MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
LINCOLN LABORATORY

LEXINGTON 73. MASSACHUSETTS

Volunteer 2-3370

January 5, 1962

Dr. J. B. Wiesner
Science Adviser to the President
The White House
Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Jerry:

With Shep Stone summing up the Study Group situation last week as "...many people in Washington are not keen about it. We are marking time, and we must await developments" (attached note just forwarded by Ernie Lefever), the Academy committee is eager to make whatever start we can on the relevant developments.

You suggested when we talked on December 21 that you should be jogged about now, on what you might do on behalf of the proposal, as requested in my December 14 letter. With the next chance for a Ford Foundation decision approaching with their February 16 meeting date, will this note serve as a jog? And, unless there is word from you in the meantime, may I plan to call you, say, next Thursday?

If we are to get our funds out of them this spring, it seems clear we must rally support now, and have this influential and unambiguous. Anything you can do to help we shall appreciate.

DGB:fw
cc: Messrs. Doty,
Frisch,
Kissinger,
Leghorn,
Shulman,
Sohn

Message, Thursday, January 1, 1962

Don Brennan called, is anxious to have you join him, Foster, Wiesner,
in Washington on Monday, Feb. 12th to meet on study group. I
explained that you would just have returned, and that it was unlikely.
He would at least like to speak with you, and will call Thursday the
8th (with the hopes of persudding you to go to Wash.)

LINCOLN LABORATORY

LEXINGTON 73, MASSACHUSETTS

Volunteer 2-3370

March 6, 1962

Mr. McGeorge Bundy
The White House
Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Mac:

There is a difficulty about a matter of considerable importance, and some White House assistance is likely to be important -- perhaps decisive -- in solving the problem. Henry Kissinger and I independently thought you could help with it, and Bob Komer suggested we bring the problem to your attention by this letter, about which he will try to tell you before it actually reaches you.

I gather you know in general terms of the existence of the American Academy proposal for an International Study Group on arms control and disarma-ment. A copy of the proposal is attached, and the Committee behind the propos-al is named on the last page of it; with the possible exception of Dave Frisch, I expect all the members are known to you. (It was Henry Kissinger's member-ship in this committee that led to his involvement with this letter.) Briefly, the proposal suggests that five participants each from the U. S. and the Sovi-et Union, supplemented by perhaps one or two each from Britain and France, de-vote full time in private for at least one or two years to the joint study of problems of arms control, including such topics as methods of maintaining the peace and rules of peaceful coexistence. We hope to have the Group divide its time equally between the U. S. and the Soviet Union, shifting back and forth between the two every few months. Responsibility for the American end of the operation would reside in the American Academy. The prospective U. S. participants we (i.e., the Committee) have lined up and available include Ben Cohen and Robert Oppenheimer -- in the latter case especially, subject to a suitable but probably achievable consensus in the Government -- and the Group can, we believe, be rounded out with people of comparable quality and sense of responsibility, though some of them would be younger men. (For a variety of reasons, the Group will not include me.) The Soviets have indicated they would provide participants of roughly comparable stature.

The least results we would hope and expect to achieve include a vari-ety of insights into Soviet modes of thought and behavior concerning this sub-ject that would be difficult or impossible to achieve by conventional means, and making the Soviets more sophisticated -- i.e., by educating them more thor-oughly in our modes of thought. It would be rash to expect sweeping substan-tive results right away, but the long-term gains could indeed be quite large, and even the minimum expectable results seem substantial. In contrast, the maximum expectable costs seem wholly trivial, provided at least that we con-tinue to emphasize to the Soviets that it is an unofficial group and that they

Mr. McGeorge Bundy -- 3.

March 6, 1962

has had a request in to Foster for a meeting of the three of us so that we
might try to discuss ways of alleviating whatever concerns Foster has, but
this has not transpired, in part because of Foster's illness. However, with
this request still outstanding, I doubt that Jerry would wish to try an end
run around Foster to the President. But Henry and I feel no such compunction;
it seems to me (and to others) that the projected Group is likely to be far
more important and useful than the forthcoming circus in Geneva. It is un-
fortunate that the pressure of the circus is coinciding with the March 22-23
meeting of the Ford Trustees, but this is part of a problem of Foster's own
making.

It is doubtful if a call from you to Foster would be helpful. How-
ever, in view of his many recent statements about such things as the importance
of keeping the channels of communication very widely open, it seems unequiv-
ocally clear that the President would be strongly sympathetic to the proposed
Study Group. If he could call up Foster and express a correspondingly strong
hope that Foster give the proposal favorable consideration, I expect the call
would have a most salutary effect.

Possibly there is someone else in opposition who has influenced
Foster, but if so we have not been able to identify who this might be.

If we do not go forward with the Study Group, it will become quite
clear to the Russians, not to mention the whole of the domestic community of
arms controllers, that it is because of foot-dragging by the Administration.
As a final, parenthetic point, so far as I am aware neither Foster nor anyone
else in the Government is currently planning to use either Ben Cohen or Robert
Oppenheimer and they are wasting assets. Foster is really getting the way.

