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