212 



reduction of arms, to have military people available for consultation?" 

 the Secretary responded : 



Absolutely. The Chiefs have met on literally hundreds of occasions in the 

 last 2 years to consider the proposals that have been under study during that 

 time and I am certain if disarmament proposals are considered by our Govern- 

 ment iu the next 2 years that it will require similar action on their part. 



They consider these both separately and also during sessions with me and 

 with the President. Their advice is absolutely es.sential as a foundation for proper 

 consideration of any proposals dealing with our military forces.*^ 



As to the "degree to which the military have been kept informed and 

 consulted with reference to the treaty," the Secretary explained : 



I believe they have been both thoroughly informed and frequently consulted 

 on the subject matter of the treaty. Over a period of years this was the custom 

 of the previous administration and I think it has not only been carried on but 

 I believe furthered by this administration. 



As a matter of fact, in May of this year General Taylor, the Chairman of the 

 Joint Chiefs of Staff, was added formally and officially to the Committee of 

 Principals which is the organization in the executive branch which reviews pro- 

 posals such as this before they are finally presented to the President. 



This was more a formal move than one of substance because prior to that time 

 both he and his predecessor, General Lemnitzer, during my period in the De- 

 partment, and I think it was true prior to the time I was in the Department, ac- 

 companied the Secretary of Defense to the meeting of the Committee of Principals. 



But in order to insure there was no misunderstanding about the importance of 

 the role of the military advisers, the Chairman was formally added to the com- 

 mittee in the month of May of this year.®" 



Asked whether the JCS in giving subsequent testimony to the com- 

 mittee would be under administrative constraint, the Secretary said 

 there were no such instructions, "either on this treaty or on any 

 other subject." The JCS, he went on, "have the right and the 

 responsibility [by law] to appear before the appropriate congressional 

 committees to express their views at their own initiation when they 

 believe that actions are being taken contrary to our national security." 

 Moreover, "they have that right by practice in my administration of 

 the Department." ^^ 



Secretary McNamara was also invited to comment on a speech by 

 Senator George McGovern, who had urged a reduction in defense 

 expenditures on the ground that an asserted excess of nuclear weapons 

 and delivery systems (which he called "over-kill" capability) had 

 already been achieved so that still more force was unnecessary. The 

 gist of his reply was that the term "over-kill" seemed to be propa- 

 gandistic and was technically unsound. A nation whose strategy 

 involved accepting an attack and then responding must assume that 

 a substantial portion of its arsenal will be destroyed before it is used. 

 It must accordingly have an excessive inventory to be sure that enough 

 of its weapons survive an attack to be able to deliver a punishing 

 second strike. 



TestiTnony of the Chaii^man of the AEC 



Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Com- 

 mission, stressed the need for continued readiness to test, in order to 

 deter surprise abrogation,®* called for a vigorous program to utilize 

 nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes (the Plowshare program), 



«Ihid., p. 111. 

 ^^'Ibid., p. 119. 



^ Ibid., p. 202. 

 «*Ibld., pp. 208-209. 



