ergy Commission. My expectation is that this Committee would be composed of outstanding citizens such as those who have been active in public service, in disarmament negotiations, who have seen long service in one of the military services, who have particular scientific or technological qualifications, and who have other backgrounds which peculiarly suit them to provide experienced counsel to the Director. Finally, I wish to discuss briefly the procedures contemplated in the bill for consultation between the Director and the Secretary of Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission and other interested agencies. Section 37 provides for the establishment of procedures, subject to the approval of the President, for coordination, cooperation, and a continuing exchange of information between the various agencies interested in disarmament activities. The bill would permit the use of the existing organs of consultation, the Committee of Principals and the National Security Council. It would also permit the President to utilize other procedures which he might designate. In conclusion, let me stress, as I did in my letter forwarding the bill to the President, that organization, machinery, and competent people alone cannot guarantee the success of the mission of our country to prevent war, curb the arms race, and create lasting conditions of peace. But with your aid and help they can assure that our best effort is directed toward these ends. Senator HUMPHREY. We will now adjourn until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. on the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Present: Senators Humphrey (presiding), Sparkman, and Syming ton. Senator HUMPHREY. The committee will please come to order. STATEMENTS OF ROSWELL L. GILPATRIC, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF Senator HUMPHREY. We welcome the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gilpatric. Would you like to proceed with your statement? Mr. GILPATRIC. I think, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will read the statement because it is a short one and then I will respond to questions. My appearance here on behalf of the Defense Department is in support of legislation creating a U.S. Disarmament Agency. ENHANCING THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES The primary function of the Defense Department is, as you all know, to contribute to the security of the United States to the extent that this can be done through military forces. Not every increase in security, however, stems from an increase in military power. For one thing, the security of the United States may be enhanced by actions and arrangements having no military aspect such as, for example, foreign economic aid. Secondly, the security of the United States may be enhanced by arrangements which involve reductions in arms; indeed, the security of both sides may be increased if both sides reduce forces and weapons in a carefully balanced, controlled, and verified way. Thirdly, our security may be enhanced by arrangements which neither increase nor decrease our actual strength, but which insure that our might and our intentions are not misunderstood. With respect to this last point, it should be clear that the kinds of weapons we employ, the way we deploy them, the manner in which we handle them all of these things should be tailored not only to fight a war successfully but also to prevent a war by conveying a message of firmness rather than of provocation. I am not saying that these methods of enhancing the security of the United States are new ones. Nations have considered them throughout recorded history. But I am suggesting that insufficient attention may have been paid to the latter two-relating to disarmament and arms control-and that there is a special need now to rectify the situation. INCREASING ATTENTION PAID BY DEFENSE DEPARTMENT TO ARMS CONTROL MEASURES Since World War II, weapons have been produced with which each side can annihilate the other. The concept of "winning" a total war, which may have been valid in the case of World Wars I and II, is now subject to rigorous questioning. In a very real sense, indeed, everyone in the world today is a hostage. The amount of damage which can be done by a premediated war, or by one started because of a lapse in judgment or a miscalculation, has grown to very great proportions. For this reason, the U.S. Defense Establishment has over the past 15 years paid increasing attention to arms control measures. Almost immediately after World War II, we joined in efforts to establish an international military force under the United Nations Charter. Had we and other nations been successful in that endeavor, the arms race of today might not be taking place. More recently, the Defense Department has pursued four different, but related courses looking toward meaningful disarmament and arms control. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT'S SUPPORTING ROLE IN DISARMAMENT CONFERENCES First, we have played a supporting role in formal conferences relating to disarmament. In 1958, Defense Department representatives participated in the conference of experts convened to study the possibility of detecting violations of a test agreement. In that same year, members of the Defense Department were utilized in the Geneva surprise attack conference in which the United States, the Soviet Union, and eight other states participated. More recently, representatives from Defense assisted Mr. Dean in the test ban negotiations in Geneva, and in June and July of this year representatives of the Department provided support for Mr. McCloy in the bilateral discussions with the Soviet Union aimed at setting a framework and a forum for multilateral disarmament negotiations. TAILORING DESIGN OF WEAPONS SYSTEMS TO DEFENSIVE SITUATION Second, we have taken steps to insure that the design of our weapon systems, their deployment and our behavior with respect to them are not misleading-that is, not more provocative than the nature of the defensive situation requires. For example, we have put great emphasis on command and control procedures, to be sure that communications are fast and sure and that weapons can be used when, and only when, directed by appropriate authority. Our objective in this area-in a world in which the speed of missiles may allow only minutes for momentous decisions to be made-is to be able to respond quickly but to avoid a war started by accident or miscalculation. RESEARCH ESSENTIAL TO DEVELOPMENT OF ARMS CONTROL POLICIES Third, the Department of Defense has engaged in extensive research to provide data and analyses essential to the development of arms control policies. An example of such research is Project VELA, now under our jurisdiction and administration, which relates to the development of methods to detect nuclear explosions underground and in outer space. STAFF UNITS WORKING ON DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL Fourth, the Department of Defense has created active staff units in the Offices of the Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff which devote full time to disarmament and arms control matters. Each of these staffs comprises about 12 people to advise the Secretary and the Chiefs with regard to these matters. My point, in reference to these disarmament and arms control activities in the Defense Department, is to emphasize the extent to which these activities, on the one hand, and effective use of military