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
4526439
label
VFW State Convention, Grand Rapids, MI, June 17, 1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526439
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
VFW State Convention, Grand Rapids, MI, June 17, 1972
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Soviet Union
Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-
Arms control
Federal budget
National security
Summit meetings
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526439
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1972-06-30
month
6
year
1972
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1972-06-01
month
6
year
1972
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
bc23b0426a9493b0
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D33, folder "VFW State Convention, Grand
Rapids, MI, June 17, 1972" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech
File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D33 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
VFW STATE CONVENTION, GRAND RAPIDS, MICH
9 A.M. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1972.
THE SALT AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO
BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION
HAVE, IN EFFECT, ALREADY BECOME A PART
OF HISTORY
THE SALT TREATY WILL IN TIME
BECOME PART OF THE HERITAGE OF OUR PAST.
"THE HERITAGE" THAT, IN THE WORDS CARVED
ON THE NATIONAL ARCHI VES BUILDING IN
WASHINGTON, "IS THE SEED THAT BRINGS
FORTH THE HARVEST OF THE FUTURE."
WHAT OF THE SEED -- THE SALT
TREATY ITSELF? HAVE WE MADE UNWISE
CONCESSIONS TO THE SOVIET UNION? HAVE
WE PLACED OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE IN DANGER?
HAVE WE PLACED OURSELVES IN A POSITION
OF NUCLEAR INFERIORITY?
of GERALD LIBRARY FORD
-2-
THE TERROR REMAINS, BUT THE
BALANCE IS FROZEN IN TERMS OF A STANDOFF
IN STRATEGIC WEAPONRY. IT IS TRUE THAT
THE SOVIETS HAVE MORE ROCKET LAUNCHERS
THAN WE HAVE HAVE/AND AND MORE POWERFUL WARHEADS.
BUT WE HAVE GREATER NUMBERS OF WARHEADS
AND WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGE IN ACCURACY
AND IN ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
IN TERMS OF
NUCLEAR TONNAGE, THE TOTAL IS ABOUT THE
SAME.
HAVE WE, THEN, ACHIEVED ANYTHING
AT ALL? INDEED, YES. WE HAVE SLOWED THE
RUSSIANS' HEADLONG RUSH TOWARD NUCLEAR
SUPERIORITY, A SUPERIORITY WHICH COULD
HAVE TEMPTED THEM INTO A NUCLEAR FIRST
STRIKE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
FURTHER STOCKPILING OF NUCLEAR
FORD
WEAPONS LAUNCHERS BY BOTH THE UNITED STATES
LIBRARY
-3-
AND THE SOVIET UNION SIMPLY DID NOT MAKE
ANY SENSE. BOTH OF US HAVE THE POWER TO
DESTROY THE OTHER MANY TIMES OVER. THAT
IN EFFECT, EFFECT IS INSANITY MULTIPLIED.
SO WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO
IS THIS. WE DID NOT GIVE ANYTHING AWAY
AND WE SLOWED THE SOVIET MOMENTUM IN THE
NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND PERHAPS THUS
NUCLEAR
AVOIDED A FUTURE HOLOCAUST TOUCHED OFF
BY A SOVIET FIRST STRIKE.
AS FOR THE EFFECT OF THE
LIMITATION ON THE UNITED STATES, WE CAN
STILL IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF OUR NUCLEAR
WEAPONS. THE ONLY LIMITATION IS ON
QUANTITIES -- AND THAT LIMITATION MAKES
SENSE.
WHAT OF THE HARVEST WHICH MAY
BE PRODUCED BY THE SALT TREATY?
-4-
MY FERVENT HOPE IS THAT IT WILL
LEAD TO FUTURE AGREEMENTS FURTHER
REDUCING THE LEVEL OF NUCLEAR TERROR IN
THE WORLD AND PERHAPS EVEN TO AT LEAST
PARTIAL DISARMAMENT -- MUTUAL DISARMAMENT --
OF THE WORLD'S TWO GREAT SUPERPOWERS.
IT IS WORTH NOTING, IT SEEMS
TO ME, THAT NO COLUMNIST OR COMMENTATOR
SPOKE IN THE AFTERMATH OF PRESIDENT
NIXON'S MISSION TO MOSCOW OF WHAT MIGHT
HAVE BEEN CALLED "THE SPIRIT OF MOSCOW."
THIS IS GOOD. THIS IS HEALTHY.
THIS IS REALISTIC.
INSTEAD OF THE HEADY EUPHORIA
GENERATED BY THE MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT
JOHNSON AND PREMIER KOSYGIN AT GLASSBORO --
A MEETING THAT PRODUCED NOTHING -- WE HAVE
AN ATTITUDE OF GOOD COMMON SENSE THAT
GERALD
LISARY
-5-
FOLLOWED THE PRODUCTIVE SUMMIT MEETING
IN MOSCOW.
