thumbnail of Prepare for survival; National defense
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
The Honorable Stuart signing to United States senator from Missouri. This country's major objective should be permanent world peace. Many people referred to today as a time of peace. That is either a mistaken impression or a misleading slogan. Peace is more than the absence of war as it must include also the absence of the threat of war. Certainly no one can honestly believe that there is no threat of war today or even in the foreseeable future. Hence we as a nation must remain strong strong relative to the strength of any possible attacker. We must have and must maintain sufficient overall strength to deter war while we are negotiating for that peace we all so earnestly desire the power of determinants is more than just the power to retaliate. An important but too often overlooked element in deterrence is civil defense. Courage
in a crisis flows more often confidence than from desperation. A well planned civil defense system in a continuous state of readiness would contribute significantly to such confidence. Our most important resource is people and a civil defense system which gave assurance that a substantial number of people would survive the blast the heat and the fallout of a nuclear attack would add greatly to our strategic posture. How can anyone believe that either the weapons for Talia or the civil defense for survival are too expensive when the alternative to such insurance. So clearly either extinction or slavery. The National Association of educational broadcasters presents prepare for survival a radio sounding board for facts and opinions on civil defense.
From folks of great that we can harness that power for the good of mankind. We're back. We fought World War won with World War on number three. This is the fifth in a series of 13 reports on a topic which most of us frankly would rather ignore that topic is civil defense and civil defense is a matter of hiding people from the fiery rain of hydrogen super bombs which will spatter every target in the world of the third world war reached the fighting stage. Our recordings were made separately in the offices of the speakers and are presented here with their consent in edited form as senators Simonton pointed
out a civil defense program including shelters food stockpiles and other passive measures is looked upon by many as essential to America's survival. Civil defense plays a role in national defense and is a significant strategic importance although representative Chet Hollyfield Dr Ralphie Lapp Dr. Oscar Morgan stern and Representative Martha Gryphus who follow agree that civil defense is necessary. Each is critical of the current civil defense situation. Representatives Hollyfield and Griffith have proposed new legislation to strengthen civil defense Dr lap has written numerous articles on the subject and a book in collaboration with Representative Hollyfield Dr. Morgan Stern has also written a book the question of national defense in which he takes issue with America's whole defense program. Here is Representative Hollyfield.
Okapi ability to withstand the effects of a surprise attack to keep from being totally destroyed by the enemy's first strike would be of enormous strategic importance in the years ahead. Finally civil defense preparedness is of great significance with respect to future disarmament discussions. In a sense civil defense may represent the final key to the successful negotiation of a workable disarmament agreement in that it would make the risks inherent in disarmament more acceptable to the extent that civil defense can reduce the effects of a possible enemy attack. It would tend to reduce the advantage of any opposing nation might hope to achieve through secret undetected offensive military forces at the same time each station could develop a substantial degree of protection without creating a threat to the security of any other nation. It would be purely defensive. It thus would seem practical to gear a phased disarmament program to a civil
defense program designed to offset each successive reduction of armaments with added increment of civil defense preparedness. Let me throw a question at you. Now you're asking a question so let me turn around and ask you one supposing. That we were to discover and it's quite be quite easy to do that the Russians have launched a really massive program of shelter construction in the Soviet Union. I was going to add that every six months are every three months or on odd occasions they have mass civil defense drills participated in by the entire country. How would you react if you were responsible officially and it states. Perhaps the enemy that is to say in this case the Russians have no defense no fallout shelter. But we hear that no new house no new apartment house can be build in Russia without
shelters being provided for. Now if that is the case then we are falling behind the other sides in still another area. And it isn't the only one. Unfortunately in which we are falling behind. We must take into consideration a very important fact namely that if only one side starts building shelters then this is a sign for the other that this country is that but that that particular country possibly has a very serious object in mind possibly and the aggressive one. For example if we should learn that the Russians were really suddenly digging in we would rightly be alarmed. We would either have to dig in this fast as they do or worse even we would feel that we would have to do something much more drastic. I hope that neither of these matters will happen that perhaps one can come to an agreement whereby neither