power, on the other, are interrelated. Disarmament is just the other side of the coin from armament; that is, where and how arms are not used may be just as significant as where and how they are used. NEED FOR DISARMAMENT AGENCY What is now needed, in our judgment, is a separate agency which focuses solely on disarmament and arms control, an agency which will have no other responsibilities to distract it from these vital concerns. The Department of Defense expects the new Agency to make its principal, biggest contribution in the area of policy formulation. Such policy formulation will be assisted by the provision in the proposed legislation enabling the new Agency to conduct and coordinate research in the disarmament area. Research in the disarmament field requires the greatest possible effort and the use of the best minds of the country-foreign policy experts, scientists, and military strategists. Not enough of these individuals are willing to associate themselves with a temporary or ad hoc disarmament administration, as Mr. McCloy pointed out this morning. Their assistance should be available, however, if a separate disarmament agency is created. Furthermore, competent personnel are required to prepare for and support frequent disarmament negotiations which are now occurring at least twice or more a year. It is toward the end of making the best people available for such purposes that there is a provision in the bill that as many as three retired commissioned officers of our Armed Forces who are experts in military affairs and weapon systems may be employed as an exception to laws which may limit the reemployment of such officers. The Defense Department supports this exception which would permit such officers to provide not only effective assistance to the staff of the Disarmament Agency but also an important link between the Agency and the Department of Defense. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGENCY'S OPERATIONS AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE'S RESPONSIBILITIES The establishment and operation of this Agency under the direction of the President and the Secretary of State should in no way detract from the responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense. This we feel very strongly. The drafting of this legislation has been closely coordinated by the Department of State and with our department, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and we in the Defense Department are sincerely prepared to assist the new Agency in every way we can. I believe that now, in a time of crisis and of great military strength on both sides, it is more apparent than ever that concentrated attention must be given to the problems of disarmament and of arms control. Some in our Government must be striving to find ways to achieve, if possible, full disarmament; some must be seeking for arms control or limitation measures which will relieve tensions which stand a chance of influencing the Soviet way of thinking, or which will at least minimize the risks of war by miscalculation. There should be an agency in Government to exhaust the possibilities of such measures and to explore their implications with respect to our military capabilities, our economy and our alliances. The Department of Defense, therefore, supports the passage of legislation to provide for the establishment of a separate agency which will be able to make the effort I have described. Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Secretary, I solicit the attention of my colleagues on the committee. I think it might be well if we have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs testify now also, and then, if it is agreeable,we can question the two witnesses together. The two statements, I am sure, will supplement each other. General Lemnitzer, we are very pleased to have you here. I want to thank you very much for being so cooperative with the committee, as was Secretary Gilpatric. Go right ahead and make your statement and at the conclusion of it, we will question you both. General LEMNITZER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a very brief statement. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the United States has consistently advocated realistic disarmament, and has repeatedly taken the lead in trying to achieve it. We subscribed to the Washington Naval Agreement some 40 years ago. Our efforts in this field have been intensified since World War II. NEED FOR CONTINUING TO SEEK REALISTIC ARMS CONTROL I myself took part in disarmament discussions in the early days of the United Nations. I have also observed at firsthand the practical difficulties involved in arms control in connection with the administration of the Korean Armistice Agreement in 1953, particularly those difficulties we experienced as a result of the consistent violations of that agreement by the Communists. Although our efforts in seeking realistic disarmament have been disappointing thus far, I agree that we must continue to seek out ways and means of accomplishing realistic arms control. With the vast destructiveness of modern weapons, and with the prospect of using space for other than peaceful purposes, it is only commonsense that we continue to make a determined effort, and that the organization required for such an effort be established. MAINTAINING NATIONAL MILITARY STRENGTH Our natural desires to make progress toward this goal must, however, be tempered with the understanding of the hard practicalities of the situation in which we find ourselves. We can hope for progress only if we maintain such clear military strength that others will also be made to hope for progress. We cannot afford to let our guard down at any time, and we must-at all steps along the way-be sure beyond doubt that we do not jeopardize our security. It must also be recognized that arms control affairs are inextricably intermeshed with military as well as political matters. Necessarily, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have a vital and continuing interest in every facet of arms control as an integral part of their responsibilities for the military security of the United States. VITAL INTEREST OF JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF IN ARMS CONTROL EFFORTS With respect to the specific legislation which is before the committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff recognize the need for centralized control and direction of U.S. arms control efforts, and agree with the general objectives of the proposed legislation. While it cannot be foreseen in detail the eventual form the Agency will take, or the authorities the proposed Agency will acquire, it is my understanding that the vital interests of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in this area are clearly recognized by all concerned. I do believe that establishing the Agency at the level proposed should be clear evidence to all the world of the sincerity of our purpose in the same manner that recent actions taken to enhance our military posture give clear evidence of our determination to use our strength should peaceful means not succeed. I support the legislation you are now considering. That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. SIGNIFICANCE OF TESTIMONY Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much, General. I think it is rather significant that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the most powerful Nation on the face of the earth should come be |