The Arms Race: Who Benefits, Who Pays?
- Transcript
thank you must say it i do feel a corridor and my caucus some of a brilliant fighter resource for this afternoon by the last fall before all the wine and cheese earle could miss the smurfs difference between fences the body all how about it's nice to see you and my clock field you know packets i think you get introductions out both of those and that is that the right on your first day you promise to the area's coming cool air is coming the next rome will be cool and the navy is absolutely chilling thank you and thank you very much and i asked a panel discussion covers the topic the arms race who benefits who paints
when we asked this question we can have in mind an economic and a political answer and of course the two are related but i want to choose c in my remarks to emphasize the economic aspects of the question particularly in the united states while the army's budget that we've been talking about in the united states is often cited as being a declining share of the gross national product i still i think we have to continue to accommodate it remains the largest single item in the budget outside of incoming attacks and it is also important thing to remember that our defense budget is estimated to be something like sixty four percent of all the controllable costs in the budget that is to say if you take a full budget of the united states iran eliminate at the federal level all things that big pig they cannot be
eliminated easily like i didn't dress like income make in social security and so on and then you see what can be controlled if you wanted to control it that sixty four percent of those control across europe or the defense budget now this means to me that the defense budget ought to be an important area for cats if the president's going part about inflation rate by reducing levels of government spending is serious and that it ought to be rather than what it has been today so far in the opposite that ought to be a key target for cuts not in terms of who benefits in united states buy the hundred and twenty six billionaires so that's planned to spend the coming year for defense i want to just review some of the major categories here and say who does who does benefit now offer is i think that a most important perhaps the most important gordon part of the approximately of the of the defense
budget is the approximately forty billion dollars spent in the private sector and contracts for research and development and german of major weapons and it's i want myself in terms of a focus for cuts to look at this very huge large chunk of forty billion dollars approximately and it's of course going up each year that's bad for research and development for which compose perhaps sell about twelve million of that and the rest are for particular now while literally thousands and thousands of firms get this money the bottom up contracts go to a relatively few firms envied also are concentrated in a relatively few state so that the defense industry when we look at it is a concentrated industry both in terms of firms in states not california i'm sure many of you know it's just been so far out ahead taking about twenty three percent of law the defense contracts that it's hard for any state to rival it
but others said come after california include many in this area includes new york connecticut massachusetts new jersey pennsylvania as well as texas missouri and washington ice it says the states that get the bulk of the cafe its contracts in the in the private sector not in addition there are states that do not receive large contracts in terms of the total amounts ben blatt there are many such as arizona such as new mexico and others in which the total amount for defense becomes a very high proportion of the income of that state so while we are two ways to look at it yet defense procurement disbursement by state's wine is where it is the bulk of the money ball the other is where does money ball in states in which sherrod though without money becomes a very important part of the whole economic
aspect of spending of that state so who benefits without antagonizing crazy lately capital rather than labor intensive it means i think that for every million dollars of defense spend less and less is used to pay people as opposed to other things so that money for people that that is spent is goes to highly paid scientists engineers and administrators and increasingly fewer and fewer our segment of the defense i will go to production workers and lower paid white collar employees and therefore defense spending it's really not the best use of money it entered any objective that we have as a society is to try to maintain higher employment in fact the opposite it does occur i think that again we should emphasize in terms of who benefits i supposed to
who does not benefit than apart from major german research and development which i emphasize a great deal of the money is spent where for operation and maintenance something in the order of thirty to forty billion dollars now my tissues this is used to for them for our bases rd po their other facilities and they are located all over in every state in a way so as to distribute finds in a politically acceptable way and it's here of course where you have a lot of pork barrel i get it so that everyone will support the defense budget because there's something in the right way a bass locations for everyone however there are many occasions where military facilities are relocated in small community it's in which it may be the one two or three key economic facility of that community so when base closings are announced in such communities you can imagine that that is a very great crisis it created and so far in our legislation we have had no ability to deal with that ahead of time and i only can take action after
crisis occurred and finally in terms of the benefits a substantial amount of the fines in the military budget go for the pensions of military officers intimate an enlisted personnel a much criticism now today in and outside of congress has been directed to this item on the grounds of military pensions are very high compared to their civilian counterparts and many continue to be pain there for military pension even when military personnel returned to active works at work as civilians on the federal payroll and this is at a status that is not permitted other retirees receiving social security benefit payments and so we do have a double standard here by which we continue to pay high tensions with no penalty when you go back into the workforce something that the rest of the population under social security cannot cannot have there is likely to be some congressional action in this area but we do not know how extensive it will be na says i mentioned some of the categories of people and places benefiting from the ever growing military budget let me to discuss something
about the pace of life in this sense general comments but i i wanted direct into the linkage here between what happens in the military sector and what happens in other sectors we now think that the government our government is finance at the federal level primarily by the personal income tax corporation taxes have been going down down and down as a factor in our more federal revenue therefore the light is part of the defense that's now goes to the department of defense so that if we care about how our how are harder money is spent first do we have to look at is the department of defense that's where mangos when we don't find had an examined what happens to our money in the defense sector there are some really disturbing factors first that defense fund's compared almost any other group are contract for under less than competitive conditions because the defense industry is so concentrated it has moved more and more
into a monopolistic industry fewer and fewer firms are there to compete for esoteric major new weapon systems so the normally where as you might have a competitive structure to hold down cost this is not present in the defense very the way it is in most other areas another point here is that defense spending has also more inflationary the other sectors of the of government spending because so much of the private funds go to pay high price personnel who were not productive think we have to constantly remind ourselves of this money is going for nine productive purpose is a highly unfair for a generic activity compared to other activities in the federal sector that we might want to pay for which are productive and which would constantly be feeding for the productive activity it into the marketplace than a paris that's a great doubt that so much money for the spectrum and research department really needed now previous because i've been talking to this point i need not well i sat together again my life in the sense that
we the recession about one sector in my view it is the wind as well as a cure meant that want to be one of the key names for cutbacks in the military budget it is to me that the military research and development center is the thing that feeds the arms race this is a qualitative arms race this is the activity and which of the company's constantly months a few of their own their own a production facilities to get research and about the contracts and yet it is the area that is almost least looked at critically i see it in the congress and in the er in a reverse search arena i recently there was a record series again audible in of atomic scientists on this question and some of you perhaps why take a further look at the more important even than the nice by that i mean i want to stress that that despite the fact that we know that much defense money is wasted in that and that it fuels
inflation a more than other government spending and that did defense spending encourages monopolistic rather than competitive bidding is that is the price that we taxpayers pay in decreasing that a quality of our own everyday life the most of the people here and i think to counseling bring this linkage is what we have to do to make this point we live in urban centers where there's not enough housing and the inflation rate in housing is growing that we ate most people especially older person's i pay more each year for health and the government refuses to do oh what all other industrialized countries have done so five sets out after namely to create a national health care system the most cities over from a huge burden of a party because the welfare yeah it refuses to accept responsibility pay the full cost of welfare most city suffer from crime it the federal government will not out get enough funds to train foot young people to work those who commit most of the st anne finds her mastery and unproven an environmental quality increased research and renewal energy sources eu wahl
