4. In May of 1957, those charged with the United States satellite program determined that small satellite spheres would be launched as test vehicles during 1957 to check the rocketry, instrumentation, and ground stations and that the first fully instrumented satellite vehicle would be launched in March of 1958. The first of these test vehicles is planned to be launched in December of this year.3 As to the Soviet satellite, we congratulate Soviet scientists upon putting a satellite into orbit. The United States satellite program has been designed from its inception for maximum results in scientific research. The scheduling of this program has been described to and closely coordinated with the International Geophysical Year scientists of all countries. As a result of passing full information on our project to the scientists of the world, immediate tracking of the United States satellite will be possible, and the world's scientists will know at once its orbit and the appropriate times for observation. The rocketry employed by our Naval Research Laboratory for launching our Vanguard has been deliberately separated from our ballistic missile efforts in order, first, to accent the scientific purposes of the satellite and, second, to avoid interference with top-priority missile programs. Merging of this scientific effort with military programs could have produced an orbiting United States satellite before now, but to the detriment of scientific goals and military progress. Vanguard, for the reasons indicated, has not had equal priority with that accorded our ballistic missile work. Speed of progress in the satellite project cannot be taken as an index of our progress in ballistic missile work. Our satellite program has never been conducted as a race with other nations. Rather, it has been carefully scheduled as part of the scientific work of the International Geophysical Year. I consider our country's satellite program well designed and properly scheduled to achieve the scientific purposes for which it was initiated. We are, therefore, carrying the program forward in keeping with our arrangements with the international scientific community. Statement by the United States Representative (Lodge) to the First Committee of the General Assembly, October 10, 1957 + [Extract] 5. Control Outer Space Weapons. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we seek agreement on ways to control the newest creation of science the outer space missile. Like atomic energy, this device can serve the purposes of peace or it can be used to blow us to bits. We have only begun to learn about its possibilities, but we already know that the prospect of Explorer I, the first successful U.S. earth satellite, was launched on Jan. 31, 1958. 4 Documents on Disarmament, 1945-1959, vol. II, pp. 901-902. outer space missiles armed with nuclear warheads is too dangerous to ignore. Mr. Chairman, in 1946 when the United States alone had nuclear weapons, it proposed to the United Nations—and there are men in this room who remember this a plan to ensure the peaceful use of the new and tremendous force of atomic energy by putting it under international control. We made that proposal. The world knows now that a decade of anxiety and trouble could have been avoided if that plan had been accepted. We now have a similar opportunity to harness for peace man's new pioneering efforts in outer space. We must not miss this chance. We have therefore proposed that a technical committee be set up to work out an inspection system which will assure the use of outer space for exclusively peaceful and scientific purposes. If there is general agreement to proceed with this study on a multilateral basis, the United States is prepared to join in this initiative without awaiting the conclusion of negotiations on the other substantive proposals. Radio-TV Address by President Eisenhower, November 13, 1957 1 [Extracts] Now, for some years increasing attention has been focused on the invention, development and testing of even more advanced weapons for future use. The Defense Department has been spending in the aggregate over 5 billion dollars a year on this kind of research and development. There has been much discussion lately about whether Soviet technological break-throughs in particular areas may have suddenly exposed us to immediately increased danger, in spite of the strength of our defenses. As I pointed out last week, this is not the case. But these scientific accomplishments of theirs have provided us all with renewed evidence of Soviet competence in science and techniques important to modern warfare. We must, and do, regard this as a time for another critical re-examination of our entire defense position. The sputniks have inspired a wide variety of suggestions. These range from acceleration of missile programs, to shooting a rocket around the moon, to an indiscriminate increase in every kind of military and scientific expenditure. Now, let's turn briefly to our satellite projects: Confronted with the essential requirements I have indicated for defense, we must adopt a sensible formula to guide us in deciding what satellite and outer-space activity to undertake. Certainly there should be two tests in this formula. If the project is designed solely for scientific purposes, its size and its cost must be tailored to the scientific job it is going to do. That is the case in the present Vanguard project now under way. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1957, pp. 810, 812. If the project has some ultimate defense value, its urgency for this purpose is to be judged in comparison with the probable value of competing defense projects. Now, all these new costs, which in the aggregate will reach a very considerable figure, must be added to our current annual expenditures for security. There is no immediate prospect of any marked reduction in these recurring costs. Consequently, the first thing is to search for other places to cut expenditures. We must once more go over all other military expenditures with redoubled determination to save every possible dime. We must make sure that we have no needless duplication or obsolete programs or facilities. General Assembly Resolution 1148 (XII): Regulation, Limitation, and Balanced Reduction of All Armed Forces and All Armaments: Conclusion of an International Convention (Treaty) on the Reduction of Armaments and the Prohibition of Atomic, Hydrogen, and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction, November 