Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Medford mail tribune. (Medford, Or.) 1909-1989 | View Entire Issue (May 6, 1956)
GREAT DECISIONS Tope 7 Can the Bomb Be Curbed? THE PROBLEM Disarmament is not a new or revolutionary idea. .The Old Testament prophet Isaiah dreamed of a day when peoples would ". . . beat their swords into plowshears and their spears into pruning hooks . Limitations on armaments, tried for centuries, have been writ ten into numerous peace treaties and debated in dozens of dis armament conferences. This year the control of arma ments seems more difficult and more important than ever before. The mushroom cloud of the atom bomb hangs threateningly over the whole human race. Every year tens of billions of dollars are spent for arms that could be spent for peace. Big and small nations urge disarma ment. Russia and the .U.S., and allies like Britain and France offer their proposals. India and other uncommitted countries suggest compromises. Yet there is no agreement. The arms race continues and weapons become more deadly. Where is the arms race lead ing? Is an all-out nuclear war possible? Could an atomic war destroy civilization? Could any nation "win"? Would disarma ment prevent World War III? What are the chances of agree ment on arms control? Here are the cold facts on modern weapons and the choices the world faces in 1956 . . . arms limits, bans on nuclear weapons, inspection systems. What should or can the U.S. do about dis armament in 1956? Why Disarmament? If World War III breaks out, could it be limited to conven tional weapons . . . the bullets and TNT of World War II (ex cept for the last two months) and the Korean War? Would either side accept de feat by conventional arms . . . before taking up atomic and hydrogen weapons? The experts differ on these questions. Poison gas was successfully outlawed by international agreement. But wouldnn't the prize in the next war be survival itself? One clue is the kind of war the military leaders expect. Are Western armies preparing for an "old fashioned war" or an all-out atomic war? U.S. General Alfred Gruenther, commander of the West's NATO forces in Europe, said in June, 1954, "We visualize the use of atomic bombs in support of our ground trips. We also visualize the use of atomic bombs on targets in en emy territory. (If war) does take place our minds are clear that we must and shall use every weapon in our arsenal." Is this the philosophy behind the streamlined "new look" of the U.S. armed forces . . . small, mobile units around the world, equipped with atomic cannon and other modern weapons . . . backed up by the power of mas sive retaliation from the air? The U.S. Department of De fense recently announced we will use all available weapons even in a small local war. If this is the U.S. military philosophy, how do we stand in terms of manpower and arma ments? How Strong Arc We? Military secrets are the best kept secrets in the world. Even so, there are fairly reliable esti mates of the relative military strength of East and West. In Europe the estimates are that population totals 400,000,- 000 in the NATO countries, 300, 000,000 in the communist bloc; combat divisions for NATO, 50, Communist. 260; reserve divi sions. NATO 50, communist 170 (a Western divisions contains nearly twice as many men, more than twice the vehicles and slightly greater firepower than the communist); combat aircraft, NATO 6.000, communist 20,000. The United States has an addi tional 20.000 planes in reserve, with emphasis on long-range, heavy bombers. Russia seems to be catching up with such bombers. Russian aircraft production of 15,000 planes per year sur passes the U.S. 9,000 per year. Atomic weapons production in the U.S. is estimated at 30.000 for all types of atomic devices, and Russia's at 10,000. Although estimates on atomic stockpiles are "educated guess work," it is fairly certain that both Russia and the U.S. have reached the "saturation point." Each has enough in stock to de stroy the other completely. IS AN ATOM WAR "TOTAL" WAR? The "Blockbusters" of World War II used one or two tons of TNT high explosive to level a city block. The first atomic bomb used in combat was equal to 20,000 tons of TNT and de stroyed everything within a mile radius from "ground zero," the center of the' explosion. The first hydrogen bomb, tested by the U.S. in 1953, was equivalent to 15,000,000 tons of TNT and destroyed everything in a radius of four to five miles. In June, 1955, the U.S. ex ploded an entirely new kind of atomic weapon. It works in three stages. First an atomic bomb triggers a hydrogen bomb, which, in turn, sets off a super atom bomb. The power is esti mated between 20,000,000 and 40,000,000 tons of TNT . . . more than the total power of all bombs ever dropped in history. The experts say there is no limit to how powerful a nuclear weapon can be. The bigger the bomb, the greater effect of radiation. Invisible radioactive particles in the air linger and drift with the winds ... could destroy life in hundreds