ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILES AND THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 12, 2006
• Sequence Number: 55
• Publication Date: July 27, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
July 27, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE, S 10363
collective bargaining, abolition of forced met also Representatives O'Hara and Ash-
labor and the elimination of discrimination brook. The Conference was engaged in con-
in employment. The ILO is, in fact, the only sideration of the reports of its various com-
international organization to have set pre- mittees and acting on those reports. This
cise standards implementing many of the activity constituted a living demonstration
principles set forth in the Universal Declara- of democracy at work in an international
tion of Human Rights, by incorporating forum and I was impressed by the similarity
them into binding international instruments of the Conference procedures with those of
capable of world-wide application. our own distinguished body.
Although the ILO cannot, of course, wield I was favorably impressed with the com-
any coercive force against delinquent Mem- petehce of the United States Delegation
ber States, it can and does keep a vigilant uSider the experienced leadership of the Hon-
eye on the way governments are carrying out Arable George L-P Weaver. Members of this
their obligations under ratified Conventions. /Delegation who are listed in an annex to
Permanent machinery exists for this pur- f this report, were technically qualified and
pose and cases of dereliction are made part well prepared. They operated as a close knit
of the public record. The Committee on the team. This, to me, demonstrated the wisdom
Application of Conventions and Recommenb and indeed the necessity for continuity in
machinery.
Taken together, the 250 or so Conventions
and Recommendations that have been
adopted by the ILO form the International
Labor Code, which now runs to two think
and heavily annotated volumes. The stand-
ards embodied in the Code transcend the
significance of the specific matters covered.
They represent a common pool of accumu-
lated experience available to countries at all
stages of development. As it now stands, the
result of deliberations over a period of nearly
half a century, the Code Is an international
corpus luris of social justice; it has been, and
will remain, one of the main formative in-
fluences on the development of social legis-
lation throughout the world.
The 13.,0 Constitution requires that all Con-
ventions and Recommendations adopted by
the Conference be brought to the attention
of the competent authorities, that is the
authorities competent to enact legislation. In
the case of a federal State, such as ours, this
is done on two levels. Where the instrument
refers to matters within the scope of the fed.
eral government it is presented to our Con.
delegations to meetings of the ILO as it re-
quires long service to understand fully ILO
operations.
In conclusion, I express my conviction that
the role of the United States in the Inter-
national Labor Organization is most credit-
able and that this Organization deserves our
every support.
U.S. DELEGATION TO THE 51ST SESSION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE OF THE
ILO, GENEVA, JUNE 7-29, 1967
REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT
Delegates
Chairman, Honorable George L-P Weaver,
Assistant Secretary, International Affairs, De-
partment of Labor.
Mr. George P. Delaney, Special Assistant
to the Secretary and Coordinator of Inter-
national Labor Affairs, Department of State.
Substitute delegate
Mr. Robert B. Bangs, Special Assistant for
ILO Affairs, Department of Commerce.
Congressional advisers
Honorable Wayne L. Morse, United States
gress, with recommendations by the Execu Senate.
tive Branch for appropriate action. Where Honorable
the matter involved is appropriate in whole Senate.
or in part for State action, the instrument is, Honorable Frank
transmitted to our Congress and to the Gov-. Representatives.
ernors of the 50 States for information. All Honorable William H. Ayres, House of Rep-
of the conventions and recommendations resentatives.
adopted at the conference will be submitted
in due course to the Congress.
The only ILO Conventions ratified by the
United States have dealt with maritime
matters. During the past months, a subcom-
resentatives.
Honorable James
Representatives.
mittee of the Committee on Foreign Rela- - Mr. Harry M. Douty, Senior Research Con-
tions has held two hearings to receive testi- sultant, Office of the Commissioner, Bureau
mony in support of ILO Conventions. The of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Honorable Arthur J. Goldberg, U. S. Repre- - Miss Margaret Pallansch, Deputy Counsel
sentative to the United Nations, testified on for International Affairs, Office of the Solici-
February 23, 1967, in support of a number tor, Department of Labor.
of Conventions dealing with human rights, Mr. James H. Quackenbush, Chief, Divi-
including the ILO Convention for the aboli- sion of International Technical Assistance,
tion of forced labor.- Then on April 27, 1967, Office of Program Development and Coordi-
representatives of the Department of Labor nation, Department of Labor.
and the Department of State testified in sup- Mr. Floyd A. Van Atta, Deputy Director,
port of other ILO instruments. Office of Occupational Safety, Bureau of
I strongly endorse the views expressed on Labor Standards, Department of Labor.
those occasions and urge that prompt action Dr. Gene Wunderlich, Chief, Resource In-
be taken on these pending instruments. The stitutions Branch, Natural Resource Eco-
United States has been and is a world leader nomics Division, Economic Research Service,
in the area of human rights and ratification Department of Agriculture.
of these Conventions would underscore the Mr. William Yoffee, Technical Liaison Of-
fact that our country, faced with many prob- fice, Social Security Administration, Depart-
lems of diverse character, has nevertheless ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
addressed itself to these problems. As Am-
bassador Goldberg stated in his testimony Other advisers
(page 20 of Committee Print) ' . . . failure Mr. Leonard 0. Evans, Commissioner of
on our part to ratify conventions which do Labor, Nashville, Tennessee.
no more than put into an international area Mr. John T. Fishburn, Labor Attache, U.S.
commitments to which the United States is Mission, Geneva, Switzerland.
bound by its Constitution and laws is very Mr. John E. Lawyer, Director, Office of
difficult to explain and very difficult to International Organizations, Department of
justify .. I am satisfied in the light of my Labor.
own experience that our failure to ratify this Mr. Irvin S. Lippe, Labor Attache, United
type of convention raises serious questions States Embassy, Paris, France.
in the minds of other delegates as to what Mr. Edward B. Persons, Office of Inter-
is our law and practice in these matters. national Economic and Social Affairs, De-
During the period of my visit in Geneva I partment of State.
Mrs. Mary D. Carres, Bureau of Interna-
tional Labor Affairs, Department of Labor.
Mrs. Alicebell S. Mura, Bureau of Interna-
tional Labor Affairs, Department of Labor.
Miss Marie Giovanelli, Bureau of Interna-
tional Labor Affairs, Department of Labor.
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYERS
Delegate
Mr. Edwin P. Neilan, President & Chairman
of the Board, Bank of Delaware, 901 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19899.
Advisers
Mrs. John R. Gilbert, ILO Staff Adviser,
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 1615 H
Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20006.
Mr. Howard Jensen, Vice President & Gen-
eral Counsel, The Lone Star Steel Company,
West Mockingbird at Roper, Dallas, Texas
75209.
Mr. Lee E. Knack, Director of Labor Rela-
tions, Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., 319
Broadway, Boise, Idaho 83706.
Mr. Robert S. Lane, Counsel, Mobil Oil
Corporation 150 East 42nd Street, New York,
New York 10019.
Mr. Charles H. Smith, Jr., President; The
Steel Improvement & Forge Co., 970 East 64th
Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44103.
Mr. E. S. Willis, Manager of Employee
Benefits & Practices Service, General Electric
Company, 570 Lexington Avenue, New York,
New York 10022.
REPRESENTING THE WORKERS
Delegate
Mr. Rudolph Faupl, International Repre-
sentative, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, 1300 Con-
necticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036.
Advisers
Mr. I. W. Abel, President, United Steel-
workers of America, 1500 Commonwealth
Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222.
Mr. William E. Fredenberger, President,
International Brotherhood of Firemen and
Oilers, V.F.W. Building, 5th Floor, 200 Mary-
land Avenue N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002.