THE MOSCOW MEETINGS WERE HIGHLY
PRODUCTIVE, BUT WE DID NOT COME AWAY FROM
THEM WITH OUR HEADS IN THE CLOUDS. OUR
FEET ARE ON THE GROUND, AND WE ARE LOOKING
STRAIGHT AHEAD. WE ARE HOPEFUL ABOUT
THE "HARVEST OF THE FUTURE" BUT WE ARE NOT
WRAPPING THOSE HOPES IN FOOLISH DREAMS.
THERE ARE OF COURSE THOSE IN
THE CONGRESS WHO NOW ARE CALLING FOR DEEP
CUTS IN OUR DEFENSE BUDGET. THEY ARE
DEMANDING SHARP SLASHES IN OUR DEFENSES
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SALT TREATY WAS
POSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE WE BARGAINED FROM
A POSITION OF STRENGTH.
WHAT OF THE HARVEST OF THE
FUTURE AS WE WIND DOWN THE WAR IN
-6-
VIETNAM, I BELIEVE WE ARE ENTERING ON AN
ERA WHICH HOLDS GREAT PROMISE FOR THE
FUTURE PEACE OF THE WORLD. I AM HOPEFUL
THAT WE CAN TRULY HAVE A GENERATION OF
PEACE -- THAT FUTURE GENERATIONS CAN
SETTLE THE WORLD'S DIFFERENCES IN SOME
OTHER FORUM THAN A VALE OF BLOOD AND
TEARS.
BUT LET THERE BE NO MISTAKE.
WE CAN HAVE PEACE IN THIS AGE OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONRY AND SO-CALLED WARS OF LIBERATION
ONLY IF WE REMAIN STRONG.
THE MOST CURSORY LOOK AT
HISTORY TELLS US THAT THE POSSIBILITY
OF ARMED AGGRESS!ON CAN NEVER BE DISMISSED.
LET us, THEREFORE, BE ON GUARD AGAINST
THOSE WHO PREACH THE FOOLISH DOCTRINE OF
UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT.
-7-
OUR PRESIDENT HAS JOURNEYED
TO MOSCOW AND TO PEKING ON MISSIONS OF
PEACE. HE HAS OPENED UP A NEW ERA OF
NEGOTIATIONS. HE HAS THAWED THE HOSTILITY
AND SUSPICION THAT BREED INCIDENTS AND
CONFRONTATION.
IN LESS THAN A WEEK 1, Too, WILL
BE MAKING A TRIP TO PEKING AND + EXPECT
TO TALK WITH TOP CHINESE OFFICIALS WHILE
THERE. I WILL BE SEEKING TO CONTINUE THE
DIALOGUE THE PRESIDENT HAS STARTED AND TO
OPEN WIDER THE DOOR TO CHINA.
BUT I AM FULLY COGNIZANT, AS
IS THE PRESIDENT, THAT WE IN AMERICA MUST
KEEP UP OUR STRENGTH IF WE ARE TO ENJOY
PEACE EVEN IN AN ERA OF NEGOTIATIONS.
LET US NOT FORGET THE LESSONS
OF HISTORY. WE MUST MAINTAIN OUR
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-8-
STRENGTH -- BOTH MILITARY AND SPIRITUAL.
WE MUST MAKE SURE WE CAN COME TO REALIZE
THE HARVEST OF THE FUTURE WHICH OUR
PRESENT DIPLOMATIC ENDEAVORS ARE MAKING
POSSIBLE.
I
SAY WE CAN AND SHOULD BE
NO. 4 IN QUALITY IF NOT IN QUANTITY.
I AM AWARE, AS IS EVERY TAXPAYER,
OF THE HEAVY FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT MILITARY
PREPAREONESS IMPOSES ON THIS COUNTRY. BUT
DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE CANNOT
AFFORD AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE AGAINST
POTENTIAL THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SAFETY?
ARE THERE REALLY VERY MANY AMERICANS WHO
BELIEVE THAT IT IS BETTER TO SUFFER DEFEAT
THAN TO FIGHT?
TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE LESSONS
OF HISTORY.
LIBRARY
-9-
WORLD WAR I ERUPTED DESPITE
THE HAGUE PEACE TREATIES.
WORLD WAR II WAS CAUSED BY A
POWER-HUNGRY MADMAN, NOT BY AN ARMAMENTS
RACE. IT MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN PREVENTED
IF ENGLAND, FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES
HAD BEEN BETTER PREPARED.
IT WAS FOR THESE VERY REASONS
THAT AT THE END OF WORLD WAR AND II
WE VOWED NEVER TO BE CAUGHT UNPREPARED
AGAIN.
WE DOOMED TO ONCE AGAIN REPEAT
THE MISTAKE WE MADE FOLLOWING THOSE
WORLD CONFLICTS?
UNFORTUNATELY THE PASSAGE OF
TIME THROWS A CLOAK OF IGNORANCE OVER THE
BITTER ERRORS OF POSTWAR HISTORY.
HALF OF TODAY'S AMERICANS WERE
NOT ALIVE WHEN WE FOUGHT WORLD WAR II.
