THE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200027-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 1, 2004
• Sequence Number: 27
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2006/11/11: [A PDP.65B00383R00?100200027-1
CONGRESSIONAL , RECORD SENATE
and. insert,`"."
Mr, t4CKS0 . Mr. Iresdent, I
move that the Senate desa,gree to the
amend. rq~ is of t e HQUSA ,an k fQr
a conference wit the.} House thereon,
,,,and that .the Chit appoint the con-
ferees on the part of the Senate.
The motionwas agreed to;. and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. JACKSON,
Mr, AN$Erwow, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. 1 IJCHEL,
and Mr Li.oTr conferees on the part
of the Senate.
THE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY
The Senate, as in Committee of the
Whole, resumed the consideration of
Executive lv! (88th Cong., 1st sess.) the
treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in
the atmophere, in outer space, and un-
derwater.
THE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY: THE NEED FOR
POLFrIQAL PRTI ACY
Mr. I '[IPHRX. Mr. .President, I
support t a treaty before the Senate
banning nuclear explosions in the at-
mosphere,' in outer space, and- under-
water, signed in 11 on August 5,
1963, by the United States, the United
',ingdom, and the Soviet Union.
I cone end the distinguished chair-
man of the Colninittee on Foreign Re-
lations lMr. Fui,sazcnTJ for his.scholar-
_ly, comprehensive presentation of yes-
terday in support of the ratification ,of
the nuclear test ban treaty. I consider
the statement of the distinguished Sen-
ator from Arkansas to be most,conclu-
sive, definitive, and comprehensive on
foreign policy as it relates to the nuclear
age andm our relationships with the So-
viet Union that I ,have heard or read to
date.. I particularly commend the Sena
for from Hrkansas on the latter portions
of his magnificent address, in which he
discussed some of the broad: diplomatic
and political factors involved in the
discussion of the treaty and its ratiflca-
tion or rejection. We need a more ma-
ture and thorough understanding of all
,facets of our foreign policy and.the .in-
terdepeidence and interrelationship of
the many factors that go to make up for-
eign policy. The Senator from Arkansas,
chairman of the Committee, on Foreign
Relations, has made a powerful and dis-
tinct contribution to a better under-
:.Standing,
`I support the treaty because, to my
mind, it inhibits the proliferation of nu-
clear weapons. It, reduces the chance of
"war. It minimizes the spread of radio-
active fallout. It weakens the unity of
the Communist bloc. It enhances the,
prospects for an era of peaceful coex-
istence. .
The treaty strengthens our posture as
a proponent of peace without weakening
our security.
ff is view that the treaty is in our
;h&t1Sin,WtereSt serves the objectives
of our, fgr~i gn pof fcy, and contributes to
the security and peace of the world in
which wc.jive. It advances us Qne,step
along a new course which, as Secretary
Rusk has well said, might make it pos-
;sib, tki t fra}t,,hnd fearful mankind pollowing-and I_sumxnarize, now, cer-
r 11 Approved For Release 2006/11711,`0. 1A-AbOttB00383R00010t200027 t-
15745
Secretary of Defense Robert S. Mc-
Namara said:
The risks under the treaty are either small
or under control, and the values of the
treaty are substantial even if we consider
only the military area. The scales are clearly
tipped in favor of the treaty, Mr. Chairman.
It has my unequivocal support.
The Secretary of Defense is one of the
President's principal officials. He has
the awesome burden and responsibility of
advising and counseling the President of
the United States on the adequacy of our
military strength. I am convinced that
no Secretary of Defense in any adminis-
tration would ever knowingly advise the
President to sign a treaty which would
in any way limit or reduce the national
security of the United States. I have
great faith in Secretary McNamara. I
believe his testimony was both persua-
sive and well documented by fact and by
experience.
Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, Chairman,
Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have reached the
determination that while there are military
disadvantages to the treaty, they are not
so serious as to render it unacceptable * * *
it is the judgment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
that, if adequate safeguards are established,
the risks inherent in this treaty can be
accepted in order to seek the important gains
which may be achieved through a stabiliza-
tion of international relations and a move
toward a peaceful environment in which to
seek resolution of our differences.
Throughout this debate, much will be
said about the position and role of our
military officials. It should be manifestly
clear, however, that-with one or two
exceptions-those responsible for the
military strategy of this Nation and for
the preparation and training of our mili-
tary forces and their deployment have
spoken in support of the treaty. Indeed,
they have told us of their doubts and
their apprehensions. But as mature,
responsible men who have the duty to
make decisions, they have decided in
favor of the treaty.