of thousands of square miles. What does this all mean in terms of "total" war? How many atomic bombs would it take to bring the U.S. to her knees? . . . Or Russia? How close are we to "mutual suicide"? Twenty-five hydrogen bombs, dropped on the 25 largest U.S. cities, would destroy 20 per cent of our pppulation. The same number dropped on Russia's 25 largest cities would destroy 10 per cent of her population. Ten hydrogen bombs dropped on the 10 major U.S. industrial centers would destroy 82 per cent of our total iron capacity, 77 per cent of our coke and 73 per cent of our stel capacity. The same number dropped on Rus sla's centers would destroy 75 per cent of her iron and steel producing capacity. Is There Any Defense? What about our radar net in the Artie? . . Our early warning devices? . . Could the U.S. pre vent any sizable number of en emy atom bombers from reach ing their targets? If less than a dozen bombers could paralyze U.S. war effort, what kind of de fenses do we need? What kind do we have? The chairman of the joint com mittee on atomic energy has said, "At best and this is very op timistic we might intercept as many as one out of every four Soviet bombers" (25 per cent ef fective). The air defense command says 90 per cent effective might not be good enough to guarantee national survival. WHAT ABOUT FUTURE WEAPONS? Bigger and more powerful hydrogen and atomic bombs are not the ultimate, say the scien tists. The important thing is to get an effective bomb to its tar get ... in spite of defenses. One "super weapon" of the fu ture is an atomic weapon that does not depend on airplanes for delivery ... a guided missile directed by remote control . . . an intercontinental rocket that will travel high above the earth and drop on its target a half hour later, without warning a weap on against which there, is no conceivable defense. The U. S. has a guided missile with an admitted range of 200 miles, Russia is known to be testing an 800-mile missile. U.S. Sen. Henry Jackson reported that the Russians may already have a 1,500-mile guided missile. And the missile with a 5,000 mile range is only five years away, according to Dr. Werner von Braun, director of the U.S. guided missile division at Red stone Arsenal, Ala. What effect will this have on Western defenses in Europe? Will 50 or 100 divisions save London, Paris or New York City? And another super weapon al ready on the drawing boards is the "orbiter," a man-made moon revolving around the earth at 1,075 miles altitude, traveling in its own orbit. Guided missiles would be car ried to this platform by space ship and fired at any target on earth with faultless accuracy. The U.S. has announced we will launch a miniature earth satel lite, 21 inches in diameter, dur ing 1957-58. CAN THE WORLD AFFORD ANOTHER GLOBEL WAR? "I now put it to you that the words 'win' or 'lose' no longer apply to contests between na tions which have nuclear power of any magnitude . . . Man will have it in his power in the fu ture to destroy himself and every living thing on this planet . . . Our aim must be to prevent war; the prospect of winning or losing is not a profitable sub ject." British Field Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein, October, 1955. Could Anyone Win? Would another world war probably be a nuclear war? If World War II could be limited to conventional weapons, what would the U. S. (and our allies) have to do to defeat Russia? Would we build larger armies . . . speed up airplane produc tion? Could we afford that? Russia leads in manpower; the West in atomic weapons. Has If you're saving for your family's future IIIIWIIWIIWIIIIMM llll II - y.1" " IP Where you save does make a difference Saving now makes a difference to your family's future. There's a difference where you save, too. Saving in an insured Savings and Loan Association means important advantages. Excellent returns from your money is one advantage. Another is efficient service from men who know how to make your dollars work harder for you. Your money is safe because in insured Associations your savings are protected by sound management and substantial reserves. They are insured up to $10,000 by the FSLIC-an agency of the U. S. Government. These are the reasons why Americans are putting men of their savings account dollars into insured Savings and Loan Aisoaations than anywhere else! FsAYlNBS AND LOAN ( 1 FOUNDATION I Thl lign Identifies us as a member of The Savings and Loan Founda tion Inc., a nationwide organization of insured Savings and Loan, Build ing and Loan and Homestead Associations which sponsors this message in Life, The Saturday Evening Post and U. S. News and World Report Investments Made by the 10th of the Month Earn Dividends at of the 1st FIRST FEDERAL Savings & Loan Assn. of Medford 27 North Holly R. F. Kyle, President m this balance kept peace so far? Might Russia launch a war once she catches up with the West in atomic weapons ... or surpasses in guided missiles? Should the U.S. consider a "surprise" at tack or "preventive" war