Tuesday, April 22, 1969

A Debate with
DR. ROLAND HERBST
Associate Director. U.C. Radiation Laboratory,
SENATOR CHARLES H. PERCY
Republican of Illinois

PRESENTATION BY DR. ROLAND HERBST

Robert McNamara addressed a meeting of the United Press Editors and Publishers in 1967 at the Fairmont Hotel. At that time he announced the deployment of the Sentinel Ballistic System.

McNamara talked about planning strategic forces. He described a first strike capability as being the ability of a nation to launch a nuclear attack with the victim nation being virtually unable to retaliate.

He felt that the United States had no real option to choose in this case; that it was not feasible for the United States to have a first-strike position. He went on to say that therefore we could not discuss nuclear superiority in any real sense.

Defensive Role

He then went further, discussing an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system. He rejected the idea that the United States should build an urban defense.

He said that the ABM could defend against Communist China and could defend our military forces. Its function would then prevent China from using nuclear blackmail and would also serve to protect our Minuteman forces against a first strike. It could also defend against an accidental launch which would constitute a relatively light attack.

Not long ago President Nixon made another announcement--and it was very similar to that made by McNamara. There were two minor differences in the two statements.

President Nixon put the Minuteman first and the Chinese aspect later in his announcement and he moved the Sentinel out of the cities.

Both men had the facts of a build-up of Soviet missile forces and Soviet deployment of an ABM.

They are also creating a more sophisticated bomber force.

There was a small cloud on the horizon at the time McNamara spoke--part of this overall Soviet deployment was a very large missile. An inherent problem is that this only supplies one site for an attack.

Soviet Advances

It was hoped that deployment of' such a missile was a mistake for the Soviets. Today? The President had only a little different information than McNamara had a year-and-a-half ago. The Soviets have been testing a multi-head missile. They are also developing a Polaris type missile.

They have tested fractional orbital bombing systems: their only purpose being to cut down warning time. Therefore the President feels that the problem McNamara envisioned 19 months ago is, now, a little more serious. In the meantime we have a slowdown on Chinese missile development. In effect, Mr. Nixon is making it plain to the Soviets that defense of our cities is not so important. It is only a continuation of the same threat.

Potential Threat

McNamara did not say the Soviets could not develop a first-strike capability, but did say 'we won't allow them to.’ What this meant was that we would have what was necessary to prevent it. President Nixon is saying the same thing.

Both administrations have interpreted the data as a potential threat. The change between the two statements is thereby making it less possible that the Soviets might misinterpret the ABM system as being aimed at them.

The question is: do we plan against a potential threat? We do live in a dangerous world. Strategically, we should not deploy forces in ways that cause us to have to take chances. There are several historical examples.

The Soviets deployed missiles in a soft system, whereby one nuclear device could destroy many of their missile sites at once. But both nations changed to a hard strategy in which one missile would be required to destroy one missile.

The Soviets are also now deploying submarine-based missiles. However, this should make them less trigger-happy because we are less apt to attack under these circumstances.

The Soviet large missiles are all bad. For the same price they could have made smaller missiles in greater number and would therefore be less trigger-happy.

In consequence, the President's decision to protect our missiles is a stabilizing force and should be supported. The lack of such a system deprives him of needed power in negotiations and available options. It would be a strategic error to delay this system."

PRESENTATION BY SEN. CHARLES H. PERCY

"0ur nation is now engaged in a great debate. The outcome may decide the fate of millions. The decision to deploy an ABM system is not a decision to be made just on military judgment alone. It involves economies, psychology, politics and public opinion.

Are you certain in your own mind that we should deploy an ABM? Or should we defer such a decision until Soviet-U.S talks can be held? Or, like me, do you feel that this money can be better spent elsewhere?

Hopeful Signs?

The first challenge came one-and-one-half years ago with deployment of a Sentinel System. But the question is, how do we develop an effective accord with the Soviet Union. We face a great risk in some of these talks. There are problems in verifying the missile situation. The Soviets are having problems with China. There are short-range ballistic systems on both sides. This can be weighed against the lack of an accord.

But there are hopeful signs as well as clear signs of problems. We probably have the best chance of an understanding with the Soviets right now. They face economic difficulties and problems on the Sino-Soviet border.

