thumbnail of Prepare for survival; Where do we go from here?
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
All sin and I GONNA RUN TO ALL THE CINEMA AND gonna run to you. Oh cinema where you gonna run too long on that. The. National Association of educational broadcasters presumes prepare for survival a radio sounding board for facts and opinions. Civil to family run to the rocks rocks won't you hide me run to the sea we'll see won't you hide me run to the stars the stars moan to hide me all day. Lord said sin a man rocks will be a Malkin said sin a man SEAL be a bull and God said cinema and stars will be appalled in the mall on that day any old cinema. While you gone around to the old cinema why you gonna run to cinema when you gonna run too long on it. Did any. Where do we go from here where we as a nation go from here
in civil defense will be determined by political action previously legislative proposals for making civil defense a federal responsibility instead of the joint responsibility of the federal and state governments were discussed. The participants in this program have consented to the editing of their recorded remarks which are presented here in the original subject context United States Senator Steven M. Young of Ohio is a Democrat as are the other congressional participants. Gov. Hoiberg as administrator of the Federal Office of Civil and defense mobilization for the president of the United States will counter the Democrats criticisms with the Republican viewpoint. Reporting Army policy is Colonel Hines and speaking as members of the House Subcommittee on Government Operations. Our representatives Martha Gryphus and its chairman Jeff Hollyfield first here is Senator Young. In the event of a sudden atomic attack the armed forces of our country would take
over immediately. Imagine what would happen when a civilian anything with an armband tries to tell a hard boiled Army Sergeant what to do or interfere with the movement of troops you know what would happen and everyone listening in knows what would happen in the civil war. Which terrible as it was at that time would now be regarded as a limited our brushfire war. Abraham Lincoln took dictatorial powers immediately he suspended the writ of habeas corpus. And civilians were tried by military tribunals in event of a nuclear attack on this country. Surely our armed forces will take over immediately as they should take over. And by the way in Canada and a name they have no civil defense. They have the army attending to defense of civilians
and while maybe some people have not thought of that. Sure voting current is a part of the defense of the United States and it's the most it's a most important part if the defense of our citizens of their lives and what could be more important rather than of course it is the duty of the armed forces. Or the authority to declare martial law in the United States is not vested in the army. The president should proclaim martial law the army will respond in accordance with instructions received concerning the exercise of such a proclamation and any limitations that the president would place on it. I don't think civil defense should depend upon the army under any circumstances for anything. One of the most horrible suggestions ever made in one of the attacks on Washington where the executive department participated that is a
mock attack that President as gave Arthurs that the army was to take over under martial law. We checked up on the Army on this and they are totally unprepared to administer this nation under martial law. Now the president said that the army should administer the nation under martial law. In a mock defense attack afterwards it was sad that this was merely in jest but the army began checking up at south on whether or not it could do this. And they really are totally unprepared to do it. The Army does not desire to take over civil defense because it would interfere with its primary mission. The Army does desire to assist and civil defense as far as possible provided that its military mission comes first. The general the members of the general staff of the army have never so stated that
they do not want civil defense and it would not be up to army officers to say so that is a matter for the Congress to determine. And perhaps back before the the nuclear warheads there was during World War Two there was some sense in civil defense. Due to the magnitude of damage which could be inflicted upon every element of the United States by a massive nuclear attack. Civil defense is everybody's responsibility. Recovery operations would require a total national effort extending down through all echelons of our government and social structure including the family and the individual. In order to best ensure adequate preparation on the part of all government agencies industry business and the population at large it is appropriate that federal civil defense remain the responsibility of a civilian agency at the highest level
of government. In addition since civil defense in its broadest sense includes two inseparable functions. That is the taking of actions related to survival and the overall management of the nation's resources. It is appropriate that a single civilian agency have responsibility for both. Well first of all let's take your first question. Should the military take this over one or two countries have tried that and they've abandoned it because they have found that the military case of an attack is heavily obligated and it has priorities and it has priorities for what DEFENSE OF THE NATION from a military standpoint and retaliation against the enemy. And certainly their resources and their personnel will be committed toward that end. That would mean therefore that the citizens are going to be sitting out here waiting for this priority to be taken
care of before he is to be given any assistance which in my opinion would be wrong. And secondly. It would be extremely wrong to depend on the military to do this because they do not have the capability. Were are the services today that are rendered to people who has them. The local government has them. The State Government has them. The federal civil government has them. You see that they have the personnel they have the resources they know the personnel the capabilities they know the resources therefore they can combat them. They don't have that every day information and certainly they should put that into effect in case of a disaster. And then third you mention with the military takeover our program is so designed that the military would never have to take over.