side builds shelters but that would have to be enforced by inspection. And this is one of the difficult matters to get across to the Russians. They do not like inspection and we cannot trust them to stick to promises which if we give them we are bound to keep ourselves. Well I would comment upon that by saying that I feel that any good hard intelligence about a really effective civil defense in the Soviet Union when I mean really effective I mean concrete evidence that they do have shelters for a majority of the population of the population is really indoctrinated in how to survive and that there are food supplies stockpiled for these people. When we have hard evidence of that kind I believe that one would have to take comparable measures in the United States I don't think we'd have any choice because it would leave the hole's balance of sort of strategic strength
in a very odd position Vienna States. My committee went to Russia as a matter of fact they were in Russia on the day that the first Sputnik went into orbit. Unfortunately I remained in my district I think I was out teaching in one of my schools that day. I understand that they came away with the belief that Russia was promoting a shelter system as are some of the other countries of Europe. There is a and extensive civil defense program in Russia. Our committee made a study of this point and issued a report last year on this that civil defense is compulsory and Russia every individual adult individual has to take a certain number of hours course and it and we do have the knowledge that they do have underground shelters now I do not mean that this that they have a complete underground shelter for their
civilian population but they're in a position where this is not as necessary to them as it is do us because their population is disbursed over a much greater geographical area. There are manufacturing industrial facilities are also disbursed very widely they're not concentrated into large cities like Chicago and Detroit they're scattered all over the nation. Back of the Ural Mountains and therefore because of this dispersion there they are not in is vulnerable a position in my opinion as we are to enemy attack. Those were the voices of Representative Chuck Hollyfield chairman of a House committee investigating civil defense nuclear physicist Dr Rafii lap. Professor Oscar Morgenstern representative Martha Griffith and Mr. Hollyfield again discussing the strategic importance of civil defense.
There are a number of things going in the Civil Defense One is it's a technical problem and it attracts people that are that have that that are technically gifted like any other problem. Secondly it so that attracts people who want to prepare the public mind for nuclear war who feel that we we may come to circumstances where we have to strike first and therefore the public has got to be prepared morally and politically for such an inhuman act and secondly not to be afraid of the consequences. If you get into civil defense then it becomes another aspect of the arms race. We build shelters they build shelters. We feel they're going to do something they feel we're going to do something nobody gets more and more nervous and we begin to build factories underground so they don't they don't more missiles to destroy them and we put our cities underground. They build bigger weapons so that. The means of protecting the civil population like the means of protecting the military population call for the greater victims
of Vater weapons of destruction from the other side. And you just add to the spiral not only of expenditure and cost but the spiral of tension hatred and fear. Now we're not going to be able to preserve a free society if this arms race picks up again. We're going to be so full of fears and so nervous after all and when an ICBM can go in 15 15 minutes from one country to the other why you're up against a dreadfully tense problem. The dissenting voice was that of Mr I.F. Stone journalist and publisher of his own independent weekly newsletter an ex foreign correspondent and author of the book The Hidden Story of the Korean War. Dr. Lapp replies to Mr. Stone I believe that this is a position that many people of of conscience and of deep intelligence take. I certainly have a lot of respect for Mr. Stone. I believe you know it's also how I feel about this. And that is that there's more to it than just that and if you're
if you're going to live in an age in which you depend upon peace through mutual terror then I think it makes Onii good sense to do something concrete constructive about giving you some life insurance in case. Why does it care. Now I grant that the decision to launch a big civil defense effort in this country a massive program shelter construction could be interpreted as Ace as a strengthening of the arms race and as a step backward on the road toward some type of peace. On the other hand I think that the argument is is rather specious because I feel that every time you build a new Atlas missile this is a really much more significant thing to the Soviet Union then buildings and shelters. Governor Leo a hoist director of the Office of Civil and defense mobilization for the federal government was asked if an increase in civil defense and shelter
building would be tantamount to an increase in the arms race. Well I would say this that it's a very good supplement to and that it becomes a very strong b trend toward As I mentioned and that's why of course the federal government is urging every citizen to construct a fallout shelter and be able to use it. We need to advocate that our shelters have a dual purpose because if every a citizen gets a shelter I don't think we'll ever have to use it other than for this normal use. Still on Mr Stone's theme of civil defense as an increase in the arms race Gov. Hoyer and representatives Griffiths and Hollyfield were asked if other countries might not interpret a massive civil defense program in America as a sign that we were preparing for war. Well I think they have now recognize that we are preparing to sustain Eisenhower's doctrine and his principle
