HomeMy WebLinkAboutCivil Defense Nightmare 1976 '1 , 51i
k -
/ y1. Vii = ! ` -\� µ
y am! _. / �' 1 ? �
����*`iF / ( f — C_ / _ . // � ..�i `�+•V 3 \\ . mil es \` .
:- 11 � � — / i
/
, trl ` �} �jjj /// ( k GA's " .. __
IN alb' III • P t ` ._. .p
` . _
/ l " ___ --- . , f � : err j IQ
n
/ zit/ j:l I
-,-- /,,, .._ •. Ikkx \' V ,/ (... :-..- .-.
!Nt SA Li- 1:1
_ gait till after the election! ,_
_
Gi vil defense n1 tmare
.
U n i ted States p R uss i a n rou
By Rowland Evans - Even such an increase would not come that "the size and the reach of the Soviet
close to the long -time Soviet spending effort, coupled with its aggressive buildup
and Robert Novak level on civil defense, which the panel of arms, raise profound questions about
estimated at $1 billion a year. Before he the appropriate defensive counter- actions
was fired as defense secretary, Schlesing- to be taken by the United States."
With "detente" now stricken from the er was deeply worried over the low level That conclusion fits a totally separate
administration's lexicon and Congress un-. of civil defense preparedness in this noun- warning by former Ambassador to the
willing to challenge President Ford's try, for a fundamental and frightening Soviet Union Foy D. Kohler, now a
record -high defense program, this coup- reason: Soviet ability to "survive" — and professor at the School for Advanced
try's increasing danger on the civil de- U.S. inability - a exchange with International Study at Miami University.
Tense front is under belated attack from- an enemy. ' - A hard -line hawk, Kohler who ran the
an unlikely nn rati o f hawks and. 17'1.. in . w�.._.;cow from 19(2
Soviet survival is based on rapid ¢NACU- U.S. " vaunrav avatvw aivatt iau�i to
troves. Waal is asiou;s;i '.: at ; :ten. � Arian of the cities, on vast subterranean 1:lbb, states in the foreword to "War Sur
of the homeland against possible nuclear fallout shelters in the evacuated areas vival in Soviet Strategy," by Dr. Leon
attack — "thinking the unthinkable," in _ ‘. .,
and on war plants capable of continuing Ctoure: •
the words of former Secretary of Defense operations after a nuclear exchange by "The Soviet Union has stepped up in
James Schlesinger — has been a virtual virtue of "hardened" sites or geographic very substantial ways its war - survival
no -no topic of serious political debate for dispersal in remote areas. program since the advent of the detente
15 years. - relationship with the U.S. in May 1942,'
But this stark warning from a dovish Lacking even skeleton programs for and is today steadily increasing its atten -'
these "war- survival" measures (often tion and resource allocations to the pro-
House Armed Services Committee panel called passive defense), the U.S. could gram."
signals belated change: "The panel re- find itself prohibitively out- psyched if To Kohler, the essential and dangerous
ceived truly alarming estimates ... about deadlock between Moscow and Washing - difference between American and Soviet
the comparative casualties in the event of ton became the prelude to a possible nu- response to the terrifying possibility of
nuclear attack if the Soviets had evacuat- clear exchange. Rather than risk such an nuclear war is that Americans really be-
ed their people during the crisis period exchange from a position of proven in- lieve no exchange will ever occur, be -.
and we were unable to do so: The Soviets feriority in terms of the ability to cause neither nation will risk its own de-
would lose about 10 million people; the withstand it, the U.S. might be forced to struction. But the Soviets "have never
• United States would lose about 90 million yield. accepted the 'overkill' concept nor the
people." Indeed, ability to absorb a nuclear at- concept of 'mutual assured destruction'
The chairperson of that three -man tack and continue as a nation is regarded • . the Soviet emphasis has rather been
panel is Democratic Rep. Robert L. Leg- by some experts as only marginally less on survivablity and indeed on the possi-
gett of California, a moderate dove. Also important than possession of rough bility of victory in a nuclear war."
on the panel is moderate Republican Dori- "equivalence" in nuclear striking force. With knowledgeable hawks like Schles-
ald Mitchell of New York and one of the That is why a Soviet diplomatic agent — anger and Kohler and dovish Democrats
most dovish first -term Democrats in the openly and above board — attended all 11 like Carr and Leggett in basic agreement,
House, Rep. Robert Carr of Michigan. sessions of the Leggett panel. What the perhaps the time has come when this
Their unanimous recommendations: That U.S. does in civil defense is of paramount country will stop playing the most dan-
the miserly $71 million civil defense pro- importance to Moscow._ gerous kind of Russian roulette with a
gram be increased to $110 million at once. The heart of the panel's report warned ' totally unpredictable future.
•