Mr. Matthew Guinan, President, Transport
Workers Union of America, 1980 Broadway,
New York, New York 10023.
Mr. Edward J. Hickey, Jr., Mulholland,
Hickey & Lyman, Tower Building, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20005.
Mr. David P. McSweeney, Directing Busi-
ness Representative, District No. 38, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, Machinists' Hall, 96 Chestnut
Hill Avenue, Brighton, Massachusetts 02135.
Mr. W. Vernie Reed, First Vice-President,
Laborers' International Union of North
America, 905 16th Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20006.
Mr. Ralph Reiser, President, United Glass
and Ceramic Workers of North America, 556
East Town Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
Mr. Bert Seidman, Director, Department
of Social Security, American Federation of
Labor andCongress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, 815 16th Street, N.W., Washington
D.C. 20006.
'ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. -CLARK. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may suggest
the absence of a quorum, without losing
my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will
V11 the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr, CLARK. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
S 10364 )II/)` CONGRESSIONAL
S
ANTIBALLI
TIC MIS SILES AND THE
MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the Viet-
nam war-and now the Middle East
crisis-have dominated our thoughts and
all but numbed our senses. Yet there is
other pending national business that
demands our attention. Aside from the
Vietnam war, I believe the most pressing
issue before us is whether the United
States should build and deploy an anti-
ballistic-missile defense.
I speak today in support of President
Johnson and Secretary McNamara, who
have decided against such deployment.
As Senators know, the deployment of an
ABM system has become a particularly
serious issue now that the Soviet Union
has deployed a so-called anti-ballistic-
missile defense around Moscow in addi-
tion to the Tallinn system, which may
or may not be a primitive antiballistic
missile system, in other parts of the
country. At the outset it should be stated
that neither of these systems could pro-
tect Moscow or any other part of Russia
from complete destruction by our inter-
continental ballistic missiles were we to
attack Russian targets in strength.
Nevertheless, a momentous question
is now before us. Should we follow the
Soviet Union's lead and deploy our own
ineffective Nike X ABM's, or should we
merely strengthen our offensive strategic
weapons as the Secretary has recom-
mended? Should not he United States
resist the temptation to take its ap-
pointed turn in moving the nuclear arms
race up one more notch?
In my view, the American public Is
thus far only dimly aware of the per-
plexing character of the antiballistic
missile question and almost certainly
unaware of the full implications of the
choices we will be forced to make in the
near future.
Let me say at once that I fully support
the position of President Johnson and
Secretary McNamara, as reflected in the
Defense appropriations program for
1968, that the United States defer any
decision on the deployment of an anti-
ballistic missile system. President John-
son feels that our present research and
deevlopment program is adequate and
that his request for a contingency fund
of $377 million for a possible deployment
of an anti-ballistic-missile system is all
that is necessary at this stage. As Sena-
tors know, the United State and Russia
have agreed to discuss the deescalation
of both offensive and defensive nuclear
weapons. It is hoped that negotiations
will get underway in the immediate fu-
ture. There is some reason to believe the
Russians are not yet in accord within
their own Government as to what line to
pursue. We can afford to give them a
reasonable time to make up their minds.
What concerns me this morning, Mr.
President, is riot the Defense Depart-
ment's program for antiballistic missiles
for fiscal year 1968, but reports that Sec-
retary McNamara is under heavy pres-
sure to decide favorably on the deploy-
ment of the so-called area and spot ABM
defense for the United States.
The area defense concept calls for the
emplacement of a number of Spartan
anti-ballistic-missile batteries around
the periphery of the country with the
mission to protect us froma "light" nu-
clear attack-whether launched by the
Soviet Union or also, most notably and
specifically, Communist China. Such a
defense, if accompanied by a 'spot" de-
fense of sprint missiles deployed either
around a few cities or more likely around
our own ABM launching sites, might be
effective against the first or even the sec-
ond oncoming enemy IBM. It would be
useless against an attack in strength.
I think it imperative that all of us
should take a careful look at not only the
military arguments for this ABM sys-
tem, but also the psychological and po-
litical implications of such a program
for both the United States and its allies.
I saythis because I am firmly convinced
that if the United States should decide
to deploy a "light" area and "spot" anti-
ballistic-missile defense, we would simul-
taneously be making the decision to build
and deploy a full anti-ballistic-missile
system as well. Let us not be confused
by what is at stake here. Our country :is
simply incapable of taking halfway
measures.
Buy the area defense at bar;ain rates
and you have bought the whole package
at many times the cost. With this as-
sumption as a starting point, the first
question to be answered is: Why are we
considering an anti-ballistic-miss'.le sys-
tem? Can it really protect us?
Mr. President, ever since Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, sensible men have been
saying that there is no defense against
nuclear weapons. This does not mean
that the United States is incapable of
destroying attacking aircraft. submar-
ines, or even some ballistic missiles carry-
ing nuclear warheads. What it means i:s
that there is no defense in sufficient
depth against nuclear weapons which is
reliable enough to prevent the offense
from overwhelming the defense and de-
stroying the target. Cyrus Vance, the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, underlined
this elemental fact of international life
when he told the Subcommittee on Dis-
armament of the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee last May something
about "winning" a nuclear war:
Let me simply say-
And here I am quoting Mr. Vance-
nobody could win in a nuclear war. It should
be suicide for both countries.
Operating under this threat of what
the distinguished senior Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN1 has appropriately
called coannihilation, the nuclear powers
have made the foundation of their secu-
rity the deterrence of nuclear attack not
through defensive but through offensive
weapons. To maintain this balance of co-
annihilation the United States and the
Soviet Union have built powerful offen-
sive strategic forces capable of overcom-
ing all efforts at defense. In the process,
the United States and the Soviet Union
have reached a point of "nuclear stand-
off" where nuclear war has become un-
likely under ordinary circumstances.
Despite the fact that an effective de-
fense against nuclear attack is, for the
foreseeable future, unattainable, the
champions of defense systems such as
the antiballistic missiles are constantly
July 27, 1967
trying, The United States and the Soviet
Union have, since the war, invested en-
ormous amounts In surface-to-air mis-
siles in the hope. of protecting their cities
from aircraft carrying nuclear weapons.
Each effort in broth countries has failed.
Radar networks, air defense centers,
automatically aimed surface-to-air nu-
clear missiles of all varieties-all these
are part of the many billions of dollars
the United States and the Soviet Union
have spent on defense in a futile attempt
to keep up with the offense. The trouble
is you cannot be even reasonably sure
of hitting the first attacking missile and
there is very little chance of hitting the
second or third.
I give you one example of the futility
of the defense in trying to catch up with
the offense. In :1959, the U.S. Army pro-
posed the deployment of the Nike-Zeus
system, the father of the present highly
touted Nike X system. The total cost of
deploying the system was then estimated
at $13 to $14 billion. This proposal was
turned down by President Eisenhower
who said that-
It is the consensus of my technical and
military advisers that the system should be
carefully tested before production is begun
and facilities are constructed for its deploy-
ment.
I think we should remember these
words as we! approach the decision on
the Nike X system.
We should also heed the words of Sec-
retary of Defense McNamara when he
referred to the Nike X system in January
of this year. Mr. McNamara said:
Had we produced and deployed the Nike-
Zeus system proposed by the Army in 1959 at
an estimated cost of $13 to $14 billion, most
of it wculd have had to be torn out and re-
placed, almost before it became operational,
by the new missiles and radars of the
Nike-X system. By the same token, other
technological developments in offensive
forces over the n=xt seven years may make
obsolete or drast:'.cally degrade the Nike-X
system as presently envisioned.
