11/4/124

thing that we will have to come back to later. We are most grateful to Mr. Moses and Mr. Spargo and Mr. Winslow for having aid us and for giving us the realities in operating and the planning of gathering political support, and the execution of big projects. This is what you have been telling us are the realities of that business. I think that the Chairman has suggested that we break at 12:45 and he has an announcement to make.

MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question, please? It may be a rhetorical question. I listined to Mr. Bascom and his picture of the Christmas tree in this room and it seems to me that perhaps that's the thing that has to be spread out some and I'm wondering who's doing that job, or what plan is being made to do that job. If that was disseminated, it might help, in my opinion, a great deal to influence a lot of us fellows who have to do the work of making provision for dispersal and that sort of stuff.

VOICE: I'm afraid I can't specifically answer that.

MR. ROCKEFELLER: May I ask a question? Is Russia doing anything at all in that area? Is there any knowledge of whether they have even considered the problem, irrelevant in a sense, but it has some interest for us. The Russians haven't done anything at all.

VOICE: I can't answer that question. I don't know. Perhaps someone here does.

DR. FISK: Well, one piece of information which I think is relevant

CYP

11/4/125

and I do know about--I don't know the extent to which it is being done, but I think it is two years old now, that in their new buildings in big cities, in Moscow in particular, the basements are being built with this in mind.

MR. HARR: This has been an extremely good session. Better than I've heard over a long period of time. People think of one side of the argument which is the need, and the other side of the argument which is the practical difficulties and I have never heard it done better than it was done here today. We are at least one step further and that is assuming that an executive charged with solving how you get this awful need fulfilled in some degree and how you overcome these almost insuperable difficulties raises the question casually referred to here as leadership. I think a couple of the elements of that problem are relevant to tie these two things together and one of them is this, that the thing that emerges most clearly to me is that nothing is going to shake human nature, whether it's settled habits, it's greeds, it's rejection of horrible concepts, and all the other problems with which Mr. Moses is confronted. Except a major trouble we do shake in time of war. We do get people to fight. None of them would do such things on a voluntary basis so that in order to achieve a climate, country-wide, which is capable of supporting the tremendous cost, material and personal, that are involved in putting through a program of this magnitude, there would have to be a major effort from somewhere. It would have to scare the "jesus" out of people one way or another. People know that atomic bombs are not very pleasant things; they probably have an exaggerated idea in many quarters of what's going to happen if there is an atomic war.

11/4/126

We also have to relate this to our total national policy, our foreign
affairs and also our will to conduct ourselves. What are your alternatives?
If you go out and say, "Now look, wake up, America! These are terrible times
and unless you get shelters and pay for them and build them and sacrifice the
things you have to do to do that, you aren't going to be around here any more."
All kinds of unpredictable events could arise from that due to unpopular
reaction. All kinds of headscratching would go on in the Kremlin, I think, the
day we decided to do that, too. If anything, it would look like we were
getting ready for something important and that might be it. It's a question
of how you accomplish a major, basic enough change in the philosophy of
the American people. Now they won't even do it in Mr. Moses' example of
the buildings in New York, multiplied by all the buildings that are going up
in New York. Now they won't even disperse any industry if there's a 5¢ crate
rate increase involved. How do you get from there to really useful, meaningful
shelter programs? That would take a major, major traumatic experience.
Now that major traumatic experience could blow the lid off.

VOICE: You're saying you must have sharp therapy and yet...

DR. BRONK: I think there is one attitude that the American people,
and probably all people, which is relevant to this and relates to both sides
of the study. I think most people feel that the worst thing is death and to
completely change our way of life and our whole American customs would be
worse than being killed.

11/4/127

VOICE: And I think perhaps they translate a meaning of this problem as being such a profound change in our habits that it would be wholly unacceptable and here's an area in which education and enlightenment is needed.

VOICE: Well, I spent a long time trying to get a chairman for the committee of the civilian defense activity of which Mr. Bascom is such a tremendously effective secretary. As Bill knows, I was turned down by leading scientist after leading scientist who would have no part of it because he said he preferred to use his efforts in prevention of the conditions which would make a civilian defense program useful. I know the other side that Ellis has that a good civil defense program is a major deterrent to attack and I think this is a very pertinent issue. But I am just trying to present the two sides of the picture. As I see it many people are thoroughly aware of the hazard but they preferred to do everything they could to prevent the conditions arising to make the civil defense program of any use.

MR. ROCKEFELLER: I would like to make two brief comments. One is the attitude of the administration towards this was raised and the President's attitude - now I heard him speak on this subject and I thought it was an interesting point of view - is that it would be a tremendous force for peace, that civil defense is. I heard him lecture various officials on this subject. His argument is that the capacity to break the enemie's will to resist is one of the strong objectives of any aggressive force, that the fear of attack is the best way to break the American will to resist if they should attack.
Therefore, if they know they have adequate protection even though the physical

C y J

11/4/128

things may be destroyed, their lives were being protected, their will would be much stronger. He comes out in his own mind that there is need for and a usefulness for the civil defense program.

The other point I want to make is that I didn't get from Mr. Bascom's presentation the feeling that it was a major change in our way of life. It seems to me that he presented it as an indeterminate question. Bob points out that the things that engineers and construction people can very easily tell. They can say that such and such protection is adequate and you can find out what it costs. It seemed to me that that was one of the interesting features of this presentation, that it was an extremely reasonable thing which did not involve any major disruption of our whole way of life. In other words, it was not "going underground" and living there and destroying the values that we know.

VOICE: But one of the leading members (I won't identify him any further) of Mr. Bascom's committee said that he thought it was a crime that New York was perpetuated as a city. I said to him, OK, what about the endowment of this university and that university, what about every cultural institution in the United States if you just liquidate New York?

CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, I hate to bring this to a close except to say that there are refreshments and Jim, did you have anything to say?

GENERAL MCCORMACK: This is only a precursor to an announcement.