-10-
THEY, AND OTHER AMERICANS IN THEIR EARLY
TEENS, HAD NO DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THAT
WAR OR ANY DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
IF INDEED WE ARE INTERESTED IN
PRESERVING THE PEACE WE CANNOT EVER AGAIN
ALLOW ANY FOREIGN POWER TO ACHIEVE
OVERWHELMING MILITARY SUPERIORITY
VIS-A-VIS THE UNITED STATES.
THIS IS NOT TO ARGUE AGAINST
ATTEMPTS TO NEGOTIATE AN EAST-WEST
DETENTE. WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE
TO ACHIEVE SUCH CONDITIONS. AS I HAVE
ALREADY INDICATED, I STRONGLY SUPPORT
PRESIDENT NIXON'S MISSIONS TO PEKING AND
MOSCOW AND THE TERMS OF THE SALT
AGREEMENTS.
BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT
WEAKNESS INVITES ATTACK, AND IT TAKES ONLY
R.FORD LIBRARY
-11-
ONE AGGRESSOR NATION TO PLUNGE THE ENTIRE
WORLD INTO WAR.
NOW THAT WE HAVE PLACED A
CHECKREIN ON THE NUMBERS OF U.S. AND
SOVIET ROCKET LAUNCHERS, THERE WILL BE
THOSE IN CONGRESS WHO WILL OPPOSE
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE QUALITY OF U.S. NUCLEAR
WEAPONS AND THE PRESIDENT'S PLANS TO
MODERNIZE OUR NAVY. THIS I SAY, IS THE
HEIGHT OF FOLLY.
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE
SOVIETS WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON
QUALITATIVE IMPROVEMENTS IN THEIR NUCLEAR
ARSENAL. AND AS FOR SEA POWER, THE
SOVIETS HAVE BEEN AND ARE CONTINUING TO
MOVE AHEAD WITH A NAVAL AND MARITIME
PROGRAM THAT IS A TECHNOLOGICAL MARVEL.
-12-
SOVIET RUSSIA IS PREPARING A
MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT WHICH BY 1975
COULD BE AHEAD OF OURS IN MANY RESPECTS.
DURING THE PAST 10 YEARS THE
RUSSIANS HAVE DEVELOPED THE WORLD'S
FASTEST INTERCEPTOR AIRCRAFT, THE WORLD'S
LARGEST STRATEGIC MISSILE, AND THE WORLD'S
LARGEST HELICOPTER. THEY HAVE ALSO
DEVELOPED MORE THAN 50 NEW SHIPS OF ALL
CLASSES IN ADDITION TO A NEW ALL-PURPOSE
LAND TANK, NEW ANTITANK WEAPONS,
ARTILLERY AND AIRCRAFT. THESE NEW
WEAPONS DID NOT EVOLVE OVERNIGHT. THEY
WERE ON THE DRAWING BOARDS IN THE 1950s.
WITH NO VISIBLE LETUP IN THE
SOVIET RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM,
IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE DECADE OF
THE 1970s WILL SEE A STEADY FLOW OF NEW
-13-
SOVIET WEAPONS SYSTEMS THAT HAVE BEEN
BLUEPRINTED DURING THE PAST DECADE.
THIS IS WHY I STRONGLY SUPPORT
THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED $83 BILLION
DEFENSE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 1973.
WITH THIS BUDGET, PRESIDENT NIXON
HAS INITIATED A BUILDUP CLEARLY INTENDED
TO PREVENT THE SOVIET UNION FROM
OUTCLASSING THE UNITED STATES MILITARILY.
I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED STEPUP
IN THE NAVY'S UNDERWATER LONGRANGE MISSILE
SYSTEM (TRIDENT), THE MISSILE SUBMARINE
PROGRAM AIMED AT REPLACING OUR AGAIN
POLAR!S FLEET WITH BOATS WHOSE NEW
MISSILES WILL HAVE THE SAME RANGE AS THE
MINUTEMAN ICBM
I SUPPORT NAVY MODERNIZATION AND
THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD THREE PROTOTYPE
GERALD
IBRARY
-14-
B-1 SUPERBOMBERS FOR THE AIR FORCE.
AND I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED
17 PER CENT INCREASE IN DEFENSE RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING
THE EMPHASIS IN THIS FISCAL 1973
DEFENSE BUDGET RESTS ON INVESTMENT ITEMS
SUCH AS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
MODERNIZATION, SHIP CONSTRUCTION, AND
CREATION OF A STRONG TECHNOLOGICAL BASE
TO OFFSET THE SOVIET STRIDES TOWARD A
MORE EFFICIENT AND PRODUCTIVE RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORT. I ENDORSE THIS
COURSE.
WILL THIS DEFENSE EFFORT
CONSTITUTE A DISTORTION OF PRIORITIES?
WILL WE BE SPENDING A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE
OF THE U.S. TAX DOLLAR ON DEFENSE NEEDS?
