own missiles or aircraft before our
bases were hit. We're working on a
system that we hope will give us 20
to 30 minutes' warning, but we can't
expect to have it operating before
1963 or 1964. If then.
Also, we have no means of inter
cepting these missiles once they are
launched. We're working on an "anti
missile missile," but we won't have
the .first ones ready before 1964 or
1985, if then.
Thus our present relative security
fades into growing danger as the
Soviets gradually acquire the means
for their hoped-for, surprise knock
out. After 1962 the danger will have
become acute unless we do some
thing about it in the meanwhile.
We are building ballistic missiles of
our own, to be emplaced in launching
sites both in this country and over
seas. But the Soviets will know ex
actly where these' missile sites are,
just as they already know exactly
where our air bases are. In a free
society, such massive construction
projects cannot be concealed.
Some of these launching sites may
be "hardened" that is, dug in deep
ly and protected by concrete shields.
But it takes about two years to com
plete such a job and although we
have projects for such construction,
here again we see in the next few
years a condition of extreme vulner
ability to sneak attack.
" To be sure of smashing hardened
missile bases, the Soviets will have
to produce "ground bursts" very
close to the surface. Such bursts suck
up vast quantities of matter into the
fireball, producing maximum radio
active fallout over a wide area. If as
many as 200 or 300 such H-explosions
were detonated in the United States,
at least half our population might
well be killed or lastingly damaged
by radiation.
Do-it-yourself fallout shelters (as
suggested by Dave Garroway in the
t
e?tv hl -'- vy- r " sir
Sept. 6 issue of family weekly)
would greatly reduce this loss if
every family had one, but our main
purpose should be to make sure that
no attack ever comes. Even so, such
shelters are a good idea because they
are a great aid to public morale dur
ing periods of crisis. A firm, confident
public' attitude helps to make our de
terrent power effective.
While developing their missile pro
gram, the Soviets also are keeping
up the most powerf ul army and tacti
cal air force in the world, with masses
of trained reserves and huge stock
piles of arms and equipment.
Hitherto, the threat of the Red
Army has been offset by our threat
of "massive retaliation" with A
bombs. and H-bombs delivered by
the planes of the Strategic Air Com
mand. Now many overseas bases of
SAC, and the countries in which they
are located, are "under the gun" of
the Soviet IRBMs.
Our allies are getting jumpy under
this double threat. They take some
comfort from the fact that the So
viets are restrained by the fear of
retaliation from air bases in North
America which the U.S.S.R. cannot
yet attack with missiles. But they are
beginning to wonder how firm our
will to retaliate will be in the future,
when a challenge to Soviet local ag
gression might be replied to by a nu
clear massacre of half our people!
Maybe by the time you've read
this far, you are beginning to wonder,
too. The facts I've presented aren't
pretty. But they indicate what the
U.S.S.R. could do to us and to our
friends.
The other side of the story is what
we can do to them.
That's been the only checkrein on
Soviet aggression since the cold war
began. There's never been a moment
since 1945 that the men in the Krem
lin weren't ready to use force and
terror to accomplish their purposes;
they've been restrained by fear of
'Vm:tJ:-&i t
it rrom
with
the consequences, and nothing else.
They can be restrained in the future
only by our continuing to keep them
afraid of the consequences!
They believe their ballistic mis
siles provide the answer to their
problem how to free themselves
from the restraint of that fear. With
the privilege of striking first, with no
interception possible and no sufficient
warning to enable us to strike back,
with the location of all our air and
missile bases known to them, how
can we dare challenge their power
and invite' the devastation of our
country?
They are confident that when they
have enough missiles to knock out
our striking power at home and
abroad, they will have won the cold
war by default. That confidence
echoes brutally in every statement of
Mr. Khrushchev and his colleagues.
They say to us: Communism has
won. What can you do about it, if
you don't like it?
Well, there is something we can
and will do about it that will be com
pletely effective in keeping the fear
of consequences clamped like an iron
hand on Soviet aggressive designs.
Remember, any surprise attack
with nuclear weapons against a pow
er which also has such weapons
must have for its primary targets
the nuclear . striking forces of the
country being attacked. Otherwise
the attacker is committing both mur
der and suicide,
The answer to the Soviet missile
threat is a very simple one: we
ere going to create and expand our
nuclear striking power in a form
which cannot be destroyed by sur
prise. We are going to have a deter
rent force continuously capable of
wiping out the Soviet Union, so lo
cated and organized that the Kremlin
can never hope to destroy it in any
sneak attack.
Therefore there will be no sneak
Submarines like the new
George. Washington will be
armed with Polaris guided
missiles, shown launched
. l .i :
. - -
lower, dut receniiy
launched from a ship for
first fime. Meanwhile car-rier-based
planes patrol
Sidewinder missiles.
attack because the cold, calculating
minds which direct the affairs of the
U.S.S.R. are not interested in murder
and suicide.
How is this to be done during the
years just ahead, when Soviet missile
power may grow by leaps and
bounds? Can we hope for no defense
and no warning?
That question brings us to another
fact about the ballistic missile:
It is useful only for attacking fixed
targets, like air bases and missile
bases, whose location is precisely
known. Its guidance system has to
be p re-set to a programmed flight
path. Therefore the ballistic missile is
worthless for attack on any moving
targets.
Gen. Thomas S. Power, SAC Com
mander, has already urged that when
the Soviet Union acquires a real
ICBM capability, a proportion of
SAC's big bombers be kept constant
ly in the air, armed and ready to
attack. Planes in flight are moving
targets. They are not vulnerable to
ballistic missiles, with or without
warning. They can strike back in
stantly if a missile attack is made on
their base.
We shall probably have an air
borne alert for some of SAC's planes
within the next year. But this is ex
pensive and it is a great strain on the
air crews as well as the planes if it
has to be kept up indefinitely. How
ever, we do not have to keep it up
indefinitely, because we have another
means of putting nuclear striking
power into moving bases.
We can use the sea for this vital
purpose.
Indeed, we are doing that already.
The Navy's 14 attack aircraft car
riers pack a powerful nuclear punch
in their heavy-strike aircraft, which
can deliver nuclear weapons to any
target within 1,500 miles of the car
rier's deck. We are building more
carriers and improved bombers to
operate from them.
(Continued on page 9)
Family Weekly. October 11. 1959
I :
y