LAROUCHE CAMPAIGN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01070R000201050004-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 22, 2008
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: January 21, 1984
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
RADIO TV REPORTS, INC.
4701 WILLARD AVENUE, CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND 20815 [phone]
FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF
Paid Political Program STATION WDVM-TV
CBS Network
DATE January 21, 1984 11:30 P.M. CITY Washington, D.C.
SUBJECT LaRouche Campaign
ANNOUNCER: The following political broadcast is paid
for by the LaRouche Campaign.
From his living room not far from Washington, we bring
you the economist, editor, strategic analyst, and candidate for
the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, Lyndon H.
LaRouche, Jr.
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Nearly two years ago, during a two-day
seminar in Washington, D.C., I proposed a new strategic doctrine
for the United States to an audience which included Soviet
officials as well as representatives of our own government
agencies. I proposed taht we dump Kissinger's and McNamara's
flexible response doctrine and end the age of thermonuclear
terror through deploying the kinds of anti-missile defenses which
science had made possible.
My proposals caught fire immediately among influential
circles. With the knowledge of our government, I conducted
exploratory discussions privately with Soviet representatives for
a period of over 12 months.
When Dr. Teller announced similar proposals in the fall
of 1982, our news media was no longer able to suppress informa-
tion about the fact of this discussion of a new doctrine from the
American public.
On March the 23rd our President not only announced such
a new strategic doctrine for the United States itself, but in
that same nationwide television broadcast he offered to negotiate
with Moscow to bring the age of thermonuclear revenge weapons to
an end. If the Soviet leaders had accepted the President's offer
OFFICES IN: WASHINGTON D.C. ? NEW YORK ? LOS ANGELES ? CHICAGO ? DETROIT ? AND OTHER PRINCIPAL CITIES
Material wpplif Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8 d or exhibited.
 Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
at that time, tonight you and your family could sleep in know-
ledge that the age of thermonuclear terror was being brought to
an end.
But the Soviet Union did not wish peace. They rejected
our President's offer with a violence we have not seen from there
since Nikita Khrushchev was kicked out. Soviet leader Yuri
Andropov dropped out of sight in August and he has remained so
for nearly five months. During the meantime, a Soviet military
junta has come to power over there. Since August, beginning with
incidents including the shooting down of a Korean civilian
airliner on September 1st, the Soviet rulers are moving step-by-
step toward a global thermonuclear showdown with us in Europe, in
the Middle East, and elsewhere. At the same time, the Soviet
KGB's First Directorate is deploying scads of terrorists into the
United States itself.
The situation today, in general, is far worse than it
was at the outbreak of the Berlin Crisis or the Cuba Crisis under
President John Kennedy.
Soviet leaders are very good in military planning.
While Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara have been brainwashing
politicians and newspaper editors into the delusion that thermo-
nuclear war is impossible, since 1962 Soviet leaders have been
steadily and carefully and competently planning building up
Soviet forces to the point that Moscow could survive and win a
thermonuclear war against the United States.
My military advisers tell me that Moscow has not yet
reached the level that it could actually guarantee itself a
victory in a thermonuclear war against us. But Moscow believes
that its military superiority has grown so large that our
President would have to back down to a thermonuclear confronta-
tion if this occurred during 1984 or 1985.
Moscow believes the time has come, and has believed this
since June 1981, that it no longer needs to negotiate on terms
proposed by our government. At present, they have deployed
military units designed to take over Scandinavia. At the same
time, in East Germany, they have deployed units trained and
equipped for the special task of taking over West Germany.
Soviet puppets such as Syria and Iran are being used against us.
Right on our Southern borders, the Soviet KGB controls the
leadership of an opposition political party in Mexico called the
Pon (?). And through the Pon's circles, drug-link circles, the
Soviet KGB is deploying terrorism directy into the United States.
Moscow's policy at present can be fairly described as
"We do as we please. There's nothing you can do about it except
submit to our unconditional terms."
Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
 Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-01070R000201050004-8
Generals in Moscow dream the old Russian dream of Moscow
as the world capital of a new Roman Empire.
We must change this picture. As President Franklin
Roosevelt said, so I say again to you today. We have nothing so
much to fear as fear itself.
