Jim Cooper's Orange County; UCI Peace Studies: A Scholar Speaks Out

Jim Cooper's Orange County is made possible by grants from the Harry and Grace studio foundation providing charitable assistance to deserving organizations in the areas of health education and culture by Disneyland Park celebrating 30 years in Orange County by signal landmark incorporated developer of Southern California real estate and builder of Landmark homes and by Robert Half personnel an account Thames of Orange County providing permanent and temporary accounting financial and ATP personnel. On November 19th and 20th in Geneva President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev will engage in a summit meeting that will be watched by the entire world both U.S. and Soviet experts say that arms and nuclear control will be the central issue. The meeting of special relevance at the University of California campus at Irvine in Orange County where a Global Peace and Conflict Studies program is now in its third year examining the issue. Part of the interdisciplinary program is bringing distinguished scholars to the campus to talk about global conflict and peace. My guest today one of those speakers is a highly decorated

naval officer Admiral Noll Guyler. Now retired former commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific and former director of the National Security Agency. I'm Jim Cooper and I'll ask him about his priority list for survival. That whole Guyler is the first American to a won the Navy Cross for bravery three times is 45 year naval career has covered three wars for 10 of those years. He

was responsible for targeting nuclear weapons on the Soviet Union as part of this nation defense system. As former director of the National Security Agency he had access to more sensitive intelligence information about activity behind the Iron Curtain and other nations than most people in the entire U.S. government. He is now chairman of the deep cut campaign of the American Committee on East-West the court a nonprofit institution seeking reduction in danger of nuclear war. He speaks of the eight false illusions about nuclear weapons and a six part action plan he said needed now to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Well Admiral you had 45 years serving your country and long distinguished career in the Navy. You could've retired something like eight or nine years ago and and relaxed and enjoyed life. You have chosen instead to speak out and to become deeply involved in this in your concern over the threat of nuclear confrontation a nuclear war and you want to tell. Tell us why. Yes because it's the most important issue in the world. And because

particularly we don't have to be in the jam where the way out for us and for the Soviets them to a certain extent the rest of the world is pretty straightforward. What we have to do first is to get rid of illusion. And second to get a deal with the Soviets which will improve the security of both of us. And we know how to do that. You've been brought to the camp of them incidentally I should tell our viewers that Professor Herbert York was going to join us today but was unable to do so because of the recent illness. I understand that you have been speaking at the university on this series. What kind of feeling you get by this interaction talking with ordinary citizens not military people not high government people but ordinary citizens about this problem. What feedback are you getting. I think the feedback that you get is that it's a very sensible thing to reduce the risk of nuclear war. And when somebody can point to reasonable ways to get there from here there's a lot of support and there's a lot of support from some rather surprising people like bomber pilots like.

Tank commanders like many military people who have written to me. Yes submariners. When you've been taught in the University of California on this piece in global studies Global Peace and Conflict Studies program do you think that that kind of programs are profitable and useful to have ordinary citizens talking about such a monumental problem rather than as in the path those have been always left to quote high military or high defense establishment people to talk about. I think of course this ordinary citizens have to be involved. This is a democratic democracy that we have here and this is our common fate we're talking about and the fate of our children and grandchildren and any number of generations we can't leave it to a bunch of wizards in a hole someplace. And yet that's been that been that in this story a lot of our military planning has it not been over the last 20 30 years.

Well there's been not only military but perhaps even more in the civilian scientific circles concerning such things as bomb development. Too much secrecy and too little public consideration public debate the public good discussion about it for example whether or not to go ahead with the H-bomb looked at in retrospect it was a very bad decision to do that looked at in retrospect when we developed the atomic bomb we did the only thing it could put this country at risk. Here we were on an island and seas on both sides of us. World's Strongest Navy the strongest air force nobody could have attacked us. They invited those thing in were you feel any more discussion like we're just talking about public discussion public dialogue on this thing such as they're doing at UCI. They have a very healthy thing. I think it's an absolute necessity. I understand they just don't receive the $100000 grant for a building now for their studies so that looks like a very healthy series of discussions more that will involve not just campus people

but off campus people recognize that the commander of military forces. You had to receive briefings you had to give briefings. If you were to brief our audience on where you think your assessment where you think we are with the. Matter of nuclear war at this time what would be your very short thumbnail briefing of exactly where this planet stands with regard to nuclear confrontation where the Soviets have fifty thousand more as weapons between us we have for you is threatening rhetoric between us. We do all sorts of things which imply a war between us was inevitable. We should not call it off. We. Are you in a situation where our real military requirements to preserve freedom are clear we're the only country that's both free and strong we have a responsibility for freedom. This requires the

