Evening star., 1955-06-26
ILNTED WAR? 1HE SUNDAY sEss M.snans..n D. C. H1
Mansfield Sees Danger in Policy
SAYS Senate Lac ks Needed Data

the loser. He has to occupy coun-
tries. He has to disburse his own
wealth and material to rehabilitate
the area which supposedly has been
defeated.
AS far as conventional arms are
concerned, the Russians have ITS
thoroughly modernized. mechanical
divisions, comprising some 4 million
men, the same strength they have
had since the end of the war in
1945. In addition, there are SO
satellite divisions Of undetermined
quality, and the Chinese Commu-
nists have something like million
men under arms. In the air, 1t u
my understanding that the Rus
slams are ahead Of US in every field
except the BAT. Under the sea, I
understand they have undoubted
superiority as far as numbers Of
submarines are concerned.
The administration seems to be
very happy about what we have.
but am afraid the figures won't
back up their optimism because I
notice that what they talk about 10
what we have in being. but they
never mention the ability of our
air forces to deliver what we have.
@. Well, If we can't compete in
non-atomic weapons, don't we
pretty much have to rely on atomic
weapons?
A. Oh, yes, and I'm not opposed
to that. I think we'll have to keep
on experimenting and doing every
thing possible to develop our atomic
and defensive skills. But I do think
we ought to tell the truth to the
American people insofar as security
viii permit.
According to the information I
get-which is purely from the pub
lie prints-it appears to me that Q
lot of information the American
people should have hasn't been told.
For example, why did 1t take Ad-
miral Strauss so long to tell the
people Of the United States fac
tually what the effect of Bikini-
type explosion would be on an area
such as from Norfolk. Va. to some
where up in New Jersey?
Q. Would you care to take this
opportunity, now. to tell the truth
to the American people as You
know it? You are q member Of
the Foreign Relations Committee.
You've been around a good bit.
What do you regard as the truthf
A. That's not for me to say be-
cause I haven't had access to the
truth except as it appears in the
public prints.
In q Voeuum'
@. Are you implying. then. that
the members Of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, who have .
lot to say about the foreign policy
of the United States-or should
have a lot to say about it--are
operating in a vacuum?
A. Yes, but q vacuum Of our own
making, because we haven't re-
QuCSUCu JLluV 414O4 AL1V4OAAs
@. II this information 10 nec.
essary in order to make sensible
evaluation of foreign policy, why
. hasn't 1t been given to you?
A. Well, none Of us has re-
quested 1t. I think II we were 10
request that kind Of information We
might be given 1t. But then We
would get it under the veil Of se-
crecy and wouldn't be able to do
anything about it.
@. What we are trying to get ut
in these questions, Senator Mans
field, Is this: The Foreign Rela-
tions Committee of the Senate is
charged with keeping an eye on the
foreign policy of the United States.
Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
@. You don't make policy, but
you watchdog 1t. Secondly then.
the foreign policy Of the United
States is by necessity based on the
possession of certain atomic
weapons, II is not? In other words,
If we didn't have those weapons,
we'd have a different foreign policy.
wouldn't we?
A. That is very likely true, In
the details of policy, at least.
@. So how can you evaluate the
foreign policy of the United States
and its effectiveness unless You
know what our situation with re-
spect TO atomic energy is?
A. Well, what we are doing. I'm
afraid. is evaluating the foreign
policy Of the United States-as far
as the Foreign Relations Commit
tee Is concerned-on the basis Of
the old conventional methods Of
evaluation.
@. So what the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee is doing now
Is using obsolete information TO
arrive at modern conclusions. In
that what you're saying?
A. No. wouldn't say that. But
we have not, to my knowledge
since I've been on the committee.
had a member of the Atomic
Energy Commission before us to
give us his views. We assume that
when the Chief Of Staff or the
Secretary Of State or any other
officials appear before us, they have
had contacts with the Acc and
that they supposedly have looked
into the atomic implications Of any
field Of foreign policy in which they
may have interest.
@. And you are assuming that
having this information, they have
arrived at the proper conclusions?
A. I'm afraid that's what IL
amounts to.
@. Isn't that a rather large as
sumption?
a..k