Twining, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
3. At a January 28 press conference, President Eisenhower said, "Our
missile system is going forward as rapidly as possible under the guidance of
the finest scientists that we can accumulate. I believe that we are making,
within the relatively short space of time we have had, remarkable progress.
I think it is a matter for pride on the part of America, and not a constant
hang-dog attitude of humiliation.
But yet the prophets of gloom and doom continue to chann, "41 billion
dollars is not enough in one year. We must spend one, three or five billion
more." Certainly this viewpoint is unnecessary and, in fact, wasteful in
view of the urgent need for overall fiscal responsibility at this time. Some
of these critics have self-interest at heart, others are baffled by security
censorship and conflict of facts, while still others are genuinely concerned
about the security of our country.
Despite these cries that America has no defense against aggression, we
have the words of Secretary McElroy that we have a highly powerful composite:
"The greatest force of heavy bombers in the world--the greatest force of
medium bombers in the world-the only carrier bomber force in the world--
plus tactical aircraft at forward bases, all capable of carrying atomic
weapons sufficient to destroy the Soviet Union if it should attack us
...
Additional elements will be submarine based ballistic missiles, blockbusters
with an immense knockout punch.
We will have powerful intercontinental
ballistic missiles, many in hardened bases, Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles
on the soil of our Allies, consistently improving carrier striking forces, and,
tactical fighter-bcmbers stationed around the periphery of Communist territory."
These facts indicate that all is in a healthy state insofar as American
defenses are concerned. Besides this, we have a tremendous advantage in the
man in the White House--President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He is a person who has
demonstrated through over six years in office a concern with the welfare of the
American people and the use of proper actions to safeguard that welfare. He has
an amount of military experience probably never before equalled in a United
States President. To thinking Americans this, together with Ike's clear sense
- 8
of duty. to his country, should inspire even more confidence in our present
and future defense efforts.
An ancient Arabic legend calls to mind the man who felt a premonition
that his son was about to meet death at home that very night. Fearing for
his boy's life, and panic-stricken over that fear, he rode rapidly to Medina,
a city some 50 miles away, in order to give his son safekeeping with friends.
On the way back, however, he encountered Death himself, riding toward the
city with the explanation, "I have a rendezvous in Medina tonight." The
selfish thinking, fear and attempts to base an important decision on un-
supported evidence led that man to sacrifice his son's life, according to the
story.
So too we today often succumb to the fear of politically-motivated,
selfish or undocumented charges and denunciations, leading us to bhe belief
that more money in and of itself will resolve all defense problems. Edmund
Burke, 18th century English political writer, stated that "no passion so
effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear."
Certainly the headlines, public opinion polls and general confusion in the
area of our nation's defenses today justify Mr. Burke's observations.
I would propose a four-point program here tonight to more positively
assist our civilian and military leaders in their current and future defense
efforts. As Admiral Burke, Chief of Naval Operations, has time after time
emphasized, "This is not a one-man job
it is a challenge to one hundred
and seventy million Americans
for your children and your children's
children, as long as they live, will live in competition."
1. The American public must come to have confidence in the judgment
of top military experts, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander-in-Chief
of our Armed Forces, the President of the United States. These men are not
infallible, but are favored by years of military experience. They have
access to classified information as to the potentialities of the enemy plus
the facts on our own forces, and, more importantly, occupy a high position
in the overall budgeting process. Many persons in the Department of the Army, or
Navy, or Air Force, to be sure, would like more money for this program or for
that item. History clearly indicates no military leader has ever had all the
forces or funds he felt necessary for his single segment of the Armed Forces.
However, in terms of the overall fiscal policy of our nation, there must be a
place where responsible, experienced persons take a look at the entire picture
from a position where all facts and figures are available. They are the ones who
must say, "Look here--this figure, in terms of our national security requirements
and
- 9
in terms of our anticipated revenue, is the figure which will guarantee us an
adequate national defense, both now and in future years." These are the
persons who have the overall intelligence reports, information from all areas
within the Defense and other departments, and thus have a firmer grasp on this
subject than de those with but a fragment of this information.
2. Responsible bipartisanism must arise in the Congress of the United
States to look at the policies and programs of our defense setup as they
relate to the future welfare of our country and not as they affect the future
dynasty of a particular political party or individual within a party. This
will be particularly effective if backed up by staunch support from the
grassroots of America.
3. The American people must join the military in their recognition that
war and defense have changed in the present age of missiles and nuclear warheads.
The U. S. cannot prevent or win the next war with the obsolete weapons of
previous conflicts. The need, for example, to have a ballistic missile early
warning system operational before the Russians have developed their effective
ICBM capability by far outweighs any theoretical need for matching Russia in
numbers--missile by missile or for that matter, submarine by submarine. No
longer can the United States military posture be judged on the availability
of one weapon alone. The soldier in earlier decades fought with a rifle
using a very simple ballistic weapon, loaded it with an inexpensive cartridge,
aimed and fired at a target which he could see. Today the Atlas missile has over
300,000 intricate, separate parts, a complex fuel control system, a complicated
guidance system and requires hundreds of skilled men to get it ready for the
final countdown. This illustrates one of the first lessons of our defense
effort we must update our viewpoint when the facts warrant, regardless of
the cost, but at the same time we must be highly selective in where we invest
our resources. Vision, effort and judgment rather than money alone will keep
America strong.
4. We must realize that, when all the facts and opinions I and others
have mentioned have been marshalled together, we must act in a firm, positive
manner to keep America in the forefront as a first-class power-the leader
of the Free World. Debate may ensue as to the cost of a program, or the value
of one missile over another, but in the last analysis defense must continue
to be based on the estimates of experienced, knowledgeable civilian officials
and military leaders. Almost 100 years ago Abraham Lincoln was asked many
SCRALD
questions regarding national defense by Governor Andrew Curtin, of Pennsylvania,
in view of an imminent Civil War. The entire and complete reply President
- 10
Lincoln wrote consisted of one sentence--"I think the necessity of being
ready increases--look to it!"
As American sitizens, though our total Armed Forces are of a sound
substance and though we can sleep safely at night knewing we are protected
night and day by American and allied soldiers, sailors and airmen in world-
wide outposts, we still must "look to it". Our excellent variety of defense
forces and strategic attack capabilities, the experienced judgment of our
military leaders and our expert use and improvement of modern weapons like
missiles must be supplemented to the highest possible degree by sound,
constructive public opinion. Then, and only then, will we be ready in the true
sense of the word, both now and in the future.