This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
THE ROAD TO PEACE
by William Lambers
Cover photograph: President Eisenhower and President Kennedy at Camp David on April 22nd, 1961. (Robert Knudsen, White House/ John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Boston) The Road to Peace: From the Disarming of the Great Lakes to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty ISBN: 0972462937 Copyright © 2004 by William Lambers Printed in the United States of America www.lamberspublications.com
Table of Contents
Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 War and Peace on the Great Lakes The Oregon Treaty Peace after the Great War? Eisenhower, Kennedy and The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty The First Nuclear Weapon Free Zones Epilogue: The INF and Open Skies Treaties Notes
at least for the time being. While President Washington may have avoided the sword of Great Britain.”1 As Washington stated before sending Jay to Britain. he and his administration would be attacked at home by the mighty pens of America’s newspapers. “peace ought to be pursued with unremitted zeal…”2 John Jay had plenty of experience. which included America’s right to free trade in places such as the British West Indies. Jay left Britain with a treaty. and address the British harassment of American ships at sea. The treaty resolved the issue of the British occupation of forts. He had helped to craft the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which ended the Revolutionary War between America and Britain. His task was to straighten out the British unwillingness to depart. and the Americans would take possession. Soon. The treaty was considered a colossal failure.” George Washington Farewell Address 1796 President George Washington sent John Jay on a mission. However. Jay could not bring about concessions from the British on key issues. It prevented another war between the two countries. British troops would leave outposts such as Fort Niagara in New York. the British were not living up to the terms of the treaty. commonly referred to as Jay’s Treaty. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. The Secretary of State’s 4 .Introduction “Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. It was 1794 and Great Britain and the United States were headed toward another war. which called for abandoning forts on American soil. But the treaty was despised in the United States. John Jay’s mission was to resolve several issues of conflict between the two nations and to “repel war.
will show the unpopularity of the treaty at Boston. It would be an understatement to say that Jay became quite unpopular. It is understandable why many people believe a peaceful world is just not possible. and will travel. Peace among nations is perhaps the greatest challenge facing mankind. New York exhibited a similar scene. But how can the search for peace be abandoned? As President Jimmy Carter once stated.”4 John Jay’s Treaty was not the magic document that would end all British and American differences. even a small careful shift. might have guided nations that much better. lest Peace should continue. The day before yesterday. Jay’s efforts to bring about peace had resolved only some issues of contention between Britain and America. we can see times when a more watchful course. These differences would fester for almost two decades. “… as we look back on the causes of so many wars. It is staggering to think of how many millions of people have lost their lives to war in just the 20th century alone. of course. some Americans actually wanted war rather than a treaty with Britain. there was the man who crafted the treaty. “Damn John Jay! Damn every one that won’t damn John Jay! Damn every one who won’t put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!” Jay probably would have preferred an honorary key to the city for his efforts. This is the story of the pursuit of peace anywhere. perhaps. further. As John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail months before. culminating in the War of 1812. 5 . Clearly. It will probably be re-acted in Philadelphia. “You cannot imagine what horror Some Persons are in.correspondence showed the public’s disgust with the treaty. Graffiti in the city of Boston read.”5 “The Road to Peace” contains historical accounts from the time period of the War of 1812 to the age of nuclear weapons.”3 Then. It is a long journey. the road to peace in British-American relations was a difficult one. that much further in the ways of peace. War and conflict are very much a part of civilization. “The Newspapers which have been forwarded to you.
But the pursuit for peace is an ongoing struggle for mankind. The longest journey takes many single steps. In the crushing tide of war and conflict.Some of the peacemaking attempts you will read about had more success than others. the best-intentioned and spirited efforts for peace have sometimes been helpless. 6 .
It is a cool April morning. Crewmen prepare the rows of cannons that will be unleashing fury on Canadian forts and towns. Your heart pounding. There are none in sight…. You peer out across the Lake to watch the sunrise.CHAPTER ONE War and Peace on the Great Lakes Imagine living along Lake Ontario in the British colony of Canada. Word reaches quickly up the Lake that the warships are coming. you run to warn your family. giving signals that warn of the impending attack. the surrounding countryside quiet. Great Britain and the United States are at war. The waters are calm. Soldiers prepare themselves for the coming fight and everyone else wisely heads for cover. 7 .but where are they? Little do you know that a fleet of American warships is readying for battle.. no thunder of cannons coming from America’s Fort Niagara or the British Fort George. The year is 1813. American soldiers are boarding warships. heading west on Lake Ontario. Within hours. the American fleet will set out. At Sackets Harbor in the eastern end of Lake Ontario. They have been silent through the dead of a peaceful winter. You gaze up and down the Lake for American warships. You notice a figure upon a distant hilltop. But you know those guns will fire again.
Naval Historical Center) 8 .Sackets Harbor in New York was the United States naval base on Lake Ontario during the War of 1812.S. (U.
View of America’s Fort Niagara on Lake Ontario from the British side. Naval Historical Center) 9 . The fort overlooks the Niagara River where it flows into Lake Ontario.S. (U.
and the British had to answer one important question. the American fleet attacked the Canadian town of York6 on the coast of Lake Ontario. through sleepless night after night. With the situation untenable. many British soldiers retreated. Fort George was next on the American’s attack plan. overwhelming British defenses. the British felt their worst fears rise. In late May the Americans struck with the heavy guns of Fort Niagara which blasted Fort George. American ships were bringing fresh troops to Fort Niagara for the impending attack. the British officers felt uneasy. Some civilians had already fled the town. Where would the Americans strike next? At Fort George on the Niagara River. The fog was the last line of defense for the British as behind it was the American fleet of warships.WAR AND THE GREAT LAKES In April 1813. American soldiers descended upon the town in great numbers. The bombardment was to clear the way for the American troops to cross the river. Then one morning a veil of fog blanketed the area. 10 . All the British soldiers could do was wait and stay alert. just waiting to strike. Soon thousands of American soldiers were across the river…waiting to pounce. The American Fort Niagara was also situated on the strategic river which flowed into Lake Ontario. The warships ensured the landing of American troops. Those who remained had to endure an unruly American occupation. and the Americans assumed control of the post. News of the attack spread like wildfire. The British were driven from Fort George. The enemy was too close for comfort. The British would try to regroup to fight another day. The neighboring town of Newark also felt the smashing blows from the American cannons. day after day. A barrage of cannon fire was spread over several days. The exhausted British soldiers could only watch as the American force got larger each time the sun came up. The buildup of American troops continued over a period of weeks and must have been unnerving to the outnumbered soldiers at Fort George. As large numbers of American soldiers gathered at Fort Niagara.
The capture of Fort George by American troops in 1813. (National Archives 111-SC-96968) 11 .
Perry’s fleet was constructed at Presque Isle (present day Erie. And that they did. Oliver Hazard Perry had the task of commanding the newly built American fleet in order to wrest control of the Lake from the British. 12 . on another bitterly cold December night. killing some soldiers in their sleep. some of their fellow guards closer to the fort were slacking off. The British then proceeded to burn the towns of Buffalo and Black Rock in retaliation for the Americans putting the torch to Newark. The sentries were on their own. the commanders decided to abandon the fort and head back across the Niagara River. American sentries were doing their usual guard duty. The British overwhelmed the stunned sentries and captured the American fort. The American commanding officer was away that night. In September 1813. They would not go quietly though. British troops crossed the Niagara River and made their way silently toward Fort Niagara. a naval arms race was under way on Lake Erie. some had fallen asleep. destroying the homes which sheltered the British citizens from the frigid. It was an act of cruelty that was reprehensible in the eyes of the British. The Americans set fire to Newark. Pennsylvania) in rapid fashion. Whichever country controlled the Lakes could transport troops and supplies more easily. All the while raids took place on Lake Ontario. But unbeknownst to them. biting December temperatures of the Niagara region. not to mention launch cannon fire on coastal forts.The Americans did not hold Fort George very long. it was time for the fleet to meet its British counterparts on Lake Erie. Outside Fort Niagara. unaware what danger lurked in the darkness of that cold winter night. In December of that year. It was near Put-in-Bay that the American fleet defeated its British rivals. A dominant naval force on the Lakes was essential to winning the war. The brutality of the Americans was matched quickly by the British. This was a critical turn of events because it gave the United States the prize possession of Lake Erie.
The importance of naval forces on the lakes could not have been better illustrated than through the Battle of Lake Champlain. almost up to the minute of the invasion. D. It was a proposal with merit. ground troops would be much more vulnerable to having their supplies cut. Without the British fleet on Lake Champlain. Meanwhile. Nevertheless. the American fleet bested the British. On Christmas Eve night. With the slow communications of that day. the disarmament idea could not be acted upon without approval from the leaders back in the States. 1814 in Belgium. In 1814. as battles raged on in the United States. capable of more devastation. British troops poured into the American countryside near Lake Champlain. so did military shipbuilding. Belgium. a naval arms race had taken place on Champlain. there was hope the war could end soon. And also like Lake Erie. only hardly anyone knew it. negotiations were agreed to between the British and the Americans. An invasion was under way. Warships were getting bigger. That year. A British fleet on the Lake moved in support of these troops. The American and 13 . more powerful. The peace negotiations continued into early winter. New York. the British invaded the American capitol of Washington.C. This was a crucial victory for the Americans since it forced the British invaders to retreat. As peace negotiations commenced. The talks would take place in the town of Ghent. However. one that could cripple the young United States. The diplomats traveled their way to Ghent. and set the White House ablaze.As the War of 1812 continued. Like Lake Erie. the idea had to be dropped for the time being. hence their retreat back to Canada. Villagers in the small towns of northern New York must have been awestruck by the massive columns of British troops marching towards their destination of Plattsburgh. the war finally came to an end. back at Ghent the American diplomats had been deliberating the idea of both nations disarming on the Great Lakes.
14 . PEACE ON THE LAKES While the Treaty of Ghent ended the bloodshed of the War of 1812.British diplomats had achieved peace and word would start to spread to the rest of the world. you probably did not care about the exact terms of the treaty. If you lived along either of the lakes. But if you were a soldier in the British or American army. it did not address issues that could potentially lead to future conflict. only that the fighting had stopped. the British seizure of American sailors. which had been the driving force behind the war. The war was now over. you hoped you would never see another warship again. Territorial and boundary disputes that remained were left to future negotiations. The treaty did not even tackle the issue of impressment.
British and American diplomats at the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in 1814. (National Archives 111-SC-96965) This 1814 cartoon pokes fun at the British (John Bull) and their need to build more warships on the Lakes after the battles of Lake Erie and Champlain. (National Archives 111-SC-92715) 15 .
and two on the 16 . In a letter to Lord Castlereagh. Each side could keep one ship with an 18pound cannon on Lake Champlain and Ontario. the British were reluctant to dismantle their warships on the Lakes. It was reported that the British planned to build more warships on the Lakes!7 Adams hurried this information back to the Secretary of State. D. Lord Castlereagh. United States intelligence sources quickly confirmed the report. There was fear of a new naval arms race on the Lakes. The Rush-Bagot agreement of 1817 demilitarized the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain by ending military shipbuilding there and calling for disarmament of existing warships.The post-war peace between the British and the Americans was not taken for granted. John Quincy Adams was instrumental in convincing Britain’s foreign secretary. “The moral and political tendency of such a system must be to war and not to peace. James Monroe. a fear fortified by information falling into the hands of John Quincy Adams. The agreement was short and sweet. is confirmed by intelligence from that quarter of measures having been actually adopted for the purpose.”9 The British and Americans both agreed to give up their warships on the Lakes. that disarmament of the Lakes was in the best interest of both countries. They viewed naval power as a means of protection for their vulnerable colony of Canada. writing.C. which was an ocean away and not as easy to protect as it was for the Americans to attack. “The information you give of orders having been issued by the British government. The negotiations would be finalized in Washington. to increase its naval force on the Lakes. However. The sensible diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic understood that peace can be here today and gone tomorrow.”8 Monroe hastily instructed Adams to begin to negotiate with the British on disarming the Lakes. after the war. by Richard Rush (Acting Secretary of State) and Charles Bagot (British minister to Washington). who was serving as minister to London. Adams emphasized the inherent dangers of an arms race.
