Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to a science town meeting. I'm rich dieteman and I'm speaking to you live from the st. Paul Ramsay Arts and Science Center Auditorium in st. Paul where today we will discuss the issue of nuclear weapons and nuclear war as science town meeting is co-sponsored by the Science Museum of Minnesota and Minnesota Public Radio financial assistance for science Town meetings comes from the Medtronic Foundation before this decade is over some people argue. We will have a nuclear war it may not be Global but these people say that with the continuing development and distribution of nuclear weapons technology sooner or later. Someone will use the bomb nuclear weapons experts don't dispute this, but they counter by suggesting that nuclear Wars are survivable that limited nuclear strikes can be employed without destroying civilization. We're going to talk about the growing threat of nuclear war for the next hour with me or to authorities on the subject of nuclear weapons. Dr. Frank Barnaby on my right andGolf Reinhart on my left British by birth doctor Barnaby is a research physicist who for the past 10 years has directed The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute or cpri before that. He was executive secretary for the pugwash conferences on science and world affairs and prior to that. He worked for the British Atomic weapons research establishment. Dr. Goff Reinhart comes to us from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California where he works as a physicist in weapons development before coming to the Livermore Labs. Dr. Reinhardt was a professional military man serving for 20 years in the Army, dr. Barnaby and dr. Reinhardt will each have five minutes to put forth their views on nuclear weapons and their role in the 1980s. And after that we will discuss some of the points that they raised in those comments and then about 12:30 this afternoon the audience here in the science center Auditorium will be invited to come up to one of two microphones that are placed in the aisles and put questions to my two guests finally near the end of our program will invite each of our guests to make about three minutes worth of closing statements and final comments and through a gentlemanly agreement here this afternoon. It's been agreed the doctor Barnaby will go first it is what I believe that the probability of a nuclear world war is increasing and that unless something is done about this. The unbreakable nuclear world war is extremely likely some would say virtually inevitable. I do not believe that a nuclear war can remain limited. I think any use of nuclear weapons will escalate so the escalator an all-out nuclear war which all these two significant fraction of the 60,000 or so nuclear warheads in the Arsenal's are used if this happens, I believe it will be a total catastrophe at least for the northern hemisphere. The Northern Hemisphere will be totally destroyed. The economy would be blasted back into a medieval type of economy. There would be tens of millions people of people killed in the southern hemisphere due to radiation effects. There may be changes in the global climate with unpredictable results reductions of in the ozone layer, which are also unpredictable and And severe genetic effects of radiation and I don't think any scientist can assure us that humankind would survive the sort of Calamity and spite of that the the terrible nature of the event. I believe that is probability is increasing for a number of reasons. Some of them of course are related to International politics particularly superpower competition for raw materials, but in addition to that, I think a very significant factor And I personally believe the most significant factor relates to the activities of military scientists. I believe that military science and technology is now developing and there will be deployed weapons which will be seen as suitable for fighting a nuclear world war or nuclear war rather than deterring one and the deployment of these weapons of my opinion will significantly increase the probability that such a war will be seen to be fightable and therefore the probability that it will occur will increase that the most likely way in which there's war will come I believe is through the escalation of conflict in the third world possibly in a region in which there is the superpower competition for raw materials that we mentioned and the example that Springs to mind is of course a Persian Gulf because of the oil there. This war the third world war May. Well Escalade to the use of nuclear weapons produced by the local powers. In other words to become a local nuclear war and this could well spread to Europe and involve the use of tactical nuclear weapons there and then that I believe would certainly escalate to a strategic exchange between the superpowers and become an all-out nuclear war. The involvement of the superpowers in this third world conflict is made more likely by the international arms trade because it is mainly the great partners that are providing the weapons the Conventional Weapons with which third world wars are being fought. And so this is how the thirdly the great Powers will become involved in the initial conflict. Also, of course, the spread of nuclear weapons are spread of the capability. Too many governments which enable them to make nuclear weapons themselves if they choose to do so is a significant factor. So all of these things together the competition for raw materials, the nuclear arms race, the activities are military scientists International arms trade and nuclear weapons proliferation are all reasons which are factors, which I believe are getting out of control in which may well lead to a nuclear Holocaust. Thank you very much. Dr. Barnaby and We would like to hear your response to that and your own position. Dr. Reinhardt. Yes. Well, I