DOCSLIB.ORG

Test of the Endnote System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Test of the Endnote System DISSENTING PARTNERS: THE NATO NUCLEAR PLANNING GROUP 1965-1976 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for A Doctoral Degree of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Franz L. Rademacher, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2008 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Carole Fink, Adviser Professor Peter Hahn Professor Alan Beyerchen _________________________ Adviser Graduate Program in History ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the history of the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) in NATO from its establishment through its formative and influential first decade. The current historiography, based on a limited number of primary and secondary sources, sees the NPG as an effective method of nuclear sharing in the early 1960s, as a vehicle utilized by the non-nuclear NATO members to influence United States nuclear planning. Utilizing government sources in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany, this thesis argues that the Nuclear Planning Group was an effective tool of consultation that allowed for a measure of compromise concerning concepts on nuclear war. This consultation apparatus was a significant departure from American treatment of allied concerns in the first fifteen years of NATO. It represented a method of bringing West Germany into a unique relationship that conformed to the Anglo-American views on nuclear planning while also serving to minimize the influence of other non-nuclear states. There existed limits to which the United States was willing to extend nuclear influence to its partners, and in the longer term, the NPG remained a political instrument, that was unable to resolve some of the most difficult problems of nuclear defense it faced in its first decade. This study of nuclear relations within NATO focuses on those in the highest levels of government and how NATO allies negotiated policy. Once additional documents become available, further expansion of this topic into the dramatic events of NATO’s nuclear history in the 1980s will become possible. ii Dedicated to my parents, whose love for reading undoubtedly inspired me down this path. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who has helped me in my research and writing of this dissertation. Foremost, I need to thank my advisor, Professor Carole Fink, whose constant encouragement, assistance, and advice were invaluable throughout my graduate education. Also, I appreciate the comments of Professors Peter Hahn and Alan Beyerchen whose constructive criticism was quite valuable. The faculty and staff at the USMA Department of History and The Ohio State University History Department were essential in their everyday counsel and support during the entire research and writing process. MAJ William Mengal, MAJ James Guffey, and COL(ret) Dave Kerrins all assisted me during my research travels and the USMA Department of History also funded portions of my research. Professor Geri Smith also graciously assisted me in learning to translate French. Lastly I would like to thank Soo Jin and Kurt for their help and understanding through the entire process of my graduate education. They have put up with much that I never realize and their support without a doubt carried me through. iv VITA May 25, 1974……………………………..Born – Lansing, Michigan June 6, 1996………………………………Bachelor of Science, United States Military Academy, West Point NY May 2005………………………………...Masters of History, The Ohio State University May 2005…………………………………Completed Candidacy Exam August 2005 -2007………………………..Instructor, Department of History, United States Military Academy August 2007-2008………………………..Assistant Professor, Department of History, United States Military Academy FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: History Minor Field: European Diplomatic History Minor Field: Modern European History v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………………...…iii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………iv Vita……………………………………………………………………………….……….v List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………viii List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………...……….…….ix Dramatis Personae...…………………………………………..……………….……..…..xi Nuclear Planning Group Chronology……………………………………………...……xv Chapters: 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………….…………1 Initial attempts at nuclear sharing…………………………………………………7 The Hardware Solution: The Multi-Lateral Force (MLF)……….………...…….11 2. The Software Solution: The Special Committee of Defense Ministers..….……..18 The Software Solution: Political Factors…………………………………..…….40 The Software Solution and Non-proliferation………………………...…………48 The Role of Individuals………………………………………………………….51 3. System Input: The Nuclear Use Studies, 1967-1968……..……………………...57 Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense (ABMs)…………………………………...……..58 Atomic Demolition Mines (ADMs)………………………………………….…..64 Nuclear Planning Integration…………………………………………………….78 NPG Procedural Development…………………………………………………...88 4. System Output: Resolution in the NPG, 1969…………….…..………………..104 Provisional Political Guidelines………………………………………………...107 National Participation in Nuclear Planning………...…………………………..113 NPG Membership Debates in 1969....…………………………..……………...119 1969 in Summary……………………………………………………………….122 vi 5. System Glitches: Strategic Differences Rise Again, 1970-1973….……..……..125 System Input: Follow on Use Study Phase I…………………………………....131 System Output: Follow on Use Study Phase II………………………………....137 6. System Glitches: The NPG and International Politics, 1973-1976…………...145 Geopolitics and Phase II………………………………………………………..145 Internal Delays to Phase II…………………………………………………...…155 Domestic Politics and Phase II……………………………...………………….158 Trying Again: Follow on Use Study Phase III……….…………………………170 Military Planning and Other NPG Achievements in the 1970s………………..172 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….....185 Epilogue………………………………………………………………………….…202 APPENDICES Appendix A: Working Group III and NPG Ministerial Meetings……………………207 Appendix B: Nuclear Planning Group Organizational Chart, 1967-1975……………..210 Appendix C: NATO Tactical Nuclear Weapon Delivery Systems, 1975………………212 Appendix D: Photographs………………………………………………………………214 Appendix E: Conventional Force Deployments of NATO/Warsaw Pact………………220 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………223 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Nuclear Planning Group Organizational Chart, 1967-1975……………………211 2 NATO Tactical Nuclear Weapon Delivery Systems, 1975…………………….213 3 Nuclear Planning Group Meeting, 6 April 1967….……………………….........215 4 Defense Planning Committee Meeting, 14 September 1966……………….......215 5 NPG Ministers and President Johnson, 6 April 1967…………………………..216 6 Defense Planning Committee Meeting ‘hallway discussions’………………….216 7 Davy Crockett…………………………………………………………………..217 8 Honest John……………………………………………………………………..217 9 US Nuclear Test “Swordfish,” 11 May 1962………………………………...…218 10 US Nuclear Test “Tightrope,” 4 November 1962………………………………218 11 ADM Cratering effects………………………………………...……………….219 12 Corps Sectors of Military Responsibility in NATO’s central region ……..…...221 13 Warsaw Pact divisions in the central region ………………………...…………222 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AAPD Akten zur Auswärtiges Politik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (series) ABM Anti-Ballistic Missile ACE Allied Command Europe ADMs Atomic Demolition Munitions ANF Atlantic Nuclear Force ASW Anti-Submarine Warfare CDU Christian Democratic Union (West Germany) CSCE Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe DPC Defense Planning Committee FRG Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) FRUS Foreign Relations of the United States (series) GDR German Democratic Republic (East Germany) ICBM Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile ISA International Security Affairs (OASD) LBJL Lyndon B. Johnson Library MBFR Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions MC Military Committee MLF Multi-Lateral Force MNC Major NATO Commanders MOD Minister of Defense NAC North Atlantic Council NARA National Archives and Records Administration (USA) NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NDAC Nuclear Defense Affairs Committee NIKE Air defense system employed by most NATO allies in the 1960s ix NPG Nuclear Planning Group NPT Non-proliferation Treaty NSC National Security Council OASD Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PAAA Political Archive. German Foreign Ministry Permreps Permanent Representatives to NATO (ambassadors) PPGs Provisional Political Guidelines for the Initial Defensive Tactical Use of Nuclear Weapons by NATO PRO Public Records Office, National Archives (Kew, Great Britain) RAND Research and Development Corporation SACEUR Supreme Allied Commander Europe SACLANT Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic SALT Strategic Arms Limitation Talks SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe SIOP Single Integrated Operational Plan (US Plan for Strategic Nuclear use) SOZG Soviet Occupation Zone Germany (ie. GDR) SPD Social Democratic Party (West Germany) SSP Scheduled Strike Program, (SACEUR plan for nuclear use) USNATO United States Mission at NATO Headquarters x DRAMATIS PERSONAE CANADA Campbell, Ross Canadian Ambassador to NATO, 1967-1972 FRANCE de Gaulle, Charles President, 1958-1969 GREAT BRITAIN Carrington, Peter Secretary of State for Defense, 1970-1974 (Conservative) Healey, Denis Secretary of State for Defense, 1964-1970, 1974-1979 (Labor) Heath, Edward Prime Minister, 1970-1974, (Conservative) Wilson, Harold Prime Minister, 1964-1970, 1974-1976 (Labor) ITALY Andreotti, Guilio Minister of Defense, 1959-1966 (Christian Democrat)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • October 02, 1963 Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 'Paper Regarding Dutch Participation in Talks Regarding a Multilateral Nuclear Force'
    Digital Archive digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org International History Declassified October 02, 1963 Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 'Paper Regarding Dutch Participation in Talks Regarding a Multilateral Nuclear Force' Citation: “Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 'Paper Regarding Dutch Participation in Talks Regarding a Multilateral Nuclear Force',” October 02, 1963, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, National Archives, The Hague, Council of Ministers, access number 2.02.05.02, inventory number 753 and 723. Obtained and translated by Bastiaan Bouwman. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/117766 Summary: Paper presented at 4 October 1963 meeting of the Dutch Council of Ministers. The paper lays out the reasons for declining to participate in the Multilateral Force so far, but argues that due to changes in the situation – principally a turn on the part of the British toward participation – the Netherlands now should move to participate in the talks. The paper lists the (political) advantages of such participation. Credits: This document was made possible with support from the Leon Levy Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY). Original Language: Dutch Contents: English Translation Scan of Original Document [...] SECRET Paper regarding Dutch participation in talks regarding a multilateral nuclear force . On 1 August of this year, the Council of Ministers agreed that for now the invitation by the American government to participate in talks of a working group in Washington regarding the establishment of a NATO multilateral nuclear force, consisting of surface ships with mixed crews, would not be acted upon. This invitation had been accepted by the Federal Republic, Italy, Greece and Turkey. Along with the Netherlands, the UK and Belgium decided to remain on the sidelines for the time being.
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECTING the Disorder the CFR Is the Deep State Powerhouse Undoing and Remaking Our World
    DEEP STATE DIRECTING THE Disorder The CFR is the Deep State powerhouse undoing and remaking our world. 2 by William F. Jasper The nationalist vs. globalist conflict is not merely an he whole world has gone insane ideological struggle between shadowy, unidentifiable and the lunatics are in charge of T the asylum. At least it looks that forces; it is a struggle with organized globalists who have way to any rational person surveying the very real, identifiable, powerful organizations and networks escalating revolutions that have engulfed the planet in the year 2020. The revolu- operating incessantly to undermine and subvert our tions to which we refer are the COVID- constitutional Republic and our Christian-style civilization. 19 revolution and the Black Lives Matter revolution, which, combined, are wreak- ing unprecedented havoc and destruction — political, social, economic, moral, and spiritual — worldwide. As we will show, these two seemingly unrelated upheavals are very closely tied together, and are but the latest and most profound manifesta- tions of a global revolutionary transfor- mation that has been under way for many years. Both of these revolutions are being stoked and orchestrated by elitist forces that intend to unmake the United States of America and extinguish liberty as we know it everywhere. In his famous “Lectures on the French Revolution,” delivered at Cambridge University between 1895 and 1899, the distinguished British historian and states- man John Emerich Dalberg, more com- monly known as Lord Acton, noted: “The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult, but the design. Through all the fire and smoke we perceive the evidence of calculating organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Harlan Cleveland Interviewer: Sheldon Stern Date of Interview: November 30, 1978 Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts Length: 56 Pages
    Harlan Cleveland Oral History Interview—11/30/1978 Administrative Information Creator: Harlan Cleveland Interviewer: Sheldon Stern Date of Interview: November 30, 1978 Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts Length: 56 pages Biographical Note Cleveland, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (1961- 1965) and Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (1965-1969), discusses the relationship between John F. Kennedy, Adlai E. Stevenson, and Dean Rusk; Stevenson’s role as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; the Bay of Pigs invasion; the Cuban missile crisis; and the Vietnam War, among other issues. Access Open. Usage Restrictions According to the deed of gift signed February 21, 1990, copyright of these materials has passed to the United States Government upon the death of the interviewee. Users of these materials are advised to determine the copyright status of any document from which they wish to publish. Copyright The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excesses of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ANNUAL REPORT July 1,1996-June 30,1997 Main Office Washington Office The Harold Pratt House 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. (212) 434-9400; Fax (212) 861-1789 Tel. (202) 518-3400; Fax (202) 986-2984 Website www. foreignrela tions. org e-mail publicaffairs@email. cfr. org OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, 1997-98 Officers Directors Charlayne Hunter-Gault Peter G. Peterson Term Expiring 1998 Frank Savage* Chairman of the Board Peggy Dulany Laura D'Andrea Tyson Maurice R. Greenberg Robert F Erburu Leslie H. Gelb Vice Chairman Karen Elliott House ex officio Leslie H. Gelb Joshua Lederberg President Vincent A. Mai Honorary Officers Michael P Peters Garrick Utley and Directors Emeriti Senior Vice President Term Expiring 1999 Douglas Dillon and Chief Operating Officer Carla A. Hills Caryl R Haskins Alton Frye Robert D. Hormats Grayson Kirk Senior Vice President William J. McDonough Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. Paula J. Dobriansky Theodore C. Sorensen James A. Perkins Vice President, Washington Program George Soros David Rockefeller Gary C. Hufbauer Paul A. Volcker Honorary Chairman Vice President, Director of Studies Robert A. Scalapino Term Expiring 2000 David Kellogg Cyrus R. Vance Jessica R Einhorn Vice President, Communications Glenn E. Watts and Corporate Affairs Louis V Gerstner, Jr. Abraham F. Lowenthal Hanna Holborn Gray Vice President and Maurice R. Greenberg Deputy National Director George J. Mitchell Janice L. Murray Warren B. Rudman Vice President and Treasurer Term Expiring 2001 Karen M. Sughrue Lee Cullum Vice President, Programs Mario L. Baeza and Media Projects Thomas R.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament
    NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament: Challenges for the for 10th and Disarmament: Challenges Conference NPT Review Non-proliferation of Nuclear and the Frameworks NATO Research Paper Tim Caughley, with Yasmin Afina International Security Programme | May 2020 NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Challenges for the 10th NPT Review Conference Tim Caughley, with Yasmin Afina with Yasmin Caughley, Tim Chatham House Contents Summary 2 1 Introduction 3 2 Background 5 3 NATO and the NPT 8 4 NATO: the NPT and the TPNW 15 5 NATO and the TPNW: Legal Issues 20 6 Conclusions 24 About the Authors 28 Acknowledgments 29 1 | Chatham House NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Summary • The 10th five-yearly Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT) was due to take place in April–May 2020, but has been postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. • In force since 1970 and with 191 states parties, the NPT is hailed as the cornerstone of a rules-based international arms control and non-proliferation regime, and an essential basis for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. But successive review conferences have been riven by disagreement between the five nuclear weapon states and many non-nuclear weapon states over the appropriate way to implement the treaty’s nuclear disarmament pillar. • Although the number of nuclear weapons committed to NATO defence has been reduced by over 90 per cent since the depths of the Cold War, NATO nuclear weapon states, and their allies that depend on the doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence for their own defence, favour continued retention of the remaining nuclear weapons until the international security situation is conducive to further progress on nuclear disarmament.
    [Show full text]
  • The National News Council's News Clippings, 1973 August- 1973 September (1973)
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Formation of the National News Council Judicial Ethics and the National News Council 8-1973 The aN tional News Council's News Clippings, 1973 August- 1973 September The aN tional News Council, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/nnc Recommended Citation The aN tional News Council, Inc., The National News Council's News Clippings, 1973 August- 1973 September (1973). Available at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/nnc/168 This News Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Judicial Ethics and the National News Council at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Formation of the National News Council by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 197J 19 By lORN I. O'CONNOR TelevisIon NE of the more significant con­ are received. The letter concluded that tuted "a controversial Issue ext public In three ·centralized conduits? If the frontations currently taking place "in our view there is no~hing contro­ importance," networks do distort, however uninten­ Oin the television arena involves versial or debatable in the proposition Getting no response from the net­ tionally, who will force them to clarify? the case of Accuracy in Media, that nat aU pensions meet the expecta­ work that it considered acceptable, AIM In any journalism, given the pressure Inc., a nonprofit, self-appointed "watch­ tions' of employes or serve all persons took its case to the FCC, and last of deadlines, mistakes are inevitable.
    [Show full text]
  • George Washington University Undergraduate Review
    KEYWORDS: MLF, Multilateral Force, non-proliferation, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, U.S. Soviet Relations DOI: https://doi.org/10.4079/2578-9201.3(2020).01 "Das Vadanya" to the Multilateral Force: the Soviet Union's Role in the Johnson Administration's Decision to Abandon the MLF ALEXANDER CHANG International Affairs, ESIA '21, [email protected] ABSTRACT The Multilateral Force (MLF) was a proposed nuclear sharing arrangement between the United States and a number of its NATO partners. Proposed in 1958, the MLF was debated until about 1965 or 1966 and was often distinguished by its controversial nature and failure to gain traction. This paper examines documents from the Digital National Security Archive (DNSA), Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), Record Group 59: General Records of the Department of State, and various secondary sources to evaluate the extent to which the Soviet Union contributed to the MLF's failure as an initiative. The Force is often treated as a narrow and highly technical policy debate by existing literature. However, examination of these documents highlighted the necessity of viewing the Force as a topic of distinct political import in American-Soviet nuclear negotiations. While technical disputes over the MLF's constitution was an immediate cause of its demise, U.S. policymakers also faced strategic incentives not to pursue the treaty. In particular, the documents reflect growing belief within the Johnson administration that exiting the agreement could improve broader bilateral relations with the Soviet Union and ensure that the international community could continue to make progress on the creation of a nuclear non-proliferation agreement .
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture
    THE END OF NUCLEAR WARFIGHTING MOVING TO A W E I DETERRENCE-ONLY V E R POSTURE E R U T S O P R A E L C U N . S . U E V I T A N September 2018 R E T L A Dr. Bruce G. Blair N Jessica Sleight A Emma Claire Foley In Collaboration with the Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture an alternative u.s. nuclear posture review Bruce G. Blair with Jessica Sleight and Emma Claire Foley Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University Global Zero, Washington, DC September 2018 Copyright © 2018 Bruce G. Blair published by the program on science and global security, princeton university This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License; to view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 typesetting in LATEX with tufte document class First printing, September 2018 Contents Abstract 5 Executive Summary 6 I. Introduction 15 II. The Value of U.S. Nuclear Capabilities and Enduring National Objectives 21 III. Maximizing Strategic Stability 23 IV. U.S. Objectives if Deterrence Fails 32 V. Modernization of Nuclear C3 40 VI. Near-Term Guidance for Reducing the Risks of Prompt Launch 49 VII. Moving the U.S. Strategic Force Toward a Deterrence-Only Strategy 53 VIII.Nuclear Modernization Program 70 IX. Nuclear-Weapon Infrastructure: The “Complex” 86 X. Countering Nuclear Terrorism 89 XI. Nonproliferation and Strategic-Arms Control 91 XII. Conclusion 106 Authors 109 Abstract The United States should adopt a deterrence-only policy based on no first use of nuclear weapons, no counterforce against opposing nuclear forces in second use, and no hair-trigger response.
    [Show full text]
  • Harlan Cleveland Interviewed by Warren Nishimoto (1996) Narrative Edited by Hunter Mcewan and Warren Nishimoto
    College of Education v University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa 43 Harlan Cleveland Interviewed by Warren Nishimoto (1996) Narrative edited by Hunter McEwan and Warren Nishimoto Harlan Cleveland, political scientist, diplomat, public execu- tive, author of dozens of articles and books, and eighth presi- dent of the University of Hawai‘i, was born in 1918 in New York City. He was the son of Stanley Matthews Cleveland and Marian Phelps Van Buren Cleveland. His father, an Episcopal chaplain, died prematurely in 192. Nursing his father during a long illness had taken a toll on Cleveland’s mother, and the family was recommended to move to a warmer climate. She took Harlan and his siblings to southern Europe where she had spent a part of her childhood—first to the Basse Pyrénées region of France and later to Geneva in Switzerland. Harlan Cleveland’s schooling there gave him a strong foundation in French, and he also picked up some Italian and German. In 191, the family returned to the United States. Cleve- land attended Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. There, he learned to value the connections between the disci- plines, laying the grounds for his later abilities as a generalist: (UH Photo Archives) “I was always struck with the contrast between a situation in a school or college or university, where all the organization and who had escaped before the outbreak of hostilities. Their job all the power structure, too, is built on disciplines—and the was to determine how to destroy selective pieces of the Ital- communities surrounding it, where everything is organized by ian economy, in some cases by advising the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • NBC, "The Nation's Future"
    THE NATION'S FUTURE Sunday, October 15, 1961 NBC Television (5 :00-6 :00 PM) "THE ADMINISTRATION'S DOMESTIC RECORD: SUCCESS OR FAILURE?" MODERATOR: EDWIN NEWMAN GUESTS : THE HON. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF SENATOR EVERETT M. DIRKSEN ANNOUNCER: The Nation's Future, October 15, 1961. This is the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Abraham A. Ribicoff. Secretary Ribicoff believes that the Kennedy Administration's Domestic Record represents a success on the "New Frontier". 'This is Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican of Illinois and Senate minority leader. Senator Dirksen believes that the Administration's Domestic Record represents a failure on the "New Frontier". The Administration's Domestic Record: Success or Failure? Our speakers, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Abraham A. Ribicoff, and Senator Everett McKinely Dirksen, Republican of Illinois. ANNOUNCER: In our audience, government officials, political t CONT 'D) figures, journalists, the general public. Now, here is our moderator, the noted news corres- pondent, Edw in Newman. Good evening. Welcome to the primary debate in the new season of NE he Nation ls Future". In the coming months we wiu'be bringing to you again the foremost spokesmen of our time in major debates on topics of nati6nal and international importance. Again it will be my pleasure to act as moderator for the series. Tonight, a debate on the Kennedy Administrat ion Is Domestic Record. This is an appropriate time for such a debate. Congress adjourned late last month and its achieve- ments or failures are being vigorously argued. Criticism of the Administration record has intensi- fied and Administration spokesmen have come to the defense of that record.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Between the President and Former Vice President Walter F
    Debate Between the President and Former Vice President Walter F. Mondale in Kansas City, Missouri October 21, 1984 Ms. Ridings. Good evening from the Municipal Auditorium in Kansas City. I am Dorothy Ridings, the president of the League of Women Voters, the sponsor of this final Presidential debate of the 1984 campaign between Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Walter Mondale. Our panelists for tonight's debate on defense and foreign policy issues are Georgie Anne Geyer, syndicated columnist for Universal Press Syndicate; Marvin Kalb, chief diplomatic correspondent for NBC News; Morton Kondracke, executive editor of the New Republic magazine; and Henry Trewhitt, diplomatic correspondent for the Baltimore Sun. Edwin Newman, formerly of NBC News and now a syndicated columnist for King Features, is our moderator. Ed. Mr. Newman. Dorothy Ridings, thank you. A brief word about our procedure tonight. The first question will go to Mr. Mondale. He'll have 2\1/2\ minutes to reply. Then the panel member who put the question will ask a followup. The answer to that will be limited to 1 minute. After that, the same question will be put to President Reagan. Again, there will be a followup. And then each man will have 1 minute for rebuttal. The second question will go to President Reagan first. After that, the alternating will continue. At the end there will be 4-minute summations, with President Reagan going last. We have asked the questioners to be brief. Let's begin. Ms. Geyer, your question to Mr. Mondale. Central America Ms. Geyer. Mr. Mondale, two related questions on the crucial issue of Central America.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the U.S. Attorneys
    Bicentennial Celebration of the United States Attorneys 1789 - 1989 "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor– indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." QUOTED FROM STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U. S. 88 (1935) Note: The information in this document was compiled from historical records maintained by the Offices of the United States Attorneys and by the Department of Justice. Every effort has been made to prepare accurate information. In some instances, this document mentions officials without the “United States Attorney” title, who nevertheless served under federal appointment to enforce the laws of the United States in federal territories prior to statehood and the creation of a federal judicial district. INTRODUCTION In this, the Bicentennial Year of the United States Constitution, the people of America find cause to celebrate the principles formulated at the inception of the nation Alexis de Tocqueville called, “The Great Experiment.” The experiment has worked, and the survival of the Constitution is proof of that.
    [Show full text]