The Rush-Bagot agreement is a pillar in the history of arms control and disarmament. What happened though was that many American seamen were unjustly seized and forced to serve on British ships. According to Monroe. the possibility of an “incident” between British and American ships was highly likely. It must be remembered the genesis of that war owed much to confrontations on the water. Britain had violated American rights by stopping vessels at sea and kidnapping sailors. This was a major incident that led to the War of 1812. which was great. as there were several runins since the War of 1812 had ended. In 1807. the British ship HMS Leopard fired upon the USS Chesapeake before boarding and seizing four sailors.” Of course. Having great warships roam the Lakes after the war would only be a hindrance to peace. now the President of the United States. Before the war. it seems inconceivable. 17 . “By this arrangement useless expense on both sides and. the waters of the Lakes are calm. Its timeless lessons can help in the never-ending struggle to achieve peace among nations. The rest of the warships had to be dismantled and further naval buildup was prohibited. This impressment was supposedly invoked by the British to capture deserters from its Royal Navy who often joined up with the American ships. Today. far removed from the great struggles of the War of 1812. what is of still greater importance. the danger of collision between armed vessels in those inland waters. War between the U. was pleased to include the announcement of the Rush-Bagot agreement in his first annual message to Congress in December 1817. and increase the possibility of another war. is prevented. and Britain is so much a thing of the past.upper Lakes.S. This is not the case between many nations who have a common history of warfare. James Monroe.
but the clouds of war are gathering. A letter is en route from London with instructions to send British soldiers on a reconnaissance mission to Oregon.” 18 ..CHAPTER TWO The Oregon Treaty A British soldier is on duty in the year 1845. along with a fellow comrade. He is stationed in Canada. in the city of Montreal.…. he is unknowingly being thrust into the crisis. For the moment there is peace between the two rival nations. should such operations become necessary. in order to obtain as accurate a knowledge of it as may be requisite for the future and efficient prosecution of military operations in it. Both the United States and Britain claim this land as their own. They are about to be sent on a long journey. It is called the Oregon Territory.who should proceed as private travelers to the Oregon Territory. The question is how far will they go to defend their claim? And will it lead to war? PLANNING FOR WAR While the soldier is far away from the disputed territory. for the assignment. which is a colony of the British Empire. The Commander of Canada’s Forces receives the letter and nominates the soldier. and examine the important parts of the country. lies the border between Canada and the United States. to Oregon! The purpose of the mission is made clear by the initial instructions from London… “…. There is a dispute over possession of land thousands of miles from his Montreal post. Just south of his post.two officers.
A small force 19 . they must remind themselves as to why they are there.”10 The soldiers are now spies.” As they take in the beauty of the area. The accuracy of their intelligence gathering could prove vital to the lives of fellow British soldiers and citizens. The information they collect will be used to determine British troop deployment and defenses in the frontier. northwestern headquarters of the British Hudson’s Bay Company. they begin taking notes for their report. Fort Vancouver appears vulnerable to an attacking force due to its location along the Columbia River. so far as possible. They also travel into the Willamette Valley to check out the American settlement known as “Oregon City. But by no means is it a pleasure trip. where the village called “Oregon City” is now commenced. The soldiers mark “Oregon City” as a suitable location for military occupation. As the soldiers reach Fort Vancouver. wellsuited to defend against American forces.”11 posing as a couple of guys having fun hunting and fishing in the wilderness. Both soldiers agree it will become crucial that British troops occupy key positions in Oregon before American troops can get there. to make military observations. seeking “the pleasure of field sports and scientific pursuits. they are to disguise themselves as private citizens. This would need to be done quickly. is an important point and is well-adapted for defense. Under specific orders.“It is almost needless to say that perfect secrecy should. both men begin their expedition into the wild west. Much responsibility lies on their shoulders. Their recommendation is that British troops take over this thriving American settlement in the event of war: “The falls of the River Willamette. Under this premise. from the steepness and impracticability of the immediately surrounding country. be preserved as to the expedition and its objects.
etc. to supply the troops in other parts of the country.” 12 The Oregon Territory included the mighty Columbia River which stretches for hundreds of miles inland and served as a major source of transporting goods.. John McLoughlin.stationed at this point would overawe the present American population and obtain any quantity of cattle. head of the British Hudson’s Bay Company. While the British and American governments disputed ownership of the territory. (author’s collection) 20 . The territory was also rich in timber and farming soil. helped many American settlers survive the rugged new country and make their homes in Oregon. citizens from both countries lived in relative peace in Oregon.
However. Americans hoped to settle the region and gain control of the excellent ports along the Oregon coast. Throughout the history of mankind. which dominated the fur trade of Oregon by the 1820’s. This situation made Oregon a potential powder keg. It was Gray who named the river Columbia after his ship. the British also had their sights set on these ports. Robert Gray. Americans attempting to enter the fur trade of Oregon could not compete with this powerful British enterprise. The Lewis and Clark expedition explored parts of the Oregon Territory. and would not cede the territory to the United States. In 1818. Great Britain was intent on protecting its valuable business interests in Oregon. The Company set up its headquarters along the Columbia River.THE CONFLICT OVER OREGON The Oregon Territory was coveted by both countries. The territory included what is now presentday Oregon. ready to explode. sailed into Oregon’s Columbia River in 1792. border and territorial disputes have led to the start of countless wars. British and American diplomats would meet to try and settle the Oregon question. Idaho. Montana and British Columbia in Canada. Washington. Oregon could be seen as a gateway to a potentially lucrative Pacific trade with nations such as China. a seaman from Boston. But it was the British who would take hold first in Oregon with the Hudson’s Bay Company. Would Oregon do the same? Both the British and the Americans had explored parts of the Oregon Territory. 21 .
His “Report on Roads and Canals” mapped out a strategy for linking the nation by means of federally funded canals and turnpikes. James Madison. which allowed the United States to expand its territory in a monumental way. internal improvements have become a part of our society since that time. In 1801. was extremely influential in the shaping of the newly born United States during the early 19th century. although not a household name in most quarters. he became Secretary of the Treasury. In Congress. One of his earlier proposals. he became influential in the area of finance. and he also presided over the financing of the Louisiana Purchase.” This was one of the first roles Gallatin played as a leader in the shaping of the new nation. He would play a significant role throughout several decades of negotiations over the Oregon Territory. Gallatin initiated an effort to improve the nation’s internal transportation system. Gallatin’s report “is still regarded as a classic. During this time period. They are household names: Benjamin Franklin. “Views of the Public Debt. It was an appointment that President Thomas Jefferson would not regret. Thomas Jefferson.” helped determine how the United States government was to handle its money. And clearly. His report. Wait a minute! Back up. Gallatin ultimately reduced the public debt. the building of the 22 . John Quincy Adams. But his career in government service went far beyond that of a diplomat.ALBERT GALLATIN AND THE OREGON NEGOTIATIONS If you turn the pages of early American history. you will find numerous examples of great leaders who built this country and whose influence transcends daily life over two hundred years later. While his particular proposal was not followed to the letter. Albert who? Albert Gallatin. According to the Treasury Department’s web site. John Hancock. Albert Gallatin. George Washington. it is work still respected today. Receipts and Expenditure of the United States. Alexander Hamilton.
is submitted to the consideration of Congress. This road. which ended the War of 1812. from President James Monroe to the United States Congress.National Road.” President James Monroe Annual Message to Congress. 1824 Calls for military occupation of the Columbia were heard all over the American government. was the first highway built with federal funds. Albert Gallatin and Richard Rush (same Rush who signed the Rush-Bagot Agreement) would attempt to negotiate with the British on the Oregon issue. led by John Floyd of Virginia. other boundary issues were resolved at the Convention. But not everyone on both sides would act in such a manner over Oregon: “In looking to the interests which the United States have on the Pacific Ocean and on the western coast of this continent. which ultimately stretched from Cumberland.13 Now that brings us to his role in the dispute over Oregon. rather than press a resolution of the issue. Maryland to Illinois. It was a choice to be patient. or at some other point in that quarter within our acknowledged limits. One of the first chances to settle the Oregon question was at the Convention of 1818. Gallatin was also a member of the American delegation that negotiated the Treaty of Ghent. it was Gallatin who. the propriety of establishing a military post at the mouth of the Columbia River. In fact. while at Ghent. it was decided the territory was to remain “free and open” to citizens of both countries for a period of ten years. Minnesota to the Rocky Mountains was set. began to clamor for a military occupation 23 . did become a reality. However. There was no luck settling the dispute. For Oregon. The British and American border from the Lake of the Woods. brought up the idea of mutually disarming the Great Lakes. Members of the Congress.
The “free and open” agreement was extended when no final settlement could be reached. Who knows what would happen next? John Floyd’s movement had significant support. The House of Representatives approved the military occupation but the Senate rejected it.14 The British were simply not ready to turn over Oregon to the United States. 24 .” Gallatin continued on the difficulties of British military presence in Oregon including the “collisions it may occasion” with American troops or citizens. American pioneers began to travel the Oregon Trail and settle in large numbers in coveted areas. They called for negotiations over Oregon. After Gallatin’s visit to London. If American troops were sent to Oregon. Gallatin’s talks with the British showed that demands to establish military posts in Oregon would inflame the situation. and just relax and be patient. Before that was to happen.of the Columbia. Albert Gallatin would head to London to attempt to solve the Oregon crisis diplomatically. not send military forces and provoke a British response. It was better for the United States to lay low. such as the Willamette Valley. Great Britain could not suffer it without at least following the same example. the Oregon issue remained relatively calm for over a decade. in his advancing years. were nervous about what was going on in America. would see less of a role in government. 54’ 40° OR FIGHT There was not much American settlement of Oregon until after 1840. needless to say. then surely British troops would follow to protect the interests of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Gallatin wrote. “it appeared to me to be the point of which they were the most tenacious…. another long-standing dispute waited to be settled in the Northeastern section of the United States. The British. It was clear that some decision had to be reached regarding the status of the territory. Gallatin. thus defeating the movement at least temporarily.if it was done by the United States. But he would revisit the Oregon crisis in his later years.
Lord Aberdeen.Tensions were running high along the border of Maine and New Brunswick between Canadian and American lumberjacks. March 1845 The British foreign minister. The Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 finally settled the Maine-New Brunswick border and prevented bloodshed. Many Americans shared the sentiment of President James Polk’s proclamation of claiming the whole of the Oregon Territory. In a message to the Senate on March 24. The aforementioned spy mission overland to Oregon mapped out potential battle plans.” President James K. naval and military. 1846.is making unusual and extraordinary armaments and warlike preparations.. both at home and in her 25 . A convention in Cincinnati. Now only the Oregon question remained unresolved. Our title to the country of the Oregon is “clear and unquestionable…. reacted to Polk’s statement. “The uncompromising boldness” of Polk and other Americans calling for all of Oregon alarmed the British and forced them to think militarily in order to “act immediately and with effect in defense of our rights in that quarter should those rights be infringed by any hostile aggression or encroachment on the part of the United States…”15 The British Royal Navy dispatched warships to the coast of Oregon and plans were made for war. President Polk stated Britain “. It reached the point where the United States was making plans to deploy thousands of troops to the region. Polk Inaugural Address. Ohio during 1843 called for all of Oregon: “Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to assert and maintain by all constitutional means the right of the United States to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains.
North American possessions. It can not be disguised that, however sincere may be the desire of peace, in the event of a rupture these armaments and preparations would be used against our country.” But such a war would not take place in Oregon alone. In Rochester, New York, city leaders were alarmed at British military preparations across Lake Ontario.16 How fortunate that during the time of the Oregon crisis, no fleets of warships were patrolling the Great Lakes, thanks to the Rush-Bagot Agreement. An incident on the Lakes could have provoked hostilities. Polk advocated increasing U.S. military strength as a means of deterring conflict with Britain. To the south, Polk also had to worry about an impending war with Mexico. Among the cooler heads of that time was once again Albert Gallatin. His essay on the Oregon question was published in the National Intelligencer in 1846. Author and historian Frederick Merk has stated that Gallatin’s writings helped promote peace during that turbulent period.17 Gallatin wrote, “The people, both in Great Britain and the United States, are imbued with the belief that the contested territory belongs exclusively to themselves, and that any concession which might be made would be a boon to the other party. Such opinions, if sustained by either government, and accompanied by corresponding measures, must necessarily lead to immediate collisions, and probably to war. Yet a war so calamitous in itself, so fatal to the general interests of both countries, is almost universally deprecated, without distinction of parties, by all the rational men who are not carried away by the warmth of their feelings….”18 Despite some American demands for all of the Oregon territory, negotiators settled for partitioning the territory. The
49th parallel was made the boundary. This is the present-day boundary between the United States and Canada. Vancouver Island (soon to be the new headquarters of the Hudson’s Bay Company) was retained by the British. It is a credit to the British and the American governments that the issue was resolved peacefully. Though it took years to settle the dispute, patience was a good virtue for all. The American diplomat, Richard Rush, put it well, calling “time….the best negotiator.”19 The Oregon Treaty was signed on June 15th, 1846. “Diplomatists are essentially ministers of peace, whose constant and primary duty is mutually to devise conciliatory means for the adjustment of conflicting pretensions, for the continuance of friendly relations, for preventing war, or for the restoration of peace.” Albert Gallatin The Oregon Question, 1846
CHAPTER THREE Peace after the Great War?
