DIRECTOR

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
WASHINGTON

April 14, 1973

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

Dear Henry:

As you may recall, USIA distributed widely your television interview with Marvin Kalb. The reports I have seen show that it had more of a positive effect than any television interview USIA has circulated in recent years. Our people in Stockholm told us: "We were handed a large assist by Swedish television recently when it screened the Kissinger-Kalb interview on two occasions. Positive comment has come from highest Government circles to radicalized young people. Henry Kissinger is an acceptable, creditable expostulator of U.S. foreign policy. If this is so in Sweden, where most of the target has heretofore mentally tuned out any view which does not express its own preconceptions, it must be doubly so in many other places."

Having reported this, I now make my pitch. We would very much like to have you do two half-hour television interviews for us after the President's foreign policy message is released in May. In one show you would be interviewed by three Washington-based European journalists and in the other by three Washington-based Asian journalists.

I can assure you that both shows would be carried live by networks throughout Europe and Asia, and that there is no more effective way of getting the Administration's viewpoint across to the audiences of the most importance to us. I very much hope you will be able to give us enough of your extremely valuable time for this project.

With best regards.

The Honorable
Henry Kissinger
The White House

RECEIVED

APR 3 0 1973

CENTRAL FILES

telephone

(Type of request)

5/22/70

(Date received)

dcm

(By)

KERR

(Last name and pending date)

To:

From: GENERAL

FGG-11-1/KISSINGER, HENRY A.
KISSINGER, HENRY A./K.

Name: Clark Kerr, Political Settlement in VN

Request: Will be in D. C. May 25 & 26 and again June 8 & 9 and would
like to see HAK re the committee's proposal for a cease fire.

Contact: Mary Temple 212/889-4018

DRY's Recommendation:

HAK's Answer: NO - 5/28

Date and Time: 1/1

Party Contacted: 6/11

Additional Information: EBE

RECEIVED

JUN 3 1970

Resolution:

CENTRAL FILES

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

Dr. Clark Kerr // 11/9&10/70

(Last name and pending date)

**Name:** Dr. Clark Kerr, Chairman for the Committee for Political Settlement in Vietnam

**Request:** wants to see HAK as HAK invited him to do in a recent letter. Will be in Wash. on Monday and Tuesday.
"HAK will know what he wants to talk about. .They are personal friends."

Contact: Mary Temple at 212/889-4018

jlj 11/4/70

DRY's Recommendation:

HAK's Answer:

Date and Time:

Party Contacted:

Additional Information:

Resolution:

GENERAL

LAP

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

PLAYBOY

February 10, 1972

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

It is our pleasure to send you advance reprints of "Aerospaced Out" which appears in the March 1972 issue of PLAYBOY Magazine.

U. S. Senator Alan Cranston is concerned with the arms race and its propensity for gobbling vast sums of money that might better be spent elsewhere; on the other hand, he represents a constituency that's heavily involved in aerospace and defense. Cranston's solution, a sort of scientific WPA, is outlined in his article.

If you should care to comment on this piece, the Editors would be pleased to accept your letter, for publication or not, as you desire.

Managing Editor

JK/jmm
Enclosure

FEB 1'S 1972

CENTRAL FILES

THE PLAYBOY BUILDING • 919 N. MICHIGAN AVE. • CHICAGO 60611

defense industries are located—in Cali-
fornia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New
York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New
Jersey, Missouri, Washington and Florida.
Cutbacks in space and defense contracts
and a drop in Vietnam expenditures from
28 billion dollars to around ten billion
dollars annually, grossly exacerbated by a
general economic slowdown, brought the
mass layoffs. There were 235,000 scientists
and engineers employed in aerospace in
1968. Today there are around 150,000.
Total employment in aerospace is down
nearly 518,000 from 1968, the peak year
of employment, when 1,400,000 were on
the industry payrolls.

Since the end of World War Two,
the aerospace and defense industries
have roller-coastered through their own
depression-prosperity cycles, generated by
alternate waves of war scares, defense-
technology "breakthroughs" and big-
spending space programs. And now the
roller coaster is down again, deep in the
trough of NASA budget cuts and a slow-
down in defense spending—an estimated
18 billion dollars in defense procurement
for 1972, compared with 24 billion dol-
lars in 1968—due in no small part to
Congressional resistance to unwarrantedly
large defense budgets.

So George Florea got the ax. And he
and other engineers and scientists, wor-
ried industrialists and perplexed politi-
cians are asking: What happened to
conversion? The men and the companies
that built the enormously complex
Apollo rockets, spaceships and communi-
cations systems surely have something to
contribute to meeting our critical civilian
needs.

Electronically operated transportation
systems, complex computer networks for
programmed education and health serv-
ices, air- and water-pollution-control sys-
tems, airport-traffic-control systems, ocean
and atmospheric monitoring, assembly-line
mass-produced housing, plus hundreds of
other ideas for solving the nation's eco-
nomic, social and environmental prob-
lems have been offered. But what has
resulted?

Conversion may have been talked to
death—if, indeed, it ever was alive.
Hundreds of studies, millions of written
words, thousands of speeches and desks
full of editorials have warned, charged,
proposed, exhorted, complained and ex-
plained the need for the nation to prepare
for peace and begin the task of converting
our giant aerospace and defense technol-
ogy from arms production to the produc-
tion of civilian goods and services.

Congress for years has wrestled with
the question of conversion. Scores of
hearings have been held, legislation intro-
duced, surveys made, economists and
business experts heard. But for all those
hearings and studies, surveys and re-
ports, America continues to waste the

85,000 engineering and scientific brains
that helped design our intricate space
and defense systems and to waste billions
of dollars' worth of plants and equip-
ment that now lie rusting.

Six years ago, the state of California
commissioned four systems-analysis studies
by the aerospace industry. The idea was
to apply the aerospace-systems approach
to dealing with crime, transportation and
waste disposal. The studies drew national
attention as forerunners of how space and
missile engineering and management tech-
niques could be used to solve more earthly
problems. Today, under a different state
administration, the four studies are
gathering dust on the "conversion shelf"
in the California State Library—four
more monuments to America's naive faith
that a problem will be solved if only
enough people keep talking and writing
about it.

Few people doubt that these experts
could design civilian systems to help
solve social and governmental problems
if they were given the chance. That's
not the problem. The hang-up lies in
the failure of government to plan ade-
quately for the redeployment of men
and facilities far enough in advance of
the layoffs and cutbacks. The arms race
triggered by Cold War fears after World
War Two, the space race triggered by
the Soviet success with Sputnik in 1957,
and the Korean and Vietnam wars kept
the high-technology aerospace and de-
fense industries busy. Unemployment
was only an occasional thing. An engi-
neer was never out of work; he was only
"between jobs," like a Hollywood actor.
He waited out an occasional layoff beside
his swimming pool, where he leisurely se-
lected the best of several attractive offers.

But now the historic Apollo program is
almost finished and the NASA budget
has been severely cut. Total industry
sales have dropped from nearly 30 bil-
lion dollars in 1968 to around 23.3 bil-
lion dollars in 1971. Yet no coordinated
plan has been put forth to move men
and materials out of armaments and
space exploration and into jobs to im-
prove our society and the lives of our
people. The "peace dividend" that pri-
vate and Governmental economists avid-
ly anticipated, the money that was to be
left over for more productive purposes
when costly cold and hot wars were
wound down, has yet to appear in the
national budget. It has been eaten up
by inflation, the incessant drive for new
weapons and the futile, unending race
to outpace military obsolescence.

It's simply not possible to speak of
guns and butter when we spend more
on military matters than on anything
else. Our Government seems unable to
conceive of anything with a higher
priority than arms and arms races. In

Consequence, domestic problems such as
education, health, housing and transpor-
tation have been sacrificed. Sacrificed
too, have been the jobs these pursuits
could have created and the men who
could have filled them.

One California engineer commits sui-
cide holding a handful of rejection let-
ters telling him there are no openings;
another operates an ice-cream stand;
George Florea becomes Santa Claus; and
thousands of others head for the welfare
offices and unemployment-benefit lines.
There is growing bitterness on those lines.
Thomas O. was an aerospace engineer-
manager near San Jose, California, with
six kids and a $300-a-month home. He
owned a boat and was making payments
on two cars. Now he's on welfare, using
food stamps to feed the kids. He's articu-
late and angry:

"You know, we aerospace people
thought we were a special breed and we
still try to keep our elitist position even
in the unemployment lines. We talk
about *The Wall Street Journal*. We
dress up in our suits as though we were
going to lunch with an important execu-
tive. Most of all, we look straight ahead
as we stand in line, trying not to see the
other unemployed workers around us.
Well, I'm tired of that 'motherhood,
sunshine and 1972-will-be-better' bull.
Engineers are expected not to rock the
boat, but if being unemployed has taught
me anything, it has opened my eyes to
the great big lie I've been fed about being
an elitist."

