Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-06-11

well as Iall0uC - that would
threaten an individuals dig
nifty - and values - just
about as much as does the
subway or the Holland Tun-
mel in New York, at a cost
no greater than has been ex-
pended for several weapons
systems that never even
reached the operational
stage
The problem of civil de-
tense is a vast one with no
easy, no inexpensive answers.
No one wants a nuclear war,
large or small - everyone
will agree with you there -
but as long as there are
nuclear weapons and the
threat Of bombings, it is
certainly most prudent for us
to consider all the alterna-
tives for defense and sur
vival. History has never been
kind to men who turned their
backs on situations not to
their liking.
Vincent Wilson, JR
Your editorial Shelters a
Cruel Deception" surprised
me. For a newspaper of The
Stars reputation to present
such fallacious reasoning
would seem to be q public
disservice since hasty readers
who have no knowledge of
the subject may be misled.
E. y. Riley.
So
The cruel deception perpe-
trated in your editorial en-
titled Shelters - A Cruel
Deception" may have cost
many American lives by COM
pounding the belief that shell
tiers will do no good in a
nuclear attack Surely you
have heard that theory dis
proven by clear thinking men
(the President, the Secretary
of Defense and those real ex-
perts who advise them. They
realize that many would die
In a nuclear war, but they
also know that millions would
survive the initial blasts. But
they also know that of the
millions who do survive the
blasts and heat, large per-
centages can be saved from
death by fallout shelters.
These facts are being proven
daily in the very hearings
you mention.
Surely you know that
Philip Kelleher's initial state
ment to the Hebert Com
mittee was simply a compi-
lation of all the arguments
against shelters. Neither he
nor the committee believed
or believes them. CThey so
stated. These arguments
we're voiced in order that
they could be answered. And
the answers are being given
surely and logically as the
hearings progress. You owe
1t to those who trust you to
at least record these facts
although they are not as SEN
sational as the false state
ments. Your editorial very
condescendingly admits there
Is another side TO this debate,
and there you stop.
I must admire your forth
tude in your closing quote
Let us walk like men. :"
/ would however point out
that this country is independ-
ent today because our an
cestors at Lexington, Con-
cord. and Bunker Hill knew
when to walk like men"
and when TO use stone fences,
trees and other God-given
protection.
X. J. Foley.
\ y 4
Is there no communication
between Civil Defense au-
thorities and the press?
II seems that your edito-
rial OF June 5 entirely missed
the point OF fallout shelters.
No responsible person ever
has said that fallout shelter
will protect against heat and
blast anywhere near the site
OF a nuclear explosion.
Even In a massive attack,
our military power can give
us some protection. Surely.
too. our retaliatory force will
be Of use In preventing re-
peated attacks.
All OF this vast United
States is not likely TO be ION
target" Fallout shelters are
TO save those people who are
not hit. II you are a sur
vivor you deserve the chance
10 live. Fallout shelters could
provide that chance.
AS we have been told many
times, radiation does decay:
A lethal 5000 r at one hour
after a ground burst could be
reduced 10 so r In two days.
IL could be reduced 10 5 r
In two weeks. Five r Is about
the amount needed 10 X-ray