The year was 1918. American troops, with their British and French allies, were engaged in fierce fighting against the German army. A young man from Cincinnati, Ohio was a member of the U.S. marines in battle. He was one of many brave men risking life and limb against German forces. When World War I (The Great War) broke out in Europe in 1914, how many Americans could have envisioned being thrust into the far-away crisis? Sure enough, America would be dragged into the war which had become stalemated in Europe. The United States had to draft and then train an army capable of fighting the German war machine. The young man from Cincinnati, without even a high school education, was drafted into the armed forces eventually to become a marine. He was one of those who never dreamed of being a soldier. Suddenly, this young marine and thousands of others just like him were in charge of setting the course of history. The arrival of American troops in Europe turned the tide of the Great War. The American army planned an offensive in late September against German forces in France’s Argonne Forest. But there was a problem. American troops and equipment had to be moved from Saint-Mihiel, the site of their latest battle, to the Argonne; and it had to be done without alerting German troops. There were additional obstacles as well. The few roads were not suitable for the mass movement of troops and artillery. The young marine from Cincinnati and others had a daunting task ahead of them. The Commander of the American Forces, General John J. Pershing, placed this logistical challenge on the plate of a young colonel, George C. Marshall.20 Against the odds, Marshall helped lead the transfer of troops toward the new battlefront. Hundreds of thousands of men, several thousand guns, and hundreds of
What Pershing would call “one of the most delicate and difficult problems of the war. (National Archives 111-SC-22334) 29 .”21 was handled with exemplary skill and leadership on the part of the American army. American troops preparing for the Battle of the Argonne. all this taking place within a time period of less than two weeks.tanks had to be redirected.
He was killed on November 3rd. In the early morning hours of the 26th. The young marine from Cincinnati was one who did not see the war come to a conclusion. While victory was achieved. The Argonne offensive was a success for the American and allied forces. from the front line to the base ports. Little by little. It was this spirit of determination animating every American soldier that made it impossible for the enemy to maintain the struggle until 1919. was straining every nerve…. The infantry and tanks followed after the first several hours of artillery fire. 30 . Soldiers such as the young marine from Cincinnati readied themselves for a fight to the death. American and allied troops pushed the German forces back as the offensive continued into October. This initial assault was followed by an infantry attack. General Pershing described the American victories… “…by the end of October…the almost impassable Argonne Forest was in our hands… Every member of the American Expeditionary Forces. the assault began with the artillery barrage.”22 The war was nearing an end by the start of November. his death coming only eight days before the Armistice which ended the fighting. it did not come without tremendous loss of life. American forces prepared for the battle of the Argonne.THE BATTLE OF THE ARGONNE Under the cover of darkness on September 25th. Heavy artillery was put in place for a massive bombardment of German positions. The goal: To seize ground held by German forces for nearly four years and break their supply lines.
(National Archives 111-SC-33075) 31 . 1918 ending the fighting of World War I.American troops after the Armistice took effect on November 11th.
one which would bring a lasting peace. In November of 1921. Germany simply did not have the resources left to pay. did not join the League of Nations. much to Wilson’s disgust. for a conference on the limitation of naval armaments (Washington Conference). But to open his speech. fearing involvement in future European conflicts.C. took to the podium at the outset of the conference.S. Wilson’s “fourteen points” called for a League of Nations which would prevent future wars. They agreed to the Treaty of Versailles (1919).S. and demanding reparations which eventually totaled over thirty billion dollars. officially blaming them for the war. Hughes spoke of the failure of 32 . who had almost defeated Woodrow Wilson for the presidency in 1916.THE AFTERMATH OF THE GREAT WAR The slaughter which had killed or wounded over twenty million people and left parts of Europe in shambles was over. While the fighting had stopped. U. however. representatives from nine nations met in Washington. was dealt a severe blow when the United States Senate rejected it. When U.S. Aggression anywhere in the world would be beaten down by the League’s members. he had a surprise in store for his audience. a treaty still had to be negotiated. AN END TO WAR? One of President Wilson’s “fourteen points” was the call for world-wide disarmament of armed forces. The treaty was harsh on Germany. placing limitations on its armed forces. President Woodrow Wilson had his vision for a post-war world outlined before the fighting had ended. Secretary of State. was about to make diplomatic history. The treaty. Wilson and other world leaders met at the Paris Peace Conference. which included Wilson’s dream of a League of Nations. D. Hughes. The prospect of a future war was unthinkable. The U. Charles Evans Hughes.
In the proposals which our government made 33 . Some ships from Great Britain. France and Italy. Some diplomats may have thought Hughes was just going to deliver another speech. “our strong desire to avoid extravagant outlays and the competition in armament which is provocative of war. Hughes turned his attention to armaments on the seas. “The race in preparation of armament. In his speech. after all. He unveiled a detailed plan for the limitation of naval armaments for the United States. went on until it fittingly culminated in the greatest war of history…”23 Part of the massive arms race prior to the Great War had occurred on the oceans. Preparation for offensive naval war will stop now.”24 The Washington Conference produced a treaty limiting the warships of the five naval powers. reducing the destructive power of the world’s largest navies. putting forth a detailed plan for limiting naval warships! His speech gained rousing applause. Construction of new warships was called to a halt for a period of ten years. It yielded other peaceful initiatives. to safeguard the rights and interests of China…”25 In December 1922. Japan and the United States were scrapped under the treaty. Great Britain.previous disarmament conferences. Hughes captivated his audience. Great Britain and Germany had engaged in a huge naval buildup that was unleashed during the war in the Battle of Jutland (1916). right out of the starter’s gate. Hughes stated in a later speech. “With the acceptance of this plan the burden of meeting the demands of competition in naval armament will be lifted…. such as the Nine Power Treaty which was to “stabilize conditions in the Far East. The Washington Conference did more than just limit naval weaponry. It was. Japan. Hughes reported that Great Britain and Japan had already made progress downsizing their fleets. These same diplomats may have taken advantage of the occasion to catch up on their rest. the first day of the conference and who could expect too much with the opening remarks? Here was Hughes. wholly unaffected by these futile suggestions.
The treaties at the Washington and London Conferences would be severely tested during the 1930’s. The London Treaty placed further limitations on naval power and extended the ban on new warships. DISARMAMENT A World Disarmament Conference convened in 1932 with high expectations but few results. Adolf Hitler withdrew Germany from the disarmament conference and the weakened League of Nations in October of 1933. he sought to jump-start the Conference.”26 Several years later. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was clear that Hitler was bent on rearming the defeated of World War I. In view of the ominous events in Germany. Germany was becoming a fast-gathering danger under Hitler. he hastily prepared a disturbing notice about events unfolding in Hitler’s Germany. took office in 1933. George Messersmith. was not in the plans of another leader who would come to power at the time of Roosevelt.S. Roosevelt. it seemed prudent to hurry the message back to Washington. emphasizing “the complete elimination of all offensive weapons. and this fact was not lost on the U. When the new United States President. in 1930. Messersmith’s letter was a warning of what lie ahead. The actions of the German leaders made it clear to 34 .to this end we were carrying forward an American principle which was applied in the Agreement of 1817 as to the Great Lakes.” applied this philosophy in his appeal to the nations of the world. Consul General in Berlin. and rushed to catch the departing courier. 1933. though. But peace is not obtained on paper or with words alone. Roosevelt called for all nations to “enter into a solemn and definite pact of non-aggression…” Disarmament. who in his inaugural address set forth his “policy of the good neighbor. On May 16th Roosevelt wrote to sixty-four nations. On June 26.” While that process would be ongoing. there was a follow-up to the Washington Conference naval treaty.
” The devastated German economy resulting from heavy reparations owed to the allies from the First World War. warned of the growing military might of Japan.S. “The abandonment of these treaties would throw the principle of relative security wholly out of balance. naval power in order to force Japan to a new agreement. Messersmith knew that German leaders were taking their country on a path toward ruin. Roosevelt warned. Japan withdrew from the Washington Naval Treaty. Japan withdrew from the organization. expressed his disappointment with the crumbling of the naval limitations treaty. To prepare for war might be the best way to prevent one in this case.S. they invaded Manchuria. Arms control and disarmament were fading away as the world spiraled toward another war. yet in 1931.28 The League of Nations condemned the Japanese aggression in Manchuria. Japan’s imperial ambitions were taking it toward war with the United States.”29 Ambassador Grew recommended increasing U. stating “…the existing treaties have safeguarded the rights and promoted the collective interests of all of the signatories.”31 35 .30 Hopes to forge a new naval limitations treaty were dashed the following year. coupled with a global economic depression. Japan had signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 which outlawed war. the consequence of which no one can foretell. Cordell Hull. Secretary of State. fueled a mindset that the world was against Germany.Messersmith and to others that Germany was trying to become “the most capable instrument of war that there has ever existed. The U.”27 On the other side of the globe. but took no action against the incursion. In 1934. and in the process would cause havoc in many other nations. Joseph C. Grew.S. ambassador to Japan. The U. He labeled the situation in Germany as “dangerous to world peace. it would result in competitive naval building.
The United States and Canada had the world’s longest undefended border. Roosevelt utilized this fact in his speech. French and Americans would prove unwise. “In the whole of the Western Hemisphere our goodneighbor policy has produced results that are especially heartening. New York on August 14th. The next target was Austria.” But hopes for peace were fast slipping away. 1936. his theme was clear: Peace. but the boundary which unites the United States and Canada---3. any limitations of arms on the part of the British. and no passport on the whole frontier. but we 36 .” He warned. With Germany and Japan building massive military forces.000 miles of friendship with no barbed wire. “The noblest monument to peace and to neighborly economic and social friendship in all the world is not a monument in bronze or stone.FADING HOPES FOR PEACE When President Roosevelt spoke in Chautauqua. And what better way to talk about peace among nations than to use an example from his own backyard. The world was racing toward another war. Virtually unchecked. the growing disregard of treaties.32 Secretary of State Hull stated “our deep concern over the rising tide of lawlessness. and “a new wave of tension” swept over Europe. “We may seek to withdraw from participation in world affairs. the increasing reversion to the use of force…. All this was made possible by years of skillful diplomacy and patience after the War of 1812. Germany moved forces into the Rhineland which had been demilitarized after World War I. no gun or soldier. this one potentially far deadlier than the Great War of 1914-1918.
. How long would it be until the United States would become involved? In 1939. including vast numbers of women and children. Japan was doing the same in the Pacific.. “solemn pledges such as nonaggression pacts were ‘but a symbol of deceit. and constitute a dire warning on the part of Germany of hostile and murderous intent.”33 Czechoslovakia was the next to fall to Germany after peace efforts only ended up appeasing Hitler. prevented hostilities between Russia and Germany. “Civilians. 1939.’ ”34 At one moment. and our participation in efforts toward world progress and peace. the Briand-Kellogg Pact and the Nine Power Treaty…… It seems to be unfortunately true that the epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading.we must maintain our strength. the President stated America’s determination to bring peace to the 37 . German leaders were signing the pact with Russia and moments later were plotting fierce military action. Germany abandoned the non-aggression pact and unleashed on Russia a crushing assault in 1941. the German blitzkrieg overwhelmed Poland. Great Britain and France declared war on Germany and a new European war had begun. This was the Non-Aggression Pact which.” To finish his speech. When it was no longer convenient.” Roosevelt emphasized the “definite violations of agreements. Acting Secretary of State Welles found Germany’s actions despicable.cannot thereby withdraw from the world itself. our courage. While Germany was wreaking havoc in Europe in the late 1930’s. on paper. President Roosevelt spoke of Japan and other aggressors at a speech in Chicago. Germany actually did sign a peace pact with Russia in the midst of their conquests through Europe. Japan invaded China in 1937. On September 1. our influence in world affairs. it is a fruitful source of insecurity. and especially of the Covenant of the League of Nations. To Germany’s leaders. our moral standards. are being ruthlessly murdered with bombs from the air. Isolation is not a means to security.
