Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout"Civil Defense in the 70's" 1970 CIVIL DEFENSE IN THE 70's AN ADDRESS BY MISS GEORGIANA SHELDON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR NATIONAL OFFICE OF CIVIL DEFENSE GIVEN FOR THE HON. JOHN E. DAVIS NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE BEFORE THE TENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE FOR TEXAS CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTORS VILLA CAPRI MOTOR HOTEL AUSTIN, TEXAS FEBRUARY 17, 1970 I wanted to talk to you this morning about civil defense from three points of view - -with three missions in mind: - -our national emergency preparedness mission - -our mission in peacetime disasters - -and a new mission which could emerge from the growing public alarm over the threats to and from our environment. First, let's orient civil defense in the national security picture of the 1970's. The picture will not permit complacency. While all of us have hoped for peace and stability, the nuclear threat has continued to grow. President Nixon said in his State of the Union message that peace in the last third of this century would hinge on our relations with the Soviet Union. These relations are still clouded by uncertainty, distrust and secrecy. For example, we know that the Soviets, over the past few years, have deployed more than 250 SS -9 missiles in the 10 to 25 megaton range. We don't know - But those of us responsible for national defense must assume that they are deployed against our Minuteman missiles. This force gives us our ability to destroy an aggressor who strikes us first. A threat to our retaliatory force is, in effect, a threat to our survival. This is why President Nixon and Secretary Laird made the courageous and critical decision to deploy the initial phase of the Safeguard anti- missile defense system around Minuteman missile sites. Simultaneously, the Soviets are expanding their submarine - launched missile force. As a result of these activities, their missiles today may carry twice the nuclear payload the United States forces can muster. These facts give crucial importance to the arms limitations talks which the President has initiated with the Soviet Union. But we must not drop our nuclear guard until these talks show promise of effective agreements to control the nuclear threat. Other threats to peace and stability darken the future. The Red Chinese are determined to become a major nuclear power. Furthermore, their border confrontations with the Soviets raise the possibility of escalation to the nuclear level and the involvement of other nations. Finally, we face the prospect that smaller nations will acquire nuclear weapons for the purpose of nuclear blackmail. When I look at these facts, I can only conclude that it will be essential to our national safety and survival to maintain and strengthen our civil defense system over the next decade. Civil defense is our life insurance for survival. It could preserve the lives we need to rebuild our society. 2 We will need more shelter, more extensive warning capabilities, and better facilities for coordination and control from the Federal down to the local level of government. I believe that Federal Funds will be available to keep the national civil defense program at a credible level. I am counting, not only on funds, but on the extreme dedication which I have found to be commonplace in the civil defense effort, especially at the local level. I speak for a former Governor when I say that I appreciate the problems of maintaining credibility in local preparedness for nuclear emergencies. Some Americans close their eyes to the facts of nuclear life. They continually urge us to take further unilateral steps toward peace, to further weaken our military posture. These same people are usually vocal and articulate foes of civil defense. What does the silent majority say about civil defense? I am convinced that they fully support preparing our Nation for the worst, while hoping for the best. OCD's public opinion surveys have consistently demonstrated over the years that more than 75% of our people approve of civil defense preparedness against nuclear attack. Another silent witness to this fact is that last year some 2,000,000 man -hours of work were donated by volunteers to civil defense programs in our communities. The President addressed himself forcefully to the nuclear threat and to the proponents of unilateral actions to the graduating class of the Air Force Academy. He said this: "We must rule out unilateral disarmament...I believe that defense decisions must be made on the hard realities of the offensive capabilities of our adversaries, and not on our fervent hopes about their intentions. We cannot survive in the real world if we plan our defense in a dream world." This kind of rationale - -this realistic attitude of the President toward the kind of world we live in-- should make our task more meaningful and lend it emphasis in the public mind. Now, let me turn to civil defense from a second point of view - -major or natural disaster in peacetime. Texans have an enviable record for preparedness and operational skill in handling peacetime emergencies. The vastness of your State with its extremes of climate and