https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/e69c959f751096a4ca6ed302506bc4dd.pdf 4b7af863a72a1bebfb65ac11c405d237 PDF Text Text Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur Tacces a Tinformation o D E P A R T M E N T OF E X T E R N A L AFFAIR S MM. Subject. Date y /> MS...196? Publication THEJffiW_yORK__TIMES^ (/Senators Clash at Hearing on Missile Defense as Split in Armed Services Panel Appears to Deepeh] fort over being forced to be-concurred In this judgment Dr. Senators who oppose the Safe fense research and'engineering, nothing improper about the With his argument that the contest the offensive has such come involved in technical York and. Dr, Panovsky di- guard System and those whohad briefed Dr. York and thePentagon briefing, Senator Safeguard System was "techni- a large advantage that "it will other scheduled witnesses be- Symington amended his com- cally questionable" and "would be ahead substantially all the ••• '•• . • favor it. .., WASHINGTON. April 22— arguments and over .the dis- agreed. the committee on the Safe- plaint to say: "Dr. Foster did accelerate the arms race," Dr.time." The Senate Armed Services array within his ranks. Dr. York gently suggested the squabble erupted after fore not put his arm on you. He just York ran into criticism from Senator Thurmond, a retired Committee exposed itself today After hours of listening to that "we could be worse off" Senator Margaret Chase Smith guard system. Senator Strom Thurmond, Re- Army major general, observed to a public debate on the mis- the scientists cast about such if the arms race continued un- of Maine,' the ranking Repub This prompted Senator Sym- put hisarm around you." that since the beginning of sile defense issue, and the ap- terms asJVIIRV; CEP, FOB's and abated. Dr. Panovsky, ah' ex- lican, said that a few weeks ago ington, a leader in the opposi- Symington Threatens Move publican of South Carolina. parent result was to deepen the SS-9, Senator Stennis summed pert on radar, suggested that Deputy -DefenseSecretaryDavid tion, to complain that the Penta- Senator Symington threatened "Your statement sounds like warfare there had always been division within the 'committee up his position this way: the proposed Safeguard system Rbr Packard had refused to brief gon was attempting "to put the to declassify information on his a defeatist," Senator Thurmond a defense to every offense. He over the Administration's pro- "This is the best horse we was a "bad match" tp meet the Dr. York on the ABM issue on arm" on opposition witnesses, own initiative if the Pentagon drawled as he peered across the asked Or. York: "Are you advoposed Safeguard System. ^. the ground that the former de- who just a few weeks ago it did continued to declassify infor- 10-yard chasm separating the cating we abandon this proven have in the stable, and if weSociet missile threat. A principle of warfare?" ~* The public hearing was are going to move, we had It was only with considerable fense official was- not cleared not consider important enough mation to support its case and Senators and the scientists. Dr. York replied that what "History Is full of Maginot marked by a confused personal better move with i t I don't see tapping on a glass that Senator to receive secret information. to brief. wrangle among the Senators, who we can be worse off in Stennis was able to keep his Then Senator Stennis dis- When Senator Henry M. then play "the game with the was involved was a contest be- Lines," Dr. York replied, cutting committee under:'control..-as a closed that yesterday Dr. John Jackson, Democrat of Washing- opposition of saying, 'If youtween offensive and defensive off the Thurmond line of ques- /, as Senator Stuart Symington, 1975 if we move forward." * / Democrat of Missouri, com- Mr. Nitze and Dr. McMillan wrangle broke out between. S. Foster, the director of de-ton, objected that there was only knew .what we know.'" technologies and that in such a tioning. plained, that the Pentagon had • • I -/-* T attempted "to put the arm on" committee witnesses opposed to the safeguard antiballisticmissile system. For more than five hours, beneath the glare of television lights and with technical jargon that sometimes passed beyond , senatorial ken, the1 committee listened to Paul H. Nitze, former Deputy Defense Secretary; Dr. Herbert F. York, former director of Defense Research and Engineering; Dr. Wolfgang K. H. Panovsky of Stanford University* • and Dr. William G. McMillan of the University of California, tos Angeles, debate the pros and cons of deploying safeguard. • Dr. York and 'Dr. Panovsky