The Subcommittee on Disarmament of
the Foreign Relations Committee, of
which subcommittee I am a member, has
recently comple';ed a series of hearings
on the general question of what the
United States should do about the Soviet
Union's apparent decision to deploy an
antiballistic missile system. The wit-
nesses we heard included Richard Helms
of CIA, John Foster, Director of the De-
fense Liepartment's Research and Engi-
neering, Drs. May and Bradbury, nuclear
specialists of the AEC, Cyrus Vance,
General Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary Rusk. I
came away from these hearings con-
vinced that the present Soviet anti-
ballistic defenses, both the Moscow sys-
tem and the Tallinn system, are quite in-
capable of defending the Soviet Union
or its people against anything except the
most primitive missile attack. We were
also told that our own Nike X system can
easily be overcome by an all-out Soviet
attack, no matter where our defenses are
located or in what form.
Moreover, Secretary Vance told the
subcommittee that if the United States
built and deployed a Nike X system for
the protection of our cities against the
kind of sophisticated missile attack the
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
July 27, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 10365
Soviets are presently capable of launch- less and politically unacceptable. First, to attack the United states-will consist
ing, the result would be, and here I Sono one viet threat waquite s.Ifdimeaiit more than ABM defense will sweep farms that skour
quote:
would be to increase greatly both two missiles directed at the same target, Splendid theory. But how dumb do we
their defense expenditures and ours with- the third one would get through and kill think the Chinese are? What if the
out any gain in. real security by either side. millions of civilians as well as destroy Chinese instead of international missiles
I might also add Mr. President, that if whole cities. use long-range submarines not as yet
the United States built and deployed an Second, as a practical political mat- in existence to fire medium-range bal-
anti-ballistic-missile system and then ter, the idea that the Joint Chiefs of listic missiles under an ABM defense? Or
for some reason it failed at the moment Staff would be responsible. for choosing simply fire very "dirty" nuclear weapons
of attack, casualties would be higher the 25 or 50 cities had to be quickly aban- into the atmosphere off the coast of Cali-
than if we had not built such a system. doned after it became public information fornia and allow the prevailing westerlies
If from a military standpoint the con- that one of the cities would be Charles- to cover the United States with deadly
struction of an anti-ballistic-missile sys- ton, S.C., a town of 81,400 inhabitants radiation or even smuggle nuclear bombs
tem is pointless, then why is there so and the home of the chairman of the into Chinatown in a suitcase. Moreover,
much agitation in the United States and House.Armed Services Committee. can we be sure, given Chinese skills, that
in the Soviet Union to build such a sys- To suggest that in a democracy we can by the 1970's China will not have a large
tem? Because the Russians rarely allow confine protection to our major cities, number of missiles and other penetra-
their intragovernmental struggles to go letting the rest go without defense, was tion aids and decoys, which will diminish,
on before the public, it is difficult to absurd; to permit the Joint Chiefs of if not destroy, the effectiveness of our
know what is going on within the Krem- Staff to determine who would be saved area antiballistic-missile defense-just
lin on the anti-ballistic-missile issue. It was to accept the philosophy of the mili- as Russia can do today?
is safe to say, however, that the Soviet tary direction of the country through a Second, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are
economy, like our own is badly strained "nuclear elite." And so the selected city now using China as the justification for
and that the economists in the Soviet defense concept has been quietly shelved. an ABM deployment. Suddenly China is
leadership are under pressure from their But the demand for an anti-ballistic- in the foreground of our defense con-
military to deploy an anti-ballistic-mis- missile defense has not been stilled. sideration; yet only a few months ago,
sile system. There is too much money and too much before the selected city defense proved
In an unprecedented exchange of pub- military status involved. bankrupted, General Wheeler, Chairman
lie statements, Soviet military leaders The Joint Chiefs and their industrial of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had this to
have quarreled over the effectiveness of allies, who stand to make hundreds of say about China and an ABM defense:
their anti-ballistic-missile defense sys- millions of dollars from ABM deploy- We do not believe we should deploy at this
tems. For example, several months ago, ment, have now turned their attention to point in time an antiballistic missile system
an important Soviet general publicly recommending that we defend ourselves purely to defend against the Red Chinese
China. or threat.
h
-
h
e ..
er new nuclear power. s
penetrate Soviet defenses around Mos- some ot
cow. This statement was quickly denied ommendation is now for the so-called
by the present Defense Minister, Mar- area defense, which is a system of long-
shal Greckho. Marshal Greckho said: range detection radars and large inter-
Unfortunately there are no means yet ceptor missiles called the Spartan, plus
that would guarantee the complete secu- a number of short-range missiles, called
rity of our cities and the most important the Sprint, intended to protect military
objectives from the blows of the enemy launching sites. This system is advocated
weapons of mass destruction, as an effective defense against the Red
In fact, I have it on good authority
that Soviet scientists are convinced that
their ABM defense is useless against a
sophisticated nuclear missile attack and
fear that if he is not careful, Mr. Kosy-
gin may be duped by his own military
into believing the Soviet Union could be
to +.,q f U S ++-L- A
r
r
m a
a
Chinese missile threat we think they may
have in the 1970's-that is a small num-
ber of missiles with a relatively unso-
phisticated missile technology. The area
defense is also offered as a safeguard
against a missile accident.
On the surface the area defense has
much to recommend it. Its cost is ad-
p
o
o
Greckho and Mr. vertised as less than $5 billion over a
ly Defense
Minister
McNamara have more in common than period of 5 years, and we are told the
one would suspect. system will give us, protection against a
Mr. President, there is no doubt that possible Chinese attack.
the discussions and hearings on anti- Before "buying" this rather naive ar-
ballistic-missile problems have shown gument, let us remember that China has
conclusively that any presently feasible no effective air force against our stra-
ABM system is unworkable against a tegic bombers and no effective surface-
heavy attack, since both the Soviets and to-air defense against either high-flying
the United States can take offensive aircraft or ballistic missiles. If China
measures to destroy its effectiveness. This were to give any evidence of violating her
being the case, the champions of an anti- pledge never to be the first to use nu-
ballistic-missile deployment have now clear weapons, it would be far cheaper
shifted their ground. As Senators will and far more effective to destroy her nu-
remember, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who clear capability than to build a light
are in the vanguard of the ABM en- ABM defense. Let us therefore take a
thusiasts, first recommended that a deci- careful look at what is involved before
sion be made to deploy a Nike X system we agree to this form of ABM deploy-
to defend either 25 or 50 cities at a cost ment.
of $20 to $40 billion. This system of the (At this point, Mr. SPONG took the chair
so-called thin ABM defense was recom- as Presiding Officer).
mended as a defense against what the Mr. CLARK. First of all, why are the
Joint Chiefs called a low Soviet threat. Joint Chiefs of Staff so confident that
After this recommendation had been sub- an area antiballistic-missile defense will
mitted to Congress, it soon became clear provide a foolproof defense against the
from scientific testimony both within and Chinese in the 1970's? The argument is
without the Pentagon that the selected that a Chinese attack-if one can be-
city defense concept was militarily use- lieve the Chinese would be mad enough
we had plenty of leadtime to stay well
ahead of Chinese capabilities. Why have
the Joint Chiefs of Staff now changed
their minds? Is it because of the recent
Chinese nuclear success? This is highly
unlikely because, according to the De-
fense Department, the Chinese experi-
ment did not come as a surprise; even
the general public expected it sometime
this year.
I suggest that the reason for this shift
to recommending an area defense--
backed up by the Sprint missiles
around particular sites-is simply that
this form of ABM defense is thought to
be salable to a gullible public, while its
predecessor turned out not to be. More-
over, the Joint Chiefs have described this
area defense concept as a "first step."
Therefore, we can be confident that if
the United States builds and deploys a
"light" ABM defense, we will not stop
with this first stage. We will be impor-
tuned by the manufacturers of ABM and
the military to go on to a full-scale ABM
deployment even though, by the Defense
Department's own admission, such a sys-
tem will not protect the United States
from a sophisticated Soviet attach.
Third, why is the United States con-
sidering the immediate deployment of a
system which has not been fully tested?
Senators should know that the United
States has not yet experimented with
using the Sprint, the Spartan, and the
radars together and probably will not be
capable of doing so for at least 2 years.
How can we consider deploying, at a cost
of some $5 billion, a system that has
never been fully tested? I personally
think that such an expenditure is out-
rageous, considering the crying need that
this country has for funds for domestic
programs to alleviate poverty, to pro-
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
 S 10366
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 27, 1967
vide adequate education for our youth, to
rebuild our cities, to feed the hungry,
and to eliminate air and water pollution.
A large part of the problem we face
with these new demands for an ABM de-
ployment stems from that highly orga-
nized military-industrial complex against
which General Eisenhower warned us in
his last speech as President in these
words:
En the councils of government-
fie said-
We must guard against the acquisition of un-
warranted influence, whether sought or un-
s.aught, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of mis-
placed power exists and will persist.
President Eisenhower went on to say:
In holding scientific research and discovery
in respect, as we should we must be alert to
the equal and opposite danger that public
policy could itself become captive of a scien-
t,fic-technological elite.
We should all realize that the United
States is all too often victimized by the
zeal of our scientific-military elite-the
"weapons cult," if you will. Let me read
you what one such cultist has had to say
about the advance of weapons technol-
ogy and public opinion. In March of 1967,
Dr. Harold Agnew, Director of the Los
Alamos Laboratories Weapons Division,
remarked that--
The basis of advanced technology is in-
novation and nothing is more stifling to in-
novation than seeing one's product not used
or ruled out of consideration on flimsy prem-
ises involving public world opinion.
This is indeed a shocking statement
and a dangerous one. if we have any role
here in the Senate it is to advance what
Dr. Agnew calls the flimsy premises of
public opinion, or, in other words, the im-
pact of an aroused democracy against the
weapons cultists. Over the next few
months, as the United States brings to a
head this longstanding issue of whether
to produce and deploy an ABM system,
we will be inundated by all shades and
varieties of expertise-both real and
bogus. How can we be expected to sort
out the scientifically sound from the self-
serving? We will be asked whether the
lives of a few million American citizens
are not, for example, worth an invest-
ment of $4 to $5 billion. Senators will be
hard pressed to deal with such argu-
ments, particularly when the cultists are
so anxious for their own pride and their
pocketbooks to go forward with an in-
effective ABM system.
I, for one, have confidence in the good
sense of the American people, once they
are informed of the facts. I do not believe
that they or their representatives can be
stampeded into taking an unwise, indeed
a dangerous, step if they understand
clearly the issue before them. But they
must have the facts. They must have the
benefit of full and free discussion in the
Congress and in the public media, unin-
hibited by false demands for secrecy. We
were told the basic facts in the hearings
before the Disarmament Subcommittee,
but then the testimony was so censored
by the Defense Department, the AEC, and
the QJA that :1 have been unable to use
in - ils speech many facts the American
people should be told. And this involves
the clear and scientific reasons why our
ABM sys :em is no good and wily the Rus-
sian ABM system is no good. But I am
not permitted to state these facts, be-
cause expediency has been allowed to in-
tervene with what I believe is ir..contro-
vertible evidence to support my conten-
tion.
Mr. President, I am convinced that the
construction and deployment of an ABM
system at the present time is both un-
warranted and unwise. I also believe that
this conc:.usion is strategically sound and
militarily defensible.
In any issue of this magnitude, how-
ever, there is inevitably a political con-
sideration as well. At a time when the
peace of the world is based to a large
extent upon a tenuous 'valance of nu-
clear power-a delicate balance of ter-
ror, as it has been so often called-the
concept of national security is directly
affected by progress in the field of inter-
national disarmament-the only viable
alternative to mutual annihilation.
It is for this reason, Mr. President,
that I have long regarded the negotia-
tions in Geneva on a nonproliferation
treaty as of overriding importance to our
own security, as well as to the security
of other nations from which ours in part
derives. 1: have also proposed that if
agreement is ultimately reached on this
issue, the chances for a further extension
of the nuclear test-ban treaty to include
underground experiments be explored in
the light of current scientific detection
techniques.
Unfortunately, as of this date, direct
negotiations between the United States
and the Soviet Union on the ABM issue
have not yet commenced. However,
President Johnson and Premier Kosygin
were afforded a unique opportunity at
Glassboro to compare their respective
positions on the question of anti-
ballistic-missile defense systems and of-
fensive weapons, as well. as on more wide-
ranging arms control measures. If the
results of this meeting are to have any
significant effect on the future of United
States-Soviet relations, precipitate de-
ployment action in the ABM field should
be postponed at least until an intensive
diplomatic effort to reach agreement has
taken place and failed.
For it is apparent that the debate
which has raged in the Penta orL in re-
cent years over thissubject ha:; also been
carried on behind closed doors in the
Kremlin. Our deployment of an ABM sys-
tem at this juncture without serious ef-
forts to come to an agreement would
certainly have the effect of strengthen-
ing the hand of those Russian military
advocates of such an investment in the
U.S.S.R.--probably at an accelerated
pace. The result, I am convinced. would
be a vast, competitive expenditure of
money and resources with little gain in
real defense capability for either side, as
Mr. Vance has so clearly pointed out.
Mr. President, the history of the past
two decades has taught us--if it has
taught us anything-that every decision
to escalate the arms race is an irrevoca-
ble decision in the long run.
Before such a decision is taken and
in ord& to provide the public with a full
and unbiased account of the ABM issue,
I recommend to the President that he
convene a blue ribbon commission to deal
with the question of an ABM system.
Such a commission could provide a care-
ful and objective evaluation of the course
the United States should follow. The
precedent for such a commission was es-
tablished immediately after the Second
World War when President Truman de-
cided to establish an independent com-
mission to assess the complexities of
U.S. defense Policies in the air age.
The resulting report of what came to
be called the Finletter Commission was
bluntly entitled "Survival in the Air
Age"; and this report, primarily because
of the authoritative and independent
stature of the commission members,
came to be the focal point around which
subsequent international discussions of
air strategy revolved.
Ten years later-in 1957-President
Eisenhower established a blue ribbon
commission to assist him in coping with
the problems of defense in the era of
strategic missiles. Impressed by the mili-
;tary, political and even psychological
implications of developing an American
retaliatory offensive force President
Eisenhower established the so-called
Gaither Commission. The Gaither Com-
mission was comprised of distinguished
figures from the Nation's business, finan-
cial, scientific, and academic communi-
ties. These men included H. Rowan
Gaither, a former head of the Ford
Foundation, William C. Foster, now Di-
rector of the Anus Control and Disarma-
ment Agency, James R. Killian of Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology,
Earnest O. Lawrence, I. I. Rabi, John J.
McCloy and Jerome B. Weisner, who
later became a Department of Defense
adviser to President Kennedy.
There is no doubt that the Gaither Re-
port had a significant effect both within
and outside the U.S. Government and
led to some very hard thinking about
America in the missile age.
