upr000150 65

are not matters appropriate to political treat­ment, but rather matters in which we should be guided by the advice of our best military leaders. These were the key points made by Mr. Tracy S. Voorhees, recently Undersecretary of the Army, in his address at the March 5 meeting at Town Hall. Speaking on behalf of the Committee on the Present Danger, Mr. Voorhees entitled his address: "The Price Tag on Freedom.” A summary follows: In the evil times into which the world has fallen, two things have to be carried forward simultaneously. We must keep a perimeter around civilization. At the same time, we must advance civilization within the perimeter. We cannot sacrifice the second objective to the first. The second objective, advancing civiliza­tion within the perimeter, is the duty of most citizens and is the more pleasant part of the job. The job of the military is to pro­tect the perimeter around civilization. The question before the American people today is that of how to defend the United States. It is not a question of either how to aid or how to defend Europe. We must, however, plan a common de­fense with Europe precisely because that is necessary for the safety of the United States. When he was Undersecretary of the Army, the speaker said, he reached the conclusion that he should devote his thinking primarily to the problem of defending the United States over the longer period, rather than to such immediate problems as the occupa­tion of Japan, which was safely in the hands of Gen. MacArthur. In connection with our long term defense, he had several talks with Vannevar Bush, who had been the Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development during the war and who had had considerable responsibility for the development of the atomic bomb, radar and the proximity fuse. Dr. Bush was worried about the fact that we had, at the end of the war, gone back to the ways of peace, demobilized, and gone in for a wave of economy which handicapped research on even our most promising weapons. The Army had to use its limited appropriations to maintain enough divisions for immediate safety and had no funds for new equipment. A year ago, when the economy wave was still on, it was just as clear as it is today that we were faced with mortal danger. But (Continued from Front Page) the people didn’t want to become aware of the danger. After resigning as Undersecretary of the Army last summer, the speaker found that President Conant of Harvard considered the situation serious enough to justify a non­partisan committee of citizens to study the need for a unified defense of the Atlantic Community. This resulted in the formation of the Committee on the Present Danger. The Committee believes that our defense will have to be made in Europe. To make this effective, the United States will have to supply both leadership and a hard core of troops. There will have to be manpower legislation to make possible contributing the necessary manpower while preserving fairness of sacrifice and democracy of method. Our present problem is different from that of the war. We now have to create a military force which will remain in being, so that Russia will find it unprofitable to start World War III. We may have to maintain partial mobilization for ten, twenty, or even fifty years. WHY EIGHTEEN-YEAR-OLDS? An equitable manpower policy will re-quire that a man serve for two years. These two years should be arranged to cause the least interference with his life, his career and his dependents. Having served two years, the young man will return to the reserve,^ ready to fight if necessary. If that is not necessary, he can continue to live his life without further interference. The earlier proposal, Universal Military Training, called for only six months of training. The present problem is different because we have to maintain a military force in being. In this situation, we have to have universal military service at age eighteen, that is at the end of the academic year when the young man finishes high school. The great argument as to whether it should be eighteen years or eighteen and a half years is peculiar in that it suggests that American mothers love their boys more at one age than another. The real question is which is better for the men themselves. The educators, when approaching this question, have shown breadth of vision even when forced to speak against the immediate interests of their own institutions. Congress now has before it the bill for Universal Military Service and Training. Whether or not this bill passes goes far beyond the question of manpower. It