It is fair to say that they could simply
have stated that they were in favor of the
treaty, without expressing doubts or con-
cern. But these men, who wear the uni-
form of the armed services of the United
States, are honorable. They spoke
frankly to the members of Senate com-
mittees, as they did to the President.
They expressed doubts; but then, when
they came to the moment for decision,
they spoke in support of the treaty.
Every general will admit that he has
doubts about a particular strategy or
tactic to be followed on the field of bat-
tle; but he must make a decision. In-
deed,. General Eisenhower had doubts
about the Normandy invasion. Other
great generals who have served this
country have had doubts about the ef-
fectiveness of their plans; but they made
decisions. They, acted.
Today I state that although one can
quote the doubts and the apprehensions,
the important part of the testimony to
be. analyzed, studied, and evaluated is
the portion in which the decision was
rendered. The duty of responsible offi-
cials is to decide, not merely to discuss or
til confidence rep~laces terror, and hope
take s, overfr4m despair''
Throughout the preliminary discus-
sions on the Senate floor and in the ex
tei}shearinqgs before the Committee
on Foreign Relations, the Committee on
Armed Services, and the Joint Commit
tee on Atomic Energy,'I have on several
occasions identified in as a strong
advocate of the treaty. I have said that
the world does not lack for doubters, but
that there appears to be a definite short-
age of advocates. While one unquestion-
ably runs certain political risks in pub-
licly assuming this posture, nevertheless
I ;proudly stand , here today and once
again proclaim: 'T'his treaty is clearly
in the interest of the 'United States. Let
us cast an overwhelming vote in support
of its ratification.
Why this position of advocacy on a
matter which all reasonable men agree
carries a certain degree of military and
political risk for the United States? Is
not this either personal irresponsibility
or political foolishness, or perhaps a
combination of the two? Does this not
reflect, as much of my mail has suggest-
ed, mere emotionalism, a blind grasping
for a panacea to eliminate the tension
and insecurity of the cold war? Do not
these factors really lie behind my role
as an outspoken advocate?
The senior Senator from Minnesota
believes he has a responsibility to his
conscience, to his constituents, and to
his colleagues, to attempt to answer
these questions.
First, the burden of the testimony in
the hearings before the Committee on
Foreign Relations and the other two
committees concerned the question of the
impact of the treaty on the military se-
curity of the United States.
This is a vital matter, and is one to
which we must give the utmost consid-
eration. Every witness-those who sup-
ported and those who opposed the
treaty-admitted that certain military
risks were assumed in our halting at-
mospheric nuclear testing. Not one wit-
ness-even those most enthusiastically
in support of ratification-could posi-
tively guarantee the absence of all mili-
tary risks. In light of this, how does one
justify, then, a position of advocacy in
behalf of this treaty?
I stand here as a Senator who would
never knowingly accept a military risk
which would gravely impair the security
of the United. States. Every Senator has
sworn to preserve, protect, and defend
the Constitution of the United States.
Surely no Senator would knowingly vio-
late his solemn oath.
Therefore, in our debate on the
solemn question of approving this vital
treaty, we do not question each other's
motives. We may have disagreements
about matters of judgment or fact; but
insofar as the motives and motivation
of Senators are concerned, there can be
no argument.
However, while none of the witnesses
before the Foreign Relations-Cgm,mittee
could positively guarantee an absence of
all military risk, they could state the
 Approved For. Release 2006/11/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200027-1
15746 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE September 10
Mn FULBRIGHT. Will the Senator them. I do not for a moment believe that
from Minnesota yield? General Shoup or deneral LeMay, or
Mr. HUMPHREY. I am glad to yield. General Wheeler, or Admiral McDonald
Mr. FU'LBRIGHT, I assume that the were so afraid of losing their positions
Senator from Minnesota is about to pro- that under those crcumstances they
ceed to another point. would distort their opinions on the effect
Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. of the treaty on this country. If they
Mr. FULBRIGHT. First, I wish to ex- did, it would be a great disservice. I do
press my appreciation of the Senator's not for a moment believe that any such
kind words of approval of my comments. thing happened.