against Russia before we lose our atomic lead? . Would there be any way to prevent Russian "massive retali ation"? Could either side win? Is the West Prepared? Is there any reason why West ern military strength in Europe in proportion to population is weaker than that of the com munist countries? Is it because the West is not "militaristic" . . . because Western European coun tries do not take the Russian threat seriously . . . because they cannot afford larger armies? What about the six U. S. di visions in Europe . . . are they important for the defense of Europe? Should we keep more or less troops there? Is atomic superiority the only important military advantage the West has? Can we keep this edge? If communist armies attack with conventional weapons, should the West be the first to use atomic weapons? Could we fight any other kind of war in Europe? Is there danger a small "local" war might break out into global war? What about weak Western de fenses in the Middle East, South East Asia and the Far East? Is the West prepared for any kind of war anywhere? Is Arms Control Necessary? In your opion will the arma ment race necessarily, end in war? What are the alternatives? . . . Would some kind of agree ment make war less, likely? Are there other ways to -reduce ten sion and keep peace? . Which should come first . . . arms con trol or reducing tension? IS DISARMENT POSSIBLE? At the beginning of last year, after 10 years of futile discus sions, East and West seemed no closer to agreement on disarmament. Details of the U.S. and Rus- sion proposals in the early part of 1955 follow: The West wanted, as, the first step, to set up a foolprdof in spection system in both the U.S. and Russia, with U.S. teams free to go anywhere in Russia and Russian teams free in the U.S.; second step, reduce armed for ces of the great powers to fixed ceilings as soon as the inspec tion system was operating; third, to ban atomic weapons; and fourth, to enforce the system with an international control authority. Russia wanted, regarding the first step, inspection which would come later following a "freeze',' on all armies at the Jan. 1, 1955 level and destruc tion of all atomic weapons. Regarding reduction of armed forces, Russia proposed an "across the board" cut of one- third in armed forces, followed by a ban on the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons. Concerning the international control authority, Russia wanted the UN Security Council to have the final say on enforcement. Russia has a veto there, as do the U.S., Britain, France and nationalist China. Such a plan, said Western spokesmen, would allow Russia to hamstring dis armament progress any time, simply by the veto. Russia also wanted the inspection teams to have only limited access and to be subject to group control. - A new Russian proposal in eluding several important con cessions was received May lu. 1955 by the UN Disarmament Subcommittee in London. Basic ally, it proposed that inspection teams be limited to big ports, railway junctions, main roads and airports during the' first year with further concessions to be made the second year. The Russians also accepted ceilings proposed by the West on armed forces, accepted part of the Western proposal, on ban nine atomic weapons, and ao cepted the idea of disarmament "in staaes " The West's chief objection to the Russian compromise plan was on inspection and control. The West -wanted an indepen dent control organ, complete freedom of movement for inspec tors, and a control organ not subject to the Russian veto, in the Security Council At The Summit ' President Eisenhower made hi dramatic proposal for "open skies" at the Big Four Summit conference in Geneva in July, 1955. The new plan proposed that the U.S. and Russia trade military blueprints and allow each to take aerial photographs of the other. The Russians did not react im mediately to the president's open skies plan, but promised to study it. In August, the U.S suggested that the proposal could be combined with the Russian plan to station ground inspectors at key points. Disarmament would still proceed in steps or stages. The Russian answer, which came Feb. 1, 1956, as a personal letter from Russian Premier Bul ganin to Eisenhower, said "Open skies would create fear and sus picion instead of mutual trust." New U.S. Policy The "open skies" plan, some said, was a. new U.S. approach to disarmament, putting em phasis on inspection instead of arr s control. ' Harold E. Stassen, the pres ident's special assistant on dis armament, declared the U. S. has reservations about all prev ious plans. It is' impossible,' he : explained, to detect atomic ma terials even if inspectors are allowed to roam over every squ are mile. Atomic, stockpiles can be buried deep in the ground and shielded with lead. The important thing is to watch methods of delivery. . . airports, rail junctions, seaports. Russia seemed to take the same stand. Latest U. S. Proposals Bulganin later proposed a 20 year friendship treaty, which President