I must show you first the dark side, so that you
understand what we must do and why we must do it. What we'll do
is we'll go through five successive charts, three charts, a map
and another chart. And in this we'll look at, briefly, the
overall balance in strategic missile capability between the
United States and the Soviet Union today, as reported by agencies
such as the London International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Now, look first at this present chart. On the left we
see a comparison of the number of launchers which the United
States, the blue bar, and the Soviet Union has. And you see that
the Soviet Union is slightly superior to the United States in the
number of land-based and submarine-based launchers.
The picture looks somewhat better as you go to the right
set of bars. You see that the blue bar is almost as high as the
red bar, which means that we have almost as many warheads in
service, ready for deployment, as the Soviet Union. And you also
see that our strategic strength is concentrated presently in our
submarine-based missile systems. Whereas the Soviet capability
is concentrated largely in the land-based missile systems, though
their naval capability is rapidly increasing.
Now let's look at the second chart. Now you see, in the
second chart, that the situation begins to look rather disas-
trous. On the left side you're comparing the number of millions
of pounds of throw weight of the two superpowers. And you see
that we're outnumbered on that by an order of magnitude of more
than three-to-one.
Now you look over to the right to compare the amount of
megatonnage, effective megatons which the Soviet Union and the
United States, respectively, can deploy against the other. And
you see here, for instance, that we have less throw weight, in
megatons, than the Soviet Union does in even the submarine fleet.
And the Soviet Union way outclasses us in megatons.
The significance of this we'll come to in a moment as we
come to the map. But let's proceed first to the next chart,
which takes into consideration another factor which is not much
discussed, but very important in the long run.
Now, this third chart is not a mistake. There is no
blue bar. This refers to the reserve missiles in the possession
Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-01070R000201050004-8
 Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
of the two superpowers. The United States has none. And you see
that the Soviet reserve is in the same order of magnitude as a
major component of their regular first-line deployed missile
capability.
Now let's look at the map and we'll discuss what this
begins to mean. I show you this map to indicate a very particu-
lar problem. These deployments mainly indicate the position of
the Soviet land-based missile force, the strategic missile force.
Now, our strategic submarine system, based in large part under
the Arctic ice, has the assignment of reach and destroy these
missiles, particularly, with counterforce weapons.
Now, the point is that without rearming our submarine
fleet, number one, with the Trident system of submarine-launched
ballistic missiles, we're in a little bit of trouble in trying to
reach these Soviet targets if we had to.
Number two, if we for some reason should have most of
our submarines in the ports, naval ports in the United States, or
off station otherwise, or if the Soviets could knock out our
submarines, then we'd be in very tough shape and the Soviets
would have a preponderance over us, as I'll indicate to you in
just a moment what the problem is there.
The point is that we must have an upgrading of our
Trident submarine system, or we lose most of our strategic
capability; and we must have, very quickly, hunter-killer attack
submarines, both to hunt down Soviet submarines, but, more
importantly, to get rid of Soviet attack submarines which are
trying track, trail and kill opur submarines.
We can go with that and we go to the next point.
The purpose here -- this, by itself, has no signifi-
cance. But I just want to prepare you for what I'm about to show
you. What I'm going to show you is the calculations made by my
military advisers of what it would look like in terms of weapons
systems capabilities after a first strike against the United
States by the Soviet forces with presently known capabilities and
what the losses would be to the Soviet Union by our immediate
response.
Let's go now to the next picture on the same chart.
Now let's look at the percentile of the U.S. capabili-
ties destroyed, and then after that the Soviet capabilities
destroyed, under condition that the Soviets launch a preemptive
first strike against the United States.
In the even of a Soviet first strike of this type, my
Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
 Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
experts calculate that 90 percent of our land-based ICBMs would
be destroyed by the Soviet Union in the first strike, plus 70
percent of our submarine missile capability, plus, as you see, 80
percent of our strategic bomber capability.
In this case, we see that the Soviet Union has expended
only 15 percent of its land-based missile fleet to do this first
strike and has expended, we see, only 40 percent of its missile
-- submarine-based missile launch capability to do the first
strike.
This leaves us guess where.
Now, on this point, let's quote two sources as to why
the United States was permitted to drift into this condition
against the Soviet Union. First we'll quote from Henry Kis-
singer, a passage from a press conference he delivered in Moscow
in July 1974, and I quote Henry Kissinger. "What in the name of
God," said Kissinger, "is strategic superiority? What is the
significance," he said, "politically, militarily, operationally,
at these levels of numbers? What do you do with it?" So much
for Kissinger.