Roosevelt took action against the Japanese. America hopes for peace. making it a base of operations. and Britain was maintaining the struggle against Hitler. The Nine Power Treaty and its peaceful intentions became a part of history. Japanese troops were spilling into Southern Indo-China (includes present-day Vietnam). Most of Europe had succumbed to German invasion. In October 1937. Talks between Japanese and American diplomats continued. freezing their assets in the United States and stifling trade. knowing that in all probability. When President Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August 1941. Japan’s leaders called the movement of troops necessary to support their military efforts against China. the news from the Far East was ominous. Germany continued 38 . “America hates war.world.”36 JAPANESE FORCES IN INDO-CHINA In the summer of 1941.” That brings us back to the Nine Power Treaty which as Roosevelt stated was clearly violated by the Japanese attack against China. everywhere. Therefore. the United States would have to fight Germany and Japan. an international conference was held to “seek by agreement a solution to the present situation on China…such cooperation would be an example of one of the possible paths to follow in our search for means toward peace…”35 Japan did not even attend the conference. America actively engages in the search for peace. The president recommended increased defense spending. This could mean only one thing--that other nations in the Pacific region were living in peril. who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our Hemisphere. America was “committed to full support of all those resolute peoples. the world was falling apart. but war was becoming more and more likely. A Japanese invasion could happen at any moment. While not abandoning the pursuit of peace. Roosevelt was preparing the nation for war. In the meantime.
China and other democracies resisting aggression.”37 Later that year. but was helping Britain through the Lend Lease Act. arduous journey lay ahead. This act supplied “planes. The Atlantic Charter. America had not officially entered the European war. But such a world could not be possible without dealing with the menace of Nazi Germany and other aggressors.” Roosevelt and Churchill also reaffirmed their commitment to end the crisis with Japan through negotiations. for realistic as well as spiritual reasons. The charter stated. To do so required a stern warning against further Japanese aggression. Both Roosevelt and Churchill looked ahead to a peaceful post-war world. But as they met on a battleship off the coast of Newfoundland. Lend Lease provisions were provided in huge quantities to Russia. set forth the principles for a free world. they knew a long. ammunition. and other defense articles in ever-increasing quantities to Britain. The Atlantic Charter called for the elimination of the Nazi German government and the establishment of peace and security worldwide. declared by the two leaders. must come to the abandonment of the use of force. 39 . “all of the nations of the world. guns. Roosevelt and Churchill were the last line of defense against the complete subjugation of free people everywhere. the powerful Japanese forces moved the world closer to a global war. In the Pacific.its onslaught on Russia.
President Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill having discussions during the Atlantic Charter Conference in August 1941. (Franklin D. Roosevelt Library) 40 .
C. The men who had died in the Argonne and other battlefields had not fought the last war. On December 7th. Hirohito. to say the least.the people of the Philippines. Roosevelt made what would be a last-ditch effort for peace with Japan. answers would be forthcoming. D. 41 . The Great War was to be surpassed by an even greater war in terms of death and destruction. Japanese aggression escalated in the Pacific and Germany’s assaults continued in Europe. of the hundreds of islands of the East Indies. In a letter to the Japanese Emperor.”39 Very soon. All the post-war hopes for peace had faded as the world entered a more devastating conflict. a World War I memorial would sit in Washington. of Malaya. On December 6. The hope that had been inspired by Hughes’ speech in Washington twenty years earlier was now long forgotten. and of Thailand itself are asking themselves whether these forces of Japan are preparing or intending to make an attack…. Years later. President Roosevelt was quick to talk about the “peace and friendship” that had once characterized Japanese-American relations. However. But that peace was drawing its last breaths at the moment of Roosevelt’s letter. 1941. as Japanese forces had been deployed to Southern Indo-China “in such large numbers…. Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the Second World War.38 The flow of Japanese troops into Indo-China was incessant. 1941.Ambassador Grew reported in November 1941 of a possible Japanese surprise attack. The United States and its allies would have no choice but to resort to war in order to bring about peace. Roosevelt and others were alarmed. a more fitting tribute to those Americans who fought and died in the Great War would have been a lasting peace. That was not to be.
(National Archives 111-SC-23669) 42 .Ruins in France after a battle between American and German forces in 1918.
“The structure of peace which had been founded upon the Washington Conference treaties began to be discarded by Japan. 1922. (Library of Congress LC-USZ6-1755) The peaceful initiatives at the conference ultimately failed to prevent another World War. the Japanese Government gave notice of its intention to terminate the Naval Treaty of February 6. Indeed. which had limited competition in naval armament.Charles Evans Hughes signing treaties at the Washington Conference in 1922.”40 43 . She thereafter intensified and multiplied her rearmament program. in December of 1934. President Roosevelt commented in 1941.
Wounded being evacuated during World War I in France (National Archives 111-SC-16352) 44 .
The Washington Conference sought to prevent a naval arms race between sea powers such as Great Britain, the United States and Japan. (U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph)
CHAPTER FOUR Eisenhower, Kennedy and The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
A man is suddenly jolted awake by a distant, thunderous blast. He looks out his bedroom window to see the sky lit bright red with fire. Nearby at another home, the mysterious explosion also awakens a family. Dishes on the kitchen shelf rattle and glasses shatter from the rumbling vibration. A massive, sinister cloud of smoke and dust rises into the early morning sky, spiraling upward. It looks like the beginning of the end of the world. “What in the world was that??” many a person asked that summer morning. As daylight unfolded and the shock of the explosion wore off, answers would be forthcoming. The United States Army issues a press release stating that a munitions dump exploded at a nearby army base and no one was injured. Case closed. Or was it?
THE ATOMIC BOMB
Weeks later the truth was revealed. What New Mexico residents witnessed in the early morning hours of July 16, 1945 was not the end of the world, or at least not yet. It was the first atomic bomb explosion which was the culmination of several years of intense efforts on the part of the United States government. The ultimate weapon had been successfully tested. Less than a month later, the atomic bomb was used on Japan to bring a swift conclusion to World War II. While the nightmare of World War II was over, another was just taking shape--the age of nuclear weapons.
THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND THE COLD WAR
Imagine you are the President of the United States in the 1950’s. It is the early years of the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union, a “Cold War” that has grown much hotter since the Soviet Union’s first atomic bomb test in 1949. Now both the U.S. and the Soviet Union possess growing stockpiles of nuclear weapons. And one day a report is on your desk in the Oval Office. It is an evaluation of just how much damage the Soviet Union could inflict on the United States in a nuclear attack. It does not look good. As you flip the pages of the report, you come across shocking statistic after statistic detailing the potential casualties. What is worse is that these casualty and damage estimates will inevitably grow higher as the Soviet nuclear arsenal increases in strength. Faced with these sobering facts, what thoughts would run through your head? Clearly, something would have to be done with an out-of-control nuclear arms race.
A nuclear test conducted by the United States in Nevada. (U.S. Department of Energy Photograph)
military and foreign affairs. 1944. Clearly. In World War II. Eisenhower served as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II. as well-prepared as one could be to face these grim realities. 1944 was under General Eisenhower’s command. Eisenhower was an outstanding leader. He would need every ounce of his skill and experience to tackle nuclear weapons and the Cold War. Eisenhower speaks to paratroopers in England before the D-Day invasion of June 6. the Allied Forces D-Day invasion of Germanoccupied France on June 6. Eisenhower faced in the 1950’s. Eisenhower had dealt with critical struggles before and was regarded as one of the most experienced presidents ever in terms of leadership. This operation was essential for the ultimate defeat of Germany and the liberation of Europe. Here.This is just the situation President Dwight D. (National Archives 111-SC-194399) 48 . Dwight D.
Furthermore.It was a nightmare scenario--two rival nations possessing nuclear weapons capability. and other peaceful activities. Neither nation would be willing to give up its nuclear weapons and weaken its national security. President Eisenhower lamented on the gloomy prospect of a future with more nuclear weapons. Achieving nuclear disarmament between two superpowers at odds would be no simple task. a nuclear confrontation. could either nation be trusted to eliminate all of its nuclear weapons? Could such disarmament be verified? ATOMS FOR PEACE President Eisenhower hoped that his “Atoms for Peace” proposal would be a step toward disarmament. for the benefit of all mankind. The fissionable material would then be used for peaceful purposes. the greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon. His idea was for the United States and the Soviet Union to turn over part of their fissionable material (used to produce nuclear weapons) to the United Nations.” Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech in December. There was a grave danger of war between the United States and the Soviet Union and even worse. the Atoms for Peace movement did not create the breakthrough President Eisenhower sought on stopping the nuclear arms race. “Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture.”41 In the 1950’s. A report from the meeting stated: 49 . “The United States knows that if the fearful trend of atomic military build up can be reversed. though. 1953 would pave the way for the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). NUCLEAR WAR At a National Security Council Meeting in 1954. medicine.
and that they had some appreciation of the implications for destruction of their regime and their country as a result of the use of thermonuclear weapons on a strategic scale….” 42 The nuclear arms race was a centerpiece of the Soviet and American cold war struggle. Constant reports on the Soviet’s nuclear capabilities were a reality of the presidency of the 1950’s.. The Soviet Union was afraid of what a nuclear strike from the United States could inflict on them. We must try to find some positive answer. and then we will be in a mess. the whole prospect of an exchange of all-out blows with thermonuclear weapons simply staggered the human 50 . While. Soon.could perceive no final answer to the problem of nuclear warfare if both sides simply went ahead making bigger and better nuclear weapons. And each report contained grimmer details of a horror waiting to happen.“The President…. The Net Evaluation Subcommittee (NESC) reported annually what damage the Soviet Union could inflict on the United States.. of course. in this case fear was a two-way street. and to do so would require more imaginative thinking than was going on at present in this Government. it was nevertheless a matter of despair to look ahead to a future which contained nothing but more and more bombs. Of course. He therefore believed it wrong for the United States merely to take a negative view of this terrible problem. said the President. he did not want the Soviets to gain a lead on us in this field. even little countries will have a stockpile of these bombs. “The President observed that it was reasonable to assume that the Russians had conducted exercises similar to the NESC study.
And there was also political fallout from continued testing. Studies were undertaken to determine just how much danger fallout posed. which was one of the targets of the hypothetical attack. The idea was to build trust which could pave the way toward peace and disarmament.S. NUCLEAR TESTING AND THE RESULTING FALLOUT In the late 1950’s.. ”43 The U. As part of the drill. Eisenhower unveiled his “open skies” proposal which would establish aerial inspection rights over both nations’ military facilities. President Eisenhower wrote in his diary about one such estimate. both sides were talking which. the public’s demands to halt testing were heard. could be viewed as positive. Disarmament talks would continue. The picture of total destruction of the areas of lethal fall-out…. in itself. “The damage inflicted by us against the Soviets was roughly three times greater. World leaders called for action. military had its own assessment of what damage they could inflict on the Soviet Union in a nuclear war.was appalling.C. the President and other leaders were whisked away to locations outside Washington D. Both the United States and the Soviet Union discussed disarmament at the Geneva Conference of 1955. was held nationwide annually. a civil defense exercise.mind and that he doubted that the human mind was capable of meeting and dealing with the kind of problems that would be created by such an exchange of blows. Operation Alert. There was fear of radioactive fallout from the nuclear tests. But so would nuclear testing. Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi of Japan wrote President Eisenhower about banning nuclear testing and the lack of attention this measure was receiving in disarmament talks: 51 .”44 The United States began to practice for nuclear war. While no progress was made at Geneva.
creating a vicious circle of the most regrettable kind. was attending a meeting at the White House. James Killian took a back seat. was President Eisenhower.46 The list of attendees was quite impressive. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles sat along with Vice-President Richard Nixon. The National Security Advisor. TOWARDS A NUCLEAR TEST BAN Dr. Harold Stassen.47 but only in the literal sense. The issue of a nuclear test ban would find itself in the spotlight by 1958. he was ready to discuss this topic. Dr. General Robert Cutler. He had in his hand a 52 . including General Nathan Twining. the former Massachusetts Institute of Technology president. Arriving fifteen minutes late. which does nothing to lessen distrust among nations. the former Minnesota governor and now the Special Assistant for Disarmament. prepared his notes for the meeting. would have to sit in the back row at this meeting. Several members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were there. The recent Disarmament Conference… came to an impasse on account of the disagreement of views as to whether suspension of nuclear test explosions should be carried out in connection with other aspects of disarmament. It was a cold January day and Killian. was also seated at the table. but presiding at the meeting. Killian. or it should take place separately from them.”45 Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India was also among world leaders demanding a cessation of nuclear testing.“But they all go on repeating their (nuclear) tests. When the discussion turned toward disarmament and more specifically a suspension of nuclear testing. the recently appointed science advisor for the President.