DEFENSE OUTLAYS IN FISCAL 1973,
-15-
IF APPROVED AS PROPOSED BY THE PRESIDENT,
WILL BE DOWN TO 30 PER CENT OF ALL
FEDERAL OUTLAYS -- THE LOWEST LEVEL
PROPORTIONATELY, SINCE 1950.
AT THE SAME TIME, HUMAN
RESOURCES SPENDING WILL BE ALLOCATED
45 CENTS OUT OF EVERY FEDERAL DOLLAR.
THOSE WHO WOULD ATTACK THE
PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE BUDGET DESPITE THIS
PRIORITIES RATIO SHOULD HEED THE WORDS
OF AIR MARSHAL SIR JOHN SLESSOR, WHO
SAID: "THE MOST IMPORTANT SOCIAL SERVICE
A GOVERNMENT CAN RENDER IS TO KEEP ITS
CITIZENS ALIVE AND FREE."
LET US NEVER FORGET, THEN, THAT
STRENGTH REMAINS THE KEY TO PEACE AND
NATIONAL SECURITY.
-16-
CRITICS OF MILITARY SPENDING
ARE FOND OF POINTING OUT THAT PRESIDENT
EISENHOWER WARNED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AGAINST WHAT HE CALLED "THE MILITARY-
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX." BUT THEY NEVER QUOTE
EXACTLY WHAT IKE SAID IN THAT FAREWELL
ADDRESS OF HIS IN 1961.
IKE SAID THIS: "UNTIL THE LATEST
OF OUR WORLD CONFLICTS, THE UNITED STATES
HAD NO ARMAMENTS INDUSTRY. AMERICAN
MAKERS OF PLOWSHARES COULD, WITH TIME AND
AS REQUIRED, MAKE SWORDS AS WELL. BUT
NOW WE CAN NO LONGER RISK EMERGENCY
IMPROVISATION OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; WE HAVE
BEEN COMPELLED TO CREATE A PERMANENT
ARMAMENTS INDUSTRY OF VAST PROPORTIONS.
THIS CONJUNCTION OF AN IMMENSE MILITARY
ESTABLISHMENT AND A LARGE ARMS INDUSTRY
GERALD R. LISEARY R.FORD
-17-
IS NEW IN THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE. THE
TOTAL INFLUENCE -- ECONOMIC, POLITICAL,
EVEN SPIRITUAL -- IS FELT IN EVERY CITY,
EVERY STATE HOUSE, EVERY OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WE RECOGNIZE THE
IMPERATIVE NEED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. YET
WE MUST NOT FAIL TO COMPREHEND ITS GRAVE
IMPLICATIONS. IN THE COUNCILS OF
GOVERNMENT, WE MUST GUARD AGAINST THE
ACQUISITION OF UNWARRANTED INFLUENCE,
WHETHER SOUGHT OR UNSOUGHT, BY THE
MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. THE POTENTIAL
FOR DISASTROUS RISE OF MISPLACED POWER
EXISTS AND WILL PERSIST. WE MUST NEVER
LET THE WEIGHT OF THIS COMBINATION ENDANGER
OUR LIBERTIES OR DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES."
NOTE THAT IKE CALLED ATTENTION
TO THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ABUSE OF POWER
-18-
ON THE PART OF THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL
COMPLEX BUT HE DID NOT URGE THAT THIS
COMPLEX BE DISMEMBERED OR DESTROYED.
INSTEAD HE SAID, "WE RECOGNIZE THE
IMPERATIVE NEED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT."
AND IN THAT SAME SPEECH, IKE
SAID: "OUR ARMS MUST BE MIGHTY, READY
FOR INSTANT ACTION SO THAT NO POTENTIAL
AGGRESSOR MAY BE TEMPTED TO RISK HIS OWN
DESTRUCTION."
IKE KNEW, AS DOES RICHARD NIXON
THAT WE COULD NEVER MOVE FROM AN ERA OF
CONFRONTATION TO AN ERA OF NEGOTIATION
EXCEPT FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH. IT IS
A MATTER OF SOBER FACT THAT ONE CAN
NEGOTIATE ONLY FROM STRENGTH.
YET TODAY WE HAVE OUR UNILATERAL
DISARMERS AND THE "RATHER BE RED THAN DEAD"
CROWD.
-19-
THIS PRODUCES WHAT I CALL
POLLUTION OF THE AMERICAN SPIRIT. IT IS
ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS FORMS OF
POLLUTION IN AMERICA -- AND ONE WE CANNOT
FIGHT WITH DOLLARS.
WE MUST FIGHT AGAINST THIS
ADULTERATION OF THE SPIRIT WHICH HAS MADE
AMERICA STRONG.
WE MUST REVIVE THE VIRTUES OF
AMERICANISM -- COURAGE AND HONOR, AS WELL
AS JUSTICE, TRUTH, SINCERITY AND HARDIHOOD.
WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT AMONG THE THINGS
THAT WILL DESTROY AMERICA IS PEACE AT ANY
PRICE.