ability to hold a sea and air open the ability to hold ground without resort to nuclear weapons. The ability to project and sustain power as we did the other day in the Mediterranean and picking up those pirates. Something I'm very proud of by the way. And as the Soviets would say it was no accident that we had forces there able to do it. Those are real military requirements. Nuclear weapons have nothing to do with them. The whole world is going to be looking at the meeting between President Reagan and Gorbachev from the Soviet Union. The summit meeting in Geneva in November. What about your appraisal of that what things are possible what bright hopes do you have for that meeting. The first thing we ought to do is to quit regarding it as some kind of a gladiatorial contests between our president and the primary goal which offer. To be fought on the field of world opinion or propaganda and they have a very strong common interest in reducing the risk of nuclear

war and getting a handle on the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. If we work on those two common interests we can have a deal. Quick question many people have become vexed and frustrated when they hear statements made like don't expect anything to come out of Geneva and don't expect anything to happen. Don't look for anything significant. What's your reaction when you hear those statements. My reaction is of that kind of thing is precisely wrong we should expect an agreement we should demand an agreement. We should develop the political will which will be reflected I'm convinced in corresponding political will in the Soviet Union to reach an agreement in the interest of both of us and the fifty percent offer from Gorbachev. Is that propaganda is it reality what would you do. One good way to find out. Let's take him up on it and see what happens when the signature is already to be fixed. You speak of six or rather rather eight allusions that people have that dominate the thinking about it let's take a quick look at the eight allusions when you refer to

the first is that the relative numbers of nuclear weapons on each side really matters. You say it doesn't know if you do the targeting of perfectly clear of A. Dozen batter of the outcome of the same number of people get killed over one side as a thousand or 2000 3000 more missiles on the other side. Let's take a look at the second one the second one we have not in fact I just go through them all then we can come back and talk about the second in the technology advances really matter. You say it's an illusion that the third is that weapons location. Whether they're close to the Soviet Union or close to us or whether they're far away location that is an insignificant issue. That civil defense the notion that civil defense will take care of us in the nuclear confrontation. You say it's an illusion that magic bullets and I would certainly include the FBI to teach it defense initiative or Star Wars and that magic bullet or leaders or whatever you want to call it the sixth that there's a vulnerability window that we must catch up with upon that somehow we must rush forward and build more weapons to make up for it is an

illusion or that SS 20s one person to it will either give protection or create risk. It's no illusion and the biggest one you say is that the usable military weapons are and then we can. I'd like to come back to that first one again a relative numbers because we see that so often in the in the magazine that I have here the current U.S. News in the report we have almost weekly reports of how many we have and how many who have really have and so forth about the revolution very quickly. Well if you do a gram necessary business of calculating how many people get killed it turns out it doesn't make any difference whether one side has a couple thousand weapons more or less does make a difference where the cities are targeted that makes a difference for you. Fears of things to blow on the ground. Have follow up problems even makes a difference which way the wind's blowing caring for all of. The numbers don't make any difference. It is now the current wisdom of the government of the administration that magic bullets are important and I give the best example of the SDI the Presidents

preoccupation with moving ahead quickly with SDI of to teach defense initiative that will put some kind of a safety umbrella over incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles. What about that. No prospect whatever of defending populations and no prospect whatever of getting a usable military advantage over the Soviet Union. It's illusion and delusion for a lot of technical reasons which we haven't time to go into. But in one particular way it's extraordinarily dangerous and that is because it him relies on a computer program that would have something between 10 and 100 million lines of software instruction all of which has got to work perfectly the first time and where the time constants are such that no human being can intervene in time and try to work the thing over. So you saying that that is an illusion. Yes I'm afraid it's an illusion according to you. The eighth one that you have and the biggest one you say the biggest illusion of all

is that nuclear weapons are usable weapons. Now is the man who has had access to all kinds of weapons whether they be submarines or aircraft carriers or all kinds of conventional weapons. Why do you say that nuclear weapons cannot be considered to be usable weapons. Well because if you look around a theater of operations like the Pacific that I used to be responsible for and looked at situations which might come up and evaluate the consequence of using nuclear weapons you find up they always recoil terribly on you. Or that for some other reason such as the restraints we put on ourselves against using genocidal weapons that you can't use them and you. Find them useless and Europe if we tried to defend Europe with nuclear weapons a first thing that happened would be we'd kill several tens of millions of Germans over a fraction maybe alliance The second thing would escalate the Russians would come back with more and finally even if neither one of those things happened by we would be the output that was worse off because we've got

the fewer number of far more important targets harbors airfields depos that we have to depend on. So years of getting that we should depend on better. Conventional military weapons the whole the whole series of weapons available to us in a conventional form and not count in the nuclear warheads is that right. That is correct we cannot sensibly fight a nuclear war and neither can the Soviets and they know it as well as we do. Does it worry you if you were a commander and you were unilaterally going on that philosophy whereas you know you were not sure that the whether the Russians were going on that same philosophy of containment just the conventional warfare. Well if I were a commander I would know that we had sequester ative the minimum involved orrible deterrent that we must both keep as we come in the weapons. Which is not perfect we can't earn invent nuclear weapons but it's much better than the situation or in many would have that sort of the back fall if it were ever night I would

