Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4525774",
    "label": "Defense, Fountain Street Church, April 4, 1962",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525774"
}

{
    "id": "4525774",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525774",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Defense, Fountain Street Church, April 4, 1962",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525774",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Speeches"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Soviet Union",
        "Communism",
        "Nuclear test ban treaties",
        "Nuclear testing",
        "Nuclear weapons"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525774.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525774.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525774.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525774",
    "naId": 4525774,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1962-04-30",
        "month": 4,
        "year": 1962
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1962-04-01",
        "month": 4,
        "year": 1962
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525774.pdf",
    "mediaId": "b833efd2369a8d67",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D15, folder \"Defense, Fountain Street Church,\nApril 4, 1962\" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the\nGerald 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 The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain.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.\nFountain sh. Church\n1962 1). Play to win\nApril4,1962\n2) appreciate views 8 others\nI.\nINTRODUCTION\n3) Desapre without buy dragruable\nA.\nPersonal comments\nB.\nRefer to Dr. Pauling's speech of two weeks ago; have read and studied\nhis address and have had it analyzed by competent scientists and other\nresponsible officials in the Department of Defense and with the Atomic\nEnergy Commission.\nII. My first responsibility this evening is to DELINIATE THE ISSUES.\nA. Dr. Pauling touched on a large number of subjects and topics, some of\nwhich are essential to a consideration of this problem under discussion\nand others which are not at issue tonight.\nB.\nSome topics mentioned by Dr. Pauling which are NOT Issues:\n1.\nWe are not debating the irrationality of war.\npotentrally\n2. We have no dispute on the horrors of war and especially the dreddful\nresults of atomic warfare.\nhave the ability\n3. Our issue is not whether the ability of Russians to inflict untold\ndamage on us and whether we have the ability to retaliate. Nor are\nwith findation results\nwe in disagreement on the fact that hundreds of thousands of people\nwill die in an all-out atomic war.\n4.\nThe issue tonight is not whether disarmament is desirable or even\npossible of attainment.\n5. We have no dispute with Dr. Pauling on the desirability of eliminating\nwar.\n\"\nPankings opening statement 1 \"We live in a wonderful\nworld Y 2 like it.\"\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nDigitized from Box D15 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n2.\nC. Dr. Pauling gave a great deal of attention to the effects of radiation\nand radio-active fallout on human beings and mutations in newly formed\nchildren. Not being a geneticist nor a physicist, I can't personally\ndispute Dr. Pauling's statements on radiation and the effects of radio-\nactive fallout, but I do know that many equally competent and patriotic\nscientists DO TAKE ISSUE with Dr. Pauling and do DISAGREE with the\nof conclusions\ninformation he presented here as factual two weeks ago.\n1. On Page 11 of the copy of his speech I have, Dr. Pauling said,\n\"There is no dispute about these matters. The bombs that the Soviet\nUnion exploded last fall will, if the human race survives, cause\n1,900,000 children to be born with gross physical or mental defects....\"\nBUT Dr. Gerald W. Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Atomic\nEnergy says this about Dr. Pauling's contention: \"There is no dispute\non the qualitative statement that carbon-14 causes genetic effects.\nThere is, however, a great deal of dispute on the quantitative\nconsequences. The computations of 1,900,000 children to be born\nwith gross physical or mental defects is based on Pauling's estimate\nthat future birth rate will be about five times the present one.\nI believe he uses a value of 300,000,000 per year, a genetic proportion\nthat includes both ionization and transmutation and the influence of\ncarbon-14 exposure to all future generations. He doesn't point out at\nthis stage that these cases, if they occur, would be distributed over\na period of 60,000 to 100,000 years.