Killian spoke up. The President commented that “we must be clear that this opinion on the necessity for disarmament steps is steadily growing stronger and insisting on results. Dr. The meeting continued. We must keep the hope of disarmament before the world. Killian had the President’s attention. As John Foster Dulles finished up his own statement. and the burdens of armament hung heavy everywhere. These environments 53 . The President ordered a technical study of nuclear test detection. There was much work to be done. and the Soviet Union. Killian meant was an up-to-date study of nuclear test detection capabilities was necessary. it was best to hold back on any nuclear test suspension proposals to the Soviet Union.” Admiral Lewis Strauss urged caution on suspending nuclear testing since it could weaken national security. Early in the meeting. He said that further study was needed.”48 Dr.S. Killian prepared to speak up when the time was right. General Cutler and Killian went to work on assembling a group to conduct the research. Further study? That sounds like something Killian might have said to a student back when he was the president of MIT. Harold Stassen discussed his proposal for a suspension of nuclear testing between the U. But what Dr. There was the fear of the Soviets cheating any “suspension” by conducting secret nuclear tests. The capability of detecting nuclear explosions had always been a roadblock for a test ban treaty. Until that was accomplished.report his own science committee had compiled. “We were in the midst of an arms race. Killian’s recommendations turned to actions at the close of the meeting. Dr. That was the conclusion of his science panel’s report on disarmament. This could serve as a “partial measure of disarmament. According to President Eisenhower.” It was clear that stopping nuclear testing would have to be one of these key steps. This group of experts would study detection of nuclear explosions in all environments.
and personnel. impetus. because everyone knows we already have a stockpile large enough to completely obliterate the Soviet Union.real hazard today is nuclear war. When Dr.would include underground. But Eisenhower found himself in a difficult situation.” Eisenhower understood such concerns from his military brass but something had to be done about the arms race. the news was encouraging. underwater and in the atmosphere. Not everyone supported the idea of suspending nuclear testing.”49 Killian and his scientific committee supported the cessation of nuclear testing. we need some basis of hope for our own people and for world opinion. Hans Bethe of Cornell University. He (Admiral Strauss) said it would be difficult to ascribe any reason for abandoning our tests.S. which our weapons development helps to prevent. “The President accepted that the abolition of tests would probably hurt us comparatively in a military sense.”51 54 . Both the U. It would be possible to monitor a nuclear test ban treaty by putting in place a strengthened detection system. on the other hand. “Such a system could serve as an opening wedge for a system of inspection for disarmament generally. Killian reported back to the President in April of that same year. Killian selected the lead researcher for the project. military and the Atomic Energy Commission pressed for continued testing for national security reasons. the effect on our laboratories would be severe--they would lose tone. Their opinions were heard at a National Security Council meeting50 at the White House: “…. Dr. In addition.” “General Twining said he didn’t see how cutting out tests would really reduce world tension.
Eisenhower expected the Soviets and the British to suspend their testing programs as well. Eisenhower Library) 55 . Literally within minutes of hearing this news. The “cheating” problem appeared to be of little risk.At the 1958 Geneva Conference of Experts. 1958. both the Soviet and American delegation of scientists agreed it would be possible to monitor a nuclear test ban. effective on October 31st of that year. Eisenhower took action! On August 22nd. he invited the Soviet Union and Great Britain52 to negotiate a nuclear test ban treaty.S.. President Eisenhower called for test ban treaty negotiations on August 22nd. (Dwight D. or so they thought. He also suspended the U. In return. nuclear testing program. 1958.
These revelations considerably hurt any chances of a test ban treaty. East Berlin was under Soviet Communist rule. will deny our occupation rights and our rights of access (into West Berlin)….. A LIMITED TEST BAN Eight thermonuclear weapons. certainly 56 . Any difficulties with detecting underground nuclear explosions would increase the chances of a nation “cheating” the treaty and getting away with it. Germans routinely crossed over from East Berlin to find freedom in West Berlin. Berlin was divided. a theory referred to as decoupling. No one. It was March.53 Eisenhower and Macmillan had much on their minds. There was introduced the possibility of a nation hiding a large explosion deep underground and thereby evading detection. problems surfaced once the negotiations got under way. There was the fear of war with the Soviet Union over Berlin. into Soviet and Western sides. Clearly. 20 million deaths.Unfortunately. and the Prime Minister was about to have dinner with President Eisenhower at the Camp David retreat in Maryland. It seemed that the technical capabilities of detecting underground nuclear explosions were not as reliable as originally thought by the Geneva Conference of Experts. Only days before their meeting. The Cold War continued with no breakthrough on nuclear arms control. The making of this treaty. the Cold War standoff was centered in this city. 1959. a city located deep inside Soviet-dominated East Germany. Eisenhower had given an address to the American people about the Berlin crisis. the Soviets assert. at least for the time being. “The Soviet Government has also announced its intention to enter into a peace treaty with the East German puppet regime. British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan knew this is what the Soviet Union could do to his people should war break out. just as Germany was. while West Berlin was free. President Eisenhower understood the Prime Minister’s fears.
Dr. it would be no trivial exercise for a nation to pull off this evasive stunt. Inspections to investigate possible underground nuclear tests were a major stumbling block in negotiations. while lamenting on the fact that the difficulties in detecting underground nuclear explosions hurt the chances of a comprehensive test ban. In Eisenhower’s speech to the American people. thereby obviating the need for inspectors. However. Early in the meeting. The President echoed Macmillan’s opinion.55 The summit meeting ended. this notion only fueled the idea of proposing an atmospheric test ban treaty. but the die had been cast for a limited test ban proposal. The Soviets were not in favor of having international inspectors on their soil to investigate possible treaty violations. The best option available for Eisenhower and Macmillan seemed to be a limited test ban prohibiting atmospheric explosions only.”54 The tensions over Berlin heightened the need for some measure of nuclear arms control. Prime Minister Macmillan emphatically stated that humanity depended on action to control nuclear weaponry. The many problems associated with detecting underground nuclear test explosions were too great to enter into a complete ban. 57 . Of course. he stated “the possibility of war” and that “the risk of war is minimized if we stand firm.not the two million West Berliners. Killian recommended making a start with this limited approach.” The Soviet Union feared a strong and democratic West Berlin and West Germany. The following day. Killian also warned that the risk of fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests might be greater than realized. can ignore the cold fact that Berlin is surrounded by many divisions of Soviet and Eastern German troops and by territory governed by authorities dedicated to eliminating freedom from the area. Killian explained to Macmillan how a nation might secretly conduct an underground nuclear test. Killian arrived at Camp David by helicopter to join a contingent of American and British diplomats meeting with Eisenhower and Macmillan.
”56 The offer was rejected. would have to take the torch and finish the agreement. “We believe that this would be an important step toward reduction of international tensions and would open the way to further agreement on substantial measures of disarmament. such as underground. banning atmospheric tests. This incident marred another opportunity to further negotiate a test ban at an upcoming summit in Paris. There would be no agreement reached on a nuclear test ban treaty as the curtain closed on the Eisenhower presidency. 58 . he did not come out empty-handed. 1959. Khrushchev replied that a limited treaty would not be significant. While President Eisenhower failed to achieve a nuclear test ban treaty in his tenure. even misleading. THE CURTAIN FALLS In 1960. in a letter to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in April. Eisenhower’s successor. But failure to gain a test ban treaty was a tremendous disappointment for Ike. since it would allow test explosions in other environments. an American U-2 spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union and the pilot was captured. John F. The moratorium on nuclear testing by both nations continued into the Kennedy administration. He did accomplish a temporary cessation of all nuclear tests for the final years of his administration. Kennedy.President Eisenhower recommended a limited test ban treaty.
John F. the issue of inspectors on Soviet soil to monitor a test ban proved problematic. (John F. Kennedy succeeded Dwight Eisenhower as president in January of 1961. 59 . the Soviet leader believed “that the present test ban negotiations appeared futile. Kennedy Library) John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address was full of hope and optimism. But the harsh reality of the Cold War would soon greet Kennedy in his first months in office.”57 Once again. Kennedy would meet Khrushchev at the Soviet embassy in Austria. In June of 1961. According to Kennedy.
Their meeting did not yield much hope for peaceful relations. continued to suspend their nuclear testing programs. (John F. however. Kennedy Library) 60 .The summer dragged on with few breakthroughs in negotiations. Both nations. President Kennedy meets Soviet Premier Khrushchev in June 1961.
The two leaders discussed nuclear arms control. Kennedy Library) 61 .Following his visit with Khrushchev. (John F. President Kennedy visited Prime Minister Macmillan in London.
At press conferences. people would live with the fear of radioactive fallout. usually it is the President who gives the news. Once again. 1961. 1961 in a routine manner. President Kennedy did not take the news of the Soviet test very calmly. and he quickly mobilized the government for a response.A SURPRISE AT THE END OF SUMMER President Kennedy was wrapping up his press conference on August 30.58 In a strong statement issued that same day. he is informed of the Soviet Union’s decision to end the moratorium on nuclear testing. Kennedy was informed by his aides of the resumption of nuclear testing by the Soviet Union. The Russian’s test explosion ended the three-year respite for the world. (John F. Kennedy Library) 62 .”59 After President Kennedy’s press conference on August 30. saying “The Soviet government's decision to resume nuclear weapons testing is in utter disregard of the desire of mankind for a decrease in the arms race. Apparently. But after the press conference on this day. the President would be on the receiving end. Kennedy assaulted the Soviet’s decision to test.
“In view of the continued testing by the Soviet Government. others were likely to follow. But at that very moment. a stunned world stood on the brink of a nuclear holocaust. Cuba. feared an attack by the United States since in 1961.S. In September 1962. I have today ordered the resumption of nuclear tests. The Soviet Union was placing nuclear missile sites on the soil of its Communist ally.”60 The United States responded with nuclear weapons tests of its own. and then there was a small island to the south of the United States which began to loom a lot larger in the fall of 1962. had backed an attempted overthrow of Castro’s government. The crisis over Berlin continued.The Soviet’s test left the United States little choice for a response. the Soviets had conducted numerous nuclear tests long obliterating the moratorium that started in 1958. The President stated that “Cubans find intolerable the denial of democratic liberties” and “that the United States intends no military intervention in Cuba. What is referred to as the Bay of Pigs invasion was unsuccessful as Cuban patriots who carried out the attack were stopped by Castro’s forces. “the people of the United 63 . some inauspicious activity was occurring in that region on the island of Cuba. Kennedy complained of the dilemma caused by the “secretly prepared and massive series of 40 to 50 tests conducted by the Soviet Union last fall while active efforts for a test ban agreement were still going forward. By that time. In February 1962. The bad news was not confined to the nuclear arms race alone. Kennedy spoke about this. The pattern of nuclear testing was well-established: If one nation tests.” What was most unsettling about the Soviet tests was the fact that they must have been preparing them during the treaty negotiations.” But. the U. All of the sudden. On September 5th Kennedy announced. the Brazilian representative at the United Nations General Assembly called for a Latin American Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. under the communist leadership of Fidel Castro.
S. intelligence would gain solid evidence of the missile sites from U-2 spy planes flying over the island. That small island became a focal point of the Cold War struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. (John F. U. A Soviet ship transports supplies for the military buildup in Cuba in 1962.States do not conceal their admiration for Cuban patriots who wish to see a democratic system in an independent Cuba. Kennedy Library) 64 .”61 The United States wanted Castro’s Communist regime out of Cuba. Soon Soviet missile sites would be in place to threaten the United States with a potential nuclear attack. The Soviet military buildup on Cuba continued into October 1962. Before long.