Now let's go to the Carter Administration, to a National
Security Council official of the Carter Administration in 1979,
and I quote. "Even if the United States could attain strategic
superiority, it would not be desirable," he said, "because I
suspect we would occasionally use it in some very risky ways. It
is in the United States' interest to allow the few remaining
areas of strategic advantage to fade away."
I suspect this is not really fading away tha this man is
talking about. He's talking about letting us fall into strategic
inferiority.
The situation reminds us of the year 1938, when Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from his pact with Adolf
Hitler.
[Film clip of Chamberlain statement]
LAROUCHE: Today there are many Neville Chamberlains in
Europe and the United States. Moscow is bragging that these
nuclear freeze sympathizers will pull out our President's teeth
and will drive Caspar Weinberger out of the Defense Department.
This is Moscow's political fifth column in our news media and in
our political parties. These Neville Chamberlains call our
President a warmonger. Soviet agents around the world whisper
and lie that our President is a new Hitler and worse than Attila
the Hun. Soviet newspapers and stooges say that I am more
dangerous than our President.
Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
 Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
Moscow hates me because of the generous offer the
President made to them on March 23rd and because Moscow is afraid
that I might rally you, the patriotic sons and daughters of our
Democratic Party, to support the policies I shall propose to you
now.
One. The President must use his powers under our
Constitution and.statutes to declare a national defense emergency
mobilization. We must mobilize as President Franklin Roosevelt
led us between 1939 and 1943.
[Clip of statement by President
Franklin Roosevelt]
LAROUCHE: Our Federal Reserve should be federalized
under Article I, Sections 8 and 9 of our Constitution. Its power
to print money and to operate the inflationary Keynesian multi-
plier must be suspended for the duration.
Congress must authorize an initial $500 billion in
Treasury gold reserve money at $750 per ounce of gold. These
gold reserve currency notes must be loaned at between two percent
and four percent discount, through our private banks, for
investments to put our idle farms, factories, and unemployed to
work producing needed physical goods.
Second, the President must launch a $200 billion crash
program, like President Kennedy's successful Apollo space
program, to give our nation a first-generation anti-missile
shield by 1988.
Third, the Congress must support a crash program to fill
up the gaping holes in our 1984-1985 defenses. The patriotic
citizens of this country must force the members of the Congress
to support this.
Fourth, we must change our policies toward our friends
in Latin American and elsewhere immediately. We must negotiate a
sensible reorganization of their debt payments at between two
percent and four percent interest. We must pour in the needed
capital goods in exports for their economies to development so
they can meet these requirements and so that we can increase
industrial employment in the United States by about three million
new jobs producing capital goods for exports.
During the recent years we have been ruining and losing
our friends in Europe, in Asia, Africa and Latin America, at the
same time that many politicians have been lying to you by saying
that we were giving away gigantic charitable contributions to
these countries, most of which never arrived.
If we do not change this policy, Moscow will take over
Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
 Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
the world piece-by-piece, and we will have no one to blame but
ourselves.
For just a moment forget the election campaign. My
duty, election or no election, is to be the leader of the
patriots of the Democratic Party, to free this party of ours from
the grip of Neville Chamberlains like Charlie Manatt and Walter
Mondale. My duty is to mobilize you to help save our nation in a
moment of its greatest danger.
It is true that the Reagan Administration has disagreed
with me on the economy. I see our farms, factories, unemployed
minorities, and national defense as suffering from Paul Volcker's
Federal Reserve policies. I ask you to support me to change
that.
I disagree angrily with the policies of Henry Kissinger
and our State Department toward Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin
America. I ask you to support me in changing these policies.
Above all, I ask you to help me bring the friends of
--and patriots of both parties into support of a bipartisan
defense policy and to rally our nation against the growing menace
of international terrorism.
I hope that we can force Moscow to reconsider the
foolish rejection of my own and the President's offer to end the
age of thermonuclear terror. We must mobilize, yes, to convince
Russia to abandon its mad nuclear adventures. And we must also
continue to offer peace within the framework of the President's
March 23rd offer.