With the rapid build-up of strategic forces, the Russians have no fear of taking an inferior position.

President Nixon has recently added the phrase, 'nuclear sufficiency,' to our vocabulary. The former search for 'superiority' was enough to cause escalation in the arms race.

President Nixon has accomplished a great deal in this regard by moving us away from an ABM to protect our cities.

I cast my vote against the Sentinel system because it is a fraud against the American people.

There Are Better Ways

All who have defended it are now silent. The President 'said the Sentinel was 'unwise.' And not a single voice from those who formerly supported the Sentinel system was raised in criticism of him. I applaud the President for that decision.

But that doesn't stop me from opposing him over deployment of a new modified system. I do this with sadness because one of the great men appointed to the Defense Department in recent years, David Packard/comes from this area and I respect him deeply. But we in the opposition feel that this is an unwise step to take for five reasons: It can only lead to escalation in the arms race. It may actually decrease our national security. There are better ways to insure security at less cost. It will take longstanding commitment of tax dollars. I am more concerned with the threat within this nation than a threat without.

The Senate supported the President when he announced talks on de-escalation of the arms race. And next day he asks for $7 billion to deploy an ABM. 1

In the 1950's the U.S. spent $30 billion bombers. Spain and Greenland remember this decision. That $30 billion would have been better spent on research in other areas for the military. Or possibly, better schools and urban development.

The Last Word

In the 1960's we have spent $20 billion on ABM research and development. New strides on the part of the Soviets in technology and defense have already made this obsolete.

The military said the NIKE-Zeus missile, at a cost of $20 to $40 billion, was the last word. And it was never deployed.

It is the responsibility of the civilians in our society to determine priorities. The Pentagon defense budget is now up to $81 billion. Year after year, Congress has passed defense appropriations. The Congress spent two-and-one-half hours in debate of a $22.5 billion 'supplemental appropriation' for the defense budget.

In 1968 the world spent $200 billion for armaments. Are we then moving in a direction of greater terror?

Destructive Power

The concept of balance of power is predicated on mutual deterrence. Both the Soviet Union and the United States have the capability of destroying on another.

We still have lying under the oceans more destructive power than dropped by all sides in World War II. And this can be launched in some 15 minutes.

I will try to keep the Department of Defense spending tax dollars where they belong. Many scientists feel that the ABM, from a scientific point of view, is a deplorable mistake. It is expected to work in a nuclear environment about which we know nothing.

I would like to suggest that we have a moratorium on the deployment of strategic missiles--defensive and offensive--by the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

We can have an agreement that can be enforced. If we see the true meaning of security, and the Soviets agree, we can do for mankind what should be done. That possibility should be enough to defer deployment of an ABM." (DSR)

Answers to Written Questions from Floor:

Q: Why U.S. ABM system escalatory but Soviet's system is not?

A: (Percy) Soviet's system is.

Q: Previous U.S. defensive systems (DEW Line, SAGE, Nike-Zeus) obsolete before completing?

A: (Herbst) SAGE and DEW Line systems were not obsolete when completed. Nike-Zeus was never deployed.

Q: ABM designed to intercept missiles, on interception fallout will be catastrophic. Shouldn't shelter program be planned first?

A: (Percy) Spartan has range of 200 to 300 miles, will intercept in atmosphere. Sprint has shorter range--might need shelters.

(Herbst) Sprint will not cause fallout.

Q: (Hillary H. Crawford) If Soviets turned 1700 missiles on U.S. what would ABM system do?

A: (Herbst) Significant number of Minutemen would survive.

(Percy) Watched submarine missile system in operation, first missile didn't function, took 55 minutes to get second missile ready.

Q: (Capt. Allen B. Sherman) Russia accept moratorium on development of nuclear weapons?

A: (Percy) Have made considerable progress through past agreements and treaties of making Soviets obey international law. Dropped on-site inspection because sophisticated reconnaissance has been achieved.

Q: (Elmer W. Siler) Isn't our overkill nuclear strength sufficient deterrent?

A: (Herbst) Our judgment of Soviet forces is overkill. Difficult to arrive at these judgments.

Q: (J. McFarland) How counter undue influence of military-industrial complex?

A: (Percy) Defeat request for ABM funds.