If you have governments in being. As our program is designed to do and as states are taking action to make sure that they have that capability. Then of course civil government will remain intact after a nuclear war. That's our objective. This is a democracy and we want to keep it as such. And the role of the military if it's ever called into action is to go in and support that civil government support that might in helping him support that government in helping him. But not to take over. That's our objective. And I feel that we have a good opportunity to always sustain that principle in case of a nuclear attack today or tomorrow. But of course we do may use for instance the National Guard
our reserve forces a governor uses them to die for martial law or uses them for disasters such as floods bad fires and things like that. They're well dispersed within the state so our plants today and their inaction is that in case of an attack then the governor has an additional resource within his jurisdiction and personnel to do what to assist him in attaining his mission and in serving people is compulsory participation in civil defense activities. The answer representative Hollyfield and Governor Hoiberg respond. I think that a civil defense effort that would be successful would require the participation of every man woman and child in the United States. I think
that the federal government has the right and yes the obligation to ask every citizen to do its part toward perpetuating our national existence. Therefore I would view with complete economic day the institution of a compulsory civil defense program in the hands of local civil defense authorities but in accord with a national plan integrated with a national plan which would ensure the survival of our people. I still like the Constitution or the United States and I still like democracy in the freedom that we have here where rather than forcing it we say that make the information available and give this information freely to American people. I think they'll take action when they know. Now you see in
Russia they force it. They force it but they have to do that in Russia because people there don't particularly have a desire to live. They don't have that same initiative that we have an America representative Hollyfield next suggests federal action to provide emergency food supplies for post attack America. Today we have food stocks which might feed our entire population for two years in an emergency. But those stocks are unprotected and subject to destruction or contamination in the event of war. In my opinion the federal government should be devoting a great deal of effort to post-attack measures which would enable us to recover from the effects of a possible attack unless we plan for recovery as well as immediate survival. Many millions of our people will be saved from a quick death only to suffer the agony of exposure and gradual starvation. One of the most important things we could do would be to place in
protected storage all of our surplus food stocks our stockpile of critical materials our civil defense medical supplies and certain production resources such as reserve machine tools. I believe it is imperative that we stay put standby legislation on the books today which will enable us to move promptly to restore our economy and maintain the basic framework of government in a post-attack situation. One reason we have been unable to get federal action of the type required is that neither the president nor the Congress as a whole has yet recognized the fundamental strategic importance of civil defense. In recent years we have allowed ourselves to fall behind the Soviet Union in military preparedness largely for budgetary reasons. The present administration has not seen fit to commit sufficient resources to the task of maintaining military power approximating that of the Soviet Union in the critical area of missiles. As a consequence we are now faced with a
serious and prolonged missile gap which increases the importance of civil defense preparedness in the years ahead. Obviously no amount of defensive prep or ration can give us complete protection in this age of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. But increased civil defense preparedness could greatly reduce the impact of a possible attack. It could mean the difference between overwhelming devastation on the one hand and on the other the survival of most of our people and the ultimate rebuilding of our nation. As you know we advocate that every citizen should be able to support himself for a two week period. We urge that he have adequate food for every member of his family for that two week period plus water other essentials. Now that's backed up by. What food we have on the retailer's shelf. What we have in the wholesale house and then we have that great resource in this
country the commodity credit grains which consists of millions of bushels of corn and wheat that also is being is a part of our strategic reserve for the support of people in case of a nuclear attack. And you know some people say well you wouldn't want to eat ground corn or wheat but you know on during the war I ate a chocolate bar and got along real well and in an emergency even ground corn and ground wheat would be rather palatable rather than have nothing. It has been asserted that we have all these stockpiles but we do not have any follow up protection any any shelter for the stuff that's interesting you don't need it. Just say you don't need to keep the grains. The Almighty took care of this grain. And it is not to become radioactive after you do up after your warship thoroughly and you get plane grain. Why then
they're on or are radioactive particles of those in general doesn't get into those cells or into this corner this week. It's a matter of just washing it off of them grinding it up and the civil defense we see where we are. But where do we go from here. Representative Gryphus governor Hoyt Senator young representative Hall of field and Dr. Lamb were each asked if they would make a final statement. I think it would be much more sensible if the federal government at method that this is just as much a part of the defense of this country as the Army of the Navy and the Air Force is and that the federal government pay for it. In the long run on the day that the bombs are detonated everything we have ever spent for defense will be worthless. So if we're really going to defend the people and nobody has ever suggested for instance