\"\nGERALD FORD VIBRARY\n3.\nDocent Panky\n2. Dr. Leonard Reiffel, Director of Physics Research at the Armour\nResearch Foundation in Chicago said on March 9th: \"The President's\nexcellent speech of last Friday made clear that the tests we've now\nplanned will add only one percent to the natural background of\nradioactivity in the world. To do the complete job would not bring\nthe figure up to even two percent. The President stated that the\nexposure due to our currently planned tests \"will be less than 1/50\nof the difference which can be experienced, due to variations in\nnatural radioactivity simply by living in different locations in\nthis country.' Suppose the figure was 1/25? with survival at\nstake, I at least would state that that would be acceptable to say\nthe least! especially in the context of all the other sources of\nradiation in modern civilization: x-rays, flying at high altitude\nin jets, living in masonry buildings, etc.\"\nDem. J Cally. Calif.\n3. Rep. Chet Holifield, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,\ntold the House of Representatives on March 5th that \"The Joint Committee\non Atomic Energy has been assured that the amounts of radioactive\nfallout from any atmospheric tests which the United States may carry\non will be substantially less than the amounts produced in the last\nSoviet series of tests, and will not constitute a significant\npopulation hazard.\" (Page 3140 of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD)\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n4.\n4. On March 25th the American Medical Association released the results\nof a study on the effects of radiation on health by top American\nspecialists in radiation medicine. Among other things this REPORT\nsaid: \"Also wrapped up in the study of this 'chronic' radiation--\nas opposed to 'acute' radiation from atomic accidents--is the question\nof damaged genes. In other words, are we now irradiating ourselves\nto such an extent that in a few, (or a hundred) generations,\nradiation-induced mutations will change the hhape of the human race?\n\"Scientific 'purists' on the subject maintain that we are; that\nany radiation, no matter the amount, is damaging to the genes.\n\"An equally-eminent group maintains that up to a certain point\nradiation produces no noticeable effects; that there is a 'threshold'\nand only after the level of radiation crosses this threshold does it\nbecome dangerous.\n\"Although proof is lacking either way--it will take studies of\nseveral generations to produce any meaningful statistics--the\nthreshold theory appears to be gaining.\"\n\"Of all the radiation hazards produced by man, none has\nstirred more fear than fallout.\n\"The firey upsurge of an atomic blast sucks dirt and rocks into\nthe boiling maelstrom where it is vaporized by the heat and carried\nmiles into the sky by the mushroom cloud.\n\"Some of these dust particles, only 1/10,000 of an inch, soon\ncondense into sand-size granules which fall downwind from the blast\nfor a distance up to several hundred miles. This heavy fallout is\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n5.\nextremely 'hot' and can deliver a killing dose of radiation. However,\nunder standard bomb testing conditions, and barring accidents, it\npresentsno great immediate problems.\n\"Of far more concern to public health officials and scientists\nis the microscopic debris that does not condense. This can hang in\nthe atmosphere for as long as ten years.\"\n\"The Russian series probably will not boost overall\nradiation levels any higher this spring than they were in 1958 when\nthe three-year moratorium on nuclear testing began. If this proves\nto be true, then there's probably not much to worry about. No\nharmful effects from the pre-1958 fallout have ever been objectively\nastrated.\n\"Perhaps the best way to put fallout into perspective is to\nconsider it in relation to all sources of radiation.\n\"According to Dr. Lauriston S. Taylor, chairman of the National\nCommittee on Radiation Protection and Measurements, about half of the\ntotal radiation delivered to our reproductive systems comes from\nmedical sources--almost exclusively X-rays---and 40 percent comes\nfrom background radiation. The remaining 10 percent is delivered\nin about equal amounts by (1) luminous watches, buttons and other\nsuch devices; (2) nuclear power plants and engines, atomic wastes, etc.;\n(3) fallout.\n\"The mere fact that man is essentially an earthbound creature\nsubjects him to four times as much radiation as the fallout from all\nthe nuclear devices exploded since 1945. A square mile of dirt and\n6.