14, 1957 1 1. Urges that the States concerned, and particularly those which are members of the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission, give priority to reaching a disarmament agreement which, upon its entry into force will, provide for the following: (f) The joint study of an inspection system designed to ensure that the sending of objects through outer space shall be exclusively for peaceful and scientific purposes; Letter From the Soviet Premier (Bulganin) to President [Extracts] DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I am addressing this letter to you in order to share with you certain thoughts regarding the international situation which is developing at the present time. The Soviet Government has recently examined the international situation in all its aspects. In doing so, we could not of course fail to give serious attention to the fact that at the initiative of the United States of America and Great Britain measures are now being developed the purpose of which is a sharp intensification of the military preparations of the NATO mem 1 Documents on Disarmament, 1945-1959, vol. II, pp. 914-915. 2 Ibid., pp. 918-290. 91298-63 bers, and that specific plans are being considered in connection with the forthcoming session of the NATO Council. I must frankly say to you, Mr. President, that the reaction of certain circles in your country and in certain other NATO countries regarding the recent accomplishments of the U.S.S.R. in the scientific and technical field, and regarding the launching, in connection with the program of the International Geophysical Year, of the Soviet artificial earth satellites in particular, appears to us a great mistake. Of course, the launching of artificial earth satellites bears witness to the great achievement of the U.S.S.R., both in the field of peaceful scientific research and in the field of military technology. However, it is well known that the U.S.S.R. has insisted and still insists that neither ballistic missiles nor hydrogen and atomic bombs should ever be used for purposes of destruction, and that so great an achievement of the human mind as the discovery of atomic energy should be put to use entirely for the peaceful development of society. The Soviet Union has no intention of attacking either the U.S.A. or any other country. It is calling for agreement and for peaceful coexistence. The same position is held by many states, including the Chinese People's Republic and other socialist countries. Letter From President Eisenhower to the Soviet Premier (Bulganin), January 12, 19581 [Extracts] (3) I now make, Mr. Chairman, a proposal to solve what I consider to be the most important problem which faces the world today. (a) I propose that we agree that outer space should be used only for peaceful purposes. We face a decisive moment in history in relation to this matter. Both the Soviet Union and the United States are now using outer space for the testing of missiles designed for military purposes. The time to stop is now. I recall to you that a decade ago, when the United States had a monopoly of atomic weapons and of atomic experience, we offered to renounce the making of atomic weapons and to make the use of atomic energy an international asset for peaceful purposes only. If only that offer had been accepted by the Soviet Union, there would not now be the danger from nuclear weapons which you describe. The nations of the world face today another choice perhaps even more momentous than that of 1948. That relates to the use of outer space. Let us this time, and in time, make the right choice, the peaceful choice. There are about to be perfected and produced powerful new weapons which, availing of outer space, will greatly increase the capacity of the human race to destroy itself. If indeed it be the view of the Soviet Union that we should not go on producing ever newer types of weap 1 Ibid., pp. 938-939. ons, can we not stop the production of such weapons which would use or, more accurately, misuse, outer space, now for the first time opening up as a field for man's exploration? Should not outer space be dedicated to the peaceful uses of mankind and denied to the purposes of war? That is my proposal. The capacity to verify the fulfillment of commitments is of the essence in all these matters, including the reduction of conventional forces and weapons, and it would surely be useful for us to study together through technical groups what are the possibilities in this respect upon which we could build if we then decide to do so. These technical studies could, if you wish, be undertaken without commitment as to ultimate acceptance, or as to the interdependence, of the propositions involved. It is such technical studies of the possibilities of verification and supervision that the United Nations has proposed as a first step. I believe that this is a first step that would promote hope in both of our countries and in the world. Therefore I urge that this first step be undertaken. Address by Secretary of State Dulles Before the National Press Club, January 16, 1958 1 [Extract] I shall speak first about Sputnik. The launching of an earth satellite by the Soviets may mark a decisive turn in the worldwide struggle between Communist imperialism and the free world. No doubt the Communist rulers gained a success. They have an opportunity to gloat, an opportunity that they have not neglected. But Sputnik, mocking the American people with its "beep-beep," may go down in history as Mr. Khrushchev's boomerang. It jolted the American people and produced a reaction which was healthy, the kind of reaction that has, in the past, served freedom well. A wave of mortification, anger, and fresh determination swept the country. Out of that mood is coming a more serious appraisal of the struggle in which we are engaged and an increasing willingness to make the kind of efforts and sacrifices needed to win that struggle. It is, of course, essential that our Nation should react in the right ways. If we act like a bull in the arena which puts down its head and blindly charges the matador's red cape, that could be our undoing. Our response must be a "heads up" not a "heads down" response. We must see clearly and think straight. We must appraise accurately the strength of our adversary and also his weaknesses. We must design our own strategy to parry his strength and to exploit his weaknesses. 1 Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 3, 1958, pp. 159–160. |