A critical moment in our Nation's life
came when the Gaither report presented
the President with an objective account
of U.S. military strength vis-a-vis
the Soviet Union's and, in the proc-
ess, I interpolate, Mr. President, it de-
stroyed some myths which had been pro-
jected for a good long while by certain
members of the military-industrial com-
plex of which I have spoken today.
Now another 10 years have passed and
again these seems to be justification for
the President to convene another blue
ribbon cominisaion, this time to deal
with the momentous question of ABM
deployment. Surely the ABM question is
of such magnitude that it is essential to
have a careful and objective evaluation
of the course the United States should
follow. I do not believe, for the reasons I
have already mentioned, that the mili-
tary-industrial complex is objective
enough to advise the U.S. Con-
gress or the President on how we should
proceed. This being the case, I strongly
suggest that a temporary blue ribbon
commission drawn from all sectors of
national life is the best way to bring a
thorough inquiry into the issues.
Our very national survival may be at
issue in the ABM controversy. It is time
we put the best and most objective minds
in the country to work.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
July 27, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S.10367
Mr. President, unless the Senate has
further business, I have been requested
by the majority leader-
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK. I was about to yield the
floor. I will be happy to yield, if the Sen-
ator wishes to engage in colloquy.
Mr. THURMOND. Has the Senator
completed his address?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, I have.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
did not interrupt the Senator during
his address, but there are a number of
points I should like to discuss in con-
nection with it. I do not know when I
have heard an address on the floor of the
Senate that has contained so many er-
roneous statements.
The Senator did make one very ac-
curate statement in his address, how-
ever, on the last page, when he said,
"Our very national survival may be at
issue in the ABM controversy." I heartily
agree with him in that statement.
The issue boils down practically to
this: If the Soviets have an effective
antiballistic missile, and we do not, if
they can knock down our missiles and
we are unable to knock down theirs,
where are we?
It simply means they can pound us to
death without our being able to effec-
tively counter and respond to their of-
fensive.
Mr. President, this is a very important
question. For 10 years-10 long years-
I have been advocating that our Gov-
ernment build and deploy an anti-bal-
listic-missile system. The state of the art
has matured during that period of time,
and will certainly continue to do so.
Our research has been highly successful.
We are ready to go forward with it. All
that now waits is a decision of the Presi-
dent.
Mr. President, in my judgment, this is
one of the most important steps, if not
the most important, that this Nation can
take along the lines of national defense.
The building and deployment of an anti-
ballistic-missile system is critical to the
future security of this Nation. It has
been estimated that more than 100 mil-
lion lives could be saved, should we sus-
tain an all-out attack, if we have an
anti-ballistic-missile system. Even the
Secretary of Defense, Mr. McNamara,
who has not yet recommended that we
go forward with it-chiefly, I suppose,
because of the cost-has admitted that
we can save millions of lives if we have
such a system.
There has been a system recom-
mended, that would be effective, it is
said, possibly against Red China, that
would save 40 million or 50 million lives,
and an even more effective system that
would save from 80 to 125 million lives,
that would be effective against the threat
posed by the Soviets.
I do not know of an issue today that
is more important to the American
people than proceeding with the build-
ing and deploying of an anti-ballistic-
missile system.
Mr. President, in all probability it will
take us from 5 to 7 years after the deci-
sion is made to begin, to actually deploy
the system. We are making a great mis-
take, in my judgment, to delay this mat-
ter 1 day more.
The Senator feels that if we had gone
forward some years ago, we would have
wasted a lot of money because of the
relative primitiveness of that system
compared with what we have today.
When Thomas A. Edison invented the
electric light, he did not start out with
the fluorescent lamp; he started with
the incandescent lamp. If he had not
done that, later we would not have had
the fluorescent lamp. A start had to be
made.
But we have done additional research
in the meantime. We are at the point
now where we can intercept the enemy's
missiles and render them ineffective.
What we need to do now is to proceed
to build the system, to protect the Ameri-
can people.
Yes; I agree with the Senator from
Pennsylvania in his statement, on his
last page, that our very national survi-
val may be at issue in the ABM contro-
versy. I am in hearty accord with that.
On the other hand, Mr. President, I wish
to point out certain other areas of dis-
agreement. On page 1, the allegation is
made that President Johnson and Secre-
tary McNamara have decided against de-
ployment. The truth is that no final deci-
sion has been made, but the delay in de-
ployment has been taken by some to
mean that the decision not to deploy has
been made.
A decision has not been made not to
deploy. I hope that the President will yet
see fit, and do it soon, to make the deci-
sion to deploy the ABM.
Also on page 1-
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield at that point?
Mr. THURMOND. I am pleased to
yield.
Mr. CLARK. I challenge the accuracy
of the statement the Senator has just
made. The President, acting upon the
advice of Secretary McNamara, has de-
cided not to deploy, and has made a
public statement to that effect, despite
the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to the contrary.
Mr. THURMOND. When did the
President make the decision not to de-
ploy the antiballistic missile?
Mr. CLARK. There have been state-
ment after statement in the press
throughout the past several months to
that effect. I shall be glad to document
it later, if the Senator wishes. Secretary
McNamara appeared before the Com-
mittee on Armed Services, of which the
Senator is a member, and said he was
opposed to it.
Mr. THURMOND. The Secretary of
Defense has said he was opposed to it,
but the Secretary of Defense, acting with
the President, has taken the position, as
I have understood it, that if some ar-
rangement could not be worked out with
the Soviets on this issue, then they
would be forced to employ it, and the
President has delayed his decision. The
President, I repeat, has not made the
decision not to deploy the ABM.
Mr. President, on page 1 of the Sena-
tor's speech he says that the United
States and Russia have agreed to the de-
escalation of both offensive and defen-
sive nuclear weapons.
The truth is that the United States
has on numerous occasions indicated its
willingness to discuss this issue, but the
Soviet Union has not so agreed and has
been particularly reluctant to agree to
a discussion of its defensive systems.
On page 3 of the Senator's speech-
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I am delighted to
yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I challenge
the accuracy of the Senator's statement.
It has been stated in the public press
several times that President Johnson
and. Premier Kosygin have agreed, and
so has Secretary Rusk and Mr. Gromyko,
to a discussion of both offensive and de-
fensive missile deescalation.
At Glassboro, when asked when the
discussions would commence, Mr. Kosy-
gin was somewhat evasive about renew-
ing the discussion in the future.
These discussions have continued, and
we have been told this in the Foreign
Relations Committee on several occa-
sions.
The Senator is incorrect in what he
has just said.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President the
Senator is confusing an agreement to
discuss the matter with an agreement to
deescalate.
Mr. CLARK. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. They may have
agreed to discuss the matter, but there
has been no agreement to deescalate, and
I challenge the Senator to present one.
Mr. CLARK. I never said there was an
agreement to deescalate. I never said
there was anything more than an agree-
ment to discuss. If the Senator says that
I said otherwise, he is misquoting.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on
page 1 of the speech of the Senator, is
it not the effect of the statement that the
United States and Russia have agreed
to deescalate both offensive and defen-
sive nuclear weapons?
Mr. CLARK. No; that is not the effect
at all. It is merely that they agreed to
discuss it.
Mr. THURMOND. I frankly do not look
for the Soviets to agree to anything, even
for them agree to seriously discuss the
matter. The Soviets are not going to
agree to anything unless it suits them.
The goal of the Soviets-and the Sen-
ator seems to lack a basic understanding
of this-is to dominate and enslave the
world.
The Senator will rue the day when he
accepts at face value any step that the
Soviets take in the world today, since
their policies are all calculated to con-
tribute to their domination of the world.