\nrock a foot deep contains about three tons of uranium and six tons\nof thorium--both radiactive materials. In comparison, bomb testing\nby all nations up to 1958 produced about four and a half tons of\nfission products.\"\n5. It appears, therefore, that I am completely justified in pointing out\nthat competent scientists disagree with Dr. Pauling's analysis of the\neffects of radiation and fallout from nuclear testing on human\nphysical development.\nD. Before setting forth the ISSUES in this debate, I must also set the record\nstraight in one more respect. P. 15 - old saying, people who live in\nglass houses to\nOn Page 20 of Dr. Pauling's speech he quotes testimony of Drs. Everett\nand Pugh of the Weapons Evaluation Division of the Institute of Defense\nAnalysis of the Pentagon.\nDr. Pauling said, \"They ought to be reliable\" in their discussion of various\nnuclear attacks on the U.S. under different conditions. But Dr. Pauling\nwasn't so reliable in quoting Drs. Everett and Pugh.\n1. Page 20 of his speech was personally reviewed by Dr. George Pugh of\nthe Weapons System Evaluation Group and he indicates that Dr. Pauling\nhas extracted data carelessly from his report. Dr. Pugh could verify\nnone of the numbers given by Dr. Pauling and for the specific figure\nof 2 million uninjured, Dr. Pugh states that this figure should read\n12 million úninjured. Dr. Pugh also indicated that if one were to\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\n7.\ndirect nuclear attacks against a military target system, that the\ntotal casualty estimates would be reduced to 50% of the indicated\nfigures in the report. The careless handling of figures by Dr.\nPauling also suggests an intellectual dishonesty 2th the work of\nabring\nthe original authors, Dr. Pugh and Dr. Everett.\n2.\nOn Page 26 of Dr. Paulang's speech where he discussed an atomic\nattack on the U.S. with fallout shelters and with people prepared,\nhe quotes Drs. Everett and Pugh as saying, \"Only 130,000,000\nAmericans would be dead in sixty days; thirty million injured and\ntwenty million uninjured. So they were saying that 40,000,000 instead\nof 170,000,000 -- 130,000,000 dead, what would happen to the injured\nafter sixty days. Many of them -- well -- many of them -- perhaps\neverybody would die anyway, but at any rate there is the forty million.\"\n3. Dr. Pugh read this and stated again that Dr. Pauling had distorted\nthe figures in the basic report. For the extremely heavy attack\n16\nsmith\ncondition described, 130 million should have read 114 million. The\n30 million figure for injured should have read 22 million and the\n20 million uninjured should have read 44 million. These are examples\n24\"\nof Dr. Pauling's carelessness with the data.\n4.\nIt is not pleasant to point out these inaccuracies, but we must set\nthe record straight.\nFORD LIBRARY\n8.\nE. Having pointed out what are NOT the issues in our discussion and\nhaving explained the disagreements which other competent scientists have\nwith Dr. Pauling on two subjects he discussed, we now must set forth the\nISSUES to be considered this evening. An analysis of Dr. Pauling's address\nwould demonstrate that we have two principle issues this evening:\n1. The immediate question is whether the United States should carry out\na program of nuclear testing in the atmosphere this spring in a manner\nand under the circumstances as proposed by President Kennedy. To that\nquestion I answer, \"Yes;\" Dr. Pauling said \"No.\"\n2. The other question, possibly more basic, certainly more philosophical,\ninvolves Dr. Pauling's contention that the way to achieve disarmament\nand to eliminate war from the world is for the citizens of the United\nStates to write the President, Senators, and Representatives and to\n\"apply more pressure on Washington\" to \"make the bomb test agreement.\"\n3. Because Dr. Pauling implies that the major responsibility for dis-\narmament and peace rests with the U.S., I want to consider this second\nissue first and then conclude by explaining why I am supporting\nPresident Kennedy on nuclear testing.\nIII. Dr. Pauling on IMMORALITY and other sins of U.S. and free nations:\nIn his address two weeks ago Dr. Pauling used the term 'immoral' on a number\nof occasions and was critical of certain individuals and of certain American\npolicies.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n9.\nDr. Pauling found that nations are immoral, that war is immoral, that Dr.\nTeller is immoral, and that LIFE MAGAZINE in one of its articles represents the\nheighth of immorality.\nDr. Pauling also described the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gilpatrick,\nas \"this fellow who keeps speaking up.