May 21, 1973

KISSINGER, HENRY A. /W*

Dear Mr. Dickson:

Mr. Kissinger asked me to write to you in response
to your letter. He was honored that you thought
he could make a valuable contribution to your
auction.

Since assuming his present position, however, Mr.
Kissinger has adhered to a policy of not making
personal contributions to money-raising functions.
He regrets that he will not be able to help you with
your project but wishes you great success.

Mr. Norman J. Dickson, S. J.
President

A Walsh Jesuit High School
Post Office Box 400
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44222

WALSH JESUIT HIGH SCHOOL

P. O. Box 400
CUYAHOGA FALLS, OHIO 44222
SPECIAL AUCTION PHONE
929-4935

April 27, 1973

Dear Mr. Kissinger,

The enclosed box is not for money. It's for your autograph and for a memento we hope you will send to Walsh Jesuit High School for an auction which will help our school continue to live. The auction will be held May 19, 1973.

We would appreciate anything in this little box - a tie, a pair of
cuff links, a lavaliere, bracelet, anything. If you wish to send
something which will not fit in this box, please send it postage
collect...but please don't forget the autograph. <u>Your autograph is
the important thing!</u>

Why should you help Walsh when it is so far away from your home?
No great reason except that we have an Akron area wide institution
open to people of all faiths and color. We are trying to help all,
but in doing so we have fallen into red ink.

To continue this educational program we want to raise $45,000. by
the end of this year. That is why we are asking for donations of
small items from big people.

These items will be auctioned on May 19 to those who care about the
future of our school. I realize you have no personal knowledge of
Walsh, but I do know that you care about young people and about their
education. That is why I am asking you for a gift which we can use
to gain funds.

We need your help.

Thank you,

President

NJD:b

THE PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE HEALTH FOUNDATION, INC. MACEIO, BRAZIL

ABOARD THE HOSPITAL SHIP HOPE AT FEB. 23, 1973

MY DEAR MR. KISSINGER

THIS MESSAGE REPRESENTS OUR SECOND OFFICIAL TRANSMISSION
FROM THE EXPERIMENTAL COMMUNICATION SATELLITE EARTH STATION
INSTALLED ON BOARD THE HOSPITAL SHIP HOPE. THE FIRST
WAS SENT TO OUR PRESIDENT.

OUR PURPOSE IS TO DEMONSTRATE THE POTENTIAL OF THE UTILI-\>ZATION OF A COMMUNICATION SATELLITE SYSTEM IN THE FIGHT AGAINST
DESEASE. OUR EXPERIMENT WILL CARRY THE BATTLE ON TWO FRONTS, THERAPEUTIC
AND EDUCATIONAL. THE SATELLITE MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO BRING THE MEDICAL
SCIENTISTS OF OUR COUNTRY AND OF OTHER NATIONS TOGETHER SO AS TO
JOIN IN THEIR EFFORTS AGAINST MANY COMMON ENEMIES OF MANKIND.
IF OUR EXPERIMENTS ARE SUCCESSFUL, NATIONS SUCH AS BRAZIL, CHINA
AND OTHERS DEVELOPING AT A RAPID RATE WILL FIND IT POSSIBLE TO
SUPPORT AND EDUCATE THEIR PEOPLE WHO ARE DISTANT FROM THE COASTS
OR MAJOR CITIES. - A PHONE LINE, NOT TELEVISION ANTENNA AND CABLE
IS THE PRIME INGREDIENT.

I NOTED ON YOUR RETURN FROM CHINA, YOU SPOKE OF ENCOURAGING
PERSON TO PERSON RELATIONSHIPS IN VARIOUS FIELDS OF WHICH MEDICINE
AND HEALTH WERE ONLY ONE. IN THE BRIEF CASUAL MOMENT I HAD WITH YOU
PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE, I MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY OF UTILIZING
THE HOPE SO AS TO BROADEN SUCH CONTACTS. OUR WORK IS WELL KNOWN,
THE POTENTIAL OF THE USE OF OUR SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATION SATELLITE
SYSTEM MAY WELL ADD YET ANOTHER DIMENSION.

I AM RETURNING TO THE UNITED STATES THIS WEEKEND AND WILL TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF YOUR SUGGESTION THAT I CALL FOLLOWING YOUR RETURN
FROM CHINA. I BELIEVE A VISIT TOGETHER MAY BE MEANINGFUL, AND
WOULD CERTAINLY WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY.

GENERAL

FC 6-11-1/Kissinger, Henry
PR 16-1
KISSINGER, HENRY A.W.

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

July 6, 1971

Dianne:

David:

Barbara Walters (EM 2-4000 in Washington and ask for tie-line to New York - ext 4214) wants very much, if Mr. Kissinger is making any appearances following his trip, to have him consider their program.