Melvin S. of Los Angeles sardonically
suggests that aerospace engineers be list-
ed as an endangered species and pro-
poses the establishment of an Aerospace
Preserve and Environmental Sanctuary
(APES). A newly formed organization
called the American Engineers and Sci-
entists Association is attempting to organ-
ize a national campaign to discourage
students from entering engineering and
scientific programs of study.

Even when an engineering job does
open up, the help-wanted ad will often
read, "No aerospace, please." Why no aero-
space? "They're too old. . . . They've been
overpaid. . . . They're overspecialized.
. . . They haven't kept up to date in their
fields. . . . Young graduates are smarter,
know computers, come cheaper and are
more eager. . . ." So the answers go.

How about retraining? Why not turn
the aerospace engineer into, say, an en-
vironmental engineer? Twenty-four men
who would rather switch than continue
a losing fight have undergone that kind
of retraining at the University of Cali-
fornia at Irvine. Others are enrolled in
special summer programs at USC. But
will there be jobs for them when they
are finished? The answer is uncertain. For
one thing, the money for massive pollution-

control systems isn't being made available either by Government or by industry.

For another, these men will be competing with younger, freshly turned out environmental engineers. Many prospective employers consider the 50-year-old engineer no match even for the undergraduate engineering student of 1972. "Our freshmen start right in on computers," says a department head of a university engineering school. "They deal with advanced concepts and are taught to think conceptually. The man who graduated 25 or 30 years ago doesn't know computers and if he hasn't been going back to school regularly, he no longer even knows the field in which he was trained."

Better job-information systems are being devised. The Department of Labor has created a national registry for engineers and other skilled workers, and there presently are job banks in more than 100 major cities, linked by teletype and computers, to list and match jobs and applicants. A few men are being placed. But with further cutbacks and phase-outs scheduled, unemployment in aerospace is mounting faster than jobs are opening up in other fields.

Some aerospace companies foresaw trouble coming and began diversifying years ago. A few companies merged. They and others acquired satellite firms. Some set up new companies to convert from space technology to the production of civilian goods. A number of these businesses began experimenting with programmed education, communications networks based on computers and new systems for environmental controls. They have had some success—though, clearly, a $250,000 contract for designing a sewage-disposal system for a small town in Ohio is hardly in the same league with a billion-dollar contract for a Saturn booster.

Nevertheless, some aerospace companies have proved that where a real need exists and money is available, either conversion or diversification can be effected.

Litton Industries is completing an experimental smog-monitoring system for the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. Litton's environmental-systems division in Camarillo, California, which has been involved in pollution-monitoring systems since 1967, is building 12 automated, remote monitoring stations to keep constant tabs on the area's temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, and concentrations of sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and other contaminants. Linked by telephone lines to a central computer, the stations serve as an instant-warning system for broadcasting smog alerts and will track new sources of pollution. Litton predicts a $250,000,000 market for pollution-monitoring systems in the United States

alone. Judging by prospects and needs, Litton may be thinking small.

Another California aerospace company, the Electro Dynamics division of General Dynamics in San Diego, is working on the prototype of an ocean-monitoring system to provide basic data on the marine biosphere, which, many scientists agree, is seriously threatened by pollution and poisoning. Electro Dynamics is building six automated electronic ocean buoys for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency at a cost of about $3,000,000. If the pilot project is successful, Electro Dynamics foresees a system of up to 500 buoys, costing perhaps $500,000,000, in the next ten years.

The oceans are basic to man's life on this planet. They are the source of 70 percent of our oxygen and ten percent of the animal protein we consume each year. We could get much more life-sustaining protein out of the oceans if we tried. Two billion tons of fish are hatched each year, yet we catch just three percent—60,000,000 tons—by means of present techniques. Those two billion tons of fish, if caught, would quadruple the amount of fish protein now available. And if we were to distribute the catch more equitably throughout the world, it could provide the basic protein needs of a world population ten times the present 3.6 billion.