\" He said that Dr. Libby is a man whom he\ncouldn't understand, that Adenauer was an old militarist. He noted approvingly\na statement that the defense industries of this country are more interested in\nincreasing their payrolls than in defense, the safety of this nation.\nDr. Pauling insisted that President Kennedy's decision to resume atmos-\npheric testing came about because of pressures of the defense contractors, the\nmilitary complex.\nSuperfactly\nalso stated here two weeks ago that the United States has always lead\nthe Soviet Union in \"increased militarism\" and then said, \"we are compemplating\nanother unilateral action in direction of greater militarism\" and \"right in the\nmiddle of a conference in Geneva.\"\nBut I have read and re-read Dr. Pauling's address, and I saw not one word\nabout the immorality of atheistic dialectic materialism. Nor about the\nimmorality of the Communist revolutions. Not a word on the immorality of murder\nand carnage in Hungary, nor about the immorality of the dictatorship of the\nKremlin. I saw noghing in the address of two weeks ago about 'this fellow\nKhrushchev who keeps speaking up' and, incidentally, pounding the desk with\nhis shoe. I saw nothing about this man Gromyko who few of us can understand.\nI read not a word about Stalin, the old militarist.\nDr. Pauling didn't mention the political commissars who are more interested\nin their doctrine and power than in the freedom of the world. I could find no\nreference to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Supreme Soutet who\nLIBRARY\n10.\nis a slave of the Communist doctrine and under constant pressure to expand\nCommunist power and influence and has even threatened to bury us.\nDr. Pauling laid little stress on the fact that the Soviet Union, not the\nvidated the Test monatornan\nUnited States, exploded about fifty atomic devices in the atmosphere against\n1\nthe desires of all mankind and while talks at Geneva were stalmated.\nNor did Dr. Pauling remind you of the militarism of the Soviet Union\nwhich is not only apparent but real -- ask the Russians, the Poles, the Latvians,\nthe Làthuanians, the Hungarians, the East Germans.\nIV. COMMUNISM, its principles and manifestations, must be understood in any dis-\ncussion today relative to war and peace.\nA. J. Edgar Hoover wrote on October 10, 1960 in \"Christianity Today\":\n\"Communism is today literally a violent hurricane, rocking not only the\nchanceries of the world but seeking to capture the bodies, minds, and\nsouls of men and women everywhere.\"\n\"Hence, there arises the ugly manifestation of Communist 'ethics'\n--namely, the Communist belief that morality must be subordinated to the\nclass struggle, the inevitable conflict between communism and its opponents.\nWhat is moral? Anything which serves to destroy the enemy and promote\ncommunism. Lenin was most explicit: 'Morality is that which serves to\ndestroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the toilers around\nthe proletariat, which is creating a new Communist society.' Communist\nmorality, of course, is rooted in total rejection of a bel ief in God and\nin the values of the Christian moral code.\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\n11.\n\"This rejection of God gives communism a demonic aspect--transforming\nit into a fanatical, Satanic, brutal phenomenon. Morality is not determined\nby ethical standards grounded in an Absolute, but in the expedient inter-\npretations of the Party--meaning, in actual practice, the whims and desires\nof the ruling clique or Party leader. This leads to the terrifying\ndéctrine that 'the end justifies the means.'\"\nP.34 WAR\nOn January 6,1961 Mr. Khrushchev delivered a speech entitled, \"For New\nVictories of the World Communist Movement.\" He analyzed three categories\nof wars: \"world wars, local wars, and liberation wars or popular up-\nrisings.\" This breakdown, he said, \"is necessary to work out the correct\nBaulell\ntactics with regard to these wars.\"\nAs to world wars, he declared that \"Communists are the most determined\noppoments\" of such wars, and he asserted that \"we can forestall the\noutbreak of a world war.\" Local wars, he thought, were more likely to\noccur in the future, but he rejected them also because a local war \"may\ngrow into a thermonuclear rocket war.\" But \"liberation wars and popular\nuprisings,\" he predicted, \"will continue to exist as long as imperialism\nexists.\" \"Such wars,\" he asserted, \"are not only admissable but inevitable\n...\" \"We recognize such wars. We help and willihelp the people striving\nfor their independente.