Mr. President, on page 3 of the Sen-
ator's speech, it is said that the United
States and the Soviet Union have reached
a point of nuclear standoff where nuclear
war has become unlikely under ordinary
circumstances.
The truth is that the point of nuclear
standoff has, from all indications, been
eroded because the United States clear
superiority in offensive capability in rela-
tion.to that of the Soviet Union is in
jeopardy. An exact "balance" increases
the chance of nuclear attack or nuclear
blackmail since the advantage is on the
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE July 27, 1967
side of the first strike, and the U.S. posi-
tion is that we will never strike first.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I am pleased to
yield.
Mr. CLARK. I. take it that the Senator
does not agree with the testimony given
by Under Secretary of Defense Vance be-
fore the disarmament hearings of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
The Senator is quite at liberty to dis-
agree with Secretary McNamara, with
President Johnson, and with Mr. Vance.
That is his right as a, U.S. Senator. How-
ever, I think it should be pointed out that
he is disagreeing with the leaders of our
Defense Establishment.
fr. THURMOND. I certainly do dis-
a.gree with Mr. McNamara. He has made
more bad decisions than any man who
has ever been Secretary of Defense, in
my judgment. And I regret that Presi-
dent Johnson has so little wisdom as to
want to follow Mr. McNamara's judg-
ment.
blr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
ir. THURMOND. I yield.
VIr. CLARK. Mr. President, I would
like to have the RECORD show my su-
preme admiration for Secretary Mc-
Namara.
Mr. THURMOND, Well I am not sur-
prised. The Senator's thinking, I
imagine, is about in line with the Secre-
tary's.
If Secretary McNamara had his way,
we would not have very much of a De-
fense Establishment. About the only
thing he has produced in his lifetime,
that I have heard of, is the Edsel.
On pages 4 and 5 of the Senator's
speech, it is said that if the United
States built and deployed an anti-ballis-
tic-missile system and then for some rea-
son it failed at the moment of attack,
the casualties sustained by the United
States would be higher than if we had
not built such a system.
The truth is that it is impossible to
sustain an allegation of this nature, as-
?uming that all other factors remain
constant. Even an absolute failure could
hardly result in more casualties for the
United States than our present naked
status would result in.
Mr. President, I emphasize again that
the United States today stands naked,
completely nude, against an attack by
missiles. We have no system deployed
to protect the lives and the safety of the
American people from nuclear attack
by ballistic missile.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it
is asinine to continue this policy. The
enemy can shower missile after missile
In here, and we have nothing with which
to stop them.
Why do we not go ahead and build
the system? We have the know-how. We
have done the research. We are ready
to proceed. All we need is the decision
of the President. He need not wait on
Mr. McNamara, because I do not believe
Mr. McNamara would ever on his own
advise the President to proceed.
If Mr. McNamara does so advise the
President, it will be under coercion from
somebody because down in his heart, I
understand that he does not believe in
It. He does not want to spend the money
for it.
We are making a great mistake in not
proceeding in that way. It may cost $20
million or $30 million. What is $30
million?
In Detroit they burned over $200 mil-
lion of property a few days ago. We can
spend $30 million, $40 million, or $50
million and save billions of dollars' worth
of property and, more important and
more precious than that, save 80 million
or 150 million American lives.
I say that is worth the cost.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I might
point out briefly the rationale of my
statement that if we built an antiballis-
tic missile system and it did not work,
more American lives would be lost, than
otherwise. This is based on testimony
before our Subcommittee on Disarma-
ment by Secretary Vance and by Dr. Fos-
ter, the Defense Department's Director of
Research and Engineering. Both of these
gentlemen testified that the inevitable
result of our constructing an antiballistic,
missile defense would do to escalate the
offensive capabilities of the Soviet Union,
just as Secretary McNamara has indi-
cated that the inevitable effect of the
Soviet Union's deploying an antiballistic
missile system, ineffective thoua;h it may
be, would be to escalate our offensive
systems.
Therefore, if we build such an ABM
system, it will force the Soviets to build
a better offensive missile system than
they now have and we will lose more
lives.
This is the uncontradicted testimony
of the Defense Department before our
subcommittee.
I suspect that the Senator from South
Carolina quite inadvertentlj, said mil-
lions of dollars when he meant billions
of dollars.
I have no doubt that he will correct
that when he comes to look at the text
of his remarks.
Mr. THURMOND. What figure is the
Senator speaking about?
Mr. CLARK. The Senator on several
occasions during his last comment spoke
about $30 million and $40 million. I am
sure he meant $30 billion and $40 billion.
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator is cor-
rect. If I used the word millions, it should
have been billions.
I repeat that if this great Nation, the
richest in the world, can spend $30 bil-
lion or $40 billion and save 80 million or
more American lives and billions of dol-
lars worth of property, it is a good in-
vestment.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I will be glad to
yield to the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I recall some
years ago when we held a session behind
closed doors and discussed the missile
program. That was some time ago, Can
the Senator recall when it was?
Mr. T]URMOND. 1963.
Mr. CLARK. May I say to my good
friend, the Senator from Louisiana, that
I have the floor. Of course, I would be
happy to yield to him.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Will the Sen-
ator yield'?
Mr. CLARK. I am happy to yield to
the Senator from Louisiana, for what-
ever purpose he wishes, so long as I do
not lose my right to the floor.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I thank the
Senator
I had gained the impression that the
Senator from Pennsylvania had yielded
the floor.
Mr. CLARK. The Senator from South
Carolina asked me to yield to him.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. May I say
to the Senator from South Carolina that
my understanding was that at that time
the basis of the argument that we should
not proceed forthwith to develop an an-
tiballistic missile system was that the
services had not adequately perfected
a sufficiently sophisticated weapon to
justify 'building and deploying It.. That
was 4 years ago.
Mr. THURMOND. The basic argu-
ment used was that it had not reached
the necessary state of the art. The Sena-
tor is correct. That was the excuse given
then. The excuse given now is that if you
build one, it will make the Soviets more
militant, and tl.ey will try to build a
better one, or they will pursue some other
course.
Anyone who knows the Soviets knows
that they are going to follow their course
to build. the best weapons in the world;
and if we do not build better ones, they
will have the advantage, and they would
not hesitate to attack this country and
take it over, as they have taken over
and have behind the Iron Curtain 36
percent of the world's population.
Mr. CLARK. Can the Senator tell me
whethe:r or not the Soviets are in the
process of deploying an antiballistic mis-
sile system?
Mr. THURMOND. The Soviets already
have deployed now, at this very moment,
an ABM system around Leningrad and
Moscow. It is ready to go. It has been
developed; it has been deployed.
We have only cca,rried on research, and
we have put in money for preproduction
engineering and development, and See-
cretary McNamara did not even permit
that appropriation to be obligated. We
are several years behind the Soviets. It
would take several years to build and
deploy a system after a decision had
been made to proceed.
The Senator has said, on pages 5 and 6
and elsewhere in his speech, that the
Joint Chiefs of Staff have abandoned
their original plan which involved the
defense of certain areas by deployment
around certain cities. That was the al-
legation.
The truth is that the Joint Chiefs of
Staff still are unanimously behind the
original concept, which involves deploy-
ment around certain cities which were
chosen on a basis of factors involving
optimum defense of maximum security
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
 Approved For Release QQf~1 113EQCOC i-RD S rAQ?J38R000300100055-4 S 10369
July "27, 1967 CONGRESS1 1~
interests. No political factors were in- had to be quickly abandoned after it be- part of Aiken and in parts of Allendale
volved, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff came public information that one of the and Barnwell Counties, is the great
stand unanimously behind this recom- cities would be Charleston, South Carolina, Savannah River atomic energy plant,
mendation. a town of 81,400 inhabitants and the home which is most vital to our Nation. The
of the chairman of the House Armed Serv- ABM would protect that.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the ices Committee.
Senator yield? There is the Citadel in Charleston
Mr. THURMOND. I am pleased to Mr. President, that is absolutely in- which is training young men and Reserve
yield. correct. The facts are just as I have officers and which is a great asset to
Mr. CLARK. I thank my friend the stated-the Army chose these cities. our national defense. There is the Port
Senator from South Carolina for his They did not have to abandon any plan. of Charleston, which is one of the finest
constant courtesy in yiedling to me. What is mentioned here about the Joint natural ports in the United States, which
I would challenge the accuracy of the Chiefs of Staff plan being abandoned is would be of extreme importance to the
Senator's statement. I believe I can pro- absolutely incorrect. I asked General United States in time of war, and is cer-
duce a number of press releases from the Wheeler about that. tainly important from a commercial
Pentagon in recent weeks which would Some weeks ago, the distinguished standpoint at all times.
make it pretty clear that they have got- Senator from Pennsylvania referred to There are all of these Federal and
ten away from the plan to defend the this matter on the floor. He was wrong State installations and yet the Senator
cities and are now speaking of a much then, and he is wrong now. He said, from Pennsylvania wants to insinuate
different system, which will be con- speaking of Charleston, "81,400 inhabi- that the reason that Charleston, S.C.,
centrated around missile sites instead of tants." If the Senator knows anything was chosen was because it is the home
around cities. about an ABM, he knows it covers more of the chairman of the Armed Services
In all friendliness, I would not agree than Charleston. Charleston and the Committee of the House of Representa-
with the statement the Senator has just suburbs alone contain more than 300,000 tives. That insinuation is false and it is
made about the present position of the people. Why does he want to say 81,400 not true. The Senator from Pennsylvania
Joint Chiefs of Staff. right in the corporate limits of Charles- is not fair to him when he makes such
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ton, when North Charleston has a larger an insinuation.
spoke today, over the telephone, with population than the city of Charleston- Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the able
General Wheeler, the Chairman of the and it is not incorporated-and the en- and distinguished senior Senator from
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I asked him, tire area around there contains more South Carolina is also a major general
`Do the Joint Chiefs of Staff still stand than 300,000 people? In addition to pop- in the U.S. Army, is he not?
behind the ABM system? Do they still ulation density factors there are many Mr. THURMOND. In the Reserve.
want it? Do they still recommend it?" defense essential installations to be con- Mr. CLARK. I thank the Senator for
He said, "We do." sidered. It is not only for the good people his candid answer.
They have unanimously recommended of Charleston, although it would be Mr. THURMOND. And I am proud
it for the last 2 years. Every member of worth while to build the system for them. of it.
the Joint Chiefs of Staff has recom- Here is what you have: Mr. CLARK. I am a colonel in the Air
mended it. Mr. McNamara has not Headquarters of the 6th Naval Dis- Force, I might say. I am happy to yield
recommended it. This great military trict, the Polaris submarine base, the the floor to the senior Senator from
figure, McNamara, is not in favor of it. naval shipyard, the naval base, head- South Carolina.
He wants to save a few dollars, he says. quarters of the Atlantic Mine Fleet, the Mr. THURMOND. I wish to thank the
But, Mr. President, he is gambling with mine warfare school, the Military Air- Senator for his courtesy.
the lives of American citizens when he lift Command, the naval ammunition The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
It not go forward. depot, the Army transportation depot,
It was not a political decision. I asked the Veterans' Administration hospital, ator from South Carolina is recognized.
General Wheeler if these cities were the naval hospital. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on
chosen from a political standpoint, and These are all defense installations, lo- page 7 of his address, the Senator states
he said, "Absolutely not." He said the cated in and around Charleston. And the that we could launch a "preemptive" at-
Army chose those cities, that the Joint antiballistic missile system could well be tack against Red China, upon any in-
Chiefs of Staff reviewed them and ap- deployed there to protect these vital de- dication that she intended to attack us
proved them. fense installations, but this is not, by with nuclear weapons.
I said, "Did any politics enter into it?" itself, the only factor involved in placing The truth is that the first likely indi-
He said, "Absolutely not." an ABM installation in the Charleston cation that we would have of any such
Now, the Senator, on page 6- vicinity. attack by Red China would be after it
Mr. CLARK. Before the Senator pro- At that location is the only Polaris was too late to prevent the launching of
ceeds, Mr. President, will he yield? submarine base in the United States. the attack and would be disastrous if
Mr. THURMOND. I am pleased to one is being built on the west coast, but we had no defense against the incoming
yield. this is the only one now, and the main missiles. Also, I am very surprised to hear
Mr. CLARK. I do not question that the one, and it will continue to be the main the senior Senator from Pennsylvania
Joint Chiefs of Staff still favor the de- one. It will be the only one on the east suggest that we consider a preemptive
ployment of an antiballistic missile sys- coast. It is worth protecting. Our Polaris strike against any country short of an
tem. What I do question seriously-and submarine is one of the most powerful all-out attack against us, since that ap-
I wish the Senator would produce an weapons we have, one of the most im- pears to me to be contrary to every posi-
up-to-date statement from General portant; and if you are going to put an tion he has ever taken. It would avail
Wheeler-if that they are still proposing ABM anywhere, it should be put in that the United States very little to destroy
to defend 25 or 50 cities of their own area. Red China after they had loosed a nu-
choosing. I was surprised that the Senator clear attack against the United States
Mr. THURMOND. I spoke with Gen- criticized the distinguished chairman of against which we were defenseless.
eral Wheeler about that, and he said the the House Armed Services Committee. It On page 7 of the speech it is alleged
Army chose those cities, that the Joint was Representative RIVERS who helped to that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are now
Chiefs of Staff reviewed them, that the save the naval shipyard in Philadelphia. using Red China as the justification for
Joint Chiefs of Staff approved them. It probably would not be there now if it an ABM deployment.
There was no politics involved, in spite had not been for Representative RIVERS. The truth is that this is plainly con-
of the insinuation in the speech of the In addition to the Federal installations trary to the facts. The Joint Chiefs of
Senator from Pennsylvania to the con- I have mentioned, there are Parris Staff justified deployment of an ABM on
trary. Island, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot; the military threat from all our potential
On page 6 of his speech, the Senator the Beaufort Marine Air Corps Air Sta- adversaries. While they must take into
says: tion; the Beaufort Naval Hospital. The account the new threat which Red China
Second, as a practical political matter, the ABM would protect those Federal instal- has developed, the original justification
idea that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be lations. against the threat posed by the Soviet
responsible for choosing the 25 or 50 cities North about 80 or 90 miles, in the lower Union is certainly still valid.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4
 S10370 Approved For Rel~A~I~OO,RRg300100055-4 July Q 1 37
Mr. President, in closing I wish to re-
,cat that there is nothing more impor-
tant that this Nation can do to build
up our strategic military posture and
protect this Nation than to build an anti-
ballistic missile system. The antiballistic
missile system will be a deterrent to an
attack because if we have such a system,
then the Soviets arid Red China will
know and other Communist nations will
know that if we can incapacitate their
missiles they will hesitate a long time
n launching any attack because, al-
,hough some of their missiles might get
through, they would Mot be totally effec-
live. They would know that if they were
to begin such an attack that we could
still respond in kind and that would be
a double deterrent, and I say that would
.help stave off a war.