inadequate and finally the united states ranks ninth or tenth among industrialized states in economic aid we're willing to provide developing nations in their efforts to remove poverty and disease and so this is part of what we do the price we pay this is what we cannot get because they must be cut in order to fight inflation rather than a gift to cut the key inflationary force which is defense spending i am i going to wind up the focus of stopping the high priced tv and plays redeem us back primarily at home not invest negotiations and i believe the previous because of emphasize that now i believe that first we have to have closer public as well as the russian scrutiny of the military budget ordinarily the hearings and these questions do not command public interest but every church to every student every factory every women's pro every social service who began to demand to be heard by the military armed services committees of the house they would have to listen to us in if they refuse and wheat and other congressional committees to set up and hot hearings to
let the people speak on the military budget that hasn't done in a lot of ad let me as second focus here is that i think the greater citizen scrutiny must be a place of candidates who ran for federal office in terms of their views and knowledge about the fence a national security issues let me just give a small byline of my own experience as a few months ago some of you when i ran for public office i ran for congress and want to make some other merry points we are making here from the platform this afternoon the link between the dangers of the military budget and the needs for domestic programs one line i would share with you and that is that there are many groups to interview candidates for the purpose of assessing their views for endorsement or at least preserving views to the members of the organization so that they will know where the candidates stand on the east side part of the west side of new york city not one who asked the candidate's foreign policy questions that one so here is an opportunity
for many groups to have candidates come before them to answer their views and at the time as to how they stand and the defense budget how they stand an answer security questions and the opportunity is gone i'm sure that other probably the rest of the west side in other parts of the united states in the metropolitan area and maybe have responded better to this area but if they have it and you don't want to say this is one thing we can do is to make candidates ahead of time oh nobody's answered is an opportunity finally we need to do a lot more disciplining of our own activities of getting together and knowing where we're going we like to insist on as we do our lobbying has taken place our priorities that every arms control agreement ought to have an economic savings built into it only one as far as i know has had any sought to agreement as is as important a program an agreement that that might be will have no economic thinking so
part of the problem of who pays and who benefits is to stretch your arms control association so that there is no economic saying that the spending franzen arms control can continue to go on that is something we ought to stop and i hope that we will consider these some of these items in the future analyst and i think you very much it's b they give us that in a time when it was slow analysis question i just want to say that they want so you're not gonna be here for a great the state department russian encounter macho intelligence quickly but so you're the head here for that one may i remind you had a diary tonight we have a big lead at the ladies you're you come by ron dellums early on and that will cause a wild things going on and it should be a year very sick but also very joyful
occasions and burn mike clark i want to say before he spoke that he's been working half time or whether saddam unsworth with cora weiss and his contribution has been enormous so we've got her but the arms race is probably only contributing to our insecurity and so we've heard that the arms race is probably costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs and so we've heard but the arms race is wasting limited resources that could be used for meeting basic human needs and so we've heard that it's not in the best interests of defense workers long term river that's not in the best interests of the poor here or abroad and weaver that is probably
not even in the best interests of the citizens of the various garrison states around the world so my question to myself and to each of you is if it's in nobody's interests get this going and why hasn't the momentum slow if it's in nobody's interest to keep this thing going why haven't the upward trend the gun club a lot it's in nobody's interest to keep this thing going why has been a collapse of its own weight surely it must be in somebody's centers to keep this thing going precisely the planet drop a bomb on hiroshima would call the enola gay to be twenty nine super fortress
manufactured by the boeing corporation well joseph stalin who was meant to be intimidated by the ball is long gone and wild like eisenhower who had second thoughts about the wall is long gone while harry truman who thought the bomb was the greatest thing in history is long on the boeing corporation lives on the boeing corporation in nineteen forty five was present at the creation of the worst destruction ever inflicted upon human beings and the boeing corporation in nineteen seventy eight when the primary contractors for the amex missile system and is the primary contractor for the air force version of a cruise missile and so the boeing corporation which had a role
in our only nuclear war is preparing for the nuclear wars in our future in your future so while administrations have come and go on and while strategic doctrines have been formulating the reformulated and while enemies and allies have switched places in our global political perspective the military industrial complex has remained vital has outlived them all is intact alive and well in nineteen seventy seven the military procurement budget reached an all time high a fifty billion dollars these contracts want to send tens of thousands of contractors in every state in the union of the one hundred top contractors accounted for sixty eight percent of those fifty billion dollars in sales
and the top ten of those top one hundred accounted for thirty percent of those fifty billion dollars in sales those top ten if anyone is reminded our mcdonnell douglas lockheed united technologies boeing general electric rockwell international rahman general dynamics shoes aircraft and northrop many of these contractors are increasingly dependent upon military work with a very economic existence some are becoming increasingly dependent in fact upon arms exports for their continued economic viability one drastic example is mcdonnell douglas based in st lois were placed thirty thousand workers and it's fifty eight cents of each federal dollar which comes into st louis fifty eight cents of each rental dollar becomes into the city of
st louis post natal douglas and last year seventy three percent of their sales were military related and ninety five percent of their profits so the military market is booming contracts continue to increase continues to be among the most profit more than any corporation can undertake now when one goes for the corporate management of the major transnational corporations as we have done at the interface center on corporate responsibility during the last three years one finds the corporate management he's perfectly willing to admit its dependency upon military contracts we find the corporate management is perfectly prepared to admit its involvement in the
manufacture of various weapons both nuclear and conventional what we do not find however is any willingness on the part of those corporations are that management to admit that they have anything to do with the level of military spending which currently exist in this country whether it's the chairman of northrop well the general counsel of textron or half dozen vice presidents of general electric or pr official from bendix it doesn't make any difference the response to these kinds of issues it's always the same is very simple and easily explained one it is the task of the federal government to determine us foreign policy and implement that foreign policy by military means to as the task of us corporations to meet those needs and straight it's inappropriate for those corporations have an independent judgment
about the kind of work which they're being asked to perform that's easily enough it's why and what is not so easily explained are the things that not only go against that fiction but for by multinationals but undermine it make it out alive to this not so easily explained of the tens of millions of dollars worth of lobbying done by those very corporations to ensure continued channel of profits and sales in the military sector last thursday sea are times in the article about president carter's foreign military sales policy that's most important sentence was is trying to balance off criticism at home and abroad with the quote heavy pressure being applied by domestic
garment producers unquote it isn't enough it's lighter they had nothing to do with foreign policy of the creation that policy is not quite so easy to explain the situation which exists between the transfer personnel back and forth back and forth between the part of the fence and the top echelons of management that was not only a perfectly feasible and legal and absolutely true that some people at the top levels of the defense department leave their employment on friday afternoon at five o'clock retire and begin working for boeing for northrop at nine o'clock monday morning it's less easily explained at what that has to do with the sanctions which the corporations like to draw between themselves and the creation of public policy it's also less easily explained one takes a look at their public relations but it's expressed
individually for each corporation or industry wide through various associations that not only to influence congress would create a public climate in this country for continued military contracts when a prime examples occurred late sixties during the debate around the atm system at four newspapers around the country articles appeared saying that eighty four percent of the american people are in favor of an atm system we needed for a vital national defense no one took a look at the list of signatories and co sponsors of the advertisement when found that many were the contractors for the atm system so that's not so easily explained if one wishes to draw distinctions between the creation of public policy and the fact that one nearly fills orders also difficult to understand and to explain it in those terms
a profusion of arms bazaars with mike where referred to earlier both here and abroad which hundreds of manufactures thousands of people are brought together for a few days examine the newest where's the corporate marketplace and finally even more difficult to explain is the fact that sometimes the lobbying and the pressure in the creation of a public climate in the arms bazaars are not enough so that as we look at the last three years the issue of questionable overseas payments we find every dollar industry by industry or one industry which has shown again and again and as a perfect one hundred percent record in terms of bribes and kickbacks over sees as the arms industry and so if in fact it is the role of government to create cross a