think the the danger of nuclear war will certainly exist in the 80s. It has existed ever since nuclear weapons were invented. And as you know, they were used in Anger by these United States. But I think that I would disagree. That nuclear war is more probable now than it was five or ten years ago though. I wouldn't care to debate that point strenuously my own feelings on the matter are how to avoid that war. if there is in my mind an outstanding Reason for war to be more likely in this next decade. I think it would be because of the change in the balance the Strategic balance and nuclear balance the power balance between the United States and the Soviet Union. I think that nuclear weapons are fact of life. Very unfortunate fact of life. I think that we in this country. despite what I feel are unjust accusations that the military industrial complex is fostering the use of nuclear weapons. I think we in this country can be quite proud of our attempts to limit nuclear weapons. I feel however that this has been almost unilateral. I refer you to the balance of power as it existed 20 years ago 10 years ago even and I feel that the shift in the balance is dangerous. The reason I feel it's dangerous is because the opponent on the international scene is a totalitarian power. So if it rushes is a totalitarian power run by very few people. The Soviets have long thought of force as the ultimate. Card the Ace in what they call a correlation of forces the correlation of forces being all the tools available to the Communists to use to suppress Freedom whether those tools be economic or political or social or indeed for us. In the past decade the Soviets have made an unprecedented increase in every phase both conventional and nuclear of their Armed Forces. So I see the the danger. of nuclear war lying in the weakness of the United States our systems are old. The Soviets for example have three brand new that is since 1970 ICBM systems Each of which is has was planned to be and is fully capable of being used in a counter Force Mode against our airplanes against our Naval bases against our ICBM. We have one system the Minuteman systems been around for a long time. The Soviets have four separate submarine types and as many as six separate slbm missiles, we have essentially 30 boats, which are Poseidon boats and they're quite old. We are upgrading the missiles. We are going to build a new Trident and very much in favor of building a new Trident II Australian vulnerable sort of a system. The first one of these is not yet operational. So if I find something that worries me if if I were for a moment to to agree to the thesis that nuclear war is more likely in this next decade. I would say that that was because of the weakness of the United States the vulnerability of its forces vulnerable strategic nuclear forces pose a temptation. particularly to a totalitarian state To make a preemptive strike to take out those nuclear weapons the longer we permit our forces to remain vulnerable given that there is no change in there has been no change in 10 years and the momentum tremendous momentum of the Soviets to to build their forces. that temptation could be overwhelming to a Soviet regime which is beset by problems of its own. I think I'll leave it at that. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Rhinehart doctor Barnaby. I want to ask you to respond to what dr. Reinhardt was just saying at the end of his remarks about deterrence through strength. How do you view all of that? What's your answer to this situation the firstly I don't believe that the United States is becoming that the Soviet Union is becoming stronger than the United States. I don't believe that why do you what I have a great belief that Western technology is superior and and will remain Superior for some time to Soviet technology. I think we are technologically more efficient in the west. I believe that our weapon systems are better or however, you measure, you know, American weapons, whether it's EP or reliability whatever it seems to me that they are superior to Soviet weapons at the moment and I like it remain. So for some while American submarines are quieter than Soviet submarines less larval anti-submarine Warfare and so on which was I don't I'm not sure that this is a point because I believe that the The momentum of military science itself keeps it going irrespective of the threat from the opposite side. If there is a thread I simply don't believe that the military science which is going on in the United States is a response to what is happening in the Soviet Union. I believe that it was going on under his own momentum so that you believe that the work that dr. Reinhardt does it the Livermore Labs is really sort of a self-sustaining kind of thing that absolutely I think that if you devote so much resources for so long the military research and development as has been done on both sides. I think this is equally true in the Soviet Union. The more than a half of the research scientists in the superpowers in physics and engineering science work for the military. And if you put an air they are financed by some 50,000 million dollars per year. If you put this sort of effort into an activity for two or three decades, which is what happens. Then this generates such a momentum that it goes on under it you say it's self-sustaining and of course, you'll get tremendous political pressures building up in order to sustain and it becomes a political Lobby and I think this is the reason why the arms race has gone out of control and I think it will remain out of control as long as this goes on. So I think really that the control must come from the dirt from domestic efforts to prevent this I must of course there. I do not believe that don't try not or his colleagues want a nuclear war not accusing them of deliberately. Brigid and fulfillment involving themselves in activities