Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-07-27
No Crash Proqrom'

The House seems to us to have taken
common-SenSe action in defeating the
Senate approved bill for Federal "crash
program in the field of nuclear power
project strongly opposed by the
administration.
OF course, leaving aside extravagant
partisan arguments both for and against
it, this acknowledgements measure
has had genuinely sincere advocates as
well as genuinely sincere opponents. In
cluded among the former, for example,
is Thomas E. Murray, an able and veteran
member OF the Atomic Energy Commits
sion. Certainly there can be no question
that he and many who share his views
in Congress feel a real sense of worry
over what they regard as our country's
SlownesS in building nuclear reaetors for
the production of electricity.
Summarized in somewhat overSimpli-
fled form, the contention of these men
is that American private industry is in
capable, for numerous reasons, of doing
the job fast enough on as large a scale
as the times require. Hence, as they see
the situation, the United States is in
great danger of being badly beaten by
Russia in the business of exploiting the
atom for peace, and 1t is for that reason
that they have urged their "craSh pro-
gram for spending $500 million on speedy
Federal construction of power producing
reactors at various Acc installations
throughout the country.
However, speaking for the admins
tration, Chairman Lewis L. Strauss and
the majority of his Acc colleagues have
categorically denied that the present
program-which relies primarily on free
enterprise for the development of A
power plants endangerS American SUI
periority viS-a-viS Russia Actually, in
their judgment, the course now being
followed is much better designed than
"craSh" operation to insure that our
country will retain world leadership in
this f1eld-a leadership that must be
measured not by mere numbers of cleo
tricity generating atomic installations,
but by progress in developing advanced
nuclear techniqueS and reactor types.
Indeed, according to Mr.. Strauss,
"One of the most Short-sighted decisions
we could make as a nation would be to
accept an arbitrary goal as to the kilo-
watt capacity or numbers of full-Scale
plants we would build by set date" He
bases this view on the ground that such
a program would be inflexible in a field
where there should be enough fiexibility
ito take advantage of any breakthroughS
and discoveries" In short, instead of
helping us to maintain the international
lead we now enjoy, an operation of that
sort might well cause us to lose the game
by freezing us to our present point of
progress.
Moreover, it is worth noting that no
fewer than IS private and non-Federal
public atomic power plants-with COM
bined generating capacity of nearly /
million kilowatts have been scheduled
to be put in operation in this country by
1862. Although advocates of the crash
program" have challenged the validity
of these figures, the prospect may in fact
materialize within the predicted time. If
so, and If our nuclear technology mean
while advances as the Acc contemplates,
then the Russians will scarcely be able
to beat us in the atoms r-peace race.
In advancing arguments of this sort,
Mr.. Strauss has been aSSailed by his
critics as kind of villain. But the case
he has presented still appears to be con-
Siderably more persuasive than theirs.
The House has done well to vote
accordingly.