Eisenhower declined as unnecessary in view of the ob ligations both countries have under the UN Charter. Then, Mar. 1, 1956, the pres ident offered a new concession. If Russia would agree to the open skies plan, along with limited inspection at key points, the U.S. would agree to freezing all nu clear weapons at present levels. The president's letter also agreed to inspection of U.S. over seas bases and to gradual cut backs in "major types of arma ment" such as tanks, jet planes and rockets. WHAT ARE OUR CHOICES? Is agreement on arms control possible? What kind of disarma ment would work? Is it neces sary to cut both arms and man power to keep peace? Which, if either, is more important? Would any arms agreement have any value without mutual inspection? Can we expect Russia to ac cept a freeze on manufacture of atomic weapons when our stock piles are so much larger than theirs? Why are the suspicions of our open skies proposal? Why are we .suspicious of Russian disarmament proposals? Will any kind of agreement work without mutual trust? Can the U.S. and Russia reach a workable compromise- Can they trust each other? Should the U.S. pay the price? Do we want Russian observers inspecting our military installa tions? Can we afford to stop making atomic weapons? If the Russians agree to the President's March 1 proposal, can we be sure that they will also stop making atomic weapons? What effect would arms control . . . and in spection . . . have on our overseas bases? Is there any alternative? Should other steps be taken to reduce tensions between East and West? What are some possi bilities? If not a foolproof plan, then should we be satisfied with a workable plan? If armaments can be cut, what should be done with the money saved? Would a cut in the mil itary budget threaten U.S. pros perity? Should nuclear tests be stopped, or should the be con tinued. . . perhaps under UN sponsorship? Russia and India claim that nuclear tests produce radiation which endangers life everywhere. What is your opinion? YOUR OPINION COUNTS The UN subcommittee on dis armament may meet through 1956 trying to work out an ac ceptable disarmament plan. In this election year, the question of military policy is already a cam paign issue. These are questions the American people , may be called upon to decide. Whatever conclusions you have reached, remember that in a democracy, your opinion counts. The Great Decisions committee will receive letters, or the ballots included in the fact sheets, to be tabulated and the results for warded to the U.S. Department of State and to our congressional representatives. Comments should be addressed to Great Decisions, care Don Hansen, Franklin building, Med ford, chairman of the Great Deci sions committee. The material above if a con densation of the Great Decisions fact sheets prepared for use by discussion group and other interested. Sunday, May 6, 1958 MEDFORD (OREGON) MAIL TRIBUNE TIVT State Emergency Board Authorizes Building Salem U.R) A new build ing in Corvallis consolidating forest products, and forest man agement laboratories" was auth orized Friday by the State Em ergency Board. . Cost of the structure, will be $475,000. Money will come from the forest severance tax. At present the forest products lab is on the Oregon State Col lege campus and the manage ment lab is in Salem. EXAMS SCHEDULED Radio operator examination will be held at Klamath Union High School in Klamath Falls, Saturday. May 19. Dead line Sunday Classified ia at noon Saturday; 10 a.m. Monday for Mnnday; other days 5 JO previous day. REBELS KILL 12 Algiers, Algeria (U.R) Na tionalist rebels killed 12 soldiers, wounded 10 and kidnaped 10 others when they ambushed a French army unit in the Tlem cen mountain of Western Al geria, the French army an nounced Saturday. The army said rebel losses were "high" but gave no other detail. Use Tribune Want Ads Vote For Margaret Von Lubken DELEGATE AT LARGE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION State Vice Chairman ' Republican State Central Committee of Oregon (Paid Political Adv.) ! iteifeSsft uteuTjgftili LlElsOiO RESERVE FRIDAY, MAY 18th! DON'T MISS Hotpoint's "Hawaiian Holiday" COME IN NOW and REGISTER.. if Yrl r -HEH (J(J3U 1956 EUE ctric TO BE GIVEN AWAY At the conclusion of our "HAWAIIAN HOLIDAY" . . . Your choice of Classic White or Any of. Five Cotortones IT'S NEW... Imy COLOR in the beautiful new COLORTONE ELECTRIC RANGES 5 DECORATOR COLORS Coral Pink SunbUrat Yellow Siafoam Blut Meadow Grata Woodland Brown ana Cltuk WhUt. RETAIL PRiCE $39995 City Appliance, Inc. "JACKSON COUNTY'S EXCLUSIVE HOTPOINT DEALER" cooks everything in the book . . . automatically New Super-Matic Calrod for com pletely automatic cooking automatic deep-well cooker automatic overt e Custom Cooker and Server e auto matic french fryer Calrod golden griddle optional now or later. You get all thlt and color, too. 127 North Central Avenue Medford, Ore. - Phone 3-5306 OPEN WED. EVES. TIL 9 137 East Main StrMt Ashland, Or. - Phone 9-5831 jj&tefM Q&tefafi
