Editing 78-03-B6 (section)

=== Transcript ===
Several weeks ago, during the television debate between Bill Buckley and
myself, Admiral Zumwalt (now retired) presented a case for ratifying the
Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal treaties. I've been surprised that some of his
remarks didn't cause more of a stir in the press. He said that we were likelier
(than ever) to lose a nuclear war with Russia; we were likelier to lose a
conventional ground war in Europe; and we were likelier to loss a naval war in
view of the increased size of the Soviet fleet. He then made the point that
we'd have a better chance of using the Canal if Panama were friendly toward us.

Now, I'm not bringing this up to argue his final point. I want to talk
about the frank pessimism he expressed with regard to our strength vis-a-vis the
Russians.

We want to avoid a war and that is best achieved by being so strong that
a potential enemy is not tempted to go adventuring. When it comes to the
Soviet Union, no one denies they have assembled an offensive force of tanks
mobile artillery, support aircraft and armored personnel carriers on the Western
front in Europe that are superior to our forces and those of our NATO allies.
Though correcting that imbalance is important, we could at least say, till
recently, that we had the deterrent of nuclear superiority. That, if the Soviets
attacked Western Europe they would do so at the risk of nuclear destruction.
That deterrent ability is fading rapidly and there are indications that the SALT II
Negotiations may leave us even worse off.

There is a new weapons system that we have been the first to develop that
could restore the deterrent capability. It is the neutron bomb.

Now, some news stories make it sound like the Buck Rogers ray gun; that it
would kill enemy troops without so much as cracking the plaster in a building.
That's not quite the case. It would destroy things in the area of impact, but
the area of destruction would be limited, while it would kill enemy troops at
a much greater distance. Outside the immediate impact area, for example, it
could kill a tank crew without damaging the tank.

Now, some who have reacted in horror to such a weapon--saying it puts a
higher value on property than on human life--are missing the point. The fact is
all war weapons back to the club, the sling and the arrow have been designed to
kill the troops of the enemy. With gunpowder, artillery and, later, aerial bombs,
war could not be confined to the battlefield. It was then that non-combatants began
to outnumber soldiers as casualties.

The point of the neutron bomb is that it is available to us at much lower
cost than trying to match the Soviets gun-for- gun, tank-for-tank and plane-for-plane.
And, because of its effectiveness, it has the greatest advantage of all. For us,
it could become the ideal deterrent weapon--the one that wouldn't have to be used. 

This is Ronald Reagan.

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