This is not to suggest that we ever could—or would want to—catch and consume that much fish. We probably couldn't change world dietary habits that radically and, in any case, we would want to be wary lest we upset the ecological balance of the seas. But we have a long way to go if we want to convert the oceans into the "breadbasket of the future." And there are many technological advances that could be made if we had a mind (and were willing to spend the money) to make them.

The oceans are also a vast source of mineral wealth. Massive concentrations of minerals lie on the ocean floors and huge oil deposits are under the continental shelves. Yet we have all but neglected oceanic exploration. The scientists and engineers who conquered space are only now moving into the deep waters of the ancient mysteries of the sea. North American-Rockwell's ocean-systems division developed a small research submarine that could become part of a futuristic underwater oil-development system. North American and Mobil Oil jointly produced a $5,200,000 prototype underwater oil-pumping station that can be serviced from a submarine. The underwater oil-pumping system, built under a cylindrical structure, will permit oil operations in the waters of the continental shelf. Had such a system been available in 1969, the blowout disaster in the Santa Barbara Channel might have been prevented.

I contend, and I have introduced legislation in the Senate to back up my contention, that all oil drilling in Federal waters in the channel should be halted until we have perfected the technique of sea-bottom oil completions. We already have much of the know-how. We have the scientists and engineers. We lack only the incentive and the determination. By forbidding further oil exploitation of the outer continental shelf until it can be accomplished pollution-free, my bill would supply both the incentive (albeit a negative incentive of the loss of industrial profits and Governmental revenues) and the determination (to regain both profits and revenues).

Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, which got into oceanwork through its Polaris submarine and other underwater defense systems, has also been doing much marine experimentation. Its Deep Quest submarine has been conducting research and rescue operations. It salvaged, for example, the flight-log tape recorder from a commercial-airline jet that crashed in the deep ocean water off Los Angeles in January 1969, enabling investigators to determine the cause of the accident. Lockheed has also developed an ocean oil-pumping system and is investigating methods of mining the valuable manganese modules that cover huge expanses of the ocean floor.

Westinghouse Electric, General Electric and a host of other companies also are involved in ocean-systems work of one kind or another and to one degree or another. But most of the work is merely exploratory and almost all of it is vastly underfunded. Federal expenditures for oceanography in fiscal 1971 totaled $518,500,000. That's about the equivalent of seven days of warfare in Vietnam when we were spending 28 billion dollars a year there defoliating the countryside, destroying villages and crashing helicopters in the jungles as though they were dime-store toys with make-believe occupants.

Proponents of the SST argued that many George Floreas could have been employed if Congress had not voted to end Federal funding. I was among those who voted against it. I did so because I believe the SST is an unjustified aeronaut, environmental and economic gamble that neither the country nor the aviation industry really needs.

Our real aviation needs are easier to meet: faster access to and from airports; fewer delays in landings and take-offs; greater flying safety, both at airports and in mid-air; nonpolluting, quieter aircraft; and, most notably, short-take-off-and-landing planes (STOLs) capable of feeding smaller and more conveniently located airports.

STOL aircraft are capable of operat-

ing on 1500-foot runways. Such planes, already being experimentally flown by McDonnell-Douglas, could serve the 90 percent of our 11,261 airports that conventional jets, requiring 7500-to-10,000-foot runways, cannot use. They could relieve congestion at our major airports by making short hauls to places not served by the big jets. Short hauls, airline executives have pointed out, are the real meat and potatoes of the business—not flying a few affluent travelers across the ocean at supersonic speeds.

We need greatly improved ground-to-air traffic control and microwave landing-guidance systems, and we need high-speed, nonpolluting ground transportation between airports and adjoining cities. What air traveler hasn't had the frustration of being caught in car-bus jams on airport streets, spending as much time fighting traffic and fumes on the ground as he spends in the air?