that if one of the seaport states were under attack by a foreign power that it was their duty to raise the funds for our Navy and Army and Air Force why I say they're under a duty to raise the funds for a civil defense system. I'd like to and I would say this very quickly. But the federal government is sensitive to the need for sound effective civil defense and we're dedicated to giving that to the American people. I know that governors and mayors and local officials and state officials are similarly dedicated. We however must have people willing to become informed and then willing to take action. Civil defense preparedness is everyone's business. Everyone has a responsibility. This is a coordinated action. In the meantime we must not waste the taxpayers money with
expenditures that is just massive and giving defeated politicians and party hacks. Democrats as well as Republicans. Jobs. So I am against civil defense as it is now operated and I will continue to do my utmost to put an end to it. And there are many senators and many members of the House of Representatives who feel the same way. Well I might say in conclusion that we are spending 50 billion dollars a year in our military defense and often its capability not because we intend to have war but because we want to ensure that there will be no war in other words we feel that if we are strong militarily the enemy will not strike us. If we are weak we know he will strike us because this is the history of the strong over the weak throughout the ages. I would say that if
we spent 20 billion dollars in civil defense and if this was one of the factors which prevented a nation from starting a war against us that the money would have been well spent. I would not advocate spending it by saying that we guarantee it will have to be used any more than I would advocate spending the money we're spending for military purposes on the basis that we absolutely will use it. The main thing is to have peace in this world and I can conceive of civil defense as one of those factors of strength which would prevent an enemy nation from striking us and thereby starting a nuclear war. Oh I believe that the thing that you should do now is to have an executive decision. We certainly got enough studies underway if you put all the paper that's been used to study these various problems it would probably go right to the top of the Washington
Monument. But if you really will come down to the elements of the problem. And what we call price out the thing in terms of what measures you can take how effective they will be how long they will take to price it out. Decide how much you're willing to spend for this and you will put your program together to make it convincing. I believe that the Congress would not throw back such a program. I believe the reason the Congress has not approved any type of large civil defense effort is that it hasn't been persuasively argued. It would look like just another. Pork Barrel job to dish out government funds. But I believe as the thing comes through on the basis of really sound reasoning that the Congress would respond to it and I believe that the people would respond to it and do a really effective job. I think we have to make up our mind about this because I think we've we've really spent quite a bit of money on civil defense. But it's not nearly enough for what you would what you
need if you're going to do something really serious but it's for the money spent on civil defense has been more than adequate to come up with good sound planning and to come up with a minimum. And I think that if you if I try to answer your question. Persuasively. And be candid about it I don't think we're going to do very much in this field not that we couldn't do it but that there doesn't seem to be the inclination on the at the leadership level of government to do it. But if we then come down and say well what can we do. On a practical basis I believe what you have to shoot for century a minimum level of activity in which you do just the elemental things that will give us the best chance of surviving in the event of attack. And that means that you first of all have a really rugged very simple but a rugged information gathering system about the nature of the attack that you have a good radiation monitoring system not a highly sophisticated one that cost a lot of money and will break down in the event it is an act but a very simple one the distribution of somewhat
along the lines its already been done. But even more so of making high school students aware of how to read radiation instruments and having some available at various places. Of providing the homeowner with the a realistic booklet on how to protect himself. Much more realistic than has been given out and I would say that in these days when the television industry is. More or less being battered because it doesn't deal with the things that are constructive. I have a really good suggestion and I am not being very aggressive on this. I believe that it is perfectly possible to put together a half hour television program. With some good. Material in this television program to show just what the core of good self-protection in the event of fallout in the event of nuclear war is. I believe that to be no trouble about this it wouldn't cost a hundred million dollars to do it wouldn't cost a hundred thousand dollars to do. I believe it could be done for less than that. And if you'll be in that half hour