which will lead to this. I don't believe that at all on the contrary. I know that they do not want to but what bothers me is that the on control activities of military science inevitably lead to the production of weapons, which make nuclear war more like this. It's within the nature of the weapons themselves you see and once a weapons are developed. Then there are tremendous pressures to deploy them and we have to change policy is to rationalize a deployment and I think this is what's happening. Dr. Reinhardt. How do you respond to that? Are you feel like you're working away at a self-fulfilling prophecy? No, I think not I hardly know where to start. Let's see there is I can I can keep some more condemnation on the head of the military scientist. So by by quoting a gentleman fine gentlemen the moment, dr. Pekus who is in the Bay Area and Berkeley, he he works. I think it's a The organization called the world without war council and in one much more acrimonious debate, but with a great sense of humor, he told me you know war is the question nuclear weapons is not the question. He said if I could wave a magic wand and nuclear weapons would go away forever you guys out at the laboratory would invent some other weapons of mass destruction and you'd learn how to freeze us all to death inside a six months and I thought that was him both complement in a condemnation frankly. I don't think we could I have another quote and it's an old Russian proverb and it goes something like the best is the enemy of the good enough. We if we have better technology than the Soviets and I am not as confident as Doctor Barnaby of that in the weapons field. If we do there is a large belief that our weapons are too expensive and too complex. that the Soviets rely on mass and quantity. It was Lenin that said quantity has a quality all of its own in refuting. It is a service statements often used to refute. Claims of Western superiority in the technological Sciences. I can say that from what we see of Soviet rocket technology what we see of Soviet primers in space what we see of Russian physics chemistry mathematics in the open literature. I think it's a toss-up. I am not a speaker so as dr. Baran be another man of science. I am not convinced of our technological need that's kind of the First Response as to an unbridled uncurbed military industrial complex in this country. I think you are as well qualified to speak as I The facts are that for at least the last decade the weapons work at my laboratory at Los Alamos has been going rapidly downhill under the threat of intervention in Poland under the outright aggression in Afghanistan under the Carter Administration the budget leveled out it now looks like under the region region Administration that is going up but I make very little exaggeration that when I say that for the two years ago for every two people who was working on weapon science at the Livermore Laboratory. There had been no, those are how did I say that said it wrong that are evidence been cut over the past 10 years by about 50 percent. So one man is working with to work in 1969. I said that's about to change. This is to me the the reason that I can work on weapons and Military technology. It's in the in the full and comprehensive knowledge when you people don't want me to do it anymore. You'll take my money away. And I won't that is the beauty of a of an open Society responds to what the people want. That's Do you think do I put this question to both of you? Do you think that strategic nuclear weapons the kinds that as I understand the definition of strategic nuclear weapons weapons that are used in a particular situation. They're not used in a global all-out war that there's something that we're going to have to come to live with that their fact of life and that especially in Europe that Europeans are going to have to get used to living with them in their backyards because if not, they're their Security's going to be threatened. Well the current view in Europe is that the current fear and this is a rapidly growing fear is that the superpowers plan? I don't believe this myself I'm saying what the general feeling is in Europe. Is that the Russians and the Americans plan to use Europe as a nuclear, Battlefield? In in the foreseeable future remaining safe within their own homelands. This is what the Europeans fear. Why and that you don't believe that because I don't believe that a nuclear war can be kept limited. Maybe the super powers may try that but I think they will fail. I think there's almost bound to be escalation. It is of course this fear which leads government's like the West German government want the Pershing to deployed because they see that as a way of guaranteeing a strategic response. You say the use of strategic nuclear weapons. The Pershing to is not seen by the West Germans as a military weapon having a military function. It has a political function of guaranteeing American involvement in a future War. That's the first point the second point is that almost all in fact, I would say all European countries Eastern. Where's are facing very serious economic problems, which were almost bound to get worse and and and therefore they're certainly not about to agree on high defense spending. I see no way in which political politically military budgets in Europe will increase in real terms significantly and this is bound to cause weakening within the alliances. And this is one thing that I think one has to take into account very much the sort of arguments that are going on now about these matters is weakening NATO and there's bothers me and and this is one of my response to what God Said. I think that if you go on claiming that the Soviet Union is stronger the NATO's getting weaker and weaker all the time. You're going to convince people of that you're going to talk. Minted a defeatist attitude of being weak and inevitably week because they're certainly not about the spend money on getting stronger you see and I think there's this whole effort of convincing people that the Warsaw Pact is stronger that is about to be a military takeover and so on is self-defeating. I think we should recognize that were strong. We should recognize that our technology is superior and that we should stop arguing that it is not we should I think look to our economic strength one reason why very critical is the Reagan Administration plans for forty percent real increase in military spending over the next five years is that I see that is almost bound to weaken the United States economically and the United States is the leader of NATO. It's the superpower leader of that Alliance and we don't want the United States to be economically weak. You think that we're in Yoruba better defended by a strong United States, which is strong economically that it has World influence. Even if it is Martin literally military weaker because of the increment of military strength that you will buy with that money is meaningless in today's world. There are so much Overkill that extra military strength is meaningless. So I think we should look to our economic situation rather than a military one and we should stop trying to convince people that NATO has bound to be overrun by military Giant and the Soviet Union, which I didn't think exists. Dr. Reinhardt. Let me see. I would I could find something to agree with I agree that the NATO alliance is not as strong as I would like it to be I think it is not as strong as it was a decade ago. I find different reasons for that. I think our NATO allies have lost their confidence in the ability of the United States to contend with the Soviet Union having lost their confidence in the United States is a Defender. They have no choice in the minds of many Europeans then to make an a chord with the Soviet Union with a polar bear. let's see the the contention that Reagan's new military budget is is going to destroy the nation economically is something that perhaps Frank is more expert than I but I would remind you that our present military expenditures are running about five percent of the gross national product that we emerged quite prosperous from World War II in which they ran almost half. The 10 years ago, excuse me, 20 years ago. Our military expenditures were running ten percent of the gross national product. So I will I will leave it at that say that I rather think you made a comment on that. I honestly don't think it's the the absolute value of the number of dollars spent on the military that I'm most concerned about. Although that is part of it. I think the problem is the economic problem arises from the loss of skill. It is the the the half of the most highly qualified scientists removed from from private civilian activity, which I think is a problem and I think this has caused a tremendous loss of innovation in the United States and and a loss of Labor productivity related directly to that and this is why I think the US economy is done badly compared with Japanese now and West German little while ago this I think is more important. It's the use Of the best scientific brains for non-productive work in such high numbers, which I think is a major problem. What do you think about that? Dr. Reinhardt? Would you and your colleagues be just as happy and content and comfortable working in cancer research. That's a that's a good example a number of my colleagues at the laboratory are working in cancer research. We about half our effort is in weapons work in about half is in other programs. Actually, I again without having the statistics to deny Frank's figures I can I can speak from the heart and tell you that although we seem to pay about as well as any other technical industrial organization. Livermore and beautiful sunny California. We are having the very Dickens of a time getting good young scientists to come to work there. Why do you think that is I think that they can find more remunerative things to do and outside of the defense business. So it's not necessarily a matter of belief or or philosophy that keeps them away know there are certainly some young scientists who have made a decision not to work on nuclear weapons, and I applaud a person sticking by his own personal decisions. I've gone through the travail of asking myself whether or not I should do this work and clearly I decided that I should the number of people agree with me a number disagree. The time is 12:30. And as we promised at the beginning of this town hall meeting we would like to invite people in the audience here at the st. Paul Ramsay Arts and Science Center Auditorium to come up and ask questions. The there are microphones in both aisles and they'll be turned on by our Engineers here who were down at the mixing board. So you don't have to look for a switch but I invite to anybody that has questions for either. Dr. Barnaby or dr. Reinhardt to come up and and ask it and while you're making your way to the microphone. I have a question for each of you and that has to do with the that is to do with the salt treaties. We heard a lot about salt during the Carter Administration and now we don't hear very much about it except that it is certainly not in very high fever in the Reagan Administration. Dr. Reinhardt. You have some pretty strong feelings about disarmament and I think that not very long ago. You described in a something you wrote or Speech that you gave that that the whole question of disarmament and the effort at disarmament was a was a very noble experiment but that that experiment has failed. Does that mean that the salt two treaties are better left on the shelf and that we forget about them for a while. That is my personal belief. I think the argument that I have made is an open Society such as ours when they strike a bargain when they talk about arms limitation. They strike a moral as well as a physical bargain and I feel that in looking at us Defense System since the interim agreement on arms and under the Nixon Administration. I have seen that as a bar a hindrance to the improvements that I feel are necessary to render our fourth less vulnerable. I might position and it's not necessarily the position of the Reagan Administration at all is that we should first become strong and secure and then negotiate with the Soviets from position of strength as we did a decade decade and a half ago. But again, I think I think the as I read them the facts speak them for themselves 15 years ago. We were stronger we faced no danger Soviet pre-emptive action. I feel that today after 15 years of a noble but Unfortunate experiment we are insecure and we do present some temptation of the Soviet Union to aggressive action to find me. Well, the soul to treaty is of course dead. There's no chance of it happening. I personally think this is a terrible Calamity not because salt to contains any of the significant as armor because it does not nor incidentally does it limit qualitative Improvement. So I don't see why salt to restraints qualitative improvements as a weakness in my opinion of the treaty, but the reason why we needed so desperately sought to and I think this could have been achieved by President Ford and I think it was a great tragedy that he didn't push it through. The reason why we need it, we need it so badly is that there will be no progress in any other Arms Control treaty on without salt or progress in this whole process. We will not get a comprehensive Test Ban. We were not get a limitation on chemical weapons will get nothing and therefore what the prospect I see I'm afraid is continuing weapon development and accelerated arms raised and it may in a few years be impossible to control that on controlled tech military technological machine. If there had been a salt to treaty. I feel we could have got Progreso in the arms control machinery and some hope I wouldn't be very optimistic. But some hope of controlling military technology now, I see no. Hope at all. Let's take our first question from the audience sir. Would you go ahead with your question? Okay in recent months the Soviets have made a request for arms negotiations. The u.s. Is giving them the cold shoulder. So to speak what do each of you make of the respective positions of the US and Soviet Union in that issue. Dr. Reinhardt, let's see the the initiatives that I'm aware of the Soviets have made our vague references to the fact that the salt 2 treaty should be approved by the Senate of the United States. It is my position and the current position of the administration that that treaty is a flawed treaty and and should not be presented to the Senate. So you have to you have to make up your mind whether a bad flawed treaty is better than a no trade at all. I come down on the side of no treaty at all. Well, of course Brezhnev is made in the last Communist Party Congress in the Soviet Union made eight proposals some of which were clearly propaganda stick some weren't and I think it is a great shame that the West ignored those were actually I think that we should have taken up Brezhnev on his offer of restraint and Euro missile deployment. I should I think we should have taken him up on his offer of some restraint on for example submarine developments. We should have agreed to his suggestion for an international group of scientists to study the effects of nuclear war and so on it does seem to me because I believe that the so the United States has ahead in the arms race as technologically Superior that if the West was serious about wanting to stop the arms raised it could afford to be to restrain himself and to see what response of the Soviets have and because I believe that you see I have to be critical of the continual ignoring of the west of offers from the Soviet Union and also of course is bad politics to be seen to be the one that refuses to be restraining all the time, but because I also believe There's nuclear arms race is being driven by domestic pressures, which no political leader yet has been able to control. This is why I think we ignore the offers a calm for a stray. So although I regret the offers are ignored. I'm not surprised that they are ignored I think onto we control domestically the forces which are leading to an accelerated arms race all the time. We simply won't be able to negotiate any Arms Control. Let's take another question from the audience. Go ahead sir. Yeah. I have two related questions isn't the USSR really far more vulnerable to both counterforce and kind of value strikes. By virtue of the fact that they have most of their Warheads concentrated on icbms and also because they have most of their infrastructure concentrated far more heavily than we do and doesn't the AMX really pose a far greater kind of for strike to them than any weapon. We now have or indeed any weapon. We that they have poses for us. Dr. Reinhardt, so yeah had a bit of difficulty hearing that could you repeat the first part of your question, please I guess I didn't hear it very clearly there. Maybe get a little closer to the mic. Um, Isn't the USSR really far more vulnerable to both counter for some counter value because there were had some more concentrated on I see beams which are more vulnerable and because their infrastructures work on some concentrated. Okay. There's a couple of stir that maybe we should explain how I had a little trouble trying to to hear whether you said, I think you said the USSR is more valued I would I would categorically disagree the Soviet Union has much newer Weaponry than the United States does newer and better. I think they're better from the standpoint of counterforce a rough definition of terms. A counterforce weapon is a weapon which is used to take out an enemy strategic nuclear weapon a