This letter is obviously of the utmost privacy, but Bob Komer and
Henry Kissinger both know of it and should have copies. Otherwise, I believe
this is a matter on which the rest of the Academy Committee would be willing
to forgo being informed, and they will not be briefed on either this letter
or its outcome.

DGB:fv
cc: H. A. Kissinger
R. W. Komer

encl.

LEXINGTON 73, MASSACHUSETTS

Volunteer 2-3370

March 16, 1962

Professor Henry A. Kissinger
Center for International Affairs
Harvard University
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Henry:

You will find enclosed two copies each of the letter from Mac Bundy and my return letter to him. The reason for the second copy of each is to provide you with copies in case you wish to send one of each to Arthur Schlesinger. I do not have any very good rationale for sending him copies myself, but you surely would.

I believe we are not yet so completely out of the woods as Bundy's letter might suggest, though it is certainly a most hopeful sign. There is reason to believe that it would be most valuable to get to the President through a friendly source at the earliest possible moment, preferably not later than early or the middle part of next week. If you could help arrange this, via Arthur Schlesinger or otherwise, it might well prove vital. In this connection, what would you and/or he think of trying to interest Bobby Kennedy in this project?

Keep your fingers crossed, and do not lose any opportunities to help that may offer themselves. Your help to date has been crucial.

DGB:jej
enc.

LINCOLN LABORATORY

LEXINGTON 73, MASSACHUSETTS

Volunteer 2-3370

March 16, 1962

The Honorable John J. McCloy
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York 5, New York

Dear Mr. McCloy:

Subsequent to your most generous conversation yesterday afternoon, a rereading of my letter from Mac Bundy left me with the feeling that his response had a slightly different tone than may have been communicated to you in his call. Since his letter did not include anything he did not already say to you, I am sure he would not mind your having a copy, and one is enclosed.

Following your suggestion, we shall make it as clear as possible in further discussions with people in Washington that we are not trying to get them to influence the Foundation, nor are we trying to use the Foundation to influence the Government. (The importance of this point was also stressed by Joe Slater in an earlier conversation.) In this connection, I probably should have explained during our conversation that we had neither asked nor expected that Mac Bundy would call you with your Foundation "hat" on. In some ways it might have been better if he had not, though we are of course enormously grateful to him for his interest and help.

It is indeed a shame that the Russians have dropped out of the return Dartmouth-Crimea Conference, but on reflection it does not seem too likely that this augurs badly for the proposed American Academy Group. And if the Russians continue to be willing to proceed with our operation, we are convinced that it will be one of the most effective ways available of providing some long-term education of the Russians about some very important matters.

Though unfortunately I missed the program myself, I understand that your appearance on "CBS Reports" last night went very well. It has become increasingly clear to the community of people interested in these matters that we should have made a more determined effort to keep you in that job.

bcc: H.A. Kissinger
DGB:jej
enc.

* Indeed, we could & would if necessary get our money elsewhere, either from other foundations or — in the last resort — by public subscription.

-- PRIVATE --

2 May 1962

To: Members of the Committee on International Studies of Arms Control, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

From: D.G. Brennan

Re: Matter of Official Reassurances Desired by the Foundation, and Letter to the Committee from W. C. Foster (attached)

Since my last memo to the Committee on February 16th about this problem, a meeting last Tuesday, April 24th, with Mr. W. C. Foster has provided some valuable clarification. This is set forth in a letter Mr. Foster has kindly provided the Committee, copy enclosed, which arrived Monday and which has been passed on to Shepard Stone for his use for the Foundation's review purposes.

In the meeting Tuesday (at which Frank Long, an Assistant Director of ACDA, was also present) Mr. Foster reviewed again some of his misgivings about the projected Study Group but stressed -- as does his letter -- that neither he personally nor the Agency is attempting to obstruct the emergence of the Group. He affirmed that this represents no change in what has been his position right along, although some important observers have taken a different view. He further observed that he was glad to provide this statement (which follows closely a suggested draft we provided for his possible use, which was deliberately worded conservatively), and we were free to distribute it to anyone interested. At the same meeting, Mr. Foster reviewed our list of conceivable participants, drawn up chiefly from names proposed in earlier Committee discussions.

I talked with Shepard Stone by telephone yesterday. He had just returned from Washington and had understood there that some clarification had been achieved, and -- although he is leaving this week for Europe, to be absent until May 20th -- he was anxious to see Mr. Foster's letter and expressed readiness to begin working again on the Study Group application directly upon his return. It was Stone's tentative impression that this letter may be sufficient for him to reopen his investigations. There is some chance that he may have the matter sufficiently in hand for the Trustees' meeting in late June; however, this cannot be assured at the moment of writing. He appreciates the considerable difficulties apparent to us, abroad as well as domestically, if the matter must be held over until the Trustees' next meeting thereafter, which is not until September.