They would like to film him for the TODAY show (and would be glad to come here to do the filming or any place HAK designates). They would plan to rerun the show at night, also.

Lora

OFFICIAL 1/17/72

WALTERS

Jan. 26, 27 or 28

Type of Request & Date

(Last name and pending date)

GENERAL

filed 1/27/72

FEB-11-71

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

KISSINGER, HENRY A./W*

Name: BARBARA WALTERS

Request:

Would like to have lunch with you either January 26, 27 or 28 when she is in town doing the TODAY Show. If lunch is not possible, she asked if you would be able to see her for a few minutes during one of those days. She suggested the 27th as being the best day for her to have lunch.

Please call her office to confirm or regret 212/247-8300 ext. 4214

CSH's Recommendation:

HAK's Answer:

Date and Time:

Party Contacted:

Additional Information:

Resolution:

NBC NEWS

A DIVISION OF NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.

THIRTY ROCKEFELLER PLAZA, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10020, CIRCLE 7-8300

February 8, 1972

Dr. Henry Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Dear Henry: (I finally feel close enough to you to call you Henry)

In the midst of these nice, quiet days, I did want to write to thank you for making this past Sunday such a special day for Lee and me. We had a fascinating time, and I am very grateful to you for your help and consideration. I can't tell you how much I value our growing friendship.

We rode home from the Braden's party with the Cronkites, and Walter and I decided that it was our objective, unbiased opinion that you should not do the interview with the girl from the BBC. Walter admitted that the girl from "Panorama" was very attractive, but he said that he'd put on a wig if you'd do an interview with CBS, and I'll die my hair blonde if you'll do it for us. Seriously, the BBC is hardly an obscure company, and any interview you do there will reverberate around the world. If you're going to reverberate, couldn't it be for American television?

On that note, I'll close with love and hope that your trip to China brings all you hope for. Let's share an egg roll.

P.S. Please give my regards to Bob Haldeman. All I keep thinking of is that I persuaded him to do with interview so people would get to know him better!

ABC NEWS

THIRTY ROCKEFELLER PLAZA, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10028, CIRCLE 7-8300

GENERAL

F66-11-1 / KISSINGER, HENRY A.

PL16-1

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

September 18, 1972

Dear Henry:

Not that I want to talk you out of the CBS interview, BUT...
6 o'clock Sunday night, even though it sounds like prime time, is in
reality a particularly lousy time.

1. It is opposite the football games on NBC.

2. The CBS stations (like NBC at that hour) have a kind of patchwork line-up because of their own football schedule so that all of their stations do not carry that time period. (Bear in mind that if you're up against football, even the President won't watch you.)

3. Remember when you did your interview on CBS's "Sixty Minutes," you were surprised to find that you received much more reaction to your appearance on our program than for your appearance on that program.

For all of these reasons, I think you should save your body and soul for TODAY. We have the audience, the time and the stature. What you say on TODAY in the morning will also probably make the prime time nightly news programs, giving your views double exposure.

Of course, I have a vested interest, but I think you know I have your interest in mind as well.

BW/mph

RECEIVED

SEP 2 9 1972

NBC NEWS

[cc]

July 5, 1973

Dear Henry:

Well, how are you? I hope well. I hope reasonably happy.
I hope you'll send me a postcard from China. I'm not good at small
chatter so here is why I am writing.

The "Ladies Home Journal" in all of its good heartedness
would like to do a story on your mother and you. Specifically, they
would like a quite sweet piece on what you were like as a child, how
she brought you up, etc. It would be gentle and humorous.

Knowing that I knew you and had met your mother, they asked
if I would like to do the piece. My first thought was absolutely not. I
am too busy as is and don't need extra assignments. But then I thought
that it might be a story I would enjoy doing as I liked your mother so
much, and perhaps she, too, might enjoy it. And I felt if I turned down
the story, they might one day assign someone else who might be looking
for different things than I would.

I told the Journal that I would ask you how you felt and that I
would not do it unless you could see my copy and approve the story.
They agreed.

Would you let me know what your feelings are.

BW/mph

7/12/73 - HAK sign "eyo"

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

7 Argyll Mansions,
London, W.14.

14th. March, 1969.

Dear Professor Kissinger,

Many thanks for the short note sent by your assistant, Mr. Richard M. Moose, of the 21st. February. I appreciate the kind remark and hope that the ideas expressed will be of some value. I also hope that you have the chance to read Admiral Wylie's little book. He does go astray in his comments on policy, but the thoughts concerning the general theory of strategy in relation to Liddell Hart seems to make sense. It is interesting to note that Liddell Hart has been greatly influenced by the classic Chinese military writer Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu made the point, as much as did Clausewitz, that there must exist a relationship between force and policy.