In regard to the military matter, which Mr. HUMPHREY. I fully concur in
has caused considerable concern, I the remarks of the Senator from Ar-
should like to emphasize again-as the kansas. I remind Senators that the pres-
Senator from Minnesota has done-that ent Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when
those in the highest positions of author- he had an honest disagreement over mili-
ity and with the ultimate power of deci- tary policy, resigned from the ;armed
sion in military matters-and, of course, services and stated his views as a matter
they include the Commander in Chief, of personal integrity and professional
and also the Joint Chiefs of Staff-seven honesty.
of the nine unified field commanders who Nlr.. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
were asked for their opinion,'by the Joint the Senator yield?
Chiefs of Staff, and not by the commit- Mr.. HUMPHREY. I yield.
tee, reported that they approve the Mr. PASTORE. First, yesterday I was
treaty. One of the nine said he did not detained in Rhode Island and did not
feel he was sufficiently informed to be have an opportunity to hear the very
able to take a position. Only two op- excellent presentation made by the dis-
posed it-General Power, of the Strategic tinguished chairman of the Foreign
Air Command, and General Schriever, Relations Committee, the Senator from
another active commander, who is im- Arkansas [Mr. FULSaIGnT]. He had
portant in the field of missile develop- already concluded when I arrived in the
ment. In response to a request by the Chairiber. But I took It upon myself to
committee, the great General Eisenhow- take his speech home, and I read it be-
er directly expressed his approval of the fore I came to the Capitol this morning.
treaty. I compliment the Senator for a very bril-
According to my calculation, 14 of the liar. t presentation.
most prominent members of the military, On the point that has been raised, with
including General Eisenhower, endorse the kind permission and indulgence of
the treaty, two who still have such re- the Senator from Minnesota, I wish to
sponsibilities oppose it. make one observation.
Mr. President, I submit that on all con- Mr. HUMPHREY. I am happy to
troversial questions of any 'significance have the Senator do so.
in any body in a democracy there will Mr. PASTORE. The question as to
be at least that much dissent. It is not whether pressure had been exerted on
human nature for everyone to agree on the Military Establishment of our coun-
an important matter of this kind. try by the senior Senator from Georgia
Does not the Senator from Minnesota CM:r. RUSSELL), who asked the question
agree with that statement? categorically of the, Joint Chiefs. He
Mr. HUMPHREY. I surely do. I asked them whether or not anyone at any
would expect that men with different ex- time had tried to e7ert any influence
periences and different roles to play in upon their judgment', As I recall, Gen-
the Military Establishment of our coun- eral LeMay said, in substance, "I would
try might well have differences in their resent it if any such attempts were
points of view. Those differences have made." That such was the case was
been expressed. I think the most im- categorically denied. I hope that for
portant point for us to note is that in once and for all that doubt has been ban-
testimony in both public sessions and ished: from the mind of everyone.
executive sessions, the military officers Mr. HUMPHREY., Mr. President, I
testified that they had not been under believe the Senator from Rhode Island
any pressure to support the treaty. has made it explicitly clear as to what
There had been no arm twisting. They transpired both in the executive and in
had made their decisions on the basis of the public hearings relating to this par-
their own observations, experiences, and titular point in the many. discussions that
reflection. It seems to me that this point have taken place on,the treaty.
in itself well merits some attention. The argument has been raised that the
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the Senator treaty was drafted without full consulta-
from Minnesota yield further? tion or cooperation of the military offi-
Mr. HUMPHREY. I am glad to yield. dais. On that point, General Taylor
Mr. FULBRIGHT. With regard to the testified that he was in constant con-
question of pressure, it is inconceivable sultation; that he had advised and con-
to me that men who have reached the suited with the President regularly; that
stature of the Joint Chiefs--all of them he was in consulta$ion on the treaty
among the most eminent in this country, prior to Mr. Harriman's going to Mos-
if Trot in the world-would yield to any cow and during Mr. Harriman's mission
such attempt. It would be highly in- in Moscow; that he' was a part of the
sulting to them to suggest that their group of officials who worked out the
solemn declaration-under bath-to the instructions for Mr. Harriman's mission
committee and to the Nation that they to Moscow; and that he also contributed
support this treaty was the result of to the rewording and redrafting of the
some sort of pressure. I believe such a treaty provisions while Mr. Harriman
statement would be a reflection upon was in Moscow.