\" Chairman Khrushchev then asked and answered a\nseries of rhetorical questions about these wars of liberation. \"Can such\nwars flare up in the future? They can. Can there be such uprisings?\nThere can\n... In other words, can conditions be created where a people\nwill lose their patience and rise in arms? They can. What is the attitude\nof the Marxists toward such uprimings? A most positive one\n\"\n12.\nThen after a description of the horrors of a thermonuclear war,\nKhrushchev stated a significant conclusion. \"The victory of socialism\nthroughout the world,\" he announced, \"is now near.\" But \"for this victory,\nwars among states are not necessary.\"\nKhrushchev is saying here that a major war in the nuclear age has become\ntoo dangerous to play the role of \"midwife to revolution\" which Communist\nleaders before him had always preached. At the same time, the Soviets\nwish to keep alive the threat of nuclear war as a means of intimidation,\na form of blackmail intended to discourage the Free World from resisting\nCommunist encroachment at other levels.\nC. Robert Strausz-Hupd, Director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute of\nthe University of Pennsylvania, points out in the NATO Journal for March\n1962 that \"according to Khrushchev, 'wars of national liberation' are\n'good' wars. They can be fought without escalating into more violent\ntypes of international hostility. Since, according to Khrushchev,\n'limited wars' escalate inevitably into big nuclear wars which the West\ncannot win because of Soviet nuclear power, the West has no other choice\nbut to meet the communists on their own chosen terrain, i.e., the colonial\nand ex-colonial world, and leave to the communists the choice of weapons:\nguerrilla war, war-by-proxy, psycho-political warfare, subversion, and\nconspiracy.\"\nDr. Strausz-Hupe also said \"(the Communist) accepts the totality and\nirreconcilability of the conflect as a fundamental fact, whereas to us it is\nQERALD FORD LIBRARY\n13.\nstill a surprising notion.\" He concludes that \"the balance of nuclear\nforces determines the feasibility and scope of non-nuclear conflicts.\"\nD. We must never forget it was Khrushchev, not Eisenhower or Kennedy, who\nshouted \"we will bury you\" and \"your grandchildren will live under\ncommunism.\"\nE. It is not sufficient to pressure our government into disarmament or a test\nban; our world isn't that simple; we must reckon with the forces of the\natheistic Communist conspiracy.\neither\nV. Contrary to Dr. Pauling's intimations, the U. S. is not wholly or primarily\n1\nresponsible for the breakdown at Geneva.\nA. On Page 29 of Dr. Pauling's address he said, \"You know you can get a report\nfrom a Senate Committee on the negotiations in Geneva. This report says,\n'The U.S. has seemed to vaccillate between the objective of wanting to\nconclude a treaty as soon as possible and the belief that constant progress\nin the negotiations is to our disadvantage.' Why? And the Kennedy govern-\nment did not change. The Kennedy government too did not change in such a\nway as to cause us to believe that there was an honest effort being made\nfor a treaty for both sides.\"\nconderable.\n2t would have been mand helpful specifically he identified had\n1. After some effort we were able to locate the document. It is a report\n1\nof the Subcommittee on Disarmament of the Senate Committee on Foreign\nRelations, dated October 1960. Dr. Pauling quoted a sentence from the\nPreface by Senator Humphrey. The quotation is accurate but it is only\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n14\none sentence from a 2½ page statement. Senator Humphrey also said, \"If\nthe United States is plagued with ambivalence of purpose, the Soviet Union\nsuffers from a rigidity of stance and an attitude of suspicion. The\nSoviet objective, moreover, has been to resist in every way the inclusion of\ncontrol and inspection measures. Each step the Soviets have taken toward\ncontrol and inspection and toward the admission of foreigners into the\nU.S.S.R. has been done so only after prolonged haggling.\n\"In this summary one glaring inconsistency appears in the Soviet\nposition. With respect to the number of inspections and to the financial\ncontribution to the establishment of the control system, the Soviet Union\nwants the West, i.e., the United States and the United Kingdom, to concede\nor pay twice as much. The Soviet Union demands two imppections in the West\nfor every inspection in the Soviet Union. For every dollar or ruble con-\ntributed by the Soviet Union to the operation of the control system the\nSoviets want two dollars or two rubles to be contributed by the United\nStates and the United Kingdom together. Yet, when it comes to the composition\nof the Control Commission or to the staffing of the control posts, the\nSoviet Union wants the ratio between the Soviet Union and the West to be\nequal.