counter value weapon is one that's used to take out a enemy city. You'll forgive the over simplification. Now I feel that our present forces could not hold at risk the Soviet icbms. I feel that the Soviet icbms will very shortly be able to hold at risk the Minuteman Force several Secretary of Defense has the last four years have agreed that this time is coming. I think it is among technicians. At least. It's a closed argument. As far as countervalue targeting is concerned the United States has far more of its Urban industrial population concentrated in a few what we call SMS a s we're in one here the Minneapolis st. Paul area consists of about two and a half million people all concentrated very closely the Soviet Union after you get through Moscow Leningrad is far less concentrated there for far less vulnerable to counter value strike. No, I think. I have I think it probably disagreed with the statement that you posed in the form of a question. He also had a question about MX2. What do you think about that? That's well, we don't have MX MX is ill-defined at this point. The Warhead for the MX is not been defined the basis the basic system has not been defined. So we don't know what MX is. We do know what the SS 17 the ss-18 the ss-19 are we do have it on the authority of our sector defense that the Soviets are building an entirely new family of this will be the third new family of icbms Merv died cbms with much more powerful Warheads the third family in 12 years. They put out. So I might have any thoughts about that active army. Yes. I I don't think really that one could argue that the United States is more vulnerable across the board. I mean to give one asymmetry the Soviet Union is able to keep at see only six or seven or eight strategic nuclear submarines at any one time due to maintenance problems and lack of train submarine crews were as you say over United States can keep it senior E30 strategic nuclear submarines as to tremendous asymmetry there. And if there were as I think is inevitable sufficient progress and anti-submarine warfare to threaten the Strategic submarine as obvious that the Soviets are very much more vulnerable to that threat than the United States and there are other and also the outlets for their submarines are between two Relatively narrow term as well as the United States has oceans all around us borders. So it seems to me that there are such asymmetries and I simply do not accept this view that the United States has technologically week or more vulnerable. I think that that to talk about vulnerability when there is such a tremendous amount of Overkill. It makes no military sense. You say, of course, the either side could destroy totally each other's Society now who can do it more times over seems to me to be a nonsensical argument. Sure. Go ahead with your question. You have to two questions in particular. Well, both of them in comment on them one is what was being said about ours being an open Society. Well, I for one did not choose to live under an atomic shroud and it seems to me what about some of our domestic needs like mass transit mental health care if we're so open to meeting human needs the second one a lot has been said about technology. Something is being forgotten. These are human beings that are going to be fried alive. And do you really think that there's anything that this is going to protect her? Everything's just going to go and those that are left according to many psychiatrists and psychologists probably are going to wish they went with the ones that got fried seems to me were forgetting that fact that it isn't objects, but it's people that are going to be killed by this when you do your work do you think about the things of that gentleman is In about it was of course, I have very little to say except again. I disagree categorically with the statement that was implied in the gentleman's question and I wish I wish he were able to address that question of the politburo and mr. Brezhnev. In that Society you cannot address such a question to anyone here that question was heard by whatever radio audience is listening. That's the difference between an open and closed Society. My book - Miami. Well, I think that it is always important to remember we do tend to forget when we have these academic discussions particularly when strategists are involved about nuclear war that we are talking about the inevitable death of the majority of the people in the northern hemisphere. We're talking about a catastrophe which is so awful is to be on imaginable is that there's no human being that has the imagination to Grapple with what a nuclear World War would be like and it seems to me that when the probability of that is increasing so obviously Then rational human beings would do something about something quite dramatic and then I don't see that happening and yet you're both you're both I would say rational human beings and yet you have very very different points of view about this while you travel the world talking about the damage that can be done and the fact that things are getting out of hand and dr. Reinhardt works at a laboratory that among other things works on developing better systems of delivering these weapons. Well with respect to say, I think that that golf is part of a process which includes the politicians who have to rationalize what they're doing. I think that the arguments we hear are rationalization for what is happening as I say the I don't believe that the political leaders are ordering you could warfighting weapons. They don't call in their military scientist and say develop Mia Pershing to warn ss-20 They wake up one morning and find that the weapons Laboratories have developed the ss-20 in the Pershing to and yet dr. Reinhardt those seem to me to say earlier that it's a his feeling that the minute that the people of the United States decide. They don't want that to