Evening star., 1960-05-31

y SfASS w |06SE @0
range. 1t could be based all
over the world and even
carried in ships or subma-
rines. No complicated bomb
sights would be called for.
Perhaps simple celestial or
inertial navigation system and
a passive infra-red detection
system (both virtually un-
jammable) to be sure some
thing was underneath would
be the sole requirements. The
cost of one Atlas squadron or
PolariS submarine would pur-
chase an avalanche of this
type of weapon now. If the
Communists then insisted on
starting anything, Opera
ton Suitcase" at 10000 feet
could be the answer. Perhaps
this is why Mr.. Khrushchev,
for all his boasts about the
mighty Soviet state, is now
having second thoughts on
Berlin.
r. L. Stilmar.
y
Your May 26 editorial
Summit Report" comes to
the extraordinary conclusion
that the President in his
television speech explained
almost everything, when in
fact he explained nothing.
You applaud the President
for taking full responsibility
for the U-2 incident, when
to do otherwise would put
the United States in the
ludicrous position where the
head of the country does
not know what goes on in
his own government. AS to
the alert order issued in
Paris, neither the Presidents
advisers nor you apparently
are aware that such an or
der is equal or nearly equal
to what in Europe up to
World War II used to be
called general mobilization,
which in itself has tradi-
tionally come close to being
a casus belli; no case in
European history is known
where a general mobiliza-
ton order did not result in .
war. It would seem that this
is craftsmanship played with
a vengeance.
Your editorial repeats the
claim, so often made during
the past seven years when
we have found ourselves in
difficulties, that an attack
on the Presidents policies is
an attack on the President
personally. This is an ex-
traordinary claim. Has the
President been sainted
lately? Cannot his person be
separated from the policies
of his government? Is he in
capable of mistakes? Has the
traditional American right to
hold the President respon-
sible for the failures of his
administration been aban-
doned by fiat of the Republi-
can Party? Does not the very
fact that even in times of
stress Americans are free to
criticize the President dis
tinguish us from the Rus
slams?
This really is the core of
the whole problem: We are
led to believe that the U-2
fight was considered more
important by the President
than the summit, even if he
assumed. as one must al
ways in these things, that it
might result in failure or
detection. That the Russians
used the incident as a tool
for the destruction of the
conference on which they
apparently had changed
their minds for reasons of
their own is secondary; the
President, by giving prece-
dence to the U-2 fight over
the sum NIT conference,
clearly handed the Russians
the tools for the destruction
of the meeting.
I believe that the Demo-
cratic Party wholeheartedly
agrees with the Presidents
proposal for "businessllke"
contacts with the Russians.
Its contention, however, is
that such businesslike deal
ings have not been attempted
by him in the past, and that
it is time they were tried
now.
Richard Kyle Keith
y II Il
Pre- sident Eisenhower's
suspension of U-2 flights over
the Soviet Union should be a
source of dismay for people
in all nations, including Rus
sia, for the following reason:
The flights we're motivated
mainly by our wanting to
keep track of any potentially
offensive moves by the