Editing 76-17-A3 (section)

=== Transcript ===
Even if the Soviet Union and the United States could destroy each other
in an exchange of nuclear missiles, war is still a possibility and the winner,
if war came, would be the one with the most powerful conventional military
establishment. So far the Soviets are on the way to having that most powerful
establishment while we still argue about whether we should cut defense spending
and build up the budget for social reforms.

One of the experts I quoted said the Soviets are already fighting World
War III and their principal weapon is subversion -- at least for this stage,
That isn't a new weapon or a new idea. The Chinese -- 2,476 years ago --
endorsed subversion as a weapon; -- QUOTE -- "The greatest art is to break the
enemy's opposition without a fight on the battlefield. A true victory and a
lasting one, can only be won by indirect and subversive methods and so corrupt
all that is good in the enemy country. -- UNQUOTE.

Our problem would be more simple if all our disputes over weaponry were
inspired by enemy subversion. Unfortunately, there are legitimate differences
between us. Senator Hatfield of Oregon is opposed to a new development in
tactical nuclear weapons -- the neutron warhead. There is no question about
his sincerity or his devotion to the cause of peace and certainly his opposition
to the neutron weapon is in no way connected to Soviet subversion. He is truly
repelled by this proposed weapon system and unable to see that potentially it
could be the very deterrent we need to prevent war.

Let's understand that tactical nuclear weapons are for battlefield use
against military targets and have nowhere near the destructive power of
strategic nuclear bombs or intercontinental ballistic missiles. So far our
deterrent to an attack on the NATO line in Europe has been based on a tactical
nuclear weapon with a 56-mile range -- the Lance missile. Its weakness as a
deterrent however is the Russian knowledge that we might be reluctant to use
it since it would be exploded on the towns and countryside of our West European
allies. And, though smaller than the big Atomic bombs, it would still destroy
villages and kill noncombatants.

Now our Defense Department is asking for an appropriation to produce a new
warhead for the Lance missile as well as for other delivery systems. It is
the "neutron" -- a small warhead capable of penetrating tanks and bunkers. It
kills by radiation, without the blast and heat of atomic weapons. It is a
battlefield weapon designed to kill enemy soldiers, and death is almost
instantaneous. Furthermore, the terrain is not made dangerously radioactive.
Army field commanders have sought such a weapon for years. It is truly
akin to the science fiction deathray. This technology would put us far ahead
of the Soviets and be the deterrent we've sought against the nightmare situation
of a Russian advance in which our only choice would be to surrender or loose
a nuclear holocaust on the world.

Yes, it is horrible to think of soldiers helpless against a weapon that kills
them instantly with silent invisible rays. But, what if it prevents anyone
from being killed at all simply because it exists? As the Chinese said nearly
2500 years ago, "The greatest art is to break the enemy's opposition without a
fight on the battlefield." 

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">