know that if the Soviets were to attack me tactically with nuclear weapons they would have to fear a retaliatory retaliatory attack. You you speak about the way out. And I'd like to go there because there is. A very important issue as you noted is probably the central issue of our society of our of our civilization today. Let's take a look at what you call the six things that have to happen for a way out. And again we perhaps could be plead guilty to oversimplification but we have to abbreviate it for the discussion sure the way out. Number one end the angry rhetoric. You say that must happen. Number two and nuclear war doctrines and we can talk a bit about that. Number three improve communications. You know we live in an age we think of as communication but apparently you feel it's very inadequate right now. Number four weapons moratorium and I presume by that you mean in the media at one end just as soon as it can be achieved number five Voicebase extension that coming back to SDI again. And number six deep nuclear cuts let's go back to the very first one

in angry rhetoric because of the so relevant now with us heading right into this electric moment in the history of the course of this planet with this meeting of the summit in November. What about the angry rhetoric and we've heard a lot of it on both sides in the last the last couple of weeks. I think the angry rhetoric is very important the poisons the atmosphere for arms control and it also builds up the frame of mind in which a commander or president of a premier could actually order a nuclear attack. You'd have to think the people he was attacking were some lesson here mom. And he'll have to be terribly scared and have to believe there was no alternative to the terrible thing he was about to do and you don't build up of attitudes overnight and it's very dangerous to continue to build them up. We think of The Hotline and we know there's a red line in the president's White House and we know that there's a hotline in Moscow. And yet you say that we are woefully short on better communication or yes we can.

We could do so much better that's antiquated equipment and very limited in volume the president and the premier ought to be able to talk to each other on television secure that's within a technology well within your intelligence knowledge you know that that exists that that capability show and particularly military staff so to be in practiced communication with each other could have prevented the Korean airliner tragedy for example and what are you doing flying over Kamchatka. We're not playing over cams I don't know who is as well. Where is that Korean live acreage a couple of hours ago that sort of thing would be possible. So you think that if woefully short right now. Yes I mean a gauge of all kinds and all communication scientific educational and trade creatives are very important means of communication and make bonds that that are that that make our We're getting along together. More important that's what you're saying. Yes more important of instead of emphasizing the things that we disagree and disagree about. It angers me as a journalist to know that for example there are 400000 Jews in Russia who can't get out

and that's an issue with that's aside from the nuclear issue. And yet how do we overcome those other things that we dislike about Russia. I think we have to break that linkage I think we have to realize that the nuclear peril which implies our extinction in the Soviet and perhaps the rest of the Northern Hemisphere is overwriting the important and this is very important. If we get a handle on the nuclear peril we will inevitably improve the political situation. So the Russian paranoia which keeps them from releasing the edges of or blackmail them of what will have a much better chance of succeeding succeeding and succeeding in that. You speak about avoiding space extension again that you seem to feel that the very important issue and I get it is the posture of our government to move forward with. The so-called Star Wars program our Strategic Defense Initiative is there at the White House wants to call it. Why are you so concerned about that.

Well I think it's they haven't thought it through in the first place it's not technically feasible to protect populations. Then if we go for some part of it like that anti-satellite capabilities and the Russians matches they will have military satellites on both sides will be in danger of where they are. The needs of military satellites particularly for intelligence and command and control and communications and that's because of the difference between our open society and their close of society. They get intelligence about subscribing to journals on the congressional record. And we have to get from much more mythical to get healthier if we view if we permit satellites to be threatened. It's very much to our disadvantage. It's very much to our advantage to get a deal. As former director of the Central I mean of the National Security Agency which to most Americans is some kind of a mysterious group. And yet it's probably the most sensitive of all our intelligence agencies the information that you became privy to. Are you

concerned that week that the Russians. Could cheat and we would not know about it. Or do we have such sophisticated equipment that they can't get away with cheating in any significant manner. In my judgment they can't get away with cheating to an amount that makes any difference. Now if you say they get away with cheating like that. Sure but what about that makes any difference or technology makes any difference in my judgment where you would find a tough question and that the dilemma it seems in much of this discussion is that if we did agree to a substantial deep cut as you were advocating and the Russians agreed to a deep cut and that we keep our word and we go through with our deep cut but they do not. What would you do. Well you see the proposition that I that seems to be a concern of course of the proposition that I've outlined However it doesn't go into that because it is a continuous process. Under the eyes of American and Soviet inspectors you see these weapons taken apart and demolished.