be going on that they'll take away a salary. Yes. I agree. I mean, I think that there has to be public involvement. I think that the propaganda which has been given by all governments communist and non-communist about the need to go on with this military activities been successful. I think what we have to do now is to persuade people that their security is in fact being decreased all the time in 1945 49. I should remind all trying out that the United States was invulnerable. No, you couldn't touch it with a bomber or a missile now millions of dollars spending afterwards or billions the security of the United States a zero, it could be destroyed in a Flash. And in the next five years the administration that it intends to spend one point three trillion dollars in reduces the court of the United States even more the seems to me to be rather a mad way of spending money. Dr. Reiter. Well as again, I think that the question of the inevitable destruction of the world if one nuclear weapon is set off is open to debate there is a large campaign. I take and read the Moscow news and I don't know whether the Moscow news originated these arguments. We read them and propped her we read them in its vets here that the Russians. According to probably according to his vets here don't have any nuclear weapons. You never read in the Russian propaganda organs the fact that they have any weapons at all very rarely. They will refer to them. I think that it is a part of the correlation of forces that the Soviets desire to frighten the United States the people the United States and to into a paralysis the Soviets don't want us dead. They want a threat they want what they want us read. They want the United States to be a communist Nation. I think I refer you to refer you to Lenin and refer you to brush now in there cause of the World Revolution. They've written it down some years ago. A man named Hitler wrote down his desires and a book called mine comp. It was all there. Nobody read his book. We regretted it. okay next question please the terms such superiority inferiority vulnerability these have been used a lot I'd like to especially ask you dr. Reinhardt what is the meaning significant meaning of inferiority superiority in an age of Overkill what's the meaning of the word vulnerable when we have the triadic defense do you really believe the Soviet Union could destroy all of those 30 or most of those 30,000 Warheads so that their total Society wouldn't be destroyed when we have weapons near them and weapons thousands of miles away that couldn't both be hit at the same time when there are all the technical problems the difficulties related to bias errors such as J Edward Anderson here the University of Minnesota has discussed in great depth he's in Washington now discussing these issues on the MX you believe that all these problems have been solved in such a way that we are really vulnerable at the Soviet Union could destroy us even at the expense of the Fallout from their own attack let's let dr. Reiner dancer Let me answer. Just the last question. Do I believe that the United States is vulnerable that the Soviets could destroy us. I think we are not that vulnerable now, but we're becoming more and more vulnerable each day. I agree that there is a great deal of uncertainty in what will happen when indignant intercontinental ballistic missiles are launched against targets. I think that's one of the reasons that we have some hope for the future the bias errors of which you speak unfortunately apply more to our own forces who are limited firing over from oceans over from Seco. So Roshan the Soviet Union tests its icbms over land mass should be a little more aware of Their Own. Errors aware of their own CPS. No, I do not think that the Soviets could destroy our strategic forces today, but I think that in three or four years if we have not replaced the fixed icbms if we still have half our B-52 force on or near the coast, there will be a great temptation to Soviet planners to take advantage of that vulnerability. My argument is why give the Soviets that Temptation when a small amount relatively small amount of the GNP applied the Strategic Defense has will remove it. So I asked I answer your question with a question. Why should you want the United States to be vulnerable? Okay, let's take another question. Go ahead, please. Dr. Reinhardt in view of the economic costs that we've discussed here today and the costs in terms of human lives and the destruction of large parts of our planet if nuclear weapons are to be employed. Are you suggesting that the only way that we can protect ourselves? The only way that we can respond to conflict in our world is by building guns that there are no other ways that we are not imaginative enough to think of any other way. Well, I think there are other things we can do besides removing the vulnerability of Minuteman and the B-52 sure. I think we should have a civil defense program. I think a lot can be done. I think that no quite quite truly. I think that these these are things that that most people do not understand Hiroshima is a data point there. Are there were Japanese alive. Who were 300 yards away from the detonation at Hiroshima one point five nautical miles about three or 400 yards not many of them your chance of staying alive from a nuclear weapon. That's burst a Megaton weapon. That's burst three miles away from you is 50/50. Those are terrible figures. I'm not quoting them in support of nuclear weapons, but I am trying to point out that these there are facts that bear on the situation that are The tend to refute the impossibility of survival in the face of nuclear. So yes, I do think civil defense programs will help a great deal. Most of the nations of the underlined Nations. Well, so it's women in Sweden. I think Norway have civil defense programs, which could help these are the primary means that