(John F. Kennedy Library) 65 .The Cuban Missile Crisis: The Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba in October 1962.
which also carried great risks if the Soviets chose to resist. the United States also agreed to remove its own missiles from Turkey. is capable of striking Washington. or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States. Cape Canaveral. and risk the outbreak of a nuclear war. Robert Kennedy. or in the Caribbean area….”62 Latin American leaders who had been pushing for a nuclear weapon free zone in the region were now possibly too late. and a lot of Russians too.” “For 175 years we had not been that kind of country. ranging as far north as Hudson Bay. After many very tense days. the United States pledged not to invade Cuban soil. in short. the Soviets agreed to President Kennedy’s demands. In secret. Kennedy made clear just how serious the situation was.Shocked citizens listened in disbelief as President Kennedy announced the news of the Soviet buildup in Cuba. The Americas breathed a collective sigh of relief as the dismantling and removal of the missiles began..”63 After weighing the options. Thousands of Cubans would be killed without warning. “Each of these missiles.C. the Panama Canal. the Russians chose not to resist. In return. President Kennedy settled for a naval blockade of Cuba and demanded the removal of the missiles. D. Mexico City. Additional sites not yet completed appear to be designed for intermediate range ballistic missiles--capable of traveling more than twice as far--and thus capable of striking most of the major cities in the Western Hemisphere. The United States could launch a strike to wipe out the missiles. the Attorney General. Fortunately.” The younger Kennedy spoke of “all the implications this would have for us in whatever world there would be afterward. in Central America. opposed a sneak attack on Cuba since it was not in the United States “traditions. 66 .. Canada.
Still. Kennedy Library) 67 . Parade of Soviet military power in November 1962.KENNEDY AND THE LIMITED TEST BAN TREATY Controlling the nuclear arms race between the Soviets and the Americans was taking on an even greater urgency in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. nuclear arms control efforts were stalled. (John F.
“I am taking this opportunity. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history. I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not 68 . yet where a fresh start is badly needed is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty---so near and yet so far--would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit. 1963 at American University. His words won praise worldwide. yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards. the further spread of nuclear arms. he announced renewed talks in Moscow on a long overdue nuclear test ban treaty. “First: Chairman Khrushchev. but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind. “Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter. “The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963. and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. to announce two important decisions in this regard. therefore. It would increase our security. Prime Minister Macmillan.When President Kennedy took the podium on June 10. it would decrease the prospects of war.
but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty. Kennedy Library) 69 . This picture was taken several weeks after Kennedy’s speech at American University announcing renewed nuclear test ban negotiations.” 64 President Kennedy overlooking the Berlin Wall separating East and West Berlin. but I hope it will help us achieve it. (John F. We will not be the first to resume.do so. the symbol of the Cold War.
Edward Teller. the Soviet Union. or against. the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. a leading physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project and was instrumental in the development of the hydrogen bomb. if adequate safeguards65 are established. His input was requested by the Chairman of the hearings. Because each side possesses weapons of incalculable destructive “Having weighed all of these factors. the risks inherent in this treaty can be accepted in order to seek the important gains which may be achieved through a stabilization of international relations and a move toward a peaceful environment in which to seek resolution of our differences. Underground nuclear tests could continue. ratification. which ended all nuclear tests in the atmosphere. Pennsylvania. the Senate would have to cast a vote in favor of. In the United States.In July of 1963. For the limited test ban treaty to take effect. it is the 70 . He emphasized that there were risks in the treaty. “Humankind is urgently seeking for some release from the tensions created by the global struggle between two opposing ideologies… They are frightened. if not in person. retired and residing in Gettysburg. the United States. At his country home. Eisenhower penned a letter in support of the test ban. and Great Britain agreed on the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. There was formidable opposition to ratification. ratification was required by each nation. Eisenhower wrote.”66 Far away from the fray in Washington was President Eisenhower. He would be a part of these Senate hearings on the test ban. the treaty won the support of military leaders. The treaty underwent significant debate. but there were also opportunities for great gains: judgment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that. underwater and in outer space. including Dr. spoke at the hearings. However. General Maxwell Taylor.
”69 Kennedy was not satisfied with just a limited treaty. Killian was outstanding in his service to our country and to initiatives of great value to enhanced nuclear security. world fears and tensions are intensified…. General Andrew Goodpaster. how can we defend the United States if we can’t arm the Great Lakes. the unsung heroes in this episode of the Cold War.”67 Also testifying in support of the treaty at the Senate hearings was Harold Stassen. It came after the War of 1812 and there was great difficulty and fighting. many of them sincerely had misgivings and said. Stassen spoke about the right of the United States to withdraw from the treaty. Kennedy was quick to thank those who made the treaty possible. still in force. and President Monroe said. James Killian. According to former Eisenhower aide. “Dr. President Monroe took the leadership and the military of that day. James Killian’s was a role of foremost importance. former assistant for disarmament to President Eisenhower. let’s do it but let’s put on a 6-month termination clause…”68 Support for the treaty outweighed any opposition and the Limited Test Ban Treaty was passed by an overwhelming vote in the Senate. One of those heroes was Dr. In the long and challenging effort to achieve a nuclear test ban treaty.power and with extraordinary efficiency in the means of delivery. He also drew analogies to an earlier arms control treaty. the 1817 Rush-Bagot agreement which disarmed British and American warships on the Great Lakes: “I don’t think it is generally recalled that we have the right in relation to the old Rush-Bagot Treaty over the arms limitations of the Great Lakes with Canada which was in 1817. He hoped to gain a comprehensive test ban prohibiting underground 71 . a right the Joint Chiefs had insisted upon. and it is the forerunner of the peaceful border with Canada.
In the fall of 1962. or cause the Communists to forego their ambitions. they were signing a treaty that placed at least some restraint on their development of nuclear arms. “This treaty is not the millennium. But it is an important first step --a step towards peace--a step towards reason--a step away from war. Kennedy Library) 72 . It will not resolve all conflicts. A year later.” John F. The Cold War struggle was far from over but a step had been taken toward improved Soviet-American relations. This would be another key step toward peace and nuclear arms control. 1963 President Kennedy signs the Limited Test Ban Treaty in October 1963 after the Senate had finished its ratification. (John F. or eliminate the dangers of war. Kennedy July 26.nuclear explosions as well. the United States and the USSR were headed toward a nuclear war. It will not reduce our need for arms or allies or programs of assistance to others.
to a conference on establishing the peaceful use of the Antarctic. Christian Herter.” He favored the announcement of a “U. But with the Soviet Union involved. including the Soviet Union. wanted to see an agreement on the Antarctic. Reports were coming in on Russia’s increased interest in the region.CHAPTER FIVE The First Nuclear Weapon Free Zones General Twining was concerned. “Cold War. the United States could beat the Russians to the punch. is bound to encounter difficulties with the Soviet Union in Antarctica no matter what approach we took. the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.S. stated “that the activity of the Soviets in the area was indeed mysterious but that it could easily become the basis for Soviet claims for portions of Antarctica. If.”72 Therefore.and a new meaning to the term. On April 2nd. President Eisenhower had invited eleven other nations. By doing so.S. General Twining expressed the military’s view that “…. Eisenhower stated that “we are urging upon the other nations a peaceful solution of possible conflicts of interest in Antarctica.the U.S. a remote and frigid region left unclaimed by any nation. The Cold War would simply find new territory…. suddenly injects a territorial claim in Antarctica.71 The President listened intently. Twining. 1959. The stage was being set for an international dispute.” 73 . A suitable agreement would be more likely by taking such action. the result would certainly be to increase the confusion. General Twining got the opportunity to voice his concerns at a National Security Council Meeting. The Secretary of State. claim” of territory in the Antarctic. he was not optimistic. while we are urging such a solution the U. President Eisenhower decided against any land claim since the Soviets would almost certainly follow.”70 The United States and other nations were also exploring the area.
ambassador. or worse. including the U.S.R. 1959 and the Soviets and the Americans were struggling over nuclear test ban negotiations. were holding preliminary talks which could help pave the road to a treaty that would preserve peace in the Antarctic. As the special advisor to the U.”74 Scientists from different nations who worked in that area had already proved they could get along..S.”76 74 .. military activity.C. While that was being resolved. The last thing that continent needed was disputes between nations over who owned what land. All twelve invited nations had accepted the idea of a conference. Mikhail Menshikov. The ongoing crisis over Berlin was quite tense. Menshikov brought up the issue of the continent of Antarctica. The question that remained was when to hold it.S. this topic was right down his alley. Dr. Needless to say. including the cooperation of the U.. “were most insistent that Antarctica not be used as a nuclear testing range. like Daniels and Menshikov. Chile and Australia. Argentina. Would they hit a stone wall? To say that the Soviet and American negotiations on almost any topic had the tendency to be frustrating would be an understatement. diplomats. D. “The agony continues…. As they sat down for a pre-lunch refreshment. Daniels’ lunch at the embassy was probably not going to be a pleasure. a United States representative prefaced a memorandum about a Soviet-American conference with the words. with their close proximity. in Antarctica had been altogether remarkable.”75 This continued cooperation had to be preserved. for Antarctica. Three Soviet representatives would host Daniels.S. Daniels and Menshikov were going to discuss Antarctica over lunch. The previous summer.THE CONFERENCE ON ANTARCTICA Ambassador Paul Daniels was invited to lunch at the Soviet Embassy in Washington.S.73 It was May 11. They could discuss Eisenhower’s proposed conference on the peaceful use of the region. Daniels was delighted. James Killian pointed out that “international cooperation.R.
. Daniels.”78 With the Soviets and Americans on the same page. the United States and the Soviet Union did sign a treaty banning nuclear weapons. this was not the most pressing issue in Soviet-American relations. The lunch was served at the Russian embassy and the diplomats continued their discussions. the treaty banned all military activity declaring in Article I. and the twelve nations labored quickly on putting together a treaty.it comprises a large part of the earth’s surface.. Even though the region had “far more penguins on it than people.” All twelve nations that attended the Conference on Antarctica signed the treaty. the chances for a treaty were significantly increased. and that would be a problem. it was not a worldwide ban. The signing of the Antarctic Treaty was a refreshing moment in international relations. The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 was the first nuclear weapon free zone. there was agreement between the two rivals. Granted. Well. at this lunch.. Maybe it was the food. but at least in this small quarter. but Menshikov and Daniels went through a list of issues and found agreement on almost every one concerning the Antarctic. … and from 75 .” Article V dealt with nuclear weapons declaring. when later describing the meeting. “Any nuclear explosions in Antarctica and the disposal there of radioactive waste material shall be prohibited. “Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. wrote about the Russians “apparent willingness to seek an agreeable formula. In fact.”77 It was quite possible the Soviets had designs on this territory. but it was a treaty eliminating nuclear weapons from the Antarctic.” it still was significant in that “. When it was all said and done. One key area of agreement was on the issue of rights and claims in Antarctica.Daniels had been briefed by the CIA several months before on “the increasing tempo of Soviet operations in Antarctica and the surrounding seas.. The Conference on Antarctica convened in late 1959. since they were obviously impressed with the similarity of our two positions on this subject.
.I hope and believe that the nations of the area.S.”81 It was a preemptive strike for peace. It was an achievement that twelve nations could agree on the peaceful use of an entire continent.”82 The hope was that more regions of the globe could be freed from nuclear and conventional armaments.. the arms buildup continued. He proposed a peace initiative for that volatile region that would include “steps to avoid a new arms race spiral in the area. The twelve signatories are convinced the Treaty is a real landmark. in many years in foreseeing a situation of this kind and finding a way to meet it. will no longer feel the need to seek national security through spiralling military buildups which lead not only to economic impotence but to war. a model case of a prohibition against war. the Antarctic Treaty was bittersweet. “The Antarctica Treaty is one small example of what might be accomplished in more populous and significant areas.”80 On December 10. . 1959 Secretary of State Herter reported to the National Security Council.”79 President Eisenhower said the treaty “should be an inspiring example of what can be accomplished by international cooperation in the field of science and in the pursuit of peace.”85 76 .”83 One such area was the Middle East. In a sense. but disappointing that the only region where there could be peace was the Antarctic.its frozen wastes come much of the weather of the nations of the Southern Hemisphere. this turned out to be the case for the treaty that Eisenhower labeled “a significant advance toward the goal of a peaceful world with justice. In the 1960’s. There was hope the Antarctic Treaty would be a springboard for future agreements.”84 However. “The Antarctica Treaty was unique in that it was the first initiative taken by the U. Eisenhower wrote. intellectually and emotionally. Each nation could verify the treaty with aerial observation to be “carried out at any time over any or all areas of Antarctica. Still the story need not end there.
and the United States of America. Australia. the French Republic. 77 . Chile.Signing of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959 in Washington. New Zealand. D. Japan. Norway. (National Archives 59-G-2-VS-2477-30-59) Twelve nations signed the treaty including Argentina. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.C. the Union of South Africa. Belgium. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
”86 78 . (National Archives 59-G-2-VS-214-60) Ambassador Daniels called the treaty “neither land-grabbing nor landdividing. Ambassador Paul Daniels (standing) and Secretary of State Christian Herter are in the background.Herman Phleger signing the Antarctica Treaty for the United States. Rather it is aimed at achieving rational and constructive solutions in Antarctica.