\"\nB. On Page 29 of Dr. Pauling's address he said, \"The Soviet Union had agreed\nto allow international inspections stations on Soviet soil and said that\nshe would allow fifteen manned by international inspectors. And we asked\nfor nineteen. And month after month, year after year, in fact two years\nwent by with no solution between these numbers fifteen and nineteen.\"\nFORD (TBRAR)\n15\n1. Unfortunately this is not the only issue, as shall be pointed out.\n2. The U. S. had already compromised in arriving at the figure 19.\n3. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy reported in its list of\n\"significant dates\" that on \"August 21, 1958: Conference of\nExperts adopted a final report for consideration by Governments.\n\"Conference of Experts recommended the so-called \"Geneva System\"\nof detecting nuclear explosions. This sytem recommended a network\nof 180 control points. It should be noted that the American\nrepresentatives, during this conference, had taken the position that\n650 control points would be necessary to have adequate protection\ndown to 1 káloton. Through comprémise with the Soviets, they settled\non the 180 stations, but then had to point out the weakness between\nthe area of 1 káloton and 5 kálotons.\"\nC.\nSecretary of State Rusk in an address at the Geneva Disarmament Conference\non March 23, 1962 outlined in detail our difficulties in dealing with the\nSoviets.\n(use such quotations from his speech as seem appropriate)\nVI.\nNUCLEAR TESTING in atmosphere is necessary to insure that we stay ahead in\nnuclear capability.\nSmits respect only strength.\nA. We must keep ahead to preserve the peace.\nB. Dr. Pauling stated that Dr. Glen Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy\nCommission, said that we are ahead of the Soviet Union in nuclear weapons\ntechnology and that we do not need to carry out tests.\nLIBRAR,\n16\n1. Dr. Seaborg has always insisted this is a political decision to be\nmade by the President.\n2. His last public statement was on \"Meet The Press\" (Oct. 29, 1961).\nOne question was: \"Would you say that eventually they would pull\nahead of us if this situation continued?\" Dr. Seaborg answered,\n\"I think within the limit, if we tested indefinitely underground and\nif the Russians tested indefinitely in the atmosphere, they would pull\nahead of us, particularly in the weapons-effects area, the area of\nthe effect of weapons on weapons, which is eventually going to become\na very important area--in the anti-ICBM problem as it has been termed.\"\nC. President Kennedy in his TV address stressed this need when he said, \"In\nmany areas of nuclear weapons research, we have reached the point where\nour progress is stifled without experiments in every environment.\"\nD. Ralph McGill in his syndicated column for March 31st concludes by saying:\n\"To forgo tests is to turn control of the world over to the Russians.\nThis will not be done, for reasons obvious to all except those who somehow\nbelieve that if we don't test, the Russians would give up their weapons.\nThe prospect of a Russian-ruled world is one that simply cannot be accepted.\nThe anti-test pickets could use a bit of intellectual reality--or honesty.\"\nVII. Nuclear testing as recommended by President Kennedy is essential to our\nnational defense and the security of the free world.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n17\nA. Anti-missile missile\nB. Weapons Development\nC. Proof testing or system testing of operational weapons.\nVIII.\nPresident set sáfeguards.\nA.\nConducted under conditions to restrict the radioactive fallout\nto minimum.\nB. Will cancel tests if Soviets agree to acceptable disarament treaty.\nIX.\nConcluding Statement.\nA. Recognize and understand the existence of the Communistic conspiracy in the\nworld.\nB. By every means at our disposal:\n1. Support the President in his decision on nuclear testing.\n2. Demonstrate to the Communists that public opinion in the U.S. is\nbehind our government in a determination to be militarily strong.\n3. Prove to the world that there will be no undermining of the President's\nefforts to safeguard the security of our country and of the free world.\nC.\nCritical times demand hard decisions, calculated risks, and unselfish dedication.\nSuch are the times, such are the demands, and I'm confident that Americans\nwill respond with unselfish dedication.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY"
}