AND AS WE APPROACH THE
CELEBRATION OF OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY, LET
US REAWAKEN PATRIOTISM -- LOVE OF COUNTRY
COURAGE WITH CONVICTION FAITH IN FREEDOM
-20-
AND DEVOTION TO DUTY.
AS THE LATE GENERAL DOUGLAS
MAc ARTHUR SAID: "BE NOT DECEIVED BY
STRANGE VOICES HEARD ACROSS THE LAND
DECRYING THIS OLD AND PROVEN CONCEPT OF
PATRIOTISM. FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, IT
HAS BEEN THE MAIN BULWARK OF OUR NATIONAL
STRENGTH AND INTEGRITY. BE PROUD TO BE
CALLED A PATRIOT, OR NATIONALIST, OR
WHAT YOU WILL
IF IT MEANS THAT YOU LOVE
YOUR COUNTRY ABOVE ALL ELSE -- AND WILL
PLACE YOUR LIFE, IF NEED BE, AT THE
SERVICE OF YOUR FLAG."
--END--
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
alistribution: 5th District 11:00 a.m. 6/13/72
Moffice Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE VFW STATE CONVENTION
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
9 A.M. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1972
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
The SALT agreements entered into by the United States and the Soviet Union
have, in effect, already become a part of history.
The SALT Treaty will in time become part of the heritage of our past. "The
heritage " that, in the words carved on the National Archives Building in
Washington, "is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future."
What of the seed--the SALT Treaty itself? Have we made unwise concessions to
the Soviet Union? Have we placed our national defense in danger? Have we placed
ourselves in a position of nuclear inferiority?
The terror remains, but the balance is frozen in terms of a standoff in
strategic weaponry. It is true that the Soviets have more rocket launchers than
we have and more powerful warheads. But we have greater numbers of warheads and
we have the advantage in accuracy and in advanced technology. In terms of nuclear
tonnage, the total is about the same.
Have we, then, achieved anything at all? Indeed, yes. We have slowed the
Russians' headlong rush toward nuclear superiority, a superiority which could have
tempted them into a nuclear first strike against the United States.
Further stockpiling of nuclear weapons launchers by both the United States
and the Soviet Union simply did not make any sense. Both of us have the power to
destroy the other many times over. That, in effect, is insanity multiplied.
So what it all comes down to is this. We did not give anything away, and
we slowed the Soviet momentum in the nuclear arms race and perhaps thus avoided a
future nuclear holocaust touched off by a Soviet first strike.
As for the effect of the limitation on the United States, we can still improve
the quality of our nuclear weapons. The only limitation is on quantities and that
limitation makes sense.
What of the harvest which may be produced by the SALT Treaty?
My fervent hope is that it will lead to future agreements further reducing
the level of nuclear terror in the world and perhaps even to at least partial
(more)
-2-
disarmament--mutual disarmament--of the world's two great superpowers.
It is worth noting, it seems to me, that no columnist or commentator spoke
in the aftermath of President Nixon's mission to Moscow of what might have been
called "the spirit of Moscow."
This is good. This is healthy. This is realistic.
Instead of the heady euphoria generated by the meeting between President
Johnson and Premier Kosygin at Glassboro--a meeting that produced nothing-- we have
an attitude of good common sense that followed the productive summit meeting in
Moscow.
The Moscow meetings were highly productive, but we did not come away from
them with our heads in the clouds. Our feet are on the ground, and we are looking
straight ahead. We are hopeful about the "harvest of the future" but we are not
wrapping those hopes in foolish dreams.
There are, of course, those in the Congress who now are calling for deep
cuts in our defense budget. They are demanding sharp slashes in our defenses
despite the fact that the SALT Treaty was possible only because we bargained from
a position of strength.
What of the harvest of the future? As we wind down the war in Vietnam, I
believe we are entering on an era which holds great promise for the future peace
of the world. I am hopeful that we can truly have a generation of peace--that
future generations can settle the world's differences in some other forum than a
vale of blood and tears.
But let there be no mistake. We can have peace in this age of nuclear
weaponry and so-called wars of liberation only if we remain strong.
The most cursory look at history tells us that the possibility of armed
aggression can never be dismissed. Let us, therefore, be on guard against those
who preach the foolish doctrine of unilateral disarmament.
Our President has journeyed to Moscow and to Peking on missions of peace.
He has opened up a new era of negotiations. He has thawed the hostility and
suspicion that breed incidents and confrontation.
In less than a week I, too, will be making a trip to Peking and I expect
to talk with top Chinese officials while there. I will be seeking to continue the
dialogue the President has started and to open wider the door to China.
But I am fully cognizant, as is the President, that we in America must keep
up our strength if we are to enjoy peace even in an era of negotiations.
(more)
-3-
Let us not forget the lessons of history. We must maintain our strength--
both military and spiritual. We must make sure we can come to realize the harvest
of the future which our present diplomatic endeavors are making possible.
I say we can and should be No. 1 in quality, if not in quantity.
