CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON

1530 P STREET, NORTHWEST
WASHINGTON 5, D. C.

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

October 2, 1957,

Dear Henry:

At long last, I have completed the reading of the draft of the re-
port of Sub Panel II that you let me see in August—and with the deep-
est pleasure! As always, it is tremendously thought-provoking and in
part epigrammatic and most exciting to read. It has profited, I think,
from the writing of the book, for parts of it which parallel the theses
in the book are actually tighter, more concise, and better, I think, and
in places the balance is actually improved—although I would not, of
course, have conceived this if I had not had both texts for comparison!
I was especially impressed with the balance of remarks concerning NATO
and the emphases given. These, I think, are actually an improvement
on the book— which I would not have thought possible! Altogether, it
seems to me a perfectly splendid job, and one in which both Sub Panel II
and the Overall Panel ought to take a very great deal of satisfaction

As usual, I have a few detailed comments of no very great general
import—and, as usual, I will itemize them, if I may. They are quite
incidental!

1. "A Word by the Panel" — I liked this Introduction—so much that I wondered whether it was planned to follow the same pattern in the other Sub Panel Reports? It seems to me that it adds a good deal.

2. p. 3 - Line 7 - "... until the overall expansionist threat has subsided, which will not be soon, however inevitable the event may be in the end." I would omit the clause beginning with "however." Though this is our hope and goal, I think the emphasis on vigilance in the sentence is stronger and more realistic without it.

3. p. 4 - Final paragraph, beginning "On the national balance sheet. . ." The second and third sentences of this paragraph could, I think, be rewritten to advantage. The meaning is evident, but as they stand I think they are not too clear, and could be misinterpreted.

-2-

4. p. 10 - First sentence - "Our country was brought into being and has been developed, ..." Elsewhere in the Report it has been pointed out that the Founders were actually philosophers-statesmen as much as men of action, and this fact has been used to good advantage. Would it not be as well, therefore, to omit "was brought into being"?

5. pp. 14, 17, 58. I was of course completely delighted with the discussion of submarine problems here—and I have been interested to see what an increased emphasis there has been in public discussions of the question of enemy submarine fleets and their role since the book has appeared!

6. p. 16, paragraph 6. "New, high-performance, long-range aircraft are needed, as well as intercontinental missiles." Perhaps this exceedingly important point is worth a little further expansion, in view of the all-too-prevalent popular concept that you can count on dropping one form of technology in warfare today and "cleanly" picking up another tomorrow!

7. p. 18. The statement on this page surely deserves to be printed in *very* black letters!

8. p. 20. I think the whole discussion of "The Course of Technology" on this and following pages is thoroughly splendid! The discussion of New Weapons is equally fine, and I was especially glad to see the specific mention of the C - B - R weapons complex. I have been especially concerned with B over a number of years, and feel personally convinced that it is a far more subtle and dangerous weapon than is everywhere recognized—even though it is specialized and in some ways limited in its application.

The discussion about inhibitions I think exceedingly important and thoroughly right. It is an absolutely safe bet, I feel sure that they would disappear under appropriate stress. The examples which you cite about the non-use of chemical warfare in World War II are most pertinent. I have always been interested, too, that although the flame thrower is most manifestly primarily a chemical rather than a burning weapon (asphyxiation by carbon monoxide) I cannot recall one single objection having been raised to it in the whole course of the war on that score.

9. Paragraph 4 - "A strategic striking force discharges its mission. ..." This, again, deserves extremely black type, to drive home its profundity and its overweening importance. I am carried back to the biological analogues again—to the millions of cases in the natural world where elaborate subterfue-

-3-

tute-deterrents to fatal combat have been evolved as a part
of the equilibrium by which species survive!

10. p. 26 - Paragraph 2. "We maintain this frightful force..."
This whole paragraph, down to the bottom of the page, strikes
me as somewhat diffuse and repetitive. I think it weakens what
has gone before, and suggest omitting it altogether.

11. p. 27, last paragraph. "The combat air element is a complex problem..." This requirement for short or vertical take-off capabilities (with its concomitant of shortened runways at the advance bases) is of course most important. Would it not be worth adding the other, and perhaps equally important requirement at the advanced bases (and especially where new bases are being carved out) the capability for lighter as well as shorter runways?

12. p. 28, second paragraph. "In the end, with skillful capitalization..." Should it not be added here that organizational innovations of a high order in dealing with the creation and the effective employment of technology are a prime requirement? This of course, is implicitly included in "capitalization," but perhaps it is worth special emphasis.

13. p. 31. Second paragraph. "The communist ability to wage limited war..." This seems to me possibly the most important single paragraph in the whole report. It is most definitely one for black type. Also, because of its intensely condensed meaning, would it not be worth some further expansion?

14. pp. 45-46. "A Purpose Through Technology" — I cannot sufficiently emphasize my agreement with this section, or my feeling as to its importance!

15. p. 50, last sentence. "To be sure, the U. N. represents the world's best hope of eventually controlling the aggressive ambitions of national powers." I would omit this sentence, as being diffuse and adding little to what follows.

16. pp. 55 et seq. "The Special Case of Nato." A most excellent discussion, and good, I think, to introduce here.

-4-

17. pp. 61-64. "Disarmament." A wholly splendid discussion, with which I am in intense agreement!

18. p. 63, last sentence of first section. "The more enduring values. This sentence puzzles me. What is its precise meaning, and what are "politically and sociologically closed societies?"

19. pp. 65-67. "Civil Defense." I think this section needs a bit of tightening and re-working. It is of course a very hard subject to talk about, and this shows in the writing. The core idea, it seems to me, is "Stoutness of Heart," expressed in the sentence on p. 66, beginning "But another profit we seek. . ." Some sentences, however, need fixing, like the one at the bottom of p. 66, beginning "A 20-megaton weapon. . ." (obvious?). On the other hand, the section from the beginning of the statement of general principles on p. 67 struck me as truly excellent. Perhaps these are about all that are needed under this heading? The last sentence in the first recommendation is one for black type!

General inquiry re format: So much of this report (like the book) is condensed into sentences that the reader ought to go over five-and six times, and ponder, and read again, that I wonder if there will be any mechanism of format (possibly such as bold-face type) to set them off? It seems to me that it will be well worthwhile—even important—to do it.

Reading this Panel Report has been the most exciting sort of privilege and experience—as much so as the book, which, in certain aspects it even surpasses. I feel most grateful, as ever, to have had the chance

With warmest regards,

As always,

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger,
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund,
22 West 55th Street,
New York 19, N.Y.