Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-10-18
H-Bomb Debate


his position on stopping H-bomb tests is
something less than clear and specific But
as we read his Chicago speech, his position
comes down to this: He wants the United
States to "take the initiative" in discon-
tinuing tests of the big bombs He would
call upon other nations to follow our
Lead" and he would resume our own tests
If they did not do So If elected, he will
make it the FIRST order of business" to
consult with representatives of other
nations, presumably in an effort to obtain
an agreement to stop tests. 1t is not clear
whether he would stop our own tests in
the absence of such an agreement, but
the fair inference is that he favorS this
course. At any rate, he says that we GER
tainly could detect an H-bomb test by
another nation, and that if such test
were detected we would have ample time
to resume our own testing program.
The Presidents position has been
more clearly stated. Mr.. Eisenhower has
said that we are not interested in making
bigger bombs. But he is opposed to dis
continuing our tests unless this is done
as part of an effectively policed disarma-
ment program.
Mr.. Stevenson's main argument in
support of his proposal dealt with the
danger to the human race of radioactive
fallout from H-bomb tests. He painted
rather frightening picture in this re-
Spect, although he stated he was not
asserting that "the present levels of
radioactivity are dangerous" Nor did he
attempt to estimate the level at which
fallout would be dangerous. A staff mem
Der Of the National Academy of Sciences
has been quoted as saying, however, that
the current rate of nuclear test explo-
SionS could be increased tenfold without
causing any serious genetic danger"
This does not deal with potential bone
cancer, cited by Mr. Stevenson. But so
far as the effect on the reproductive
processes is concerned, also cited by Mr..
Stevenson, the Academy of Sciences re-
port suggests that radioactivity from
bomb tests is much less dangerous, on the
average and at present or foreseeable
levels, than the use Of ordinary X-rays.
Another argument relied on by Mr..
Stevenson is that we could resume our
own testing program promptly" He said
that it would take mot more than eight
weeks" to resume tests. He did not cite
his authority for this, but full-scale
resumption of tests probably would take
closer to year. Meanwhile, say his
critics, the Russians might gain an
advantage over u.s.
Mr.. Stevenson'S proposal is murky in
another respect. Evidently he has little
faith in an agreement with the Russians,
for he said at Chicago that 1--WE cannot
rely even on the firm agreement of one
bloc of world powers" Therefore, he said,
we will proceed in the meantime
presumably pending some trustworthy
agreement) with the production of
hydrogen weapons and with further
research in the field" What further re-
search? If here he is suggesting research
without tests, how useful would it be2
One more point: Mr.. Stevenson does
not want to stop all tests. For he said:
1--WE could continue to test smaller nu-
clear weapons. We should continue our
research and development work on guided
missiles, for the defense of our cities and
for use in the field"
What, precisely, does this mean? How
small, or how big, would weapon have
to be before Mr.. Stevenson would test,
or not test, it? Last summer, after Mr..
Stevenson had first proposed his ban on
tests, we tested an H-bomb in the Pacific.
1t was not the biggest bomb, but it was
an H-bomb. AS result of that test,
or series Of tests, according to official
sources, we made progress in adapting
nuclear weapons to defense purposes and
also made progress in learning how to
produce cleaner" bomb--a bomb with
less radioactive fallout Would Mr. Ste
venson continue or discontinue H-bomb
tests of this magnitude?
Our feeling is that this question of
stopping tests. as a political issue, is
exceedingly fuzzy. In the minds Of many
people. it will come down to decision as
to who Is best equipped to deal with the
problem of H-bomb tests and the preser-
vation Of our national security. This pits
Mr.. Stevenson squarely against President
Eisenhower, and we see little prospect
that such a contest will prove to be
politically profitable for the Democratic
candidate.