To those top Soviet official who will be studying copies
of this broadcast within the next days, I say this: In my quest
for peace between our countries, I have proved myself consis-
tently forthright and honest with you. I have warned you,
accurately, jof the consequences of the events you have permitted
to occur. If the Kremlin's hierarchy chooses to punish or to
ignore those who have borne these discussions with me, you Soviet
leaders do so at your own peril. By now, you know, as my
government knows, that I do not deal from the bottom of the deck,
and I'm always open to honest dialogue.
To you, my fellow citizens, I say, for the sake of our
country and everyone's grandchildren everywhere, help me now. If
you are one of that majority which still cares about our country,
telephone or write our President tonight. Tell him and the
Congress that there are many, many patriots around this country
who will support a national defense emergency mobilization. Do
that tonight and help to save this nation and the world from
thermonuclear war.
Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
 Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-01070R000201050004-8
Thank you and bless you all.
ANNOUNCER: To contact the President, call the following
number. Call 202-456-7639. Or write: The White House, 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20500.
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: But isn't it worth every
investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear
war?
I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limita-
tions and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with
offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive
policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations
firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our
country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great
talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us
the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and
obsolete.
LAROUCHE [making speech]: The problem is the Soviet
Union is committed to a -- and manifests its commitment as of
April this year -- to reject any of the kinds of negotiations
which the President had indicated were offered and to commit
itself to immediate thermonuclear crisis. The Soviet Union is
preparing to risk thermonuclear war now. And the Soviet Union
will not be deterred by what we can do three to five years from
now. It will only be deterred by what we do now.
The only way to stop war is to increase the risks and
penalties to the point that that bunch of scoundrels who have
only one element of rationality in them, and have proven that,
that bunch of scoundrels is able to calculate risks and penalties
of warfare. It's the only rationality and morality they have.
And I will do whatever is necessary in the short run to
increase those risks and penalties to the point they say, "No
confrontation." And they're not going to negotiate until then.
If anyone told you that the Soviet Union is interested
in negotiating with the United States, they lied to you. The
Soviet Union has had a policy of not negotiating on any substan-
tive questions with the Reagan Administration in power since July
1982.
What happened is the President's address of March 23rd
of this year did two things. It terrified the Soviets because it
implied to them that we had more clout in the United States than
they thought we had. Secondly, this took the mask off their
issue of the so-called Euromissiles. They immediately demonstra-
ted they didn't care about the Euromissiles all along. Who can
Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-01070R000201050004-8
 Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8
blame them? They've got the SS-20s, SS-21s, SS-22s, SS-23s
coming out all over the place. It is not the U.S. planting of
Euromissiles in Europe which has enraged the Soviets. They don't
give a damn abaout it. They just don't care.
We face, actually, a genuine war. They are perfectly
capable of launching war. There are certain rules, there are
certain principles involved, there are certain conditions under
which they won't, certain they will. But we're in the area where
if I were President of the United States at this moment, I would
have to crank this thing up and say, "I may be fighting a war as
of March. I hope I won't be, but I'm going to be prepared."
And when you're dealing with this crowd -- you've got a
military dictatorship in the Soviet Union now. They're rational
in military policy. Therefore I can only deal with them as
realists. I've got to convince them that the United States will
destroy them if they continue in this direction. But if they
want to negotiate, we have a basis for negotiation. Just as
Machiavelli specified the fundamental principle of strategy in
his "Critiques of the Ten Books of Livy."
Give them an out. They've got a very beautiful out.
The President gave it to them, essentially, on March 23rd. They
turned it down. The best offer they'd ever had from the United
States, they turned it down because they wanted war. Okay. They
turned it down because they thought they could win. Okay.
Now we have to get them back to the negotiating table.
How? I didn't push them into this. I tried to stop it. And we
succeeded in influencing the environment to the point that the
President made the offer. The President of the United States
made the offer and they turned it down. When they turned it down
they chose war. And when they chose war, they demonstrated their
moral character. And you cannot assume that their moral char-
acter is other than they demonstrated it to have been when they
chose war.
ANNOUNCER: To support the LaRouche campaign, call for a
national defense emergency mobilization. Call 212-246-1130 or
247-8820.... Or write: The LaRouche Campaign, P.O. Box 2150,
GPO, New York, New York 10116....
Approved For Release 2008/10/22 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000201050004-8