television program out at a good spot on Sunday night or during the weekdays and then did it on educational things and did it throughout all the schools and gave the really elementary rudimentary forms of survival showed what radiation was. I believe this would be a very effective way of indoctrinating the American people into the elements of survival and this would have nothing to do with it if erring with peace movements or anything else would just be giving you a kind of life insurance course in one half hour and I believe it could be made extremely effective. Senator Humphrey is aware of the advances civil defense authorities have made in communications shelter research radiological monitoring maintenance of government in emergency stockpiling in many other areas. But the ability to flash a warning in 30 seconds throughout the country or to report the amount of radiation existing or anticipated in a given locality when protection from fall out does not exist for either the victims of an attack or for civil defense workers afford scant protection against
the deadly effects of a nuclear missile. Likewise air raid shelters civil defense exercises and extensive public information programs on the hazards of nucular warfare as important as they may be will not protect the American people from the effects of a 20 megaton hydrogen bomb nor radiation fallout unless adequate facilities to shelter people rehabilitate communities and restore the economy exist. In other words the finest of long range plans survival projects and blueprints for civil defense without the resources operational capability and facilities to implement them on a moment's notice provide no more than a paper defense against the catastrophic dangers of nuclear warfare. While the senator agrees with the basic concept that civil defense is the joint responsibility of the federal government state governments and local communities. And that the full potential of all three levels of government must be mobilized to withstand the widespread destruction destruction of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless the federal government must bear the primary responsibility for our nonmilitary
defense and demonstrate that it is prepared to discharge it. What is required in urgently required is a complete recasting of four federal policy. A cold calculating reassessment of the inadequacies of our present defenses against nuclear weapons and establishment of a federal program which will provide realistic defenses against them. The cost may be great compared to present expenditures. Senator Humphrey admits but the cost of continued default by the federal government in this vital area of national security could by comparison be of incalculable consequence. Should a nucular strike against this country ever be made. Senator Humphrey's remarks were spoken by his legislative assistant Mr. John Flynn. Senator Stewart Simonton of Missouri and Henry Jackson of Washington are both members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Senators I mean as a former Assistant Secretary for War and Secretary of the Air Force and Senator Jackson is recognized as a spokesman for the Democratic Party on a
military defense at this time we do not have an adequate civil defense that is common knowledge. And this administration should take the steps promptly to obtain that defense. It is clear that many people who are favorable to this administration as for example Governor Rockefeller realized this problem just as well as some of us on the Hill. Well civil defense if it's in the right direction and by that I mean to provide far the ability of people to live if they destroy all of our means of producing food and all of our means of producing materials from our factory then civil defense as meany we cover that area. First most important civil defense is to build up our overall deterrence to general and to limited war and in doing this
job will go a long way in providing for. Real defense and civil defense is a part of that overall effort. This is Franklin D Roosevelt Bertrand Russell and Dr. Linus Pauling will be among those discussing the alternative to civil defense. On the next and final program in this prepare for survival series that will cover with World War. But.
Prepare for survival is a radio sounding board for facts some opinions on civil defense written and produced by Richard chick and directed by Alan Murdock recording editor Ed Reed. Music by Rowena band Logan speaking prepare for survival is recorded by Wayne State University Radio in Detroit for the National Association of educational broadcasters under a grant from the National Educational Television and Radio Center. This is the M radio network.
Series
Prepare for survival
Episode
Where do we go from here?
Producing Organization
WDET (Radio station : Detroit, Mich.)
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/500-fn10t35t
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-fn10t35t).
Description
Episode Description
This program focuses on what civil defense strategies might be taken in the future.
Series Description
A radio sounding board for facts and opinions on civil defense.
Broadcast Date
1960-11-15
Topics
Public Affairs
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:29:25
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Director: Murdoch, Alan
Guest: Griffiths, Martha W. (Martha Wright), 1912-2003
Guest: Young, Stephen M. (Stephen Marvin), 1889-1984
Guest: Holifield, Chet, 1903-1995
Guest: Symington, Stuart, 1901-1988
Guest: Hoegh, Leo A. (Leo Arthur), 1908-
Guest: Jackson, Henry M. (Henry Martin), 1912-1983
Producer: Schick, Richard
Producing Organization: WDET (Radio station : Detroit, Mich.)
Writer: Schick, Richard
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 60-52-12 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:29:23
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Prepare for survival; Where do we go from here?,” 1960-11-15, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed April 25, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-fn10t35t.
MLA: “Prepare for survival; Where do we go from here?.” 1960-11-15. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. April 25, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-fn10t35t>.
APA: Prepare for survival; Where do we go from here?. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-fn10t35t