Alternatives are available. A 200-mile-an-hour overhead monorail and air-cushion vehicles can be built. Systems have been proposed for both Dulles Airport near Washington, D. C., and between Los Angeles Airport and the San Fernando Valley. But, again, Federal financing has been hesitant, meager and late. Had President Johnson, for example, decided in 1965 to put $800,000,000 into designing and subsidizing an air-cushion train—instead of the ill-fated and inglorious SST—he would have promoted a largely pollution-free new industry that today would be employing tens of thousands of industrial and construction workers. And though President Nixon, shortly after he took office, announced that our cities would need at least ten billion dollars in Federal aid to meet their mass-transit needs over the next 12 years, the bill the Administration supported limited the amount that could be obligated during the first five years to just 3.1 billion dollars.

How far can that kind of money stretch on a two-to-one Federal/city matching basis (as the law proposes), in light of our needs? Not very far. San Francisco has already spent 1.4 billion dollars (93 percent of it in local funds) on its Bay Area Rapid Transit. Los Angeles estimates it will cost 2.5 billion dollars over the next eight years to meet the transportation needs of its inner city and New York puts its need at ten billion dollars over the next five years.

I proposed giving the Department of Transportation immediate authority to obligate the Federal Government up to the full ten billion dollars, so our cities would know for sure how much money they could expect from Washington in the next decade and could move rapidly ahead to meet their mass-transit needs. My proposal won 24 Senate votes—not enough to win. I also proposed a mass-transit trust fund, similar to the highway trust fund that has made freeway construction so prolific. But I lost on

that, too. I intend to try again, however, on both counts.

With the right kind of Government help, the aerospace industry could tackle another air-travel problem—the monstrous noise that plagues millions of people who live and work under jet landing and take-off paths. And it could create more jobs in the process. Through retrofitting—soundproofing engine nacelles and enlarging the size of the engine's exhaust outlets—jet noise could be cut at least in half. I have introduced a bill that would require that the near-2000 jet planes now in use be retrofitted by January 1, 1976. Based on formulas prepared by the Aerospace Industries Association, I estimate that if my bill becomes law, 35,000 people will be employed for two years developing and installing the retrofits, and these jobs will generate another 57,000 jobs outside aerospace. Hundreds of these jobs would go to aerospace engineers presently collecting food stamps and reading want ads.

Health and education systems also are ready targets for new electronic, computerized systems. Medical-information specialists believe the crisis in medical care cannot be solved without quantum-jump improvements in information systems, using computer banks and video matrix terminals (two-way television-like communication devices). Lockheed Missiles and Space Company at Sunnyvale (Florea's old firm) designed and built a video-computer medical-information system for a hospital, utilizing space-age communication devices. The system involves computerized record keeping on all patients and television devices that flash diagnostic and treatment information to doctors and nurses.

Many education specialists believe similar systems are needed to modernize schools and improve individualized self-teaching through mass-media techniques—primarily television and computers.

The makers of the weapons of mass death have, ironically, considerable capacity to perfect and produce nonlethal weapons, ones that could help civilian police reduce the unpleasantness of some of their unpleasant work and, at the same time, vastly increase their ability to maintain law and order—justly. Because of the general unavailability of effective nonlethal devices, police often have difficulty dealing adequately with civil disorders in which the use of deadly force may be uncalled for or stopping a fugitive or responding to an attack for fear of shooting bystanders.

Police also need flexible, effective and quickly available protective equipment to shield them from bodily harm during the performance of their duty. In many instances of so-called overreaction, law-enforcement officers are, in fact, reacting to real or imagined threats to their lives. A policeman or a deputy who doesn't feel his life is in imminent jeopardy is

better able to keep his cool and act in a restrained, professional manner.

The Ground Systems Group of Hughes Aircraft Company recently completed a detailed design for a $45,000,000 command-control communications system for the Los Angeles Police Department that may revolutionize policework. A digital radio transmitter in each patrol car is connected to computer terminals and enables the policeman to obtain immediate data on suspects, stolen cars and other missing property. By means of broadcast radio signals, every car is automatically tracked by computers. Dispatchers are able to spot car locations instantly on electronic maps and each policeman has an emergency-trigger device in his pocket to use if he is in trouble away from his car. The trigger, a tiny transmitter, broadcasts an SOS signal through the car radio. This centralized computer-automated dispatch center can cut down by an estimated 62 percent the time it takes to get a patrol car to the scene of a crime or an accident.

The scientists and engineers who designed and built the marvelously intricate systems for the Saturn rocket and the Apollo missions recognize that the same techniques can be applied to overcoming the problems of mass urban transit, health, education, crime and pollution. Many of us in the Government see the possibilities, too.