I believe that in executive session there
was even more detailed documentation as
to theclose cooperation and collabora-
tion between the Secretary of State, the
President of the United States, the Di-
rector of the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Secretary of Defense, the Chiefs Of
Staff, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs. So that argument should be set
to rest at once. There was all possible
cooperation and coordination in the
drafting of the treaty and in its final
approval prior to the signing of the treaty
by the Secretary of State.
Mr. President, I should like to quote
a statement of Dr. Harold Brown, who
is Director of Defense Research and En-
gineering, Department of Defense:
Having satisfied myself as completely as is
humanly possible that the proposed treaty
cannot substantially impair our strategic
superiority if we take the steps which we can
to continue our nuclear developments and re-
main prepared, and that indeed it could en-
hance our strategic superiority conipared
with unlimited testing, I find the arguments
for it on broader grounds persuasive, and I
fully support its ratification.
:Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the
Atomic Energy Commission., said:
1-think there are some risks but they are
minor and that in the balance the advantage
is in the favor of improving the security of
our country if we enter into this treaty.
Dr. N. E. Bradbury, Director of the Los
Alamos Scientific Laboratory, said:
l: personally am of the opinion and. belief
that the proposed treaty banning nuclear
tests in the atmosphere, space, and under-
water may be ratified by the Senate with
only mild risks to our national defense pos-
ture but with the possibility of taking the
first real, even if small, step in the direc-
tion of the prevention of a nuclear war.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield..
Mr. PASTORE. The RECORD should
show clearly at this point that Dr. Brad-
bury is at the head of Los Alamos, which
produces most of our nuclear and ther-
monuclear weapons, and that he has
been connected with nuclear and ther-
monuclear weapon development from
the very beginning.
Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator who
speaks us is in a position to know
more about that subject than almost any
other Member of the Congress or any
citizen of our country. He serves as
chairman of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy.
I found Dr. Bradbury's testimony to
be very compelling and persuasive.
Dr. Herbert F. York, former Director
of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory
and Director of Defense Reesarch and
Engineering, Department of Defense un-
der both. President Eisenhower and Pres-
ident Kennedy said:
It is my view that the problem posed to
both sides by this dilemma of steadily in-
creasing military power and steadily decreas-
ing national security has no technical solu-
tion. * * * I am optimistic that there is a so-
lution to this dilemma; I am pessimistic only
insofar as I believe there is absolutely no so-
lution to be found within the areas of a f-
ence and technology. The partial nuclear
test ban is, I hope and believe, a first small
step toward finding it solution in en area
where a solution may exist.
Approved For Release 2006/11/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200027-1
 Approved For=Release-2006/11/1 1 ROOC710Q200027-1"
it6 k8'SIONAL REC( "tD ' S NA;it
Dr. ILork gave us some very simple 1Vfr. MILLER I noted that the Sena-
testimony as . to the impact of science tor quoted Dr. York as saying that un-
"and technology on national security. der this treaty the arms race might be
Every Member of this body should read slowed down. 1 1- As'-1 recall, no .witness
that testimony. ]~r. York came to us ass testified that the race would be slowed
a very competent witness, both in the
field of weapons arid in the field of basic
science..
Dr. George l .1istiakowsky, former
Specfal Assistant for Science and Tech-
nology to President Eisenhower said:
Confronted withtfie opportunity to choose
between, on he one-and, some rather small
speelf a technical ris'1s in ratifying the treaty,
and on the other, some perhaps comparable
or greater technical risks in continued un-
restricted testing pins the general risks of a
continued arms race which, at least, might
be somewhat slowed: by ratification, ! hope
the Senate would opt for what I regard as
by far the smaller total risk and will ratify
the treaty.
Finally, Mr. John McCone Director of
the Central Intelligence enc whose
testimony c u no Be printed in the
hearings also advocated ratification of
the treaty, without qualification.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. I think the RECORD
should indicate an additional fact in
this connection. If Senators do not al-
ready know it, Mr. John McCone was
appointed Chairman of the Atomic
Energy Commission during the adminis-
tration of President Eisenhower. To
indicate what a cautious, deliberate, ju-
dicious man he is, Mr. John McCone, for
6 months after he was appointed, never
uttered one word of testimony before
our committee. He cautioned our coln-
mittee that he would not open his mouth
on any subject until he had had an
opportunity to learn, through intense
homework, what were his responsibili-
ties. He turned out to be one of the most
mony to the effect that the treaty might
well "cause the race to be stepped up; be-
cause, while nucre ar testing - in the
atmosphere would stop, the more ex-
pensive underground testing would con-
tinue, and probably be stepped up in
degree.