Mr. President, I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Pennsylvania for
yielding to me and allowing me to re-
spond to the many erroneous statements
made in his speech.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the senior
Senator from. South Carolina, in addi-
tion to being a good friend of mine, is
always very courteous to me. It was a
pleasure to yield to him. It does not sur-
prise him any more than it does me that
we do not see eye to -eye, but that is one
of the reasons for having a democratic
institution such as the Senate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD an
editorial which was published in the
Toronto Globe and Mail on July 13, 1967,
entitled "Super Megaton Madness."
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Toronto Globe and Mail, July 13,
19671
SUPER MEGATON MADNESS
Perhaps the gloomiest remarks made by
Soviet Premier Alexei Xosygin in his press
conference after the Glassboro summit meet-
ing were on the subject of missile defenses.
Before the meeting President Lyndon John-
son said he hoped for agreement to prevent
a race to install costly systems of anti-inter-
continental ballistic missiles (ABMs). A
journalist asked Mr. Kosygin if there could
be safeguards for such an agreement, and
his reply showed that he and President John-
son could not have been talking the same
strategic language.
Mr. Kosygin said he was willing to talk
about complete disarmament, but not about
preventing this sort of race. ABMs, he said,
were a defensive weapon; and the world
would be worse, not better, off if the money
saved on ABMs were spent on aggressive
weapons.
It is a characteristic remark. But it is total-
ly at cross-purposes with the approach of
united States Defense Secretary Robert Mc-
Namara, and its effects can be seen this week
in increasing pressure on Washington to
launch its own ABM program, which would
cost $40 billion over 10 years. The Russians
have already spent $4 billion in ABM defenses
:around Moscow and Len.ngrad.
This pressure has been building up for
months, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff lead-
ing some influential senators against the
MoNamara school. But extra weight was
added on Tuesday by a study signed by four
former top generals and Dr. Edward Teller,
the nuclear scientist, In their report to a
congressional committee they raised the
bogey that by 1971 Russia would enjoy a
massive advantage in the nuclear megaton-
nage it could theoretically drop en the United
States in an all-out war.
They argued that an ABM system had to be
built to give the President two options in a
crisis. Since the United States had declared
it would never initiate a nuclear war, they
complained that at present we have no de-
fense other than our threat to strike back."
They are, in fact, as far away from Mr.
McNamara's thinking as Mr. Kosygin is. The
Defense Secretary has argued for years the
only true defense is an "invulnerable second
strike" system, for it would deter the initial
enemy move. He describes an ABM system as
an offensive scheme because it encourages
a power to think it cannot suffer a retalia-
tory attack. He once went so far as to say
"the sooner the better" to the idea Russia
might achieve full second-strike capacity;
and his critics derided him, saying he should
give Moscow some Polaris submarines forth-
with.
Yet, if anyone makes sense in the mad
world of missiles, surely Mr. Mcl,:amara, does.
The ABM system would, as the Chiefs of Staff
themselves calculated, only save one-quarter
of the American population from nuclear
death. Tuesday's congressional study esti-
mated that by 1971 Russia could have 50,000
"deliverable megatons." That is exactiy 21/2
million times the amount of TNT required
to equal the Hiroshima atomic explosion.
Obviously that would go far beyond the
borders of saturation and "overk:ill.'
The ABM argument in Washington cannot
be isolated from other developments. If the
McNamara line is abandoned in favor of an
ABM escalation, it could mean further delays
before anyone signs a nuclear non-prolifera-
tion treaty, with non-nuclear nations be-
coming more suspicious of the big powers.
It would also offer extra arguments for the
Kremlin hawks, whose struggle with Mr.
Kosygin and President Nikolai Podgarny was
described yesterday in a New York Times
report. Some influential Americans are argu-
ing that now more than ever, the Rfssian
doves need an achievement to point to if
hope of big-power co-operation is to survive:
de-escalation of the Vietnam war, some stride
toward a Middle East settlement that would
salvage Arab pride and justify Mr. Kosvgin's
cautious tactics. Either is urgently needed;
either would be a better defense then ABMs.
RESPONSE TO THE NEW YORK
TIMES EDITORIAI,
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, on
July 26, 1967, there appeared in the New
York Tinges an editorial under the cap-
tion "While Cities Burn." I am men-
tioned in this editorial, and not par-
ticularly in the happiest and most favor-
able way.. I presume it comes about be-
cause of a statement made by the Re-
publican National Coordinating Com-
mittee. Frankly, I did not prepare that
statement nor was I on the subcommittee
that did so, but there was an allusion to
factories that manufacture Molotov
cocktails and, of course, that must .have
aggravated the pink-shirted editorial
writers who sit in the ivory tower on
Times Square and write these things.
Mr. President, I presume that the lines
of communication between the editorial
department and the city desk have evi-
dently fallen down and are out of order,
or it could be that a Berlin Wall has
been suddenly erected between these two
divisions of this great newspaper and it
has become one of these huge llrlnlan-
ageable, and uncontrollable conglomer-
ates. We could use that phrase in the
Antitrust Subcommittee.
If the editors of the New York Times
had bothered to read their own news-
paper on Tuesday, July 18, 1967, they
would have discovered an article in that
newspaper with a caption which looks
to me as if it is at least three centimeters
high, and the title is "Arson `Factory'
Discovered Here." The subheadline is
"Brooklyn :Ma:rs:hals Seize Cache of Fire
Bombs." The first line of the article
states:
A Molotov cocktail "factory" was discov-
ered in a vacant building in the Brownsville
Section of :Brooklyn yesterday by two fire
marshals cruising the area in search of
arsonists.
Mr, President, it is rather curious that
the editors who wrote this editorial had
forgotten to read the paper just 9 days
earlier. With its headline, how could
they miss? I think I should dispatch a
note of sympathy to the New York Times
and tell them it should be prescribed
reading for the editorial department to
take a look at their own newspaper now
and then and see what the reporters
dish lip.
In connection with my remarks, even
though it is very uncomplimentary, I
like to have the world know all these
things they say about me.
Because the statement was so misleading
and so irresponsible, Senator Dirksen, that
thick-skinned, battle-hardened political vet-
eran, evidently could not bring himself to
face up to a defense of it to skeptical re-
porters, and ran away from his own press
conference.
Now, I shall tell what happened. I did
get up at the press conference, and when
I did get up in the press conference in
our press gallery at 5 o'clock on Tuesday
and a reporter said to me, "Well, it looks
like you are getting a little sensitive,"
I said, "I am not getting sensitive; I
haven't lost my cool; there are times
when I want ,o show my unspeakable
contempt for scmebody, and that is when
I get up in a meeting and walk out."
So, Mr. President, there is the whole
story. That battle-scarred, political
veteran from ]iilinois does not run out
for or on or about anyone, including the
New York Times. The New York Times
does not count for much, out where I
live.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have p .-inted in the RECORD the
editorial and article referred to, so that
the wise, the prudent, and the self-re-
liant People of Illinois will know what
Times Square, or at least some pink-
shirted editorial writer, thinks about me.
I want; them to know it.
There being no objection, the editorial
and article were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD. RS follows:
[From. the New York Times, July 26, 19071
WI.[I:tE CITIES BURN
The nation hag cause for deep concern if
the leaders of both political parties are un-
ab'e to forget political considerations when
murder, arson anti looting are sweeping some
of its major cities. This grave domestic crisis
demands a level and a quality of mat-are
leadership that have been shocking in their
absence.
Because he holds the highest office and
therefore bears the highest responsibility
both to act and to set an example, President
Jo:hnso.a offended most conspicuously in his
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100055-4