I am aware, as is every taxpayer, of the heavy financial burden that
military preparedness imposes on this country. But does anyone really believe
that we cannot afford an effective defense against potential threats to our
national safety? Are there really very many Americans who believe that it is
better to suffer defeat than to fight?
Take a close look at the lessons of history.
World War I erupted despite the Hague peace treaties.
World War II was caused by a power-hungry madman, not by an armaments race.
It might well have been prevented if England, France and the United States had
been better prepared.
It was for these very reasons that at the end of World Wars I and II we
vowed never to be caught unprepared again. And we doomed to once again repeat
the mistakes we made following those world conflicts?
Unfortunately the passage of time throws a cloak of ignorance over the
bitter errors of postwar history.
Half of today's Americans were not alive when we fought World War II. They,
and other Americans in their early teens, had no direct connection with that war
or any direct knowledge of it.
If indeed we are interested in preserving the peace we cannot ever again
allow any foreign power to achieve overwhelming military superiority vis-a-vis the
United States.
This is not to argue against attempts to negotiate an East-West detente.
We should do everything possible to achieve such conditions. As I have already
indicated, I strongly support President Nixon's missions to Peking and Moscow and
the terms of the SALT agreements.
But the fact remains that weakness invites attack, and it takes only one
aggressor nation to plunge the entire world into war.
Now that we have placed a checkrein on the numbers of U.S. and Soviet rocket
launchers, there will be those in Congress who will oppose improvements in the
quality of U.S. nuclear weapons and the President's plans to modernize our Navy.
This, I say, is the height of folly.
(more)
-4-
There is no question that the Soviets will continue to work on qualitative
improvements in their nuclear arsenal. And as for sea power, the Soviets have
been and are continuing to move ahead with a naval and maritime program that is a
technological marvel.
Soviet Russia is preparing a military establishment which by 1975 could be
ahead of ours in many respects.
During the past 10 years the Russians have developed the world's fastest
interceptor aircraft, the world's largest strategic missile, and the world's
largest helicopter. They have also developed more than 50 new ships of all classes
in addition to a new all-purpose land tank, new antitank weapons, artillery and
aircraft. These new weapons did not evolve overnight. They were on the drawing
boards in the 1950s.
With no visible letup in the Soviet research and development program, it is
quite possible that the decade of the 1970s will see a steady flow of new Soviet
weapons systems that have been blueprinted during the past decade.
This is why I strongly support the President's proposed $83 billion defense
budget for fiscal 1973.
With this budget, President Nixon has initiated a buildup clearly intended
to prevent the Soviet Union from outclassing the United States militarily.
I support the proposed stepup in the Navy's Underwater LongRange Missile
System (Trident), the missile submarine program aimed at replacing our aging
Polaris fleet with boats whose new missiles will have the same range as the
Minuteman ICBM.
I support Navy modernization and the proposal to build three prototype B-1
superbombers for the Air Force.
And I support the proposed 17 per cent increase in defense research and
development funding.
The emphasis in this fiscal 1973 defense budget rests on investment items
such as research, development, modernization, ship construction, and creation of
a strong technological base to offset the Soviet strides toward a more efficient
and productive research and development effort. I endorse this course.
Will this defense effort constitute a distortion of priorities? Will we
be spending a disproportionate share of the U.S. tax dollar on defense needs?
Defense outlays in fiscal 1973, if approved as proposed by the President,
will be down to 30 per cent of all Federal outlays--the lowest level,
proportionately, since 1950.
(more)
-5-
At the same time, human resources spending will be allocated 45 cents out
of every Federal dollar.
Those who would attack the President's defense budget despite this
priorities ratio should heed the words of Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, who said:
"The most important social service a government can render is to keep its citizens
alive and free."
Let us never forget, then, that strength remains the key to peace and
national security.
Critics of military spending are fond of pointing out that President
Eisenhower warned the American people against what he called "the military-industrial
complex." But they never quote exactly what Ike said in that farewell address of
his in 1961.
Ike said this: "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States
had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as
required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvi-
sation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions. This conjunction of an immense military establishment
and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--
economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every State house,
every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this
development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the
councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The
potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We
must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes."
Note that Ike called attention to the possibility of an abuse of power on
the part of the military-industrial complex but he did not urge that this complex
be dismembered or destroyed. Instead he said, "We recognize the imperative need
for this development."
And in that same speech, Ike said: "Our arms must be mighty, ready for
instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own
destruction.'
Ike knew, as does Richard Nixon, that we could never move from an era of
confrontation to an era of negotiation except from a position of strength.
(more)
-6-
It is a matter of sober fact that one can negotiate only from strength.
Yet today we have our unilateral disarmers and the "rather be Red than
dead" crowd.
This produces what I call pollution of the American spirit. It is one of
the most dangerous forms of pollution in America--and one we cannot fight with
dollars.
We must fight against this adulteration of the spirit which has made America
strong.
We must revive the virtues of Americanism--courage and honor, as well as
justice, truth, sincerity and hardihood. We must recognize that among the things
that will destroy America is peace at any price.
