30 
It is very clear that any proposals affecting military uses of the 
ocean or deep ocean floor would have to be considered in the same light 
as arms control measures in these environments. Such proposals, like 
other arms control measures, would have to be evaluated from the 
standpoint of national security. 
Since World War II the strategic importance of the oceans has in- 
creased. The submarine threat to the United States has been and is ex- 
pected to remain a very serious consideration in defense planning. 
The effectiveness of detection, classification, localization and track- 
ing of submarines depends heavily on the environment in which they 
operate. At the present time there is insufficient information about this 
environment to predict accurately the precise needs the United States 
will have for the oceans and their bottoms. 
A vital segment of our strategic deterrent forces is sea-based. The 
Polaris and Poseidon underseas launching systems provide us with 
significant strategic deterrent capability. The viability of the sub- 
marine-based missile force to a very large degree depends upon con- 
cealment and dispersion, as well as mobility. 
The importance of existing or potential sea-oriented systems is of 
such magnitude that I deem it essential at this time that we not fore- 
close options involving the use of the ocean space as well as its seabed, 
without conducting a very careful study of the many complex con- 
siderations involved. 
DEFENSE COMMENTS ON PENDING RESOLUTIONS 
Based on these considerations, the Department of Defense supports 
the need for care which is reflected in Senate Joint Resolution 111, 
rather than the proposals in Senate Resolution 172 and Senate Resolu- 
tion 186. 
Senate Resolution 186 contains many specific proposals which cer- 
tainly merit very careful examination and consideration. Because this 
resolution largely supersedes Senate Resolution 172 and because of the 
limited time available to examine it, I am unable to provide the com- 
mittee with anything more than our preliminary views on the points 
of particular concern to the Department of Defense. 
With respect to Section EV of Senate Resolution 186, I feel strongly 
that it would be undesirable to prejudge any strategic or military 
options until such time as we have the information that would be 
required to make a sound judgment consistent with the security of the 
United States. Thus, until a thorough study is completed, which might 
reveal areas which are appropriate or Inappropriate for consideration 
of arms control measures, I must oppose this part of the resolution. 
Senate Resolution 186 also provides the “sea guard” to which 
Senator Pell addressed some questions. This would establish an en- 
forcement mechanism under the direction and control of the Security 
Council of the United Nations. 
There should be noted in this connection the difficult political and 
military problems inherent in the organizing of international peace- 
keeping or enforcement agencies or forces. The fact that these problems 
exist does not mean, of course, that an idea that has as much potential 
merit as this should not be carefully considered and explored, but in 
advance of developments which might lead to a legal regime for the 