liberal corporations to fill orders these things are less easily explained indeed they're impossible which line in perspective of those corporations all of these things go toward one goal is important for us to realize that will lead to challenges at every opportunity we are given it at a private corporations to equate their own economic self interest with the national interest of this country there is no example on record that i know of any multinational corporation ever lobbying or reduction in the military budget or for the abolition political weapon system overhaul on production you know one debate has raged in the congress and the executive branch in the country at large
corporations have found it possible to remain silent another to supply and those troubling debates i want to raise something to you in closing i think it's a very difficult business we're in i think that even those who benefit and profit from the continued arms race realize that it was a dirty business i'm quoting him a flyer that is called defense technology seventy nine an arms bazaar scheduled for chicago's o'hare exposition center in february of nineteen seventy nine on the second page in print almost too small to say the sponsors of the fence seventy nine say this is stressed that the conference is not designed to stimulate
international arms sales but is presented to facilitate discussion an understanding on the broadest possible range of strategic and defense subjects now in somewhat larger print on the first two pages of the leaflet one reads this defense technology seventy nine where can you find thousands of defense buyers in the western third world of defense technology seventy nine o'hare international exposition center chicago illinois usa never before has there been a gathering like this defense policymakers and procurement officers from drought the worst in third world are coming to chicago the big o'hare international exposition center an outstanding facility offering two hundred thousand square feet of exposition space series of more than one hundred seminars on key topics in a national defense the staff was in touch with more than forty thousand of the leading defense decision makers
throughout the west and third world each of these individuals as being personally contacted to ensure the maximum attendance possible at this exciting event defense technology seventy nine has been conceived and executed by the combined efforts of the most experienced professionals in the defense field and then under the heading some space still available it closes every leading farmer defense field will be a part of defense technology seventy nine if your country is involving companies involved in any aspect of defense you cannot afford to miss this opportunity for multinationals to smaller suppliers of components of subsystems defense firms of all sizes and persuasions will be attending the show back now and become a part of the world's most outstanding defense marketing experience i would like to suggest to you that is one of the hopes that we should share in this conference it is that one
day the us supreme court will broaden its understanding of obscenity to include such advertising company and i look forward to working with each and every one of you to hasten that day it's b why yes i love that line i guarded
let's say humans are a bit silly at an art that they can always thought the clintons lived with them for the first time there was worthwhile establish a general idea what the areas off our ego korean couple announced has fleas i are the highest low growth but the main issued made in the front of this assembly off at seven o'clock and i mumble a judge a brother and me have five today upfront than the throngs a bigger idea now because we're song almost the wine season now been discredited over two floors it really does no no where are the very important every room of the battery for the bathrooms in all arrested every room outset they call kitchen bathroom and saw on the ninth floor on the fifteenth floor you're blind wine in season each other ok and some of that is that the six o'clock and let's try to be very hospitable to both are so we had friends and the state department
it's been a part of the pleasure whatever the reason we're here is basically it's been a week
is bereaved those of you with just a man please go into the serving areas to the back so that those behind you will be able to come in to these first areas it's b he's been in the past ladies and gentlemen as if you were coming in the door will fine for serving areas to your left until you're right will you please move down if the line is enforce it is on your right arm moved down to
the far there is serving area so those coming in it's been weeks but it has been that there has been the plan so you're coming in the door please go to the starting line over here to your right before the race once you're right place actually i don't know
i haven't seen this yet there's been as beans beans fb this week has been
ladies is anybody who did not like the feeling of the multitude and it was i know these people there is i want to do is make
more presentation with a couple of words three words at least everybody peace in russian is near right so to peace is vanya ok vania about the price it is the protocol the puppy raisers this song oh it was even like you know you have a couple off was the first secretary of the embassy i thought that that the children and the embassy and watson should have a president that was very american and probably the finest product of vermont now this is called a maple syrup and they'll it won't russian i cannot
translate like i'm back of all this at the conference as an actor or small acts of friendship and friends the intercontinental missiles of another time we would like to present the wallet stolen and your embassy in washington this vermont maple syrup the placenta pay right now the couple of mouth was not to get a thirty there is the liturgy celebration happening whatever you wish to call it in the in the navy at age thirty and as thorough as for the ground rules of the work of the men that we may not be over tell both sides apart now that is something to be a disciplined but let us remember that their way here to discuss the on station now i assume
that many of you like me have many many here questions about a lot of things that go on in the soviet union and i would almost a couple of that you would have serious doubts about many things that go on in the united states but we do want to stay with the issue of the year of the anthrax limited as both a month and then thomas also global force and though it scupper ultimately couple of will go second paul says the public affairs advisor and headed the office of public affairs at the us arms control and disarmament agency he was an officer in a nice states army he was in the state department and from there it is gone to abduct now i see also in his bio that he served as a legislative assistant the senator alan cranston democrat california whats in india and the solace and his national director of the council for a liberal level level and lovable and that dam then we'll hear from a
brawl or sixty seven graduates moscow state entity of the institute of international license he was a that oh my boss at the soviet embassy in cairo egypt for six years we won't ask him what happened at the end of six years and that is that it was a despot the soviet bombers they weren't even an expert on american relations and on the song and i disabled among married an award which i'm a thank you bill thank you thank you all even a year i wish i'd been able to come for much more the program and i had so enjoyable is the i mean although i'm sure that it will still be enjoyable for me i look around i think i'm the only person here who wears a us government had a busy summer in uniform but he's the chaplain said he may be
executed well i can't unite as the representative alan administration which as all of its predecessors have reflects many many viewpoints regarding all the problems we've been discussing today one whose basic objective is one that i think all of a share all we made all define it in different ways and that is strengthening our security in its broadest sense i don't mean the false security based only on growing military might that one based on the principle that no one and secure if you can't have an expectation for a future free from fear of war of privation alison ministrations all the administrations going back to live on in the nuclear age thirty three years ago and formed a
part of this effort sometimes for better sometimes for worse we do think we need a defense and fourteen terms of nuclear war but an endless spending our resources on our minds as so many people i suspect that said today already this is no security increases are a danger and this like really the only in the end the disaster it's what color or be as calling trump's game to go on stage ending the billions and billions of dollars we have in a futile effort to try to provide the kind of security we can only get if we learn how to get rid of our arms but it's been a game it's rather like the man who fell off the top of the empire state building and somebody's standing by an open window thirty storage stories below heard him
going by saying so far so good and it isn't going to be so good and we get a better way to say it for the past two decades or sell successive administrations have sought increasingly through negotiated arms control approaches the chart for the world's growing dependence on hours we had in the early sixties a limited test ban treaty which of course is only going to increase testing of nuclear weapons underground some call it the world's first international clean air act but other than that i didn't really do a great deal to slow down the development of new weapons we had the nonproliferation treaty which is a promise promise not yet delivered upon we had it on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of outer space and off the seabed this administration is engaged in a wide
ranging negotiations both bilateral and multilateral and a variety of arms control efforts for the first time since the early sixties we're working earnestly to try and negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty the talks on mutual and balanced force reductions in piano i just had a fifth birthday i can't say that they have shown a great deal of progress but we are continuing to pursue efforts to reduce the likelihood of conflict in central europe we've had talks with the soviet union on ways of controlling limiting and hopefully eliminate anti satellite warfare are already into that the crime here we're talking about conventional about chemical weapons disarmament were talking about a radiological weapons disarmament we've had some discussions with the soviet union bilateral again i'm limiting our activities are military activities in the indian ocean and just tomorrow we will open up the fourth