And as we approach the celebration of our Independence Day, let us reawaken
patriotism--love of country, courage with conviction, faith in freedom, and
devotion to duty.
As the late Gen. Douglas MacArthur said: "Be not deceived by strange voices
heard across the land, decrying this old and proven concept of patriotism. From
the very beginning, it has been the main bulwark of our national strength and
integrity. Be proud to be called a patriot, or nationalist, or what you will
if it means that you love your Country above all else--and will place your life, if
need be, at the service of your Flag."
Thank you.
# # #
5th District Media
a affice Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE VFW STATE CONVENTION
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
9 A.M. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1972
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
The SALT agreements entered into by the United States and the Soviet Union
have, in effect, already become a part of history.
The SALT Treaty will in time become part of the heritage of our past. "The
heritage " that, in the words carved on the National Archives Building in
Washington, "is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future."
What of the seed--the SALT Treaty itself? Have we made unwise concessions to
the Soviet Union? Have we placed our national defense in danger? Have we placed
ourselves in a position of nuclear inferiority?
The terror remains, but the balance is frozen in terms of a standoff in
strategic weaponry. It is true that the Soviets have more rocket launchers than
we have and more powerful warheads. But we have greater numbers of warheads and
we have the advantage in accuracy and in advanced technology. In terms of nuclear
tonnage, the total is about the same.
Have we, then, achieved anything at all? Indeed, yes. We have slowed the
Russians' headlong rush toward nuclear superiority, a superiority which could have
tempted them into a nuclear first strike against the United States.
Further stockpiling of nuclear weapons launchers by both the United States
and the Soviet Union simply did not make any sense. Both of us have the power to
destroy the other many times over. That, in effect, is insanity multiplied.
So what it all comes down to is this. We did not give anything away, and
we slowed the Soviet momentum in the nuclear arms race and perhaps thus avoided a
future nuclear holocaust touched off by a Soviet first strike.
As for the effect of the limitation on the United States, we can still improve
the quality of our nuclear weapons. The only limitation is on quantities--and that
limitation makes sense.
What of the harvest which may be produced by the SALT Treaty?
My fervent hope is that it will lead to future agreements further reducing
the level of nuclear terror in the world and perhaps even to at least partial
(more)
-2-
disarmament--mutual disarmament--of the world's two great superpowers.
It is worth noting, it seems to me, that no columnist or commentator spoke
in the aftermath of President Nixon's mission to Moscow of what might have been
called "the spirit of Moscow."
This is good. This is healthy. This is realistic.
Instead of the heady euphoria generated by the meeting between President
Johnson and Premier Kosygin at Glassboro--a meeting that produced nothing- we have
an attitude of good common sense that followed the productive summit meeting in
Moscow.
The Moscow meetings were highly productive, but we did not come away from
them with our heads in the clouds. Our feet are on the ground, and we are looking
straight ahead. We are hopeful about the "harvest of the future" but we are not
wrapping those hopes in foolish dreams.
There are, of course, those in the Congress who now are calling for deep
cuts in our defense budget. They are demanding sharp slashes in our defenses
despite the fact that the SALT Treaty was possible only because we bargained from
a position of strength.
What of the harvest of the future? As we wind down the war in Vietnam, I
believe we are entering on an era which holds great promise for the future peace
of the world. I am hopeful that we can truly have a generation of peace--that
future generations can settle the world's differences in some other forum than a
vale of blood and tears.
But let there be no mistake. We can have peace in this age of nuclear
weaponry and so-called wars of liberation only if we remain strong.
The most cursory look at history tells us that the possibility of armed
aggression can never be dismissed. Let us, therefore, be on guard against those
who preach the foolish doctrine of unilateral disarmament.
Our President has journeyed to Moscow and to Peking on missions of peace.
He has opened up a new era of negotiations. He has thawed the hostility and
suspicion that breed incidents and confrontation.
In less than a week I, too, will be making a trip to Peking and I expect
to talk with top Chinese officials while there. I will be seeking to continue the
dialogue the President has started and to open wider the door to China.
But I am fully cognizant, as is the President, that we in America must keep
up our strength if we are to enjoy peace even in an era of negotiations.
(more)
-3-
Let us not forget the lessons of history. We must maintain our strength--
both military and spiritual. We must make sure we can come to realize the harvest
of the future which our present diplomatic endeavors are making possible.
I say we can and should be No. 1 in quality, if not in quantity.
I am aware, as is every taxpayer, of the heavy financial burden that
military preparedness imposes on this country. But does anyone really believe
that we cannot afford an effective defense against potential threats to our
national safety? Are there really very many Americans who believe that it is
better to suffer defeat than to fight?
Take a close look at the lessons of history.
World War I erupted despite the Hague peace treaties.
World War II was caused by a power-hungry madman, not by an armaments race.
It might well have been prevented if England, France and the United States had
been better prepared.
It was for these very reasons that at the end of World Wars I and II we
vowed never to be caught unprepared again. And we doomed to once again repeat
the mistakes we made following those world conflicts?
