38 
needs are going to be in a world in which the concept of disarmament 
has not been accepted so that we could at this time or should at this 
time foreclose ourselves with respect to this large segment of the 
world’s territory. 
PROBLEMS OF AN INTERNATIONAL SEA GUARD 
Senator Pett. I realize it is premature, and I am intentionally pre- 
mature in trying to press public opinion and the executive branch on 
this, but would you perhaps be in a position later on to submit any 
written comments as to ways of making this language more acceptable 
to the Defense Department ? 
Mr. Warnxe. We would certainly be very happy to consider that 
and to endeavor to come up with a written statement, Senator. 
Senator Prexy. It would help our own judgment very much indeed. 
I completely agree with you in connection with the sea guard, the 
rather difficult political and military problems inherent to the organiz- 
ing of international peacekeeping forces. 
it is precisely because of these problems we have never been able 
to go ahead with what we envisaged at San Francisco in 1944-45 on 
the conference board. But perhaps the sea guard concept might pro- 
vide us the very means to do it. 
IT am wondering if you could address yourself a little more specific- 
ally to where you see the problems. Even if there is no treaty would it 
not be a good idea to start creating the framework of some form of 
international sea guard to enforce the present international agree- 
ments that exist with regard to, as I mentioned earlier in the hearing, 
fishing, weather patrol and things of that sort. 
Mr. Warnxe. That, Senator, is probably beyond my particular field 
of competence. I would like to say as a personal matter that the idea is 
a very attractive one to me, and my comments with respect to the sea 
guard were that I was unable to evaluate the role that it would play 
without it being sure first as to just what it would be enforcing, and 
it is the sea guard in connection with section IV which would give me 
my particular problems of national security at the present time. I cer- 
tainly had no personal opposition to the concept of an international 
force of this sort. 
ARMS CONTROL PROPOSAL 
Senator Petz. I want to add here that section IV was drafted by me 
with considerable precision, in an effort to in no way inhibit the 
Polaris program, and it is not meant to, and I don’t think that the gen- 
eral public should think it would have any effect on it. I would hope in 
your thinking you did not see an inhibition here. 
Mr. Warnxg. I think, Senator, that that depends upon a prediction 
which I am not in a position to make at the present time on what the 
developments might be. I believe in this connection that Dr. Fresch 
might have some comments that he might give. 
Senator Priy. Also, as was mentioned in the testimony, I think the 
witnesses here might be interested in the difference between Polaris 
and Poseidon. : 
Dr. Froscn. The difference between Polaris and Poseidon is in the 
missile. The Poseidon is an improved missile over the Polaris. 
Senator Prix. But both launched from nuclear submarines ? 