that's been announced not only in this country but throughout the world. And that is peace with honor and with freedom and with justice. I think he has convinced the people of the world that we we have a desire to live in peace and this civil defense preparedness is a step toward that objective. It might be and there's a group of people who object strenuously to a shelter system on the grounds that it would make a bomb attack more Lackaday. However it is the only chance of survival and I feel that I will finally drop. Therefore I think we owe it to whatever's to come after us to have a shelter system. No I do not see how they could look upon this as a
preparation for a war because it is a defensive measure and if they did look upon it what difference would that make. Certainly the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles is a more antagonistic move on our part than the development of a underground shelter to protect our people from a Russian attack. The Russians would have the control of whether they attacked us and not of course as they do anyway and we should always be alert for an of a surprise attack. Under the present condition of world affairs I do not anticipate an immediate attack upon the part of the Russians any more than I anticipate an attack on our part against them. But in preparation for war you prepare not only to make an offensive drive against your enemy but you also prepared to protect your people and your lines of supply. I am only advocating the common strategy which is obtained in every generation. But it's a different
type of strategy because we're facing a different and more devastating challenge. The Washington DC Operations Research Office of Johns Hopkins University is under contract with the United States Army. Its functions fall under the government security label military tactics are studied and war games are played here on large wall maps with little pins instead of hydrogen bombs. Dr. Ellis a Johnson is the director of this office. In previous programs he's reported on a civil defense public opinion survey which the office made last year. Now he discusses the strategic importance of civil defense. Don't you think so defense self as a part of the return. Abby turns is depends on the very complicated way on how strong arrack attack forces that. Are tact forces themselves to complicated their missiles bombers.
So Marines carry is overseas bases. For us. They do as the president has said and as as I've said and have a terrific We have a terrific capability of destructions with respect to the Soviet Union. However since the weather kind of a country that doesn't attack in surprise. With the intention of annihilating destroying other country the chances are very high that we'll be attacked first. As a Christian I'm our country. This seemed to be the situation that is the most likely. If that is so we have to have very strong attack forces much stronger gun than the Soviet Union need to have in Iraq to attack us and surprise. We have to have enough left and the Soviet Union has to know that we'll have
enough left so that we will do and that damaged them so that the profit will be negligible to all but we also have to look at what it is that time again. It isn't only our attack forces. If they want to conquer our current vet convert the world. And if the United States stands in the way they're perfect they may be perfectly capable of attempting to actually annihilate us so we have to remember that there are brave courageous people who can take it and who can dish it out. They killed some 30 millions of their own citizens for the sake of an agricultural policy in the thirties. Twenty million are Russians or more died. Do you not have to
force them because they were unwilling to go along with the agricultural policy of the time they accepted something are 20 million dead and where I want to. Well if they can if they can accept that kind of damage with respect to the Germans and for the sake of an agricultural policy isn't it possible that we're going to inflict that on ass. And if they're interested in destroying us looks that Hacket it surely must be the American people. That's a basic resource. If they attack the American people then a big fraction in fact most of the casualties may come from. Fall out. Fire and blast about not hotter. You can protect by passive measures against all three of the ways you can do it with a
shelter. You can do it with a shelter that's outside the home but it's unlikely except in rural areas and small towns are in cities which are not primary tieing it's unlikely you can do it with any shelter in the basement are in any building you need to get away from the buildings and you need to have a blast as well as fallout protection. Now this is all technically feasible. All it takes is the determination to do it. The motivation to do it and the expenditure of enough money on the part of each family are by the government. I do not think that the civil defense program can be considered to be a deterrent to rar. Dr Linus Pauling we have a deterrent to war now in the existence of a great nuclear stockpile stockpiles. You know
