Evening star., 1960-02-16
Our Missiles and Theirs

In his address to the Worcester
Economic Club, DR.. T. Keith Glennan,
head of the National AeronauticS and
Space Administration, has rendered a
useful service in calling attention to the
sharp distinction that should be drawn
between missiles used for military pur-
poses and missiles used to launch ex-
ploratory vehicles into the high heav-
ems. The distinction is highly important
and it deserves special emphasis at a
time when all too many people, at home
and abroad, tend to equate the two as
If they were identical, which they most
definitely are not.
Thus, as DR.. Glennan has declared,
"One of the most common mistakes
made by the layman =. Is that Of
confusing the missile business with the
space business. To an extent, such
confusion is natural-for these two
activities are related. But to confuse
them as some people do, and as the
Soviet propaganda would like us to
confuse them, is something to be
avoided" This is so because miScon-
ceptions about the matter create the
impression that the Kremlin, since it
has scored a number Of spectacular
"f1rstS" in space, enjoys great superb
ority over us in the field of military
rocketry. But the actual facts do not
warrant such an impression. In DR..
Glennan'S words:
The Russians have developed much
more powerful rockets than we have thus
far developed. They began development
a.
took seriously to build missile carrying
rocket go. And in little more than half
the time taken by the Russians, our
scientists, engineers and industrial con-
tractors have produced the Thor and
Jupiter IRBMs and the Atlas ICBM as
operationally useful missiles capable of
carrying to the target with the required
accuracy, warheadS as powerful and de-
structive as may be required
E. our less powerful rockets when
used as missiles are just as effective in
achieving their purpose as are the larger.
more powerful rockets of the Soviet
Union. AS matter of fact, it is probable
that their rockets are more powerful than
they now need for military weapons pur-
poses. When used as the base booster
IN space launch vehicle system, how
ever, the story is different. In this case,
the Russians T.. can loft into satellite
orbit or propel into deep space to the
moon and beyond much heavier payloads
than we can -. Until we develop more
powerful launch vehicle systems, we can
not exactly duplicate these Soviet achieve
ments
But our inability to do this in space
has nothing to do with the effectiveness
or accuracy of our missiles the fact
That we have not sent a space-craft to
the moon has nothing at all to do with
the capability or accuracy of our own
Warhead-carrying missile systems There
Is no reason to translate the Rus
slams successes in space into superiority
In missile accuracy or reliability or effec-
tiveneSs.
These words merit the widest pos
slole circulation, not merely here at
nome, but overseas as well. In sum.
according to DR.. Glennan, whatever NAV
be the extent of the so-called missile
gap as far as numbers are concerned.
we are qualitatively not inferior to the
Russians in this field, regardless of their
exploits in outer space. Indeed, again
IN terms of quality rather than numbers,
some experts believe that our Atlas and
our other actual and prospective ICBMs
and 1RBMs are not only as good as
theirs, but better. This is a point that
ought not be overlooked in the current
controversy over American and Soviet
military power.