Editing 78-04-B1 (section)

=== Transcript ===
Several weeks ago on the T.V. debate between Bill Buckley and myself, Admiral
Zumwalts (now retired) presented a case for ratifying the proposed Panama Canal
treaties. I've been surprised his remarks didn't cause more stir in the press.
He said, "we were likelier to lose a nuclear war with Russia, we were likelier to
lose a conventional ground war in Europe and we were likelier to lose a naval
war" -- in view of the increased size of the Russian fleet. Then his point was
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 better achieved by being so strong that a
potential enemy is hot tempted to go adventuring. No one denies that the Russians
have assembled an offensive force of tanks, mobile artillery, support aircraft and
armored personnel carriers on the Western front in Europe superior to our NATO
forces. Until recently our deterrent was nuclear superiority. If the Soviets
attacked Western Europe we could threaten Russia with nuclear destruction. That,
of course, is no longer true.

It is at this point that a possible new weapons system is in a sense discovered
by us; one which can provide the deterrent we need to any Russian attack. It is
the neutron bomb.

Very simply it is the dreamed of death ray weapon of science fiction. It kills
enemy soldiers but doesn't blow up the surrounding countryside or destroy villages,
towns and cities. It won't even destroy an enemy tank--just kill the tank crew.
Now some express horror at this and charging immortality, portray those who
would use such a weapon as placing a higher value on property than human life.
This is sheer unadulterated nonsense. It is harsh sounding, but all war weapons
back to the club, the sling and the arrow, are designed to kill the soldiers of the
enemy. With gunpower and artillery and later bombs and bombers, war could not be
confined to the battlefield . And so came total war with non-combatants outnumbering
soldiers in casualties.

Here is a deterrent weapon available to us at much lower cost than trying to match
the enemy gun for gun, tank for tank, plane for plane. It isn't unreasonable to
believe that the Soviets will be more hesitant to send those waves of tanks westward
if we have a weapon that can wipe out their crews at virtually no cost to ourselves.
Indeed the neutron bomb represents a moral improvement in the horror that is modern
war. It just may be that the neutron bomb could be the ideal deterrent weapon--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">