round of talks in mexico city trying to find ways that so far only we and the soviet government have been willing to sit down to talk about security enormously costly and disastrous competition in conventional arms sales that has been going on around the world after all involves a weapons that are the ones that are killing people not the nuclear weapons with which are saltwater access strategic arms limitation talks to dylan and that's what i like to spend a few minutes talking about the night as i'm sure you're all where this administration is putting a very high priority on the salt talks we are of course in addition to and many things were doing at the official level we are going around the country are increasingly talking to people in every walk of life from a variety of backgrounds and interests trying to find out what they think about the us soviet competition how to
control or whether this all process that we are engaged in is the right way to go about it some people selling it coming to the american people a salesman that we're coming as listeners as much as as preachers because if arms control experts like every other firm which are engaged does not involve listening to what you all want here during the things that the american people want that were only out there lecturing to say what it is we think is best for you will find that we're not doing anything that's good for any of us well the strategic arms levels and you've been hearing about this today every so often hikes some nine thousand strategic nuclear weapons on our side nearly five thousand on the soviets said aimed at the end it more to have less to any one another the long ago past the
point where we head and as many have had enough targets for all the weapons that we have now bill and yet we keep building up we until quite recently where bill adding something like three nuclear warheads and at our strategic weapons arsenal the soviet union which started late followed our lead into the development of one state after another of these weapons programs the have multiple warheads program's immersive program is one in which they have now started to move very fast so that they were they had only a paltry four thousand strategic nuclear weapons and that united states targets a year ago it's now nearly five thousand and so it goes building up and building incidentally every one of these nuclear weapons is much larger than the thirteenth hole at the atomic bomb that devastated hiroshima nineteen forty five was soll as i said it at the centerpiece of our arms control efforts as you may recall we and the
russians the side of the glass pyramid jersey over eleven years ago in nineteen sixty seven that we really ought to try and find some way to negotiate an end to this enormous build up in arms at that time the levels are much much lower than they are now we got off to a slow start and b because in the summer of nineteen sixty eight just as talks were scheduled to begin in august instead soviet tanks moved into czechoslovakia and for a variety of political reasons it seemed un wives and perhaps impossible on many levels to sit down and start talking about strategic arms control began the salt talks in earnest in november sixty nine by may of nineteen seventy two we had reached agreement at what was call saul one day a tree banning or eliminate a very low levels and eventually resulting in the almost total elimination of anti ballistic missiles at any of these weapons this well is weapons programs if they'd not been
stopped would almost certainly a costco says many billions of dollars not just for the atm stood for office of missiles to try and counter that the atm treaty was accompanied by a an interim agreement on the control of strategic assets in arms the intercontinental ballistic missiles and the submarine launched ballistic missiles that there were aimed at one another did not in fact cover ever strategic bombers over the so called for bass systems the shorter range weapons that the united states and nato forces have in western europe the shorter range nuclear weapons that the soviet union has their aim to target senior fellow not aimed at the united states an interim agreement expired a year ago both sides continued to act is over in effect in nineteen seventy four
president ford and general secretary russia have agreed to vladivostok on the terms or at least the it was an agreement to agree and what we saw two treaty that they were working on wood encompass essentially they said ceilings which were equal numbers on both sides are very very high twenty four hundred weapons systems on each side a system being a launcher a missile silo a submarine launched two or a strategic and a continental bomber and others twenty four hundred thirteen hundred and twenty people a multiple warheads on them there were no other controls agreed to a lot of us thought it was not in fact a treaty but was an agreement to agree with a starting point many people i wasn't in the government then so i rather freely jointly people who loudly claim that this plan of our stock agreement was sir potentially good but it hadn't if the seeds for an expanded qualitative arms race and it was not in itself a guarantee that we had done anything
whatever about really controlling this offensive arms competition but in which shortly after well i thought you were called me it says the nineteen seventy six presidential campaign really got a halting further serious negotiations and salt was largely in limbo when the carter administration took office in march of seventy seven a delegation went to moscow presented to alternative plans to the soviet government one would've taken the vladivostok terms and said let's call this a treaty has fallen a deferral agreement essentially deferring all of the controversial points in which we can get to decide what we're going to do the alternative was a comprehensive proposal which involves such extensive tracts in the weapon systems and in their ability to improve their qualitative capabilities on both sides that set it came as rather a surprise i would guess to the
soviet government and in fairly short order of the us delegation was advised that this is not acceptable well in two months we were able to get back together again and that sector events in foreign minister rodrigo met in geneva and made seventy seven and they're agreed that there should be a framework for assault to treat controlling of sense of arms that would be in three parts it basically us to nineteen eighty five which is several feelings and then we provide for adoptions not very large ones to be sure but a star a real beginning at strategic nuclear disarmament ceilings to be said were surprised they were vladivostok twenty four hundred on each side but to be reduced to twenty to fifty two about by about ten percent in other words a during the life of that treaty there are also some ceilings on the number of weapons that have mercy on them for a lot of their
tidy little boxes in which various categories of weapons would initially be put there are also some shorter term limitations agreed to in principle the protocol which would last some three years which a deal where those weapons systems which is sidecar decided to have it make up its mind about over the longer haul and a third part of the three part package would be a statement of principles to govern sell three because the editor of the salt and without which sought to would be of much less known is the commitment and it to this notion that saul is very much a continuing process insults new we hope that we put the brakes on perhaps bring this to be able to haul in many ways at least and then in successive courses and there's so many course dinner they would start to reduce the levels down bit by bit find new ways to apply qualitative controls so that you don't
just trade at a halt on the numerical buildup for a big expansion on some kind of technological leap forward in another direction which has unhappily characterize so much of the early efforts at strategic arms control they were like i would say i'm happy to report that i'm afraid i've been so many speeches over the last year and a half so i'm happy to report that sell to his now ninety five percent complete that it's a it's not quite no i'm happy it is about ninety five percent complete is an enormously complex technical documents or sixty pages long text now this joint that protection which were operating it's full of all sorts of the intricate detail prohibitions limitations ground rules for verification and so forth which are all intended to make sure that the citizens be an agreement which both sides would see as completely equitable an ambiguous only verifiable and having without the
seeds or a rapid move towards real reductions in salt three and negotiations to follow but it all seems to take so long seen the show so little results after all it's been eleven years since a glass borrow nine years since all negotiations began over six years since all one was signed and we had it with the interim agreement that was of course opposed to be replaced by treaty long before they air or its expiration date in october seventy seven what does it take so long to do this obviously one answer is that arms control the government's unable to say governments like i suspect your government is essentially an unnatural thing to do your words don't readily decide to jump up and limit their own arms are their own options in order to get some limitations on the other side we'd much rather at least we
seem to have had a habit instead say well we know how to build this weapon many other side will build it too but if we get the jump on them are we better off but that was the jumps game i referred to before further as we all now i think there's a deep seeded uneasiness in this country about negotiating with the soviet union first we've had some disenchanted with the idea of a top which i think many people feel was somewhat over so back in the nineteen seventy to seventy three period when president nixon went to moscow and that increasingly began to use his foreign policy successes as a way to bolster up his support in the hall which is rapidly being eroded at his own hand so unhappiness about the target also accompanying that preceding that feeling and it's been going on a long long time has been a just a steady
barrage of propaganda largely from unofficial sources that occasionally even from official sources all and the direction of scaring the american people about soviet intentions and capabilities and downgrading our own strengths our own capabilities iran not only our military strikes essential strikes of america the american economy in american social structure and capabilities the us we have had a widespread around this country and especially a paradox that people are tired of the arms race tired of spending money on nuclear weapons tired of spending money on armaments and when you ask them in polls when you talk to audiences no matter what their inclination education feelings before it became before them everytime seventy seventy five percent of the public will say we want a solitary man and we want it fast and then you say it feel