I think we would should work gentlemen, then to the audience's. Well, we have seven minutes actually six and a half minutes before we go off the air here and I'd like to get to the remainder of the question. So if we can agree to shorten up the final remarks while go to the next question right now, go ahead. If you can make your question brief, please it's impossible to make it brief after hearing what the people are saying here, but this is a town meeting and it's but it should be possible for us to have some expression as well. And but I would like to know what just let me make it clear that no one. Dr. Reinhardt six minutes to go here. I know I'd like to know what what the problems are of the Soviet Union that dr. Reinhardt is says they are beset with because when we compare United States The problems in the United States with the problems that they have it seems to me that at the problems in this country are equally as bad we have we have inflation that is unimaginable. And the people over in the Soviet Union are all employed. We have unemployment. We have millions of people unemployed and we need to deal with the problems and we can deal with the problems here in this country. I really think it's it's amazing that somebody who is as intelligent as dr. Reinhardt should come to tell us that the Soviets want us read. I mean, I have to give him a chance to respond to that circuit. There's still two people that want to ask questions after you so let's let's let him let's let him respond, please. Okay. I want him to know that I'm I fought with with the Russians on our side and I still think that there are our friends and they helped us and they did help us. Okay. Let's let's let dr. Reinhardt respond very quickly. I can only disagree I I think the fundamental difference between the United States and the Soviet Union is you and I are free the people in Soviet Union are not free the people in the Soviet Union are not able to stand up in front of microphones and town meetings and debate an issue such as this is you and I are debating. I think that's the main. Okay. Sure. I asked evening. I heard dr. Barnaby explain the problem what the bombs can do if they start falling what it costs us in our economy lack of environmental and things of that sort. You have somebody indicated you recognize the problem is dr. Marner me does how severe it is. It's a horrible problem. Unfortunately, both of you say so and unfortunately is truth we have attempted in the United States to handle this problem in the manner of this is the philosophy of our military department for many years to make ourselves. So strong militarily that no one in the world will dare to attack us and we spent billions of dollars to accomplish that but are we haven't accomplished it. We're just as afraid of the atomic bomb today everywhere when it was first invented 10, 15 20 years ago and although we spend more money every year. We're still in the same position. We're still vulnerable to that atomic bomb. Excuse me, but we only have about three minutes left and I wonder if I can let dr. Reinhardt very briefly respond to what you said so far so we can each get a just one thing very briefly, please. Time you get me started not talk forever on if anybody wants to ask me questions. I'd be so happy to stay after the meats. Let's let dr. Reinhardt very briefly and quickly respond. And then I'll just let me do that. I we have spent money lots of money our budget for strategic nuclear forces. I've said repeatedly has been going down hill over the last decade the Soviets and this is a Crux of the problem the Soviets keep spending more money building more systems until the Soviets began to to see some reason to adopt. What I feel is a u.s. Policy of unilateral restraint that there will continue to be the problem. Okay? I'm sorry, but we don't have time to get to you sir. Maybe you can ask your question after we go off the air. I do want to give each of my guests a very brief moment. It'll only be about that about 45 seconds for a closing statement. Dr. Reinhardt. Go ahead. Well again, I think that for a small amount of money we can Close this argument by removing the vulnerability of our strategic forces from the Soviet forces will be fielded in 1985 1984. I think those problems can be taken care of. Then. There will be no reason for the Soviets to make a preemptive strike on the United States. I think that will solve the problem. All right. Thank you very much. Dr. Goff Reinhardt. Dr. Barnaby have about a minute to well. I still believe very strongly the activities of military science can increase the probability of a nuclear World War because they are developing nuclear war fighting weapons. And I would like to see efforts made domestically to control the forces that are generating the arms race, which I believe is so dangerous and I believe firmly the only way that we will do that is by an involved public and I think we have to get public opinion involved in this we have to persuade them that of the dangers of He faces both East and West public. I mean and who that they will persuade reluctant political leaders to stop the drift in your world war before it's too late. Dr. Frank Barnaby of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Stockholm. I want to thank you for being here this afternoon and also dr. Goff Reinhardt of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, and I want to remind those of you listening that the science Town meetings are presented by the Medtronic foundation and participation of today's guest speakers was made possible by the mobile foundation as program was produced by David Chittenden director of continuing education at the Science Museum of Minnesota technical supervision for the broadcast was by Linda Murray with assistance from Tad goren flow and Fred wasser executive producer for this program was Rick Lewis. I'm rich diekman.