As I understand the-situation, one of
the reservations or conditions of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff is that we would
actually have a stepped up underground
nuclear testing program. I believe the
Atomic Energy Commission and the De-
fense Department have indicated that
they would abide by that condition.
I` make this point because, as the
Senator knows, I have not indicated how
I shall vote. I have not made up my
mind as to how I shall vote in regard
to the treaty. If I vote for ratification
it will definitely not be because I am
persuaded that the arms race will be
slowed down by the treaty. I would vote
for it probably with the feeling that the
arms race might be stepped up as a re-
sult of the treaty. I think it is well to
point that out.
If there is some response which the
Senator might care to give, to alleviate
my concern in this regard, I should like
to hear it. I have not yet seen anything
which indicates to me that there will not
be an acceleration in the arms race as a
result of the conditions laid down by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and as a result of
the agreement by the Department of De-
fense and the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion to carry out those conditions.
Mr. HUMPHREY. The statement of
Dr. York is a statement by a man who is
prudent and cautious, and who fully
understands the implications of nuclear
power and nuclear weaponry. He
worked for two administrations as a
trusted adviser of President Eisenhower
and of President Kennedy. This man
will not tell the American people that
"positively this will happen-absolutely
it will reduce the arms race." He is say-
ing to us-as a prudent, wise, and ex-
perienced man-that the treaty has
within-it the possibilities of reducing the
arms race. I think that is the way we
ought to deal with the treaty. I do not
believe that dogmatic assertions will en-
lighten the American people or do honor
and justice to a thorough and thought-
ful consideration of the treaty by the
Senate.
than ndeground.. First, for under-
ground testing, it is necessary to build
tunnels. It is harder to provide the tra-
jectories desired. It is harder to reach
the information which is desired. It is
harder to install the sensitive instru-
ments which are necessary to obtain
readings underground. If the test is
conducted in the atmosphere, the results
are much simpler of attainment, and it
is much easier to accomplish what is de-
sired.
The point we are making-and I think
the Senator from Minnesota is absolute-
lycorrect,in this regard-is that if this
"madness" is allowed to go unchecked, if
we allow nation after nation to aspire to
become a member of the nuclear club-
and today it is not as expensive as it used
to be to make a bomb-we face the risk
of a terrible nuclear war.
If Senators will talk to Dr. Brown, I
feel sure that Dr. Brown will tell them
that today almost any industrialized na-
tion can make an atomic bomb, if it
wishes to do so.
The purpose of the treaty is to allow all
nations of the world to become partners
to it. The minute those nations become
partners to the treaty, and they agree
not to test in the three environments,
we hope to accomplish a slowdown in the
proliferation of atomic weapons. That
is what we are discussing when we talk
about slowing down the nuclear arms
race.
For the next 2 or 3 or 5 years it may
be necessary for us to appropriate more
money for the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, because it will be more expensive
to maintain laboratories.
It will be more expensive to maintain
Johnston Island in complete readiness, in
case it is necessary to use it. It will cost
more money to do the testing we wish to
do underground. The budget may be
larger, but I think it can be safely said on
the floor of the Senate that the philos-
ophy behind the treaty is to reduce the
nuclear arms race in the hope that other
countries will become signatories to the
treaty and will not get into the nuclear
club.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. MILLER. I should like to respond
to the Senator's statement.
I believe that the most violent oppo-
nent of the treaty recognizes-and of
course I recognize it full well-that the
purpose of. the treaty is exactly as the
Senator from Rhode Island has stated
it. There is more to the treaty than the
treaty itself. We now must consider the
conditions which were prescribed by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. These cast a dif-
ferent light on the treaty, in my judg-
ment, because the Joint Chiefs of Staff
have said, among other things:
We are not going to believe that this treaty
is compatible with our national security in-
terests unless the United States engages in
a large-scale underground testing program.
a p
gency.
e
s
intelligence information to nuclear in- Mr. PASTORE, Mr. President, will
formation better than most men could. the Senator yield?