about a solid remember the russians and they say again seventy percent or more and the opinion polls bear this out time and then again we don't trust the russians so the paradoxes how do you deal with these twin fears how do you say we need an agreement is in our best interest it's in their best interest to anderson the world's best interest to bring this agreement about because only by starting and we began to develop kind of unusual relationships the kind of usual of actually trust that will lead us into better relations across the board and i think we will be able to persuade the american people and the congress if you can't have it both ways that's all it is in their interest to do this and everything that while but then it has it's within it the seeds for something better and furthermore we were not negotiating it because it's based on trust
except for us to look after our own and self interest and the same on the part of the soviet union but saw and sought to like other political acts then is something where there's a shortcoming for everyone everyone has an ideal treaty and no it's going to get it but it's something i believe that a contested matter and those are what help to deter nuclear war yes i think it will kennedy achieved without upsetting exacting an acceptable price i think it can to but i think there are local leaders need to know that that price need not be pay you already reports heard rumors some of the reports hour actor about various efforts being made to see if this or that vote can be bought with the military can be brought in to tap here and there with various programs as a place to see the president said his press conference last thursday that no
we don't have a new nuclear strategy no i never recruited two billion dollars civil defense program know we have not decided to go ahead with the amex are the multiple endpoints system or all these various other gadgets and widgets that are supposed to make so easier for one or two senators to stomach and my brother when they lived in or otherwise find so it's a it's also when completed will be neither as good as it ought to be or anywhere near the bat is so inevitably say it is some critics not waiting to see the final text say that it gives the soviet union great military advantages undermines their lives then cope with the real threats and we shouldn't be dealing with them anyway because of what everyone said their human rights record what they're doing with the cubans in africa one or another of the things that occasionally has been linked in the public's mind to the reasons why we shouldn't be negotiating an arms
control agreement which despite all these other differences really is in our interest to negotiate and there are others who are going to say let's all there's nothing about disarmament and their right is not disarmament is such that it has and the capacity to build towards a real disarmament approach the only rationalize is and ratifies the arms race last week as i think it was the new republic and an article suggesting that sell to as only been a desperate effort to catch up to where dr kissinger left things and nineteen there's seventy four latin lost ark the author of that article and like evans and novak and a few other reporters has not seen the evidence we've not seen the text of the joint be a solid agreement but surely he should've read another about where it's going to see that it is indeed a marked improvement over be quite significant accomplishment that was brought about a
lot of all star well and as i said before there's another group of criticisms that to higher price will be paid but a big civil defense program will go ahead the amex will be pushed multiple endpoints shell game missile deployment systems were beef riverhead the trident missile will be accelerated you about the nuclear war fighting strategy to go along with them i just like to close by recapitulate what i think is so it will do and what it won't do it will prevent further numerical escalation of strategic of heavy weapons it will stop a bill it was darpa actually short of where the united states forces are slightly below where soviet forces are it will require some reductions requiring them to dismantle and destroy some of their weapons it will limit in some respects a qualitative arms race and strategic weapons they will have a very significant element in it that
is a limit on the socalled fraction asian that is the number of warheads it can be put on on heavy missiles when i said there are nine thousand nuclear weapons in the united states it nearly five thousand on the soviet side that is of course by multiplying the warheads that are sitting on a smaller number of missiles well with a very large weapons and the endless ingenuity of a weapon designers there is no reason why the number of warheads could be multiplied many times over but we've reached agreement in principle that will find some way to limit the number of warheads that would go on these weapons has to be a very high number of italy much less than it would have been before they will it will end the preserve some military options it will not require us for the soviets to exercise those options but again as i say these are our decisions rather not exercise these options that have to be made the basis of
other considerations on arms control whether we have the wisdom not exercising is very much a result of what whether we can exercise of political will to restrain ourselves and see that it may be very well in our best interest not to go ahead and some of these possible programs and this is where an element of intrigue of saw the protocol which is to last a short time is really an asset thats been in city overlooks this protocol control such weapons is cruise missiles mobile missiles launching air launched it says in effect think over the implications of going ahead with some of these weapons as enormous political pressure there's enormous pressure from their weapons industry as you heard this afternoon two more ahead with all these weapons just because they can be done
but that's not sufficient justification to larger cells have a long line for an indoor world where suddenly we're have to cope with for example both sides having tens of thousands of ground launched cruise missiles nuclear non nuclear perhaps all over central europe is that in our interest to do to have that just because we have the capability right now we have to think that's true we have this experience of murders back in nineteen sixty nine seventy we learned how to multiply idea healing power of strategic missile many times over by putting your heads on that could go off in different directions after the missile was launched this attack and destroy targets many hundreds of miles apart from one another without that was such a wonderful gimmick tweeted named think for a minute if controlling our appetite for building now they are haunted by the specter of a hit albeit a bizarre scenario where soviet union with its
murder warheads which they went ahead and develop very effectively to could theoretically threatened the survival of our land based missile silos this would never happen if we had instead announced it decided to agree to haul them or phrase before we began and we could do so by agreed to a ban on testing them in the first place like dr kissinger in fact that at a press conference if he thought that we should have if he then thought this isn't seventy four he thought we should have gone ahead with the murder program he said i wish we had thought through the implications more carefully before we went ahead with them are testing program the same can apply a cruise missiles are saying can apply to multiple bases systems for the minuteman or an ex or any other kind of land based missile we might in some other high technology aspire green think because we can do and we should do well there are
other reasons for that sought to his interactions i think saul to promote our non proliferation an object it's not because countries are waiting where to decide whether or not to sign the non proliferation treaty depending on where they're resigned salt to but rather if we sailed to go ahead and include a solitary and i think it will be a signal to the rest of the world that when we tell and that nuclear weapons are bad for them but good for us they will see that the sort of discrimination is no longer bearable and they will be more inclined to go ahead with nuclear weapons programs and her own well solitude will not stop all weapons programs either arthur there's it will not guaranteed a tarp there are political forces behind the military competition that are likely to continue it cannot lose our we cannot resolve our differences you saw or other arms control programs either but i think this sauce you will ensure stability and it will improve
security and it will provide a hope for future design and therefore deserved and we'll get the support of the people and the congress and i think we have to look also at the alternatives if we don't get a silver green and this escalation costs in the billions of dollars in the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars although one of the better off and we were before the nature of the new weapons into becoming a long will be such that they'll be more and more likely to tempt commander's residence to use them in times of crisis where they might've eddie bitar they talked such as it is what could collapse entirely with a decrease in security everywhere likelihood is a set of nuclear proliferation expanding wildly around the world would be greatly increased and less the chances of military conflagration for which there would be no winners will increase enormously so to
pay mai says the hospitality has been offended a is indigenous i've forgotten to this area couple of boys from his press secretary and this is from that day at the un mission and so you this may end as they committed to introduce my local pittsburgh opens a box doesn't even in the inflection and leslie i happen to do some bodies in a sentimental as possible because of the church in riverside church had not voted for this program we never could've had it so happened that the deacons voted unanimously for this program was gerson so i would like to introduce the head of our border because my boss owls
the pen singing go go the peak thank you very much i actually mr holsten and i went to different schools and at the time there was no bus and so my english is not as good as he is and you know for the first oh i would like to thank you very much and the leaders of the riverside church its own program and all present years for inviting me here to speak to i think it's a great honor and a great privilege to speak to the audience