Some of these matters can be elaborated when we next meet, which should be at a relatively early date. Among other things, we should work out some more formal rules of procedure, or "by-laws", for the Study Group, governing such matters as selection of participants and the expenditure of funds. Draft suggestions will be sent by mail in the near future.

DGB:fw

encl.

Information copy: Dr. Hudson Hoagland
Dr. John Edsall

UNITED STATES ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY
WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF
THE DIRECTOR

April 25, 1962

RECEIVED

APR 30 1962

D. G BRENNAN

Dear Dr. Brennan:

With reference to the projected International
Study Group proposed by the American Academy Committee,
I must stress that this Agency could not provide any
form of endorsement of the proposal. There are a
variety of reasons why it would be inappropriate for
me to support the idea personally.

On the other hand, it should also be stressed
that neither this Agency, nor I personally, is attempting
to obstruct the establishment of the Group.

Therefore, whether the Group is to emerge or not
is a matter that should not be influenced by this Agency,
either officially or otherwise.

The people constituting the American Academy
Committee that would guide the group are known to me to
be responsible members of the community, and I am confi-
dent that the Committee would take all possible precautions
to insure that the members of the Study Group, if it
emerges, will act as responsible private citizens and
scientists. It is also essential to stress repeatedly
to the foreign members of the Group and others the fact
that the American participants speak in purely personal
capacities and are not official spokesmen in any sense
whatever.

Dr. D. G. Brennan, Chairman
Committee on International Studies of Arms Control
American Academy of Arts and Sciences
c/o Lincoln Laboratory, M.I.T.
Lexington 73, Mass.

LEXINGTON 79, MASSACHUSETTS

Volunteer 2-3370

May 3, 1962

Mr. William C. Foster
U. S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Mr. Foster:

All the members of the American Academy Committee concerned with the Study Group proposal would like to record their thanks to you for your kindness in providing your letter of April 25, which serves to clarify the fact that neither you nor the Agency is either endorsing or obstructing the establishment of the proposed Group. This will surely be helpful for our own purposes, and, we hope, it may also be helpful for your purposes.

You may be sure that the Committee takes seriously the prob-
lems of insuring the responsibility of participants in the Group
and of insuring that everyone understands the participants speak
in purely private capacities, as indicated in your letter of
the 25th.

DGB:jej

CC: Messrs. P. M. Doty
D. H. Frisch
H. A. Kissinger
R. S. Leghorn
M. D. Shulman
L. B. Sohn
J. T. Edsall, Ex Officio

OFFICE OF
THE DIRECTOR

Apr 11 1962

RECEIVED

APR 30 1962

D. G BRENNAN

Dear Dr. Brennan:

Dr. D. G. Brennan, Chairman
Committee on International Studies of Arms Control
American Academy of Arts and Sciences
c/o Lincoln Laboratory, M.I.T.
Lexington '73, Mass.

M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory
P.O. Box 73

Lexington 73, Massachusetts

June , 1962

Please note the following change of address, which becomes effective July 15:

D. G. Brennan
The Hudson Institute
Quaker Ridge Road
Harmon-on-Hudson, New York

Telephone: Rogers 2-0700 (Area Code 914)

(Note also the change in address of the Hudson Institute, which formerly was located in White Plains, N.Y.)

HUDSON INSTITUTE

QUAKER RIDGE ROAD, HARMON-ON-HUDSON, N. Y. CABLE ADDRESS HUDSON 914 RO 2-0700

COPY

April 19, 1963

Mr. Wayland Young
100 Baywater Road
London W.2, England

Dear Wayland:

Having gotten a major draft report for ACDA out of the way
several days ago, I have been rapidly getting caught up on my back
work on behalf of the journal. You will shortly get a flood of reviews
and the like, but it seemed best to begin with a general letter on stan-
dards and procedures and basic philosophy, partly in response to your
letter of 28 March and our earlier correspondence relating to this area.
As I told you before, Henry Kissinger and I had some brief discussion
about this subject and I think Henry agrees in principle with much of
what follows, but I shall send him a copy of this letter directly so he
can himself confirm or deny his support of this letter in whatever
degree he wishes.

The basic point in my own mind is that a journal on arms control
and disarmament will be useful if, and only if, it maintains the very
highest standards of quality. The "if" part of this dictum is obvious;
the "only if" part of it may not be so obvious, and I should expand on
it.

Most of the people whom we most wish to reach with this
journal--the people who should read it when it really has something
to say--are very busy. Some few potentially significant readers may
be students, or perhaps isolated from streams of literature by some
other means, so I can conceive of occasional exceptions, but for the
most part we should understand our audience as one for which time is
a precious commodity. People in relevant positions in the government
here, and presumably there as well, are besieged by dozens or hundreds
of papers that have little or nothing to say to them or which may often
be down right woolly-headed. They sometimes have trouble keeping up
with important staff papers generated within their own departments.