I am pleased I am happy that the super bomb was developed in 1054 and that the USSR and Great Britain and the United States now possess these super bombs when atomic bombs were first made in 1045 and exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Professor Albert Einstein and other scientists. Now we have to give up water in the world now that these terrible weapons exist. An atomic bomb exploded over Minneapolis would smash that city flat in the way that heroes seem Shima with smashed and kill most of the people in Minneapolis and no one nation can any longer benefit from waar wire would be a catastrophe for every nation and for the world. We must now prepare to settle disputes between nations in a different way in a way that does justice to the nations and the people involved in a way
that depends upon international law and not by war. The atomic bombs are so terrible that wire now has to be given up. Well he was talking about the Hiroshima Nagasaki bombs twenty thousand ton bombs. Hundred thousand person bombs. Not about the super bombs that exist now. Not about the super bombs that exist now. These super bombs are a thousand times more powerful than the atomic bombs that Professor Einstein was talking about. One super bomb could destroy New York and thousands of these weapons exist in the world. If these great weapons haven't been built perhaps we would be now in the middle or at the end of a devastating nuclear war fought with a little Hiroshima Nagasaki bombs. Surely however everybody can see that to the existence of these terrible super bombs. Necessitates that we abandon waar and everyone does see
it. To the leaders of the great nations of the world recognize that the nuclear stockpiles must not be used. President Eisenhower Mr. McMillan and Mr. Christoff have also said that the existence of these stockpiles necessitates that we prevent the outbreak of our IN THE WORLD. They are deterrence deterrence of rar civil defense is not a deterrent. It is not needed that the deterrent exists in the nuclear stockpiles in the south so I think I would feel that a program of expenditure of billions of dollars on shelters would weaken the deterrent effectiveness of the nuclear stockpiles and increase the chance of outbreak of a devastating nuclear war which might destroy civilization no matter how great to the expenditure on Fallout
shelters was finally Representative Hollyfield and Mr. Herbert Creek MN of the Society for the Prevention of World War 3. Summarize respectively the positive and negative strategic aspects of civil defense. Well I would think that any defensive measure is not a step in the arms race as such it is a purely defensive measure and it is not done without offensive plans. It's it's protective rather than destructive and therefore I would say that civil defense would not only not be a an antagonistic move against an enemy but it would probably provide us with the ability to withstand an attack to the extent that it would be a deterrent in the enemy striking us. Well now that's a that's a that's sort of forcing forcing the
question. That's the way I look at it. Everybody is against us and I think that you can place the whole question of the fence in the same category there was a person that I know that wouldn't say of course we must do everything to protect ourselves from an attack on a bus. Again I say that this is beside the point. Every nation today says we are building soley for defense but there is no longer defense. All armaments are keyed for attack so that even the word defense is misleading. And I say that the best defense of the United States of America is a bold political and economic offensive which will. Create in the minds of the people throughout the world that image of America which Jefferson and Lincoln and Washington
maintained for us through the years. I think this is what we have to do. We have to come come to the people throughout the world and say this is American democracy at work both domestically and abroad. We have the brainpower we have the economic resources we have the political skills if we will use them. And this is the way to defense. This is what the people throughout the world are looking for. They are looking for missiles or anti anti missiles. They are looking for peace. Bread and good human relationships among all peoples. I think this is this is the thing that America has to bring to the people and the people want. That. Will cover what.
Prepare for survival
National defense
Producing Organization
WDET (Radio station : Detroit, Mich.)
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
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/500-bn9x4h03).
Episode Description
This program assesses different strategies for preserving national defense.
Other Description
A radio sounding board for facts and opinions on civil defense.
Broadcast Date
Public Affairs
Media type
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Announcer: Logan, Dan
Director: Murdoch, Alan
Guest: Griffiths, Martha W. (Martha Wright), 1912-2003
Guest: Holifield, Chet, 1903-1995
Guest: Symington, Stuart, 1901-1988
Guest: Morgenstern, Oskar, 1902-1977
Guest: Lapp, Ralph E., 1917-2004
Performer: Rowena
Producer: Schick, Richard
Producing Organization: WDET (Radio station : Detroit, Mich.)
Writer: Schick, Richard
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 60-52-5 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:29:30
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Prepare for survival; National defense,” 1960-01-01, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed August 11, 2022,
MLA: “Prepare for survival; National defense.” 1960-01-01. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. August 11, 2022. <>.
APA: Prepare for survival; National defense. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from