NATIONAL S!ECURITf POLICY


Iplan was based on a United States monopoly and thatit it waspropose4
  at a time when there was still some residue of frien"dly feelingtowar
  Russia; now the public is told by its government tthat the, UN plan is:
  the one and only perfect plan and the only basis "for -negotiations.
  Dr. Smyth said that it must be made clear to the public that changes
  ýin conditions have created no change in the reasoning on which
a plan
  was designed to meet those conditions. In the general discussion it
  was agreed that such changes in conditions as have occurred have
  probably been against our interests andthat our present stand gives
  the appearance of an admission of weakness-Which in fact it is., Thi"
  led into an examination of the pros and cons of international control.
  C. Mr. Nitze suggested consideration of the, thought that if we Coul[
  obtain implementation of the UN plan or its equivalent, -we woulck
  still have a fair amount of security and we would have succeeded in
  opening up the U.S.S.R. Mr. LeBaron said that it might ease world
  tensions in general but that it would not improve our military posi-.
  tion.'From this developed a discussion of the advantages and dis-
  advantages of the time element, i.e., that there would be a year's warn-
  ing if a violation occurred., On the one hand, it was argued that we
  would be able -to devote our technical skill to other things, and perhaps
  thus have time to improve our position militarily vis-a-vis the U.S.SIR,
  On-the other hand, there was the opinion that under this concept the6
  application of your technical skill would still 'be directed towardi
  methods of killing people and that if-you get rid of the bomb, thelprob-
  able result would be to find some other method equally haza~rdofus
  Mr. Barna~rd said: that he liked the concept of a package agreement
  but pointed out the dangers-of "moral revulsion" among important
  groups of the country--scientists, churchmen, et cetera--against the
  .H-bomb. Dr. Smyth mentioned an article which will appear ina
Scwntifec American which argues that what .we dislike about .the
Communists is- their means-rather than the ultimate end which they
profess, and comparing our Objective with the H-bomb as a means..
Mr. LeBaron stated that: he found a -great deal of difference between
treating people as the Communists have Mr. Shipkov" and usinglthe
H-bomb after there has been a declaration of 'war. Mr. Nitze remarked
that he-felt it was notquite so simple and that for the Russian people
the' difference between conventional bombs and H-bombs may'be mOr
than a matter of degree. Dr. Smyth remarked in-this connection that,
he particularly liked the paper's recognition that-our objectives must-

   Documentation on the detentona nd infterroga tion of United States Legatilo6n
employee WMichael : Shipkav by Bulgarian authorities is scheduled for publication
in voltume .iv.


'193