the variety of its industry make for broad experience. And the traditional self - reliance of Texans has provided for excellent performance. We, in OCD, still point with pride to the way in which you handled the Hurricane Beulah and Hurricane Carla emergencies. I mentioned excellent performance. This is a key phrase. Again Governor Davis, speaking from his experience in state government, says Government programs win public support and appreciation from good perform- ance, not from plans on a shelf. Civil defense must save lives and protect 3 people in today's disasters if it wants public support for its nuclear role. For this reason, Governor Davis authorized a relaxation in our surplus property regulations, which permit acquisition and use for a peacetime pur- pose, if this is not inconsistent with its use in nuclear attack. And for this same reason, he is in favor of the studies which Congress is making in the field of federal disaster assistance and relief, to strengthen and improve the Federal performance in disaster. I want to make it clear, however, that Governor Davis is talking about setting our own house in order and not supplanting local agencies and local effort. Now for the third viewpoint on civil defense. All of us have seen the TV ads that say: Do business with company X -- "the good hands people." We in civil defense might borrow this slogan from Madison Avenue and think of ourselves as -- "the protection people." We specialize in protecting people from attack hazards, from natural disasters, from man- caused accidents. Today I am asking if this proficiency we have cannot be extended to protect people against air that is clogged with noxious substances, water that cannot support plant, animal or human life, and urban blight that breeds poverty, crime and sickness. Since the start of his administration, the President has frequently expressed his deep concern about these problems; the public clamor for government action is growing louder. It seems certain that new government machinery will be needed to tackle these problems -- unless existing agencies can adapt to the task. This latter process would not only save tax dollars but would bring government action to bear more quickly and directly. - -What skills do we have that will protect people from the pollution in our air or water, or help to save these vital resources? - -Can we support other agencies - -or form partnerships with them- - in this fight? - -Do we have facilities, or communications that lend themselves to dual use? - -Can we help in what promises to be a monumental task of public education and information? - -Are we able to enlist volunteer help in large numbers -- perhaps for a fire prevention campaign or a clean -up job? You can add to this list of questions with a look at your own community. 4 I can demonstrate how civil defense concepts might fit into a campaign against environmental problems with two examples: - -If vandalism is a problem in your school system, shelter design can make a building less vulnerable to glass and window breakage, without detriment to its basic purpose. - -If measurement of air pollution is required, a radiological monitoring facility might be able to add this function - or vice versa. This, of course, is the dual -use principle which we have long advocated for your shelter and communications and education programs. It simply means that facilities designed for nuclear disaster have day -to -day utility as well. In fact, new attitudes, new policies and new objectives have characterized our national defense establishment in the first year of Secretary Laird's administration. This new attitude has meant, for example, that defense costs can be cut by about 10 billion dollars in the next fiscal year. But Secretary Laird has assured us that this reduced level of military spending will, and I quote, "provide adequate and prudent defense." Of more significance to us, is the fact that Secretary Laird has demonstrated concern for the rights and security and welfare of people. He endorses human goals and improvement of our society as legitimate objectives of Defense Department policies. He has stated: "Our nation was founded on the principle that the individual has infinite dignity and worth. The Department of Defense must always be guided by this principle." And he concludes: "The attainment of these goals requires that we strive to contribute to the improvement of our society, including its disadvantaged members, by greater utilization of our human and physical resources, while maintaining full effectiveness in the performance of our primary mission." We may be certain that Secretary Laird shares our concern about the safety and welfare of our people in the face of threats from sudden disaster here at home as well as threats from nuclear weapons. Governor Davis' constant objective will be to take actions, make recommendations, consult with you, and sound the call for good performance by civil defense in today's emergencies. This is the only way, in my judgement, to create and increase public support for, and confidence in, our ability to cope with nuclear disaster. In this way, too, we will be preparing to take up new tasks that face government in the crucial and challenging decades ahead.