He is knowledgeable in the field of atomic Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Sen-
energy as well as the field of nuclear ator from Rhode Island.
weaponry and, as director of the Central Mr. PASTORE. The Senator from
Intelligence Agency, obtains considerable Iowa [Mr. MILLER] is both correct and
information as to what other countries- incorrect. There is a distinction to be
and particularly the Soviet Union-are made between an arms race, such as we
doing in this very important area of are discussing, and an increase in ex-
weapons. penditures for armaments because it is
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the more expensive to test underground.
Senator yield? Everyone knows that if we'should test
yield., ? a
That will be a program larger, in my
judgment, than the program we would
otherwise have. If anything, this will
Approved For Release 2006/11/11: CIA-RDP65B003B3R'00O10O2'0OO27-1
efficient and best Chairmen ever of that
Commission. He served under the Re-
publican President. Later,,when Presi-
dent Eisenhower retired from public life,
Mr. McCone retired from the Atomic En-
ergy Commission. Since that time he
has been appointed by the President of
the United States to be the head of the
Central Intelligence Agency. He is in a
better position than any other individual
in this country to know central intelli-
gence which affects the treaty.
Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator has
properly and helpfully pointed out that
Mr. McCone, who has had long experi-
ence as Chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission and is now the experienced
director of the Central 'Intelligence
osition to relate
in
H
i
A
 Approved For Release 2006/11/11: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200027-1
15748
CONGRESSIONAL R~CORD - SENATE
There is nothing in the treaty to pre-
vent the Soviet Union-or the United
States, for that matter-from assisting
other nations in underground testing.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Oh, yes.
Mr. PASTORE. Not in underground
testing.
Mr. HUMPHREY. No; not under-
ground testing.
Mr. MILLER. Granted, it may be
more expensive. Granted, it may retard
nuclear development in other countries,
because of the greater expense of going
underground to test, nevertheless, there
is nothing to prevent that.
If I correctly understand the test pro-
visions, the Soviet Union can' well be ex-
pected to engage in a much greater,
stepped up program of underground
testing, in order to catch up with the
United States in the tactical nuclear
game.
That is the point I am making. The
purpose of the treaty is clear. The
treaty, standing by itself, as two sheets
of paper, is clearly in line with that pol-
icy. However, when we consider the
conditions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
I suggest that they pretty well undercut
the objective of slowing down the arms
race.
The Senator from Rhode Island men-
tioned proliferation. I was not talking
about proliferation, although I shall have
something to say on that subject later.
I think the treaty will have a tendency
to retard it. The treaty certainly will
not prevent it, because the Red Chinese
and the French have indicated they will
have nothing to do with the treaty.
Therefore, the treaty will not prevent
proliferation, but may retard it.
I want the Senator from Minnesota
to know that I am not suggesting that
Dr. York, or any other witness, should
have stated, "On my word of honor there
is not going to be a stepup in the arms
race," or "On my word of honor there
will be a slowing down of the arms race."
But he very carefully couched it in
terms, "It might slow it down." It is a
"might," a "maybe."
I should like to clear up this question.
Was Dr. York testifying about the treaty
as a treaty, or was he testifying about
treaty with the Joint Chiefs of Staff con-
ditions? I do not believe he was. I
wonder what Dr. York's testimony would
be if he were asked, "What about the
Joint Chiefs of Staff conditions which
are going to be laid down?" Would he
make the statement that we are now
about to slow down the arms race?
Mr. PASTORE. No Senator can argue
that this treaty does not limit anything.
It does. It limits testing in three en-
vironments-underwater, in the atmos-
phere, and in outer space. It is true
that we are not going to stop all tests.
This treaty is not to cut down all our
nuclear activity. All we are saying is
that all the things we must do we pro-
pose to do by underground tests.
The treaty is intended to limit the
tests. If we do not have the treaty, the
entire area is limitless. The Russians
could test in outer space and could give
assistance to any nation in the world, if
they wanted to do so. They could test
in the atmosphere, and could give assist-
ance to any country in the world in that
respect, and so could we. Under the
treaty they could test only underground.
It cannot be said that because the test-
ing can take place in ,'four environments
without the treaty, and in only one en-
vironment with the treaty, the treaty
accelerates anything. It does not.
Mr. MILLER. Yes,, it does-
Mr. HUMPHREY. Does the Senator
from Iowa wish me.tQ yield?
Mr. MILLER. Yes.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. MILLER. Yes? one can say it, be-
cause, in the first place, we do not know
whether there is to be any more atmos-
pheric testing without the treaty. The
mere fact that the treaty is ratified does
not mean there will be less-
Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator re-
peat what he said?