Mr. Herman Kahn, in his book THINKING ABOUT THE UNTHINKABLE, seemed to illustrate our lack of understanding this basic point. Herman listed a set of fourteen alternative national policies. However, for the most part they were not policies but rather strategies. That is why I was most impressed with the observation you made at Princeton that a national policy is needed for the coming decades. It seems that we have missed an opportunity, however it is still present, of playing off China against the Russians.

Alexander Werth said in the New Statesman, January 1967 that: "In theory, but only in theory, the US is Russia's Enemy Number One. In reality, she is only Number Three. Number One is China. Number Two, Western Germany." How lovely it would be for the Russians if Number One were to fight Number Three! This might also explain why the Russians would be reluctant to help us get out of Vietnam.

While I have been very much opposed to the Vietnam War, I can see that at this point military pressure would be one means of forcing peace. The aim of war is, afterall, a more lasting peace. Bombing was not the answer or even near to it. What is needed is leadership which really understands guerrilla warfare. Pressure must also be put on the South Vietnamese to introduce reforms. Mr. Nixon must not allow another China Lobby to arise - no more XYZs. There is another, and more ingenuous, way to extract ourselves from Vietnam. Space does not permit me to outline this approach. And it seems vital to seek an end as the war is tearing American society apart.

If a major threat comes from the Russians in the future, then it is most likely to be via the indirect means from the sea. Fred T. Jane noted as far back as 1998 that it was in the Russian makeup to try to emulate England upon the sea. There is a great deal of

[LC]

-2-

evidence to suggest that this will be true in relation to the US.
They are making a major effort to obtain the largest possible merchant
fleet and it seems reasonable to suppose that they will build a suitable
navy for protection.

Many experts now feel that the nuclear-powered
undersea ship will be the capital vessel of the future navy. I had an
article in *The Royal United Service Institution Journal* November 1966
entitled "The Submersible Fleet of the Future" which, I believe, was
the first article to make such a statement. The following year Vice
Admiral Sir Arthur Hezlet came out with a book entitled *THE SUBMARINE
AND SEA POWER* with much the same prediction. He had been forced out
of the Royal Navy because of his views although relatively young.
Captain S.W. Roskill, who is the Official Historian, maintains the
same belief that the undersea ship will be dominant in the future.
The chief vocal opposition in this country comes from Vice Admiral Sir
Peter Gretton. Sir Peter was asked to review Sir Arthur's book. He re-
fused to even read it since, as he told me and others, it would only
infuriate him.

Sir Peter, in his book entitled MARITIME STRATEGY published in 1965, he wrote: "Everything possible must be done to allow aircraft to regain its supremacy." One must note here that Sir Peter concedes that in fact the lead has been lost! Would this necessarily mean the end of the West? It would be if we did not consider the great possibility and refused to read any contrary opinion on the matter. Sir Peter becomes contradictory since later he wrote: "In America, there is much talk of using very large transport submarines, carrying submersible craft, for amphibious operations of the future. My own opinion of this idea is that if nuclear attacks have made it necessary to put assault craft underwater, then the need for great amphibious operations will have disappeared together with most of civilisation, and I do not believe that the efforts of constructing such monsters is worthwhile." The term "monsters" is, of course, a loaded word. It is quite clear that Sir Peter is very much prejudice against submarines and undersea ships. It will not be nuclear attack which could force under naval force, but the threat of these undersea ships. Reconnaissance satellites will soon make the surface of the sea an open book. It has nothing to do with nuclear attack!

An item in *The Times* late last year concerning

-3-

NATO naval exercises in the Arctic area noted that the submarine was still dominant. The British aircraft carrier 'Eagle' was 'sunk' three times by submarines.

The Russians have had the uncanny ability to concentrate upon the decisive weapon of the era. You might recall the story about tank development during the Second World War. Guderian, who had been in Russia prior to the war, predicted that the Russians had 10,000 tanks. Since the Germans had only about 5000 tanks, I believe, when they attacked Russia, everyone thought that Guderian was mad. How could Russia - primitive Russia - have 10,000 tanks? As it turned out the estimate was low, although Guderian had wanted to use a higher estimate, since they had about 17,000 tanks and were ahead in tank development.

This is not to imply that the Russians are ten feet tall, but we should be aware of the possibility for surprise in the future. First, it does appear that the nuclear-powered undersea ship will be the capital ship of the future navy. Secondly, there are special reasons why such a possibility would appeal to the Russians above all others. This was seen by a British writer 20 years ago. M. Mitchell in a book entitled THE MARITIME HISTORY OF RUSSIA predicted the development of a nuclear-powered undersea ship and noted that it would have special attraction for the Russians in the Arctic. Of course, it would solve the age-old problem of free access to the sea. It could be a unifying factor for them since that country is geographically oriented towards the Arctic Ocean. I wrote an article on this several years ago entitled "The Soviet Union and the Arctic Ocean".