devoted to the noble cause of peace and disarmament i had a chance to talk to someone you just privately an hour ago and it was a great pleasure and i look forward to talk to moore and i just wanted to say before that and my view of this conference is a very significant event and because that is a vivid manifestation of a growing apprehension on the bark of them general public and a modest chase all of their necessity had to bring an end so our arms race and to bring about concrete definite measures to arms control and disarmament when the soviet union and welcomed these broad moment in favor of peace and they were disarmed because we consider disarmament to be the various central issue of ensuring peace ensuring security of all nations
what is our stand on this occasion we are in favor of universal and complete disarmament way consider this task not only a desirable not only version but also feasible we believe that there are necessarily prerequisites and very strong incentive for his sermon for a different countries with different social political structure and i also believe that the general public has a major role to play to promote the easing all international attention to promote disarm for the soviet union for us disarmament is not a slogan and it is not the policy of the moment the struggle for its own disarmament has its history it's continued in its
reasons that is probably a symbolic that we we sometimes overlook very simple facts when we talk about policy about major issues so it just interviewers remind some of those major things which were sometimes you just mentioned it isn't all about the first legislative activist artist it was victory over peace this decree was issued on the second day of our existence back in nineteen seventy eight seventeen and invest to create an episode a garment made an appeal to all nations stalled arms will stall the war that was raging through the world of the time with his band and army is to make peace it is it was symbolic that cecil sixty years later in our new constitution which was about the only year ago
the task of universal incomplete disarmament and his article two hundred and twenty eight was set forth as a major goal practical goal of soviet foreign policy why is it that the soviet union is pushing souls so hard so strong and for peace and verizon there are some very substantial reasons for that for one thing all of the mall's sixty years of our existence approximately a half of that period was taken away by wars and by periods of reconstruction our theories when we ever assume would try to restore the economy and try to make up for losses if we can ever made up for four losses of human beings only during last war which is known to the world of the second world war and which is known to most
of soviet people as great patriotic war because it was the war for survival of my country will last more than twenty twenty million people there were men women children about seventy thousand villages were destroyed and approximately one thousand or seventeen hundred tiles citizen trials were destroyed so when all by firsthand experience what war means especially morton war and so that's why we in the soviet union are determined not to let it happen again just as a matter of reference i would mention that the united states lost about five hundred
thousand servicemen during that treasury days less than the number of people died in the united states ignored accidents during that period together is the slightest idea what that war meant to my country i would recommend to see a new documentary picture made by the american go by an american group for ford for the tv here it is based on documentary taken during those days and it consists of about twenty eight tornadoes in parts as her medication experiencing for some russians and i think it's very interesting for huge just to have a look a cliff fundamental and significant is the fact that and why a country would list our
social political system bezos are at or ideology or reject a war as in the use of settling international disputes so it's this idea but by its nature is oriented towards internal development towards raising living standards alarm people towards satisfying its needs contrary to their situation in some other countries would own have had a political and a social oh glass for an antisocial girl with an inherently inherently interests and military production or and pursue their answers for us well paul also mention that it is also important that in our country we have enough will kind of resources not to drool that other
countries or that so for us the war just doesn't make sense and then acceptance of defense and it will serve no practical purpose what so and so when you are sometimes told that there is a soviet threat to you the united states issued an all that it's simply the lyre which is designed to either to justify a growing military spending or somebody is political or personal ambitions so the summer job when the piece to complete our internal development and tunnel construction way they are not going to attack anyone at the same time and you're the lessons
of the past we cannot afford a unilateral disarmament and this commission the question arises was the united states benefit from disarmament to my mind there is only one answer yes or that the united states would be immensely a benefit immensely gain from to sound both in terms of national security and in terms of economic development i mentioned economic development because it is according to our theory military expenditure is conceded nothing but great burden for any kind of economic system socialist capitalist or solar i believe i hear know they're spending is a
major factor inflation and you know they're better than men i also mentioned national security interests and military experts here both within the administration and will go in and you also in the administration and outside are also dropping knowledge is a ball talk national security and whether one or another agreement will strengthen would strengthen national security of the united states i would just the suggestion that we remember an old days forces the years before the second world war are just to make a very simple comparison before the second world war you have a rather small armed forces at least that time as far as i know we had tens of
times bigger armed forces then you haven't yet at that time there was no talk i leaned on him in terms of prayer of today's language of all the solar threat of all the russians coming what happened then and then the united states they'll draw on japan change the situation in the world in the world after that the united states introduced strategic omar as more institutional mars then intercontinental ballistic missiles then to the lowest its missiles submarines and equip those missiles would've multiple re entry independently target the water into vehicles them introduced four bizarre and a cruise missile and the latest programs are murders to build that destabilizing
so you have now it's been a very great deal safer i think we're all losses to you talk about where you don't feel safer i think that simplistic as it may be this comparison just give us an idea that nobody can win the arms race and nobody would feel safer it continues now we consider this ad disarmament not only urgent undesirable tasked also visible the task that we together with other countries can't cope with it says this is second world war the so if you introduce proposed or may look forward about one hundred proposals amy and
eventually halting arms race at preventing the development of new systems a weapons of mass humiliation of refusing know they're spending and so it is a very great extent and you are a person am proud of it that the world at large began more and more to realize the danger all the arms race and the necessities of stock where it reported their injuries you know all the un special session on the sound took place in this city in early this year and the session the soviet union put forward a comprehensive program or all practical ways to curb the arms race which you can easily cleaned yourself i wouldn't mention it one of those
proposals would do not claim that we have all instant exhaustive answers all questions arising from such a complex problem which got almost out of proportion where reddit worker prep prepared to consider any constructive any sensible proposal and do this and then we believe that the goal of this program which are introduced is advanced reasonable basis for the job to be done where their risk and now what is the status of his pro problems as i said the soviet union as if it is in favor of universal and complete disarmament but i think it is
clear that with alter with all the burden of the past that can't be realized within a fortnight and i think will realize that there should be and there are some measures which can be it taken all your crow from all the court's of discernment we believe that the immediate task for wall the soviet union and the united states he's took on the show though delay agreements on subjects under discussion is the whole sub already mentioned almost all of them so i wouldn't dwell on that the most important of course is assault agreement as we seat assault agreement would not only that stabilize the existing situation an institutional rocket looms far off apparently
not only point qualitative and quantitative restrictions for the first time i knew i wanted it on the most deadly systems deadly weapons both sides have this agreement would also contribute to the broader political relations lesser a simple phrase but i think it's very often here in finance cases over a lot because people tend to talk in terms of numbers in terms of some specific fear is unjust moral the fact that such an agreement which is connected with the most sacred will the states of the garments have a feeling of security i think this agreement on soul who was immensely contributor veteran of political relations between our countries i
think it would create a favorable atmosphere for accomplishment for bringing cases successful conclusion of other talks and discussions on arms control and disarmament the effect of the salt agreement would be an even greater if coupled with another agreement on the idea that big comprehensive test ban treaty which is non negotiated between the soviet union and the united states with participation of the united kingdom unsure what is needed now is a breakthrough which would reverse of the present trend or increasing both in numbers and in quality all the deadly weapons in my view of that accomplishment of salt and in one and maybe see tv and
other agreements were there present a starting point at least in the present situation to reverse these arms race just the start that process again of the german foreign nations trying to reduce the danger war so one thing i would like to mention for a conclusion that is what is their role of general public and this process i think they're all of general public and liberals itself and the political process is increasing especially now and i think general public can generate political will which is sometimes a which sometimes some gone on select and this is this educational and this this is a program isn't intended to