Unfortunately the passage of time throws a cloak of ignorance over the
bitter errors of postwar history.
Half of today's Americans were not alive when we fought World War II. They,
and other Americans in their early teens, had no direct connection with that war
or any direct knowledge of it.
If indeed we are interested in preserving the peace we cannot ever again
allow any foreign power to achieve overwhelming military superiority vis-a-vis the
United States.
This is not to argue against attempts to negotiate an East-West detente.
We should do everything possible to achieve such conditions. As I have already
indicated, I strongly support President Nixon's missions to Peking and Moscow and
the terms of the SALT agreements.
But the fact remains that weakness invites attack, and it takes only one
aggressor nation to plunge the entire world into war.
Now that we have placed a checkrein on the numbers of U.S. and Soviet rocket
launchers, there will be those in Congress who will oppose improvements in the
quality of U.S. nuclear weapons and the President's plans to modernize our Navy.
This, I say, is the height of folly.
(more)
-4--
There is no question that the Soviets will continue to work on qualitative
improvements in their nuclear arsenal. And as for sea power, the Soviets have
been and are continuing to move ahead with a naval and maritime program that is a
technological marvel.
Soviet Russia is preparing a military establishment which by 1975 could be
ahead of ours in many respects.
During the past 10 years the Russians have developed the world's fastest
interceptor aircraft, the world's largest strategic missile, and the world's
largest helicopter. They have also developed more than 50 new ships of all classes
in addition to a new all-purpose land tank, new antitank weapons, artillery and
aircraft. These new weapons did not evolve overnight. They were on the drawing
boards in the 1950s.
With no visible letup in the Soviet research and development program, it is
quite possible that the decade of the 1970s will see a steady flow of new Soviet
weapons systems that have been blueprinted during the past decade.
This is why I strongly support the President's proposed $83 billion defense
budget for fiscal 1973.
With this budget, President Nixon has initiated a buildup clearly intended
to prevent the Soviet Union from outclassing the United States militarily.
I support the proposed stepup in the Navy's Underwater LongRange Missile
System (Trident), the missile submarine program aimed at replacing our aging
Polaris fleet with boats whose new missiles will have the same range as the
Minuteman ICBM.
I support Navy modernization and the proposal to build three prototype B-1
superbombers for the Air Force.
And I support the proposed 17 per cent increase in defense research and
development funding.
The emphasis in this fiscal 1973 defense budget rests on investment items
such as research, development, modernization, ship construction, and creation of
a strong technological base to offset the Soviet strides toward a more efficient
and productive research and development effort. I endorse this course.
Will this defense effort constitute a distortion of priorities? Will we
be spending a disproportionate share of the U.S. tax dollar on defense needs?
Defense outlays in fiscal 1973, if approved as proposed by the President,
will be down to 30 per cent of all Federal outlays--the lowest level,
proportionately, since 1950.
(more)
-5-
At the same time, human resources spending will be allocated 45 cents out
of every Federal dollar.
Those who would attack the President's defense budget despite this
priorities ratio should heed the words of Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, who said:
"The most important social service a government can render is to keep its citizens
alive and free."
Let us never forget, then, that strength remains the key to peace and
national security.
Critics of military spending are fond of pointing out that President
Eisenhower warned the American people against what he called "the military-industrial
complex.' But they never quote exactly what Ike said in that farewell address of
his in 1961.
Ike said this: "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States
had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as
required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvi-
sation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions. This conjunction of an immense military establishment
and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--
economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every State house,
every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this
development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the
councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The
potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We
must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes. "
Note that Ike called attention to the possibility of an abuse of power on
the part of the military-industrial complex but he did not urge that this complex
be dismembered or destroyed. Instead he said, "We recognize the imperative need
for this development."
And in that same speech, Ike said: "Our arms must be mighty, ready for
instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own
destruction.
if
Ike knew, as does Richard Nixon, that we could never move from an era of
confrontation to an era of negotiation except from a position of strength.
(more)
-6-
It is a matter of sober fact that one can negotiate only from strength.
Yet today we have our unilateral disarmers and the "rather be Red than
dead" crowd.
This produces what I call pollution of the American spirit. It is one of
the most dangerous forms of pollution in America--and one we cannot fight with
dollars.
We must fight against this adulteration of the spirit which has made America
strong.
We must revive the virtues of Americanism--courage and honor, as well as
justice, truth, sincerity and hardihood. We must recognize that among the things
that will destroy America is peace at any price.
And as we approach the celebration of our Independence Day, let us reawaken
patriotism-- love of country, courage with conviction, faith in freedom, and
devotion to duty.
As the late Gen. Douglas MacArthur said: "Be not deceived by strange voices
heard across the land, decrying this old and proven concept of patriotism. From
the very beginning, it has been the main bulwark of our national strength and
integrity. Be proud to be called a patriot, or nationalist, or what you will
if it means that you love your Country above all else--and will place your life, if
need be, at the service of your Flag."
Thank you.
# # #