The Russians had moved a great deal of their submarine building to the Arctic behind the Urals to escape the German attack. They put it in sheds to ward off the weather, but today it must prevent adequate aerial, or space, reconnaissance. When I was a Consultant at the Hudson Institute I tried to find out about this, but, of course, one cannot go shopping around for information. I did obtain the impression that our knowledge is slight and we could be surprised. There is published information in the last few years to suggest that the Russians are concentrating effort upon the undersea ship. With VTOL aircraft one could envision seeing them come up with a submersible carrier. Surprise, as the Israelis have shown us, is still a vital factor.

I hope that these thoughts are of some value.

Robert E. Walters

RECEIVED

APR1 1 1969

CENTRAL FILES

7 Argyll Mansions.,
London, W. 14.

15th February, 1969.

Dear Professor Kissinger,

Many thanks for your letter of the 1st. inst.
regarding my earlier comments to you.

I am very pleased that you have found my remarks of interest. It seems to me that since the United States has a GNP 2½ times that of the Soviet Union, then a logical strategy can be evolved. The obsession which we have given to nuclear arms seems to have been due to the influence of the British geographer H. J. Mackinder who suggested that land power was overtaking sea power. This was not true, although at one time it seemed possible. The United States can successfully defend its own interests with a minimum of force without appeal to nuclear arms due to the fact that on land the defence is stronger than the attack. It is often been stated that guerrilla warfare poses a grave threat to the west. This is true, if we tend to resist social pressures such a land reform. But it also means that it will be difficult, indeed, impossible, for any one power or group of powers to ever dominate the whole of the Eurasian land mass. This should be the chief concern and not simply anti-communism since, like early Christianity, it is already splitting up into factions.

It seems to me that it is in the interests of the west, and most particularly the United States, that we try to forget nuclear arms. We cannot, of course, unilaterally disarm, but we can try to obtain a no-first use treaty. It seems that this is extremely urgent since with the possibility of the gas centrifuge method, we seem to be on the verge of an era of nuclear plenty. Mr. Healey takes the opposite line of thought in that any idea of abandoning the deterrence by the threat of nuclear escalation would be "more likely to feed the latent pressures in Europe for independent national deterrent forces than to encourage those countries to build up their conventional military strength." Mr. Healey might well be correct, but there are other areas of the world of importance notably the Middle East. And doubtlessly in the future there will be others. If we tend to legitimatise the proposition that nuclear arms are instruments of policy much like other weapons, then in an era of nuclear plenty we will be in for a very difficult time.

There is one avenue of investigation which is worth pursuing, and which might be of some interest to you. Nuclear arms were suggested in Vietnam, but they were not seriously pressed - not even by the military. The reason seems to have been that the Viet Cong greatly dispersed their forces which offered few suitable targets for nuclear arms. Sir Basil Liddell Hart had years ago made a study that the ratio of force to space needed to hold a certain area was declining over the years. The key to this seemed to be technical improvement in arms which gave more and more power concentrated in smaller units. One might ask what is the next step? The answer seems to be suggested, by of all people, Marshall McLuhan in his statement that electric circuitry is merely an extension of the nervous system.

Electric circuitry, or electronics, adds power to our senses. It makes a man more powerful. Micro-circuits, as you know are now being introduced. It seems to me that a number of ideas from various fields could be brought together to make a new model infantryman. There are weapons already which can knock out a tank. The trouble is that it takes considerable courage to close. If, however, this person

continuation

had some means of protection and a means of changing position quickly, then it might be a different matter. Also with micro-circuitry it would seem possible to provide the man with a means to shoot down expensive aircraft. I had suggested this idea to Sir Basil with a name "armoured knight", and he seems to think that it has a great deal of merit.

One could envision a man encased in a suit with a built-in light weight armour and electronic equipment. He would be immune from most types of CBW and able to withstand radiation. The potential power would enable forces to be widely dispersed, thus offering unlikely targets for nuclear arms. A rocket, already developed by Bell, I believe might be improved, and/or one-man helicopters could provide a means of movement. The idea may seem a little fantastic, at first, but it seems to be a logical development and a possible way to defeat any great tendency towards nuclear arms.

I would strongly urge you to consider this approach. It might be that this particular approach is wrong, but it would seem that the general philosophy behind it is sound. If Liddell Hart's analysis is correct that there is a declining ratio of force needed to hold a given area, then conceivably it should be possible to systematically extend this so that the use of even tactical nuclear arms would yield little benefit.

I noted that there has been a suggestion to use foreign experts and it would seem to be that some use should be made of Liddell Hart. The Israelis consult him quite regularly and he has had a great influence upon them.