Mr. MILLER. The mere fact that the
treaty is not ratified does not force one
Into the position that we are going to
have more testing izg the atmosphere.
One cannot be forced, into that position.
I can argue just as effectively that we
are forced into negotiating a compre-
hensive treaty-
Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator ad-
mit that if we do not have this treaty
and the Russians test !n the atmosphere,
we are going to test n the atmosphere,
and after that they till test in the at-
mosphere, and then we will test in the
atmosphere? That is'the race.
The arms race is accelerated without
the treaty more than With the treaty, be-
cause the treaty is restrictive. That is
why so many people are against it. They
think that by restricting testing it en-
dangers the military posture of the Na-
tion. I do not agree 'with that position,
but that Is the argument. I do not
think the position can be taken that if
there are four ways to test without the
treaty, and only one way to test with the
treaty, we would be better off without
the treaty than with it. I cannot follow
that non sequitur. Talk about non
sequiturs-it does not even ' touch
rationality.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I would like to get
into this argument-y--
Mr. PASTORE. This is not argu-
ment; this is debate.
Mr. MILLER. But I would like to
Mr. HUMPHREY. I shall yield to the
Senator in a mome t. I believe the
Senator from Rhode Bland has simpli-
fied the argument, and has put his finger
on what is most pertinent in the treaty,
namely, that it is not a comprehensive
treaty; it is a limited test ban treaty.
It has limited purposes. Those pur-
poses are to limit testing in the environ-
ments of outer spaced underwater, and
atmosphere. Testing is to be permitted
underground. Other ountries could be
assisted in underground testing without
this treaty-
Mr. PASTORE. O y if the debris
did not go outside the territory of that
country.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Without the treaty
those countries could have unlimited
testing. Without the; treaty countries
could receive information for testing in
all other environments. But if the
treaty is ratified and generally accepted
by the nations of the; world, those na-
September 10
tions cannot be helped in receiving nu-
clear technological information or any
other help for testing above ground,
underwater, or outer space. The Sena-
tor from Rhode Island has made the
case that if there can be limitation of
testing In three environments, and it Is to
be permitted in only one environment,
we are better off than if four environ-
ments are wide open for unlimited test-
ing.
The Senator from Iowa wants to be
heard. I yield to him.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I realize
that theoretically what the Senator from
Rhode Island is saying is true, or at least
is possibly true, but he forgets that we
may not have any atmospheric testing,
regardless of the treaty. I assume that
whit the President of the United States
said in the commencement address at
American University still stands, regard-
less of whether or not there is a treaty.
He said this Nation would not be the
first to test in the atmosphere. So I
assume that intention still stands, re-
gardless of what happens with the
treaty.
The point is that if underground. test-
ing is stepped up, we may more than
offset the amount of atmospheric tests
which we forego. To say that we are
limiting the tests to one environment,
instead of four, does not mean that the
number of tests is reduced. It depends
on what developmental work is going
on in a particular environment. There
might be four times as much testing in
the underground environment, and that
might more than offset the testing that
would have been done in the other three
environments.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Senators who were
most insistent upon having assurances
and specific details spelled out as to the
amount of testing and the conditions of
laboratories and the maintenance of
scientific techniques for the development
of nuclear weapons and nuclear science
are now worried for fear that the treaty
will not inhibit testing. So the Senator
who has a doubt about the treaty and
what it would do finds himself getting
into the argument of those who also had
doubts about the effects of the treaty,
namely, that we must have assurances
that we must not lower our guard, that
we must not seriously impede scientific
progress in the field of nuclear weapons.
I do not think one can have it both ways.
Mr. PASTORE. If the Senator will
yield, who in a responsible position in
this Government ever said that we would
not maintain our safeguards? Who said
we were not going to mainta:in or expand
our laboratories? We have the best
laboratories in the world at Los Alamos
and Livermore. They are second to
none, including those of Red China and
Russia. Who said we were not going to
maintain our facilities at Johnston Is-
land? If that question was asked once,
it was asked a dozen times. Who said
we were not going to maintain under-
ground tests if necessary? No one said
that.
Those arguing this point damatize it
by saying, "I will do this if you say thus
and so." This makes the position more
riveted, but, after all, the President of
the United States has given that assur-
Approved For Release 2006/11/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200027-1