Why don't we get on with it? All of those systems and more could be built with the help of the 85,000 unemployed Florea's, whose precious time and talent are going to waste. We have the manpower, the technology, the plant equipment and the know-how. But diversification isn't easy in a depressed economy.

In a well-intentioned but sadly misdirected effort to combat inflation, the President deliberately set out to cool the economy (a rather dubious objective, by the way, for the millions who live on the edge of unemployment or underemployment, for whom the economy wasn't so hot to begin with). His fiscal and monetary policies all too obviously didn't deflate our continuing inflation. But he did succeed in raising unemployment to a ten-year high (the highest since 1959 in California), in driving homes out of the reach of most middle- and even upper-middle-income families and in throttling down the economy.

The Administration has consistently thwarted Congressional efforts to reverse this deplorable state of affairs. Perhaps the most egregious example is the freeze that the Office of Management and Budget placed on 12 billion dollars Congress had appropriated in 1970 for domestic needs ranging from health services, mental health, education and economic development to urban renewal, reclamation, housing and model cities. I estimate that at least 1.613 billion dollars of these

job-stimulating funds would have gone into engineering and science-related fields.

By the end of 1971, 12 billion dollars appropriated by Congress for various domestic programs still had not been spent by Mr. Nixon. In hopes of breaking some of this money loose—and to dramatize the paradox of our spending 2.6 billion dollars in military and economic aid overseas while retrenching here at home—the Senate amended the foreign-aid bill just before Christmas recess to require that the Administration spend 2.268 billion dollars of those impounded funds: 1.71 billion dollars for the Department of Housing and Urban Development; $429,000,000 for the Department of Agriculture, including $56,000,000 for water and sewer projects in communities of under 500,000; and $131,000,000 for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Thousands of jobs could be created for unemployed aerospace and defense workers with the release of frozen appropriations, such as $10,000,000 for the National Science Foundation, $20,000,000 for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, $43,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers and $170,000,000 for the Atomic Energy Commission. Government economists estimate that for every billion dollars spent by the Federal Government, 70,000 jobs are created. Thus, release of those 12 billion dollars would provide jobs for 840,000 unemployed Americans.

Our priorities must be to:

1. Restore economic growth and full employment, with expanding opportunities for everybody and with full consideration for the protection and preservation of our environment.

2. End our debilitating inflation by ending its primary cause: the cruelly immoral Vietnam war that has bled our youth, split our country and cost us more than 120 billion dollars.

3. Halt the unspeakably dangerous, unbelievably expensive nuclear-arms race that will one day destroy us and the Soviet Union financially if we don't first destroy each other physically.

We both keep pouring millions upon millions of dollars into ever-more-monstrous systems of destruction, even though we already possess enough weapons to wipe each other out several times over. It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make for national security. Quite the reverse. The danger of an intentional or accidental attack grows with each provocative deployment and counterdeployment. Fear, suspicion and a treacherous sense of insecurity are the self-defeating consequences of the nuclear-arms build-up, together with a staggering waste of the natural resources and human talents we so desperately need to put to better use.

The Administration's proposed defense budget for fiscal 1972 calls for 76

billion dollars, some one to two billion dollars more than was spent in fiscal 1971. Not an encouraging sign, but I hope to help see to it that the figure is substantially lower by the time Congress gets through working the budget over. I was pleased to note that the new budget calls for a $700,000,000 increase in military research and development, the first such big jump in several years. I look upon research and development as an insurance policy for national security. It cuts lead time on producing essential new weapons when production is legitimately called for and enables us to avoid producing weapons prematurely and deploying them out of fear.

I also believe that defense-research funds should not be limited to military purposes. I have urged the Armed Services Committee to allow defense contractors to use basic-research funds supplied by the Government to diversify their operations to meet the domestic needs they are particularly qualified to handle.

We are wasting precious time looking for ways to motivate aerospace and defense industries to diversify. There's no big secret in how to redirect American space and arms production into domestic channels. The Government, in partnership with private industry, must make the switch profitable; American capitalists and labor will do the rest.

First, the Government must put its priorities in proper order, so that pressing needs such as housing, education, health, mass transit and pollution control are placed ahead of fighting wars, piling up provocative missiles, financing dictatorial foreign governments and building unwanted supersonic gewgaws.