educate people to prepare people to fight for this mara just a chorus of peace and disarmament i would just fly to wish this program and its leaders and all you every success in this noble endeavor it's been the point thank you very much and now we have about the day about fifteen twenty minutes is that four of questions so it's a start a yes their mike's it that said that unlike in the senate bob you there again you ask too many questions
recognize that but we get very short poems our russian friends and we need a bright throw in this is carter read them must come together to reach agreement on the summit a freon general the latest on which both countries have a detail where repair this is her know what you think of that there is the brighter of the two leaders come together house then our russian plan what they have to say that right now nearly seventy nine prize that together one of you like to answer the question why neither carter was the brezhnev turned up with a demo session together now the two of them it to the questions we're all other car so you mean all of
i just didn't work well cause i think i think it is desirable yes but the problem is that will in the narrative complex world which would change just overnight yes as my name is ron freiman from clergy lady concern in chicago i wanted to ask the representative from the soviet union as you know many of us are pressuring the united states government to undertake what's called independent initiatives that his initiatives to de escalate the arms race without the necessity
of the other cited rain to the coast and mutual reduction i'm wondering if you faced the same pressures in the soviet union in any way and also whether or not there are any initiatives you could take independently of the strategic arms limitation treaty without the us responding are there any initiatives you could take independently welcome our collateral actions i think that there is no need for unilateral action suits from both sides it's a recognized that it's right hand to agree on certain things so all i think that it's easier to agree on certain limitations on certain things together that just sitting on the same table and looking in different directions making on your own something which is you don't know maybe it's reciprocated or not
the problem is that those are for four years and thirty years there was no war nato has existed so you never know about twelve gardens are putting a lot of money in it and it looks label both sides are suspicions and which other so i think that the only practical way is to go through agreements which would bloom just incorporate the interests of the security interests of both both sides because the problem is also that the sat beside the analysis and this weekend there are about one hundred and fifty countries in the world so not all not all our problems are concentrated around this the analysis and not all your problems are created when the soviet union
so i think the moon it can get dirty viewed as a possibility and i think in the past we used that good example was just jokes presumably will but i think more practical way is talking to each other and agreeing on certain things which are suitable for both sides isn't something else which is now just visit any domestic pressures in the soviet union now i'm on the government of the soviet union cards so let's let us say towards the escalation of the arms race without waiting for the united states to take such as well i'll tell you first of all i wouldn't talk about pressure because actually the government is in constant patch work with people throw the party apparatus and
it's not kind of independent things it so i was interested also bought the pressure for for unilaterally disarm the problem is that as i mentioned and that i did on purpose that are people of moore well what what is it to be invaded so i bought that at a reasonable person we just prayed for a school or on the go i'm just didn't fall for the garment to ignore some aspects of us baskets of defense because where we're not going to be invaded once again no scan of psychological major problem but that exists and that we are not going to attack
anyone in our latest said that repeatedly i want to talk in terms of internal pressure question to some experts oh my name is our well and i represent the modern virtual dream of energy is at stake i have a question for desperate in a couple of our panel is a recently published book by your basement yet as states that in nineteen fifty seven all in russian military installation near certain mosque in the ukraine there was a nuclear disaster that destroyed approximately a thousand square miles of russian territory and i wonder if you could shed any light on that as to whether this actually happened what we know about it
i haven't heard him on any nuclear disaster in the soviet union and all my in my personal capacity and all very much because you know those things can i do and then for four forty a reasonable period of time it's impossible the house are as stated in the book are very compelling and mr mcginnis claims that everything was hushed up both by the russian authorities and by the american cia for obvious reasons well if you ask me i am just i just said i don't know anything about it and i would suggest i am saying that the eyeballs very modern that happened you know his address
this next question as andre will have to step aside for the coffers value congressman of ignoring it my name is michael corleone from the nine omission is a catholic cornish and society to see on your farm i'd like to ask the storm also the question you talked about henry kissinger's quote that it's too bad that we didn't know about the implications ahead of time on them or and it seems that the efforts of the arms control and disarmament agency against or say in favor of discernment working against technological developments to me is something analogous to plowing a field and when you come to the end the two animals pulling a plow our separate ways the dots and goes one way and the clydesdale goes the other and i'm wondering i guess first of all what would be the the extent of actors influence in arms
control and a salmon also if it doesn't have anything to do with technological control or development is there anything in the government that can put some limitation on this to make it a little bit more realistic for you to come continue in your work first when i say two things one is that a couple of years ago it was enacted a version of law which is not really yeah i think it has the potential for being a great deal about the problem imaginable that is one that requires you evaluate every nuclear weapons program proposed and many other weapons programs as well for their impact on arms control all policies and negotiations this is only been in effect for two years and up it's the program but it's one that involves the whole bureaucracy involved with national security plan in
the pentagon that as a part of the joint chiefs of staff the technological community the part of energy is often involved state department aca national security council is sometimes the cia in these studies which are classified as well as composers like your attitude for the first time many of these weapons programs are getting the kind of searching a valuation that they never had before and potentially a long before that clydesdale adoption get to the end of a far out the material is all air if we have the will to pay attention to it to this topic program to turn them aside some of this and i can you can prove that this is the reason this happen this evaluation process has had this effect has i think for example cause a good deal of second third and fourth
guessing about these various set sometimes bizarre concept for the way in which missiles might be deployed in the future trenches in a certain sense it as i say an infant program but the other aspect is that partly because of this program partly because i think that arms control has matured considerably and washington in terms of its respectability i mean more and more clydesdale is the planet that thinking like the ducks of you know you as their budget we do a lot better yes i am my name is carol korean from lawrence university in appleton wisconsin i like to dress my question to mr hollo i recently found out that your country in nineteen fifty four fifty five proposed an underground inspection of both the ussr and the united states
i was just wondering if this would be politically feasible to day well the minute waltz i'd expect an inspection yes well actually it will colonel matt stark question whether it is possible or not i don't like my question is would at this stage of the game to leave the ussr propose something like this again up or stand on verification problem is rather well long and very clear way is i think both in the united states and the soviet union were placed more than that way beyond our national news a rare occasion when you live that we were going to get any agreement every agreement should have
such it that the system over a petition that should be relevant to the agreement for instance if we had an agreement all sit in the hogan comprehensive test ban treaty poor bashar while i'm more brain that from the negotiation table but as an example would believe that it will be different things if we have for instance a request there is drink all sides inspection for for everything just in concluding that the agreement for two years or asking the same well conclude an agreement for ten years it's kind of different things and do you have to do you have that in mind what level of verification you need or at least not to the little low usually of maximum what technique should be applied wall or who agreed on site inspection
well actually i wouldn't speak for the garment on this particular issue in my personal quest to hire i want to say that we aren't they were all confident are occasional any agreement is that that means on site inspection i think what would do with that but every question been substantiated because sometimes one can use on senate special not for the purposes of verification so it's a complicated problem but i think we are going as much possible so i mean the interests of our partners and at least as far as a normative this subject was negotiated all of that was discussed would you say would you say then that is a matter of trust between the two parties well that's interesting
question because i always hear in and in those days that this alternate for instance is not dazed or some people in political and different terms in different languages they say that we don't trust the russians ah i think that these are also used more diplomatic wording and more correct that the agreement is not based on trust i think that is correct that the agreement is not based on trust in terms that whether you trust or whether you don't you have the ability to verify the agreement yes but to my mind any agreement has a minimum the place that degree of trust because if we don't trust each other at all i think that would make an agreement impossible i think people say here about