So the issue doesn't arise. Any time we don't want to do that you just quit. In other words if we could we'd save would reduce by a thousand and we go ahead and reduce our thousand but they haven't done a very that's not the way it works we will say we will reduce We will turn in the thousand weapons a month already to try them and live there we look at it in the soviets look at it then there's no question about why they did it and not because there they are. And as a pragmatist as a top military commander what would you do if they didn't keep their part of the bargain. You just stop keeping your part of the bargain they would not be any worse off you just wouldn't have the agreement. Tell us about you can you can do it on a day to day of a minute to minute basis if you want to. The Soviets didn't show up with bomb number 599 on first wait a little over and you are as I understand it feel a man who feels very strongly about being pragmatic in this and not blindly going into total nuclear disarmament are part of unilateral disarmament no people I'm sure might ask you that question.

No I think that would be the wrong way to go. I think if we must involve the Soviets a move they won't be serious unless they are involved. One of the one of the court that you haven't have made in your comments. I'm going to read because I feel it's very important and I don't feel anyone any part of this argument can disagree with this quote. You say we are the only country in the world that has both freedom and enormous strength. There are strong countries and there are free countries but none of us but none but US had both. We have strong and free. One of the implications of that statement in terms of this discussion that no one implication is that we have a special responsibility for freedom around the world and that doesn't mean that we want to exert Gemini or rule of a particular world but it does mean that we want so far as it's within our power to make the world safe for freedom and to encourage it. And that has an awful lot to do with usable military strength. And it also has to do with our economic strength and our political will. All of these

things together. We are now coming up to disputing as I say the summit meeting we talked about. I'd like to read to you one of the things that the president has stated and I'm quoting the president now who made a speech before Congress in which he's alleging the Russians haven't kept their word. He said the United States government to determine the USSR The violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty the deciding orientation and capability of Krasnoyarsk radar violated the limited test ban treaty and violated the solve two provision and that by having more than one type of ICBM and probably violated the ABM Treaty restriction one concordant testing of Sams or surface to air missile for the president the president making an indictment. The Russians have abrogated their treaty. And how do you react to that. Well all but the first the crosier is great or I think it is not proven the president's advisers have misled him is tough but it will not be in technical violation until it's turned on. My guess

is if they put it there because they couldn't. But the big thing of permafrost. Incidentally they have reciprocated by alleging that our so-called pave paws radar is also in violation of the treaty. More importantly I think this process of public accusation is the wrong way to go. There is a consultative of the security consultative commission which was set up by the salt one for use by a private discussions of work very well. And while the Soviets being the way they are never admit that they have done anything just quietly quit doing it. Incidentally they have mailed us a couple times too and we've had to quit doing what we were doing. What about the current argument that is raging now over whether we should reinterpret the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and proceed with more testing and research on FDI. We right or are we wrong in doing that.

You soon we'll reinterpret that treaty to go ahead with it as soon as we move out of research which has been carefully defined in the Department of Defense for many years as a search for new knowledge and implies laboratory and computational work. Only as soon as we move out of that to prototypes testing and so forth we are in clear violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. No question about it and that I know you are and that is that it's not in our interest to start that kind of an arms race because the Soviets will do what the Germans licensure one time secretary of defense said we were prepared to do in similar circumstances build more offensive weapons into the ventilator something that should be mentioned is that I have heard there was going to be another spate of accusations against the Soviets just two days before Geneva. I've had a lot of poison the atmosphere and I think that's a very dangerous tactic given the political realities of life. What is your realistic appraisal of what might come out of Geneva.

And I would like to see out of Geneva agreement between the president and Gorbachev that they will seriously undertake all of the necessary measures to reduce the risk of Aglaea war and that they will direct their staffs to get busy on it or that's realistic. I don't know what would you like to have the average patriotic concerned American do who is not a nuclear expert but he just did a patriotic American who's concerned about this whole question what would you advise that man or woman to do. Go to a representation of Congress do it individually in person if you can by individual letter if you cannot tell them two things that you expect results in getting a handle on nuclear weapons and that you expect. Security to be enhanced by doing that. A good advice to all of us who care about our country and the whole world because that's what

this question is all about. Thank you very much at. Our times almost up now and I want to thank Admiral Guyler for the comments on the nuclear arms problems and your ideas about solving them. Please join me next week at the same time and I'll examine the conflict over community care homes in Orange County. I'm Jim Cooper. Thanks for being with us. Jim Cooper's Orange County is made possible by grants from the Harry and Grace studio

foundation providing charitable assistance to deserving organizations in the areas of health education and culture by Disneyland Park celebrating 30 years in Orange County by signal landmark incorporated developer of Southern California real estate and builder of Landmark homes and by Robert Half personnel and account tabs of Orange County. Providing permanent and temporary accounting financial and ETP personnel.