Next, the Government must back up those priorities with substantial sums of money, not token amounts that finance a few timid, tentative steps but money on the massive order of what we normally spend on ABMs and MIRVs and space shots without blinking an eye.

Finally, the Government should let contracts. We need to create a central source of Federal funding and contracting that can do for our domestic priorities the kind of job the Department of Defense has done for defense and NASA has done for space. There is a huge, unmet market demand for peacetime goods and services in our crowded schools and crime-infested cities, in our urban ghettos and rural slums and in our understaffed hospitals and on our polluted freeways. We need to infuse money into those markets, so that their needs will have behind them the ring of hard cash that private industry can hear.

Unhappily, we still have not defined our basic goals as a nation. As a result of not being sure of where we want to go, we have only the foggiest notions of how to get there, or anywhere. The

American system is notorious for its lack of over-all planning, with the momentary demands of the market and of the electorate determining our economic and political directions. That method has its obvious drawbacks: waste, inefficiency, stumbling from crisis to crisis.

But it also has a great advantage: freedom. Human affairs are too diverse and unorganized to be directed tidily from the top. Governmental institutions should encourage diversity, not stifle it in regimentation.

But diversity and individuality need not mean social chaos. People can have common goals and universal needs as well as personal ambitions and individual desires. Indeed, man thrives best when he has a clear sense of direction, for both himself and his society.

CENTRAL FILER
JUN 4 1950
RECEIVED

BEST REGARDS.

OFFICE ON ARRIVAL TO CONFIRM DATE AND TIME OF MEETING.

ON MAY 19 AT 10:00 A.M. PLEASE ASK HIM TO CONTACT MY
WOULD BE PREFERRED TO MEET WITH CHAIRPERSON KIEZINGER

FROM: Henry A. Kieزلger
TELEGRAM TO ARCHDUKE OTTO VON HARBURG

MAY 6, 1950

KIEZINGER, HENRY A.

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

KOREA TUNGSTEN MINING COMPANY, LTD.

OFFICE:

PUSAN
TOKYO
LONDON
NEW YORK
REF. _________

10, 1-KA, MYUNG-DONG, CHUNG-KU
SEOUL, KOREA

TELEGRAM & TELEPHONE
CABLE: KOTUNGSTEN SEOUL
TELEX: 2246
TEL 24-2451-8

17th December 1968

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger
Assistant to the President
for National Security-to-be

Dear Henry,

A few days ago I was looking through a leading local newspaper here and instantly a large photo of a familiar face caught my attention. With the big headline "Brain of the Nixon Administration" the article introduced you as the most important man in the new White House staff and briefly summerized your book "Main Task of American Foreign Policy" (Please excuse me if this translation from Korean version is not correct).

As I perused word by word, all the things in the past flashed back to my memory; the first time when we met in Tokyo, and subsequently your visit to Pusan in 1952, I think it was, as an "ORO" mission of GHQ, and 1953 when I called on you at Harvard University and Dr. Sherman at his Washington D.C. office and so on. Incidentally, do you know where is Dr. Sherman now?

Congratulations! I honestly think you deserved it. Of course I am proud of having such a very important person as my old friend. At the same time I cannot but feel almost instinctively that this must be good for the future of my country as well.

After a couple more years in U.S. studying International Law, I returned home to start business and at present I am working as Managing Director of a tungsten producing company, the largest of its kind in the world and a semi-government concern, and I travel around the world once or twice a year on this business.

RECEIVED

FEB 21 1969

CENTRAL BILLS

- 1 - .../

KOREA TUNGSTEN MINING CO., LTD.
SEOUL, KOREA

- 2 -

(In fact I have just returned home from the recent
one.) From now on I must, with your permission,
include Washington D.C. in my trip schedule.
In the meantime, I hope you will squeeze out of your
busy schedule a time to visit Korea again someday.

If there is anything that you may personally
want to inquire in connection with Korea of any sort
whatsoever, I shall be pleased to be of personal
assistance to you in all possible way.

I think you are and will be terribly busy but
I would greatly appreciate it if you could drop a
line or two to me once in a while.

Looking forward to hearing from you and with
Season's Greetings,

SKK/kja