trust we're going to trust each other that is to a certain degree and the more agreements were hammered and the more cooperation where will tour trust each other more and more thank you i think they are well also there's the cats that famous show watch and let me say why do horses allies tv questions of them very good show up dances that to bill also will get two questions yes well bob the grass from the coalition for an informal term policy to shore question's first from mr hall stick and in regard to the issue of selling are not selling salt i'd like you to comment on the president's announcements of first his commitment to three percent real growth in the military budget above and beyond inflation second of his announcement his interest in in proceeding with funding for pioneering nerve gas in the next budget the third the supplemental budget request of two point two billion
dollars which includes two hundred to three hundred million dollars for the amex missile and neutron bomb parts those those parts of the year the announcements that have occurred in the last month and that's another slower back then there was a convincing answer on the same time you're afraid to go here a cover of what you hear my answer too the first of the respective a three percent growth in the military but i'm not sure that's a firm and file commitment i don't know the answer but it certainly appears to be a subject of discussion in the white house now as for the other authorization or appropriation requests those are requests from the current offensive not been approved by the office of management and budget they'd not been sent for to the congress here that isn't to say there is not any pressure to do so the president to press congress last thursday
and but pointedly made clear that the supplemental appropriation requests for the amex been tried and have not been approved and he had not acted it denotes a decision made yet there's been a considerable amount of recording in the press of the year suggesting that in fact all these decisions have been made that have not been made except in the form of requests from the department of finance at this point just for mr parker prof powe like to ask you you gave us a short speech on the impacts of military spending in the us economy and i would agree with you i would only ask for the soviet union in terms of relative gnp your expenditures on defense are almost twice that of the of the united states and i ask how what did the soviet people accountants that level of military spending in their country
well the first role and maybe it isn't paul ii but i would like to ask you about the photo calculate all those figures china intervenes in the end well it's the cia's numbers it's frankly it's a problem because the road long distance when we assess proposed for for all states permanent members of the united nation security council to cut their military spending by ten percent for dan to build their words liberated the fried monaco them the money available that toe toe awful for the health for the jail for other countries but i'm actually where we thought that it was a good proposal and there was not on our development on it because your experts
say that before we caught aware job will define what we're going to top holiday spending is sort of structure and so on and her award receives usually the numbers of vividness bigger izzo in defense spending or the soviet union here is reconstructed image in such a sophisticated way you can just find their hands of it so you know i wouldn't comment on that because the world frankly out i know that i mean there are some official figures but you're mostly i think of bass your question on not on the official figures put on some reconstruction according to your own prices here which are not always loyal so so i bought this feeling of the soviet people
well frankly i'll tell you our people don't want to spend money for military purposes because been all that that spending wooden bring them more meat more more more clothing but as i said there is a strong unity or wrong thing but in the garment and the people large and also i will say that as a private citizen i'll tell you that i am sure that we're rutten is to most of that money in our span for for for an improper way for defense and as i told you it would have a very bad experience in the past so that problem i think don't exist there is a strong unity between people and garment and i think that there are there is more pressure on the settlement with the general a few years but what it
does to the same feeling within the garment i think mr brisson of all just course many times so because he has two of gopro some military spending and know that we need that money for the development of siberia four for a formal internal construction so of course it's kind of pressure internal pressure for for our internal development yes there is but where after a protocol when this way we're not going to do you just or if there's just not real world well here for instance you were developing new missile your intercontinental ballistic missile you are constructing new submarine you are constructing the annual c launched ballistic missile this it's kind of
puzzling because the way i'll tell you in the soviet union people usually think all americans are as very practical people and usually they think that for instance if you would have one hundred troubles you made it would spend it better than the russians that's the general idea but then the same time when we see that a lot of money to spend on those things you can begin to get some ideas what for so many years we're maybe very practical well we have a lot of outsourcing you know the definition of a quote might export one doesnt care worries going as long as he perceives competently i love our last the last person in iran
member of riverside church or ipad education administrative problem in iraq and the other troubled countries dj at one time in india and you know it isn't it wasn't that now has the authority do i want to speak out to be hours soviet friend and has had to ask him since i worked you said did not seem credible to me and i passed what to say yet it said that seventy percent of the american people distrust the russians i don't believe you can think what you said that night was baloney is this set us thinking also in russia about the american people and if so don't we need to get some means of developing trust before getting asylum to just before mythical prof answers that i want especially if i may so they can catch yourself have liked the
peace corps now the question is are you heard that he said what you said sounded far we also heard with tom said that seventy percent of americans don't trust you that you are people so you know trust us is that about the race and if so we need some means of developing trust before we can do anything about this element we need to develop and for us welcome while the trust already touched upon this very sensitive subject in well i wouldn't speak for all so that people but i think it's my personal observations please take it as it is
i think that we believe that americans more than americans believe the us frankly i mean it's an approach and it's day one shown in in the negotiating process for instance it's a it's also because we have a war on political system when everything is organized moralists will hold more on reason so are usually won our leader so it's something we don't have any slight is thought that it would be this word will be capped but sometimes we hear leaders from other countries say something and then they argue the corrected or made to withdraw their statements so i mean we have a more stable
political process to my mind and we usually one of it say something we believe in it and when we are called something we usually believe toll because when we receive from our our position proceed from are feeling we believe that they were the american they are given the american representative says that the united states is going to complete you know make it a treaty for instance a certain trade it for a period of five years so this decision was well thought and it's a moral as definite but later just do it in a few weeks the american delegates what would come and say no we're not going to make it for four years let's make it for three or less that's kind of sometimes perplexing but we want out i'm trapped and trying to point out is
that we usually take more trust in words our partners because boy it in the same way approach our own leaders and our own promises if isis why now we can get more mutual trust between the people in the usa and the soviet union how to build trust well we believe that it will be too long process still have to build trust first and then come to disarm and i think they're both both process don't include each other and moreover they are very much connected venice and tangles solo on i think that we can start and proceed with negotiations and make agreements and trust each other more
the pay to pay and his book says we don't trust the residents
- Producing Organization
- WRVR (Radio station: New York, N.Y.)
- Contributing Organization
- The Riverside Church (New York, New York)
- AAPB ID
- cpb-aacip-528-k649p2xf83
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip-528-k649p2xf83).
- Description
- Program Description
- A panel discussion about "The Arms Race: Who Benefits, Who Pays"; arms disarmament. Discussions about arms disarmament program and the US arms budget. Names mentioned: Thomas Halstead, Ben Spock, Al Wilson, [Kapralo], Betty Law, Mr Smith, and Earl.
- Description
- Recorded at A Hall
- Asset type
- Program
- Genres
- Event Coverage
- Subjects
- United States--Armed Forces--Appropriations and expenditures; Arms Control
- Media type
- Sound
- Duration
- 02:12:22.104
- Credits
-
-
Producing Organization: WRVR (Radio station: New York, N.Y.)
Speaker: Spock, Benjamin, 1903--1998
Speaker: Halstead, Thomas
Speaker: Wilson, Al
Speaker: Law, Betty
- AAPB Contributor Holdings
-
The Riverside Church
Identifier: cpb-aacip-53ffb249219 (Filename)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Generation: Master
Duration: 02:12:22
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
- Citations
- Chicago: “The Arms Race: Who Benefits, Who Pays?,” The Riverside Church , American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed October 31, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-528-k649p2xf83.
- MLA: “The Arms Race: Who Benefits, Who Pays?.” The Riverside Church , American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. October 31, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-528-k649p2xf83>.
- APA: The Arms Race: Who Benefits, Who Pays?. Boston, MA: The Riverside Church , American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-528-k649p2xf83