opposed deployment, arguing that the system was not needed now, would be ineffective and would tend to accelerate the atomic amis race. Mr. Nitze and Dr. McMillan contended that the system was needed to parry a potential Soviet move toward acquiring a "first strike" capability as well as to strengthen the American diplomatic hand in missile limitation negotiations with the Soviet Union. Most of the arguments had been expressed earlier before the Senate Foreign Relations disarmament subcommittee. But what was new and potentially significant was that the arguments were (being presented to the normally secretive Pentagon-oriented Armed Services Committee in public debate. ? The committe was forced into the public hearings by its admission last year that it had heard only Pentagon witnesses before decidng upon deployment of an ABM system. Hears Both Sides By JOHN W. FINNEY 11» Tht Sew York TIOMS Opponents of the system seized upon this admission to extract the concession that this year the committee would hear - f e o t h 0slA™t*.0^ *is0 -00*0^.' ^.*.i~~.' 000249 �%-trMr K4fSgtiara"anaDaTITs!tfgDomhxefetsriiittiigue en vertu de For more than five hours, beneath the glare of television lights and with technical jargon that sometimes passed beyond senatorial ken, the committee listened to Paul H. Nitze, former Deputy Defense Secretary; Dr. Herbert F. York, former director of Defense Rer search and Engineering; Dr. Wolfgang K. H. Panovsky of Stanford University*' and Dr. William G. McMillan' of the University of California, Los Angeles, debate the pros and cons of deploying safeguard. • Dr. York and 'Dr. Panovsky opposed deployment, arguing that the system was not needed now, would be ineffective and would tend to accelerate the atomic arms race, '. Mr. Nitze and Dr. McMillan contended that the system was needed to parry a potential Soviet move toward acquiring a "first strike" capability as well as to strengthen the American diplomatic hand in missile limitation negotiations with the Soviet Union. Most of the arguments had been expressed earlier before the Senate Foreign Relations disarmament subcommittee. But what was new and potentially significant was that the arguments were being presented to the normally secretive Pentagon-oriented Armed Services Committee in public debate. The committe was forced into the public hearings by its admission last year that it had heard only Pentagon witnesses before decidng upon deployment of an ABM system. Hears Both Sides Opponents of the system seized upon this admission to extractthe concession that this year the committee would hear both sides of the case, with the critics having the right to select the opposition witnesses. Whether or not the public debate, which will continue tomorrow, would reverse committee support of the Safeguard system was doubtful. But in the opinion of opponents on the committee, the debate may undermine some of the support within the committee, which was already deeply divided on the issue, It now appears that at least five, and possibly as many as eight, of the 18 committee members will vote against deployment of the Safeguard system, For a committee that normally goes to the floor in monolithic unity, such a division is not only surprising but should also weaken the Administration's already dubious chances of winning Senate approval of the $6.5-biIlion Safeguard System, which President Nixon declared last week was "absolutely essential" for the national security. Senator John Stenrr' " r r " crat of Mississippi, ;000250 man, who normally committee with judicial 'firm r%ae't9 A n i J i t t i n J «•«*_*.«•. JS*.*s*s*— � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CDBM00229 Title A name given to the resource Transcript from NYT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 4/22/1969 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG25-A-3-c, file 27-11-7, "DEFENCE - CONVENTIONAL AND NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS - ANTI - BALLISTIC MISSILES (ABM) = DEFENSE - ARMEMENTS DE TYPE CLASSIQUE ET NUCLEAIRE - ENGINS ANTIMISSILES (ABM)," vol. 10357, part 6, Library and Archives Canada, (LAC). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource External Affairs Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Canadian Crown Subject The topic of the resource Anti-ballistic missiles Description An account of the resource Senators Clash at Hearing on Missile Defense as Split in Armed Services Panel Appears to Deepen Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Canada Declassified Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource en