Secretary Dulles' news conference of October 16, 1957

Secretary Dulles: I am sorry there has been an interval longer than usual between my press conferences, due to the United Nations and various incidents of the United Nations including the visitations here of foreign ministers. I suspect that the interval has allowed a number of questions to accumulate; if so, I will be glad to hear them.

Q. Mr. Secretary, relating to one of the things that happened in this interval, would you evaluate the relative power of Russia and the United States in the light of the ICBM and satellite successes they have had?

A. I can give you a rough approximation, although that, of course, is a question that perhaps should be directed primarily to the Department of Defense. But also, of course, it is very vital from the standpoint of the conduct of foreign relations. I would say this: The Soviet Union started back in 1945 to work intensively on this guided-missile program. It took over the assets of the Germans at Peenemunde. I recall that when I was in Moscow in 1947 with Secretary Marshall, we were impressed at the time with the intensity of effort along those lines and the VIP treatment being given to the Germans who had been taken in from the Peenemunde experiment. They have been pushing very actively along that line and I would think probably have some advance over us in respect to that particular area of potential military activity.

On the other hand, I think that we have in terms of actual military power, and potential military power for some years to come, a very marked superiority over them, particularly in terms of heavy bombers, which are for now and for some years to come will be the preferred and most effective means for the delivery of missiles.

I think that this satellite coming along as it did is a very useful thing to have happened, so as to avoid any possible complacency on our part with our present superiority. It arouses the whole country, I think, and the Congress, to the importance of pushing forward actively in this field, which may be the field where superiority will be militarily decisive perhaps 5 or 10 years from now.

Q. Mr. Secretary, as a historical note, there has been some confusion in Washington as to whether or not the administration anticipated the kind of worldwide reaction which has taken place in light of the launching of the satellite. Can you tell us whether at the time in 1955 the Vanguard project was decided upon -- whether you were consulted and considered the problem of what might happen and its effect upon our foreign relations if the Russians were the first to launch this satellite? And did that play any part in the decisions on how we handle that program?

A. I cannot recall that there was any particular discussion about the satellite project as such. There was considerable discussion about the missile program and the importance of not allowing the Soviet Union to gain any decisive superiority in the use of outer space for its missiles. But I do not recall a particular discussion about the launching of the satellite, although I believe there was some discussion at one of the National Security Council meetings that I was not present at.

Q. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Sandys of Britain have called for a great deal closer cooperation between the United States and Britain and a lowering of the barriers to the exchange of scientific information, especially in view of Sputnik. Do you now favor eliminating all of these present barriers to a complete exchange of cooperation between the two countries on this problem?

A. I have always favored a very large degree of cooperation, a larger degree perhaps than has actually taken place. We are under certain legal restrictions, as you know which were put on by Congress some years ago -- I think back in '48 or '49 -- at a time when it was believed we had a monopoly of knowledge with respect to atomic weapons - and, indeed, we did have, I think, at the time that original position was taken. It was hoped to preserve that monopoly in the interests of world peace and so that we could carry out our offer at that time to internationalize all use of atomic energy. That was the so-called Baruch Plan. I think that that legislative point of view has become somewhat obsolete with the passage of time and that there is a basis for a closer cooperation than has existed.

Some of it can be done, perhaps, under the present law, but I think it would be useful to give a fresh look at that law at this time because I think it may have become obsolete.

Q. Mr. Secretary, from a foreign policy point of view, do you believe that recent developments have called for a new look in our defense policies?

A. In our defense policies?

Q. That is right; and I am thinking particularly of reductions in our military establishment and some cutbacks in scientific programs.

A. Well, I would say that that defense policy is constantly getting a new look. Every year the budget is very closely examined from the standpoint of striking an appropriate balance between security on the one hand and budgetary burdens on the other hand and the problem of balancing the budget. I do not think that any recent developments call for any different kind of "new look" than occurs every year.

Q. Mr. Secretary, on that point of possible closer scientific cooperation, how do you regard this? Do you regard this as urgent, or do you regard this as a desirable thing that might be worked out in time? And could you say whether basically you think that the United States, unaided, as it is now progressing, can catch up in the missile field and indeed move ahead in all the defense fields where it is important?

A. I feel absolutely confident that there is no doubt whatsoever of our ability to move ahead and, I believe, keep ahead in this field. As I said before, I think that perhaps it is a good thing that this satellite was put up in good time, so that there would not be an undue complacency anywhere. I do not think that there has been complacency within the administration, but there has been a certain complacency, I think, felt generally that we were almost ahead of the Russians in every respect. Well, that is not so, and those of us who have been close to the situation have, I think, realized that for some time. You cannot take a nation of the size of the Soviet Union, under the kind of despotic government they have, and have it concentrate for now 40 years upon almost a single objective without getting some results. Now, the Russians have always had good minds. That has been shown by the fact that the Russians have over the years produced great chess players, champion chess players quite frequently, and their artillery in the past has been extremely good. Now when you take a despotic form of government and you provide scientific training -- and scientific training is almost the only training that is provided -- and you pick out all the best brains you have and funnel them into this scientific course of training, you are going to get outstanding results. So it is no surprise, I think, to any of us who followed the situation closely to know that that is going to happen.

I recall a Cabinet meeting some two or three years ago where this was fully discussed. The question was raised whether we should try to get our people to concentrate more upon scientific work. I think we all felt at the time that there was need, not only for scientists, but, for our form of society, you had to have ministers and historians, teachers, and people interested in the humanities, and that we did not want to become a lopsided society. If you are going to have this great force in a democratic form of society, you have to have not only the power to use it but you have got to have the power to exercise self-restraint and self-control. That is inherent in our form of society.

But I still think that, even though we have a balanced society, with balanced teaching and balanced training, there is still the capacity to do that and at the same time, if we handle ourselves properly, to keep ahead of the Russians in this particular field.

Q. Mr. Secretary, I am confused. Is Sputnik a good thing because it taught the administration something or because it taught the American people something?

A. I think it has created a unity of purpose and thinking between the administration, the Congress, and the people which is very desirable at this stage.