Killian’s science group produced a report titled “Introduction to Outer Space. The arms race was already making incursions into outer space. This was the first time man had achieved such a scientific triumph.87 With the Cold War in full swing. Once the weapons were placed in orbit.” The report was written in a user-friendly format. “Both the Soviet Union and the United States are now using outer space for the testing of missiles designed for military purposes. It gave the report a potential audience of millions. At a press conference.”88 It was Sputnik that inspired Eisenhower to appoint James Killian as his science advisor. That decision was a wise one. Eisenhower sought to carry the momentum to outer space. It raised the possibility that the deployment of nuclear weapons into outer space may not be so far off.”90 After the success of the Antarctic Treaty. the likelihood of outer space becoming affected by the conflict was very real. instead of a few. the space race went full throttle. Eisenhower pointed out.ALONG CAME SPUTNIK When the Soviet Union launched the first satellite. not geared for just those with science expertise. it would become much tougher to remove them. another preemptive strike for peace was necessary. President Eisenhower was very impressed by the science group’s report. The time to stop is now. it was psychologically damaging to the United States. In essence. 79 . The public viewed it as proof the Russians were technologically ahead of America. While Sputnik itself was not a weapon of military use. In a letter to the Soviet Chairman Nikolai Bulganin. before it was too late.”89 Later that day. backed by an advisory committee. he requested that the media “give it the widest possible dissemination. A nuclear weapon in space could orbit and then strike its intended target on the earth below. into orbit in 1957. the President stated his determination “to promote the peaceful use of space. called Sputnik.
Shortly after 11 a.m. United States Secretary of State. National vested interests have not yet been developed in space or in celestial bodies… Agreement on these proposals would enable future generations to find peaceful and scientific progress. a speech at the United Nations. September 22nd. one of which was to be a proposal for a treaty on outer space. The Antarctic Treaty could serve as a model. He went to work on a speech that would cover a wide range of topics. and the application of the general principles of the Antarctic Treaty to outer space. On Tuesday morning. not another fearful dimension to the arms race. The mayor of New York and Christian Herter greeted him upon his arrival. or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. We could extend this principle to an even more important sphere.C.”92 80 .. Dean Rusk.Eisenhower had a forum for addressing the outer space dilemma. install such weapons on celestial bodies. At a press conference in 1966. D. President Eisenhower delivered his speech before the General Assembly.. The treaty forbids any signatory nation “to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. is a substantial step forward and may help us in the neverending task of trying to put some ceiling on the arms race.”91 The Outer Space Treaty took effect in 1967. The principles of the Antarctic Treaty were later applied to the formation of an agreement on outer space. Soon it was time to deliver the historic address. Draft after draft was reviewed by Eisenhower and his advisors. “The nations of the world have recently united in declaring the continent of Antarctica ‘off limits’ to military preparations. the President took an early flight from Washington. Ike was set to speak in front of the United Nations General Assembly in September of 1960.. as they explore the universe. stated.” The President outlined his basic proposal for an outer space treaty. to New York. “Outer space may seem a long way away. but its activities very much involve us here on this earth. I think.
his aim was to rid Latin America of nuclear weapons. “…missiles in Cuba add to an already clear and present danger--although it should be noted the nations of Latin America have never previously been subjected to a potential nuclear threat. 1962 President Kennedy spoke of the nuclear threat emanating from Cuba. Imagine what thoughts must have run through the mind of Robles and other Latin Americans.FROM THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS TO THE TREATY OF TLATELOLCO Alfonso Garcia Robles was determined. As Mexico’s UnderSecretary of Foreign Affairs. Kennedy Library) On October 22. forever. that President Kennedy informed a shocked world of the Soviet missiles in Cuba. It was on a Monday night. A nuclear war was about to erupt in their backyard! Nuclear missiles in Cuba in October 1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a call to action. (John F.” 81 . in October 1962.
U. The experience of one near holocaust was enough. Robles put forth the noblest of purposes: “We want to eliminate even the slightest possibility that the scanty resources at our disposal for the development of our countries and for raising the level of living of our peoples might be wasted in a ruinous and manifestly absurd nuclear armaments race. A resolution to that effect was endorsed by the United Nations in November 1963. Representatives from Latin American countries could only watch as the stage was being set for war. it was an admirable goal. Soviet Union. But now the tremendous urgency to achieve a treaty was never greater. Chile.”93 stated Robles before the United Nations General Assembly. Again. Latin American leaders wasted little time in taking action in the aftermath of the Missile Crisis. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson presented photographic evidence of the Soviet missile buildup in Communist Cuba. “We want to help make it possible for our children to grow up free from the terror inspired by the threat of nuclear war. Diplomacy prevailed and the unthinkable was avoided. Bolivia. Robles would become the leader in drafting a nuclear free zone treaty. the United Nations heard from Adlai Stevenson. only this time the circumstances were much better.NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN LATIN AMERICA Several days later at the United Nations.”94 Without question.S. Brazil had put forth the idea at the United Nations a month before the Cuban Missile Crisis. the first of its kind in a populated region of the globe. but so too would the nuclear powers: The United States. and Ecuador made a joint declaration in 1963 calling for a nuclear weapon free zone in Latin America. Mexico. Brazil. France and Great Britain had to agree to 82 . But the fear of a nuclear war lingered. But was it realistic? Not only would the Latin American nations have to cooperate. The idea of a nuclear free zone was not new to Latin America. Stevenson praised the Latin American proposal.
”97 83 . but we shall make haste. the treaty would have diminished value. these countries would have to divert their valuable resources to the building of these weapons. testing or using nuclear weapons in Latin America. if you don’t have a bomb stationed in this area…. President Kennedy. as it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Robles and Latin America unknowingly found an ally in the Gilpatric Committee’s final report. As Alfonso Garcia Robles knew.Protocols I and II in order to become bound to the treaty. “I am not convinced that this is a total solution. The Committee favored a nuclear free zone. Now five superpowers would have to respect any Latin American nuclear free zone treaty. does it really make that much of a significant difference. If you have a missile that can carry a bomb 5. President Lyndon Johnson ordered a task force. Israel-UAR) nuclear free zones…”96 The Gilpatric Committee also accurately predicted the result of the Chinese atomic test--more nations developing nuclear weapons. who generally supported the idea of nuclear free zones. realized that the superpowers had to play their part. This scenario could not be repeated in Latin America. the Gilpatric Committee. This would prohibit them from deploying.? ”95 The task became much harder when China tested its first atomic bomb in 1964. “We should actively support the establishment of Latin American and African (including if possible.000 miles.S. The atomic test by China heightened fears of nuclear weapons spreading from country to country. Latin America could still be a pawn in the power struggle between the nuclear powers. or the treaty would not fly. “We shall follow the advice of the wise Latin adage and make haste slowly. Without the nuclear powers’ signature. U. to find a way to stop the spread of these weapons of mass destruction. And would all Latin American nations give up their right of self-defense in terms of nuclear weapons? Robles was a leader who understood that a mix of patience and persistence would be necessary to keep nuclear weapons away from Latin America.
In 1964. Behind the scenes in the United States. But back to the superpowers. Robles took to the podium at the United Nations and went after the Soviet Union for failing to sign Protocol II of the treaty. In 1974. Ultimately. Brazil was afraid of losing the right to conduct peaceful nuclear explosions. Would they relinquish the rights to use nuclear weaponry in a large part of the globe? It did not appear so at first. Cuba was one nation that did not sign on. the Joint Chiefs of Staff were already opposed to a nuclear free zone in Latin America. Robles had to keep after the nuclear powers. This would prohibit the Soviets from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons in Latin America. the military capability of the United States would be reduced too close to home. From their point of view. There were other issues. Robles and the committee of Latin American diplomats got to work on drafting a treaty. Clearly. Robles and his commission pressed forward. the treaty did not have to languish in limbo while all parties deliberated as to whether to join. United States Secretary of State. such as for excavating a canal. put it more bluntly when he said a “zone without Cuba would be meaningless. At the close of his remarks 84 . Cuban participation was a key ingredient in any treaty prohibiting nuclear weaponry in the region.99 The United States did not want to include Puerto Rico in the nuclear free zone. Not all nations were going to sign the treaty at the outset.98 So instead of shelving the treaty until every nation was committed and all problems resolved.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff concurred when laying out their conditions for American support of the treaty. the treaty of Tlatelolco came to fruition in 1967 prohibiting nuclear weapons in Latin America. It took over twenty years. Each nation was allowed to “waive the conditions for entry into force as regards their own territory. Dean Rusk.” In other words. but eventually all nations in Latin America signed and ratified the treaty. Robles and his fellow Latin American diplomats would put forth a resolution urging all the nuclear powers to join the treaty.
China and the Soviet Union all ratified the protocols to the Treaty of Tlatelolco.’ ”100 Robles’ persistence paid off. some rife with conflict. He requested to speak a second time at the session. Whether or not more regions. In December 1982.” But Robles was not through. would follow Latin America’s example remained to be seen. “Here again our hemisphere has an exemplary record through the nuclear-free zones defined by the 1967 treaty of Tlatelolco…” In due course. He called the treaty a “worthy commitment. the United States.Robles stated.S. On a beautiful spring day in 1977. 85 . Other regions of the globe have since developed their own treaties. Great Britain. urging the United States to sign and to ratify Protocol I of the Treaty. President Ronald Reagan also praised Latin America’s leadership in the elimination of nuclear weapons. It did not come easily. He was emphatic in “strengthening the encouraging trend towards the establishment of more nuclearweapon-free zones……we should attempt to achieve a gradual broadening of the zones of the world from which nuclear weapons are prohibited to a point where the territories of Powers which possess those terrible tools of mass destruction will become ‘something like contaminated islets subjected to quarantine. the newly elected U. while in Brazil. France. which sets an example for the world. Jimmy Carter. Latin America had set forth a model for just what a world free from nuclear weapons might look like. Alfonso Garcia Robles was not satisfied with only a nuclear-free Latin America. President Carter would sign Protocol I of the treaty which prohibited the United States from deploying nuclear weapons in Latin America (including Puerto Rico). President.” The United States ratified Protocol I during the first year of the Reagan administration. “The sponsors of the draft resolution cannot understand the refusal of the Soviet Union to listen to the repeated appeals of the most representative body of the United Nations…. He wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide. and a crowd of diplomats and reporters gathered for a signing ceremony of the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
while still a remarkable challenge. has been made more possible by Latin America’s landmark treaty. 86 . Any attempt at nuclear disarmament worldwide.The Treaty of Tlatelolco set a strong example for others to follow.
. (Ronald Reagan Library) 87 . In an address before Congress following the summit. they formed a partnership that would resolve the decades-old standoff. I feel he did. but one that really is safer…. and that's a key to peace. too….”101 President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev at “The Fireside Summit” in Geneva.we understand each other better.” When President Reagan met the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva in 1985. We discussed nuclear arms and how to reduce them…. I gained a better perspective. I outlined my conviction that our proposals would make not just for a world that feels safer.CHAPTER SEVEN The INF and Open Skies Treaties THE FIRESIDE SUMMIT The Cold War began to thaw at a “fireside summit. Reagan commented: “….