is the first real test of whether America has the will to remain strong. If the bill goes through, we will have trained men in re­serve who will be ready to serve in three months instead of needing ten months’ or a year’s training. A BALANCED MILITARY POWER NEEDED Aside from manpower, the other argu­ment in the great debate is as to how our defense will be made. Some advocate con­centrating on air and sea power with only small land forces. The underlying question is whether we are willing to stand with Europe. Will we let the free world fall apart or will we defend ourselves with the free world stand­ing together? For us, the question is almost as simple as that facing a man who needs a surgical operation. He gets the best doctor and lets him select the operating room and the surgical implements. He doesn’t dictate to the doctor what surgical implements are to be used, or where. In our present problem, General Eisen­hower is the specialist. There is no general who has, to the same extent, the confidence of the American people. And he has with him other generals who had the ability, v courage, and strategy to win World War II >ind who are no less patriotic and able today. Deciding that we need ground forces as well as sea power and air power is not based solely upon the opinion of the generals of the Army. The leaders of the Air Force and the Navy say the same thing. Admiral Sherman has testified to the necessity of making our defense in Europe and of con­tributing a hard core of troops. General Vandenburg has also testified that these are essential. OUR PRESENT ADVANTAGE The idea behind this opinion of our military leaders is not that we should be ready to assault Russia. At present, we have atomic weapon supremacy and can destroy Russia’s cities and industries if she attacks Western Europe. Unless someone makes a terrible mistake, Russia will not attack. The trouble is that the time will come when Russia has more atomic bombs of her own and also has better defenses against our high altitude bombers. That time isn’t now. It won’t be this year, and maybe not even next year. But, before the time comes when the fourteen conspirators in the Kremlin reach the conclusion that they can impose sufficient attrition on our high altitude bombers to make atomic bombing difficult for us, we have to be able to protect Europe. If Russia were to take Western Europe, she could, with its industries, out-produce us. With V-2’s alone, she could probably neutralize England. One way or another, we must be able to create a land force on the European con­tinent. As to the Europeans themselves, it is not a question of whether they can or will fight today. It is a question of whether, in (Continued on Back Page) T O W N H A L L Subscription: $1.00 per quarter, included in Town Hall dues. Editor: W illiam B. Miller. Issued every Monday by TOW N HALL, Biltmore Hotel, Los Angeles 13, California OFFICERS O F T O W N HALL J O H N E. FISH BURN, J R .................................... President FRANCIS H . LIN DLE Y......................... 1st Vice President A. STEVENS HALSTED, J R ............2nd Vice-President GEORGE O . CARLSON........................................... Treasurer JOSE PH D. SAVA N T.......................................... .....Secretary G O V E R N O R S , the above officers and: W . HERBERT A L L E N , GEORGE C. S. BENSON, H E R­M A N R. ERKES, JOSE PH G. GORM AN , N E IL H . JA C O B Y , DR. STEW ART P. M A C L E N N A N , HENRY T . MUDD, BEN N A T H AN SON , J . STUART NEARY, ROBERT M . SAM PLE, M AYNARD J . TO LL, GLEN-DON TREM AIN E. Ex-Officio: ARTHUR G. COONS, EVERETT R. SMITH. EXECU TIVE SECRETARY W IL LIA M B. M ILLER M EM BERSHIP COM M ITTEE A L L E N T. ARCHER, Chairman C O M M ITTE E O N PU BLICATIO N S M ARK S. TRUEBI.OOD, Chairman A D V IS O R Y P R O G R A M COM M ITTEE A. STEVENS HALSTED, J R ., D AN A H . JON ES, OSCAR MOSS T H E SECTION S O F T O W N H ALL A V IA T IO N , Ernest M. Pace, Jr., Chairman; ECO­NOM ICS, Robert Ray Dockson,. Chairman; EDUCA­T IO N , Maynard J. Toll, Chairman; INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Benjamin Aaron, Chairman; INTER­N A T IO N A L RELATIONS, Raymond G. M cKehey, Chairman; LEGISLATION A N D AD M IN ISTRATIO N OF JUSTICE, Leonard Horwin, Chairman; M U­N IC IPA L AN D CO UN TY GOVERNM ENT, Henry Reining, Jr. Chairman; P O PU LA TIO N PROBLEMS, C. Hunt Lewis, II, Chairman; PUBLIC F IN A N C E AN D T A X A T IO N , Max Eddy Utt, Chairman; RE­GION AL P L A N N IN G AN D DEVELOPM ENT, Paul Robinson Hunter, Chairman; U N EM PLOYM ENT AN D SOCIAL SECURITY, Adrian A . Kragen, Chair­man.