Reagan had first proposed such an agreement back in 1981. Representatives from each nation would allowed to inspect these military maneuvers which had to announced one year in advance. but ultimately significant agreement signed in Stockholm Sweden. The United States put forth a rough draft of a treaty eliminating the intermediate range nuclear forces (INF) of both nations. The Soviets were concerned about the U.S. The Soviets did not want the U. the United States and 34 other European nations to notify one another of military maneuvers over a certain size. It could give one nation a powerful advantage over the other. commonly referred to as SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative).But there were issues of discontent that would plague the negotiations. Other issues of discontent.S. But if one side had a defense against nuclear strike. The U. and Soviet AntiBallistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 prohibited such missile defense which could repel a nuclear attack. Nuclear 88 . would be put aside at least for this agreement. a policy called “mutually assured destruction” which would prevent either side from launching a nuclear strike was fortified. such as SDI. While the second Reagan-Gorbachev summit meeting in 1986 did not produce direct results those would be forthcoming. A breakthrough finally occurred in early 1987. development of a missile defense system. In a 1991 book Soviet foreign minister Edward Shereneaved hailed Stockholm as opening the way to “rapid advancement” in other aspects of arms control. These included medium and short-range nuclear missiles with ranges of 500-5500 kilometers. D. then there would be no nuclear war. As long as each nation could destroy each other. This agreement was a breakthrough with regard to onsite inspection into the Soviet Union. Before that event there was a quiet. to pursue missile defense. 1987 the signing of the INF Treaty was to take place in Washington.S. On December 8. In September. Another summit meeting was scheduled for October 1986.C. 1986 the Stockholm Conference provided for the Soviet Union. then it would eliminate that theory. Thus.
1981.” Disarmament would be possible through adequate inspection. November 18.arms control was now taking a new path. press members and dignitaries applauded as the two leaders strode to the podium to speak prior to the treaty signing. Such was the case with President Eisenhower’s “open skies” proposal (see page 51). while smiling. “I like it.” to which Gorbachev responded. “We can be proud of planting this sapling. disarmingly simple. efforts for peace would take on even greater urgency.”102 The Cold War was in its last phases. they were taking their nations down the road toward peace. “You repeat that at every meeting.” While the offer was not accepted by the Soviet Union in 1955. Some peace initiatives wait many years to see the light of day. It was a simple proposal--one might say. In his remarks Reagan reiterated the arms control policy of “trust. that I first proposed what would come to be called the zero option.” A key aspect of the treaty was its verification procedures to ensure each side followed through. a State Department advisor. “We know that a mutually dependable system for less armament on the part of all nations would be a better way to safeguard peace and to maintain our security. In the White House. and the burdens of the arms race could be lifted. toward elimination of the weapons. As Gorbachev put it. Testifying before the United States Senate. the concept of “open skies” was not gone forever. As Eisenhower acknowledged. not just limitation. which may one day grow into a mighty tree of peace. such a plan would “do much to develop the mutual confidence which will open wide the avenues of progress for all our peoples.” Reagan quickly answered.” When President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty. Many other challenges to peace would lie ahead. With the ever-increasing power of military weapons. “It was over 6 years ago. As Ike stated on July 21st. but verify. Herman Phleger. explained that the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 included inspection provisions 89 . Reagan lauded the virtue of diplomacy and patience. 1955.
90 . Canada and over twenty European countries signed the Open Skies Treaty. one theme remains constant.” The road to peace is filled with both successes and failures. However. stability and co-operative security” in Europe and “Recognizing the potential contribution which an aerial observation regime of this type could make to security and stability in other regions as well.” Decades later in 1992. Russia. The treaty’s preamble emphasizes the goal of contributing “to the further development and strengthening of peace. mankind’s desire and never-ending search for peace among nations.“comparable to what President Eisenhower proposed earlier as his ‘open skies’ plan of inspection. the United States.
11 Ibid. (the Library of Congress maintains this series on its web site at www.S. 1845.masshist. March 1909. D. 16 Ibid. p. 67. A copy of this can be found on page 719 of American State Papers.loc. pages 16-17. Oregon Historical Society. 4 Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams. 1795. Massachusetts Historical Society. page 472. 17 Merck. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 19 April 1794 [electronic edition]. pages 16-17. 6 Present day Toronto. 14 Letter from Albert Gallatin to Henry Clay dated August 10. 13 See John Quincy Adams Memoirs Volume three entry for September 6.gov). Washington. Cambridge. 18 A copy of Gallatin’s essay titled the Oregon Question can be found in Vol. Documents Relative To Warre and Vavasour’s Military Reconnaissance in Oregon. Albert Gallatin and the Oregon Question. page 63. Frederick. 3 Message from the Secretary of State of the United States to Mr. 12 Ibid. Volume 6. 1816. These papers are posted on the Library of Congress web site. page 129. Also see The Neutrality of the American Lakes by Thomas Morton Callahan. 8 Letter from Secretary of State James Monroe to John Quincy Adams dated November 16. 7 Callahan. Documents Relative To Warre and Vavasour’s Military Reconnaissance in Oregon. Volume One.loc. page 640. 1814 and the Writings of Albert Gallatin. 1827. Foreign Relations. Foreign Relations. James Morton. 1845). The Neutrality of the American Lakes and Anglo-American Relations. American State Papers. 10 Schafer. 1815. This nuclear arms limitation treaty was never ratified by the U. Monroe dated July 21. (courtesy Library of Congress) 9 Letter from John Quincy Adams to Lord Castlereagh dated March 21. (Copy of letter from Foreign Office dated April 3. March 1909. III of 91 . Volume One.: Gales and Seaton 1833. page 447. Oregon Historical Society. Foreign Relations. page 695. 1845-1846.gov). The Neutrality of the American Lakes and AngloAmerican Relations. Volume One. A copy of this letter can be found in American State Papers. (see www.C. p. 1950. page 69. MA: Harvard University Press. 1898. 15 Schafer. VIII. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Senate. 2 Ibid. Joseph (editor). Joseph (editor). 1845-1846. page 35.org/digitaladams/ 5 Remarks at the signing of the SALT II Treaty in 1979.1 Notes United States Government. http://www. Copy of letter from Foreign Office dated April 3.
pages 49. 27 Department of State.: 1942. 40 Message to Congress on the History of Relations Between the United States and Japan on December 15.The Writings of Albert Gallatin. Everett Gleason. 1954 (Eisenhower Library). 50. 1957. D. 1938 at the National Press Club.C. 1934. page 187. 30 Peace and War 1931-1941. May 27. Memoranda of a Residence at the Court of London ( 2nd edition). 25 Preamble to the Nine Power Treaty of 1922. 45 Letter from Japanese Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi to President Eisenhower dated Sep. 39 President Roosevelt’s December 6th. Rush. 44 Ibid. 41 President Eisenhower’s Atoms For Peace Address on December 8. Washington D. 1935. page 415. Peace and War United States Foreign Policy 1931-1941. 36 Annual Message to Congress on January 6. page 20. 32 Ibid. 1941. Peace and War 1931-1941. 1941. 1941 Appeal to Emperor Hirohito to Avoid War in the Pacific. page 106. 38 Ibid. 33 Address by Secretary Hull on March 17. New York. Charles Evans. page 55. 21. Foreign Relations of the United States. 1941. See the entry for October 4. 34 Ibid. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for securing the Marshall Plan which helped reconstruct Europe after the Second World War. Peace and War 1931-1941. 35 President Roosevelt’s Fireside Chat of October 12. 37 Report to Congress on the Operations of the Lend-Lease Act on June 10. pages 13-14. 43 Department of State (1990). 31 Letter read at the London Naval Conference on December 9. page 45. page 6. National Security Policy. 21 Final Report of General John J. Philadelphia. Volume XIX 1955-1957. 1925. 28 Ibid. PA: Key and Biddle. 20 Marshall would go on to become the Chief of Staff of the army during World War II and later Secretary of State. 26 Hughes. 42 As recorded by S. 22 Ibid. 1953. page 131. 24. Government Printing Office 1920.: Government Printing Office. Pershing. Richard. 1921. Washington. 1957 in the Public Papers of 19 92 . 29 Statement by Secretary of State Cordell Hull on December 29th. 24 Ibid. Commander-in-Chief American Expeditionary Forces. 1937. NY: Harpers and Brothers Publishers. page 189. 1833. The Pathway of Peace. 23 Address by Charles Evans Hughes at the opening of the Conference on the Limitation of Armament on November 12.C. Peace and War. Page 149.
1958-1960. 64 President Kennedy’s Address at American University on June 10. 47 Killian described himself as a “backbencher” at this meeting. (Eisenhower Library) 50 Memorandum of Conference with the President on March 24. 1962. 1962. John P. National Security Policy. 2004. 65 These safeguards included aggressive underground nuclear testing and the improvement of detection capabilities to detect treaty violations. 55 Department of State Memorandum of Conversation dated March 21. 70 Glennon. 46 93 . 49 Memorandum of Conference with the President on April 17. New York: Harper and Row. 1958. See page 154 of his memoir “Sputnik. 61 Message to Chairman Khrushchev on Meaning of Events in Cuba on April 18. National Security Council meeting of January 6. pages 700-703. 1961. 66 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate. Scientists and Eisenhower. 1958. Eisenhower. 1963. 54 March 16. 58 Sorensen. Arms Control and Disarmament. A memorandum of this meeting is available at the Eisenhower Library and in the Foreign Relations of the United States 1958-1960 Volume III. 1958. 62 President Kennedy’s Address to the Nation on October 22nd. 1965. 53 Memorandum of Conference with the President on March 20. 1963. 52 Great Britain was also a nuclear weapons country at that time. 57 Radio and Television Address on June 6. (Eisenhower Library) 51 Ibid. page 276. 69 Facsimile letter from General Andrew Goodpaster of the Eisenhower Institute dated January 8. 1959 Radio and Television Report to the American People. 59 White House Statement on the Soviet Resumption of Nuclear Tests on August 30. 1961.” 48 As recorded at a National Security Council Meeting on January 6. p. 68 “Ibid. pages 533-545. Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. 1959 (Eisenhower Library). 619. 1961. 1959 (Eisenhower Library). Kennedy. A copy of this is available in the Eisenhower Library. 1959. 56 Letter from President Eisenhower to Nikita Khrushchev dated April 13. 63 Meeting of October 19. 1962. (editor). 60 Press conference of February 7. Theodore C. 1958.Dwight D. 67 Letter from President Eisenhower to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations dated August 23. Foreign Relations of the United States.
C. 74 Ibid. 91 United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. page 564. 1962. Pages 3-4. Dwight D.C. pages 563-566 (see this document for memorandum of the conversation between Daniels and the Soviet ambassadors). page 536. 88 Letter from President Eisenhower to Nikolai Bulganin on January 13. pages 547-553. 75 Ibid. 1958. 92 Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty. (see this document for a memorandum of the meeting on April 2. page 817. Documents on Disarmament 1966. page 514. 89 Press conference on March 26. 1959. 1958.C. 82 Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty. NY: Doubleday 1965. MA: MIT Press 1977. page 55. 71 Ibid. D.: Department of State. 80 Statement by the President Concerning the Antarctic Treaty on December 1. Sputnik. page 550. 81 A copy of this NSC meeting can be found at the Eisenhower Library. 1959. Scientists and Eisenhower. 94 Ibid. 76 This appears to be a memorandum from the Geneva Conference of Experts in August 1958 sent to Dr. Killian mentions in his book how both the United States and the Soviet Union were seeking the capability of deploying nuclear weapons into space.: 1966. Cambridge. II United Nations and General International Matters. II United Nations and General International Matters. page 484 84 Speech on August 13. James R. 85 Statement by the President Concerning the Antarctic Treaty on December 1. Waging Peace 1956-1961. Vol. 1963 translated from Spanish (courtesy of the Dag Hammarskjöld Library). 72 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 96 A Report to the President by the Committee on Nuclear Proliferation (January 94 . 78 Ibid.: 1960. 90 Statement by the President on the Science Advisory Committee’s report. 95 Press Conference on March 7. 1959). James Killian. page 45. The Conference on Antarctica: Washington. 86 Ibid.Volume II United Nations and General International Matters. 79 Department of State. 1991. The Conference on Antarctica. D. Washington D. 93 Speech at the United Nations on November 27th. New York. 73 Ibid. 1958 to the United Nations General Assembly. Washington. page 609. Vol. 83 Eisenhower. page 549. 87 Killian.
101 Address before Congress on November 21. 1963.21. (courtesy Dag Hammarskjöld Library). Washington. D. page 9. pages 30-31. 97 95 .C.3 100 Alfonso Garcia Robles addressing the United Nations General Assembly First Committee on November 13. 99 Ibid. pages 2. Latin American Nuclear-Free Zone. 1974 (A/C/1/PV. 1987 in the public papers of Ronald Reagan. 1985. Speech at the United Nations on November 27th. 1965). 102 See Treaty Ceremony remarks for December 8.: 1968.2018). 98 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.