76-17-A3

- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1977

<< Previous Broadcast

Next Broadcast >>

Neutron Bomb II

Transcript Even if the Soviet Union and the United States could destroy each other in an exchange of nuclear missiles, war is still a possibility and the winner, if war came, would be the one with the most powerful conventional military establishment. So far the Soviets are on the way to having that most powerful establishment while we still argue about whether we should cut defense spending and build up the budget for social reforms. One of the experts I quoted said the Soviets are already fighting World War III and their principal weapon is subversion -- at least for this stage, That isn't a new weapon or a new idea. The Chinese -- 2,476 years ago -- endorsed subversion as a weapon; -- QUOTE -- "The greatest art is to break the enemy's opposition without a fight on the battlefield. A true victory and a lasting one, can only be won by indirect and subversive methods and so corrupt all that is good in the enemy country. -- UNQUOTE. Our problem would be more simple if all our disputes over weaponry were inspired by enemy subversion. Unfortunately, there are legitimate differences between us. Senator Hatfield of Oregon is opposed to a new development in tactical nuclear weapons -- the neutron warhead. There is no question about his sincerity or his devotion to the cause of peace and certainly his opposition to the neutron weapon is in no way connected to Soviet subversion. He is truly repelled by this proposed weapon system and unable to see that potentially it could be the very deterrent we need to prevent war. Let's understand that tactical nuclear weapons are for battlefield use against military targets and have nowhere near the destructive power of strategic nuclear bombs or intercontinental ballistic missiles. So far our deterrent to an attack on the NATO line in Europe has been based on a tactical nuclear weapon with a 56-mile range -- the Lance missile. Its weakness as a deterrent however is the Russian knowledge that we might be reluctant to use it since it would be exploded on the towns and countryside of our West European allies. And, though smaller than the big Atomic bombs, it would still destroy villages and kill noncombatants. Now our Defense Department is asking for an appropriation to produce a new warhead for the Lance missile as well as for other delivery systems. It is the "neutron" -- a small warhead capable of penetrating tanks and bunkers. It kills by radiation, without the blast and heat of atomic weapons. It is a battlefield weapon designed to kill enemy soldiers, and death is almost instantaneous. Furthermore, the terrain is not made dangerously radioactive. Army field commanders have sought such a weapon for years. It is truly akin to the science fiction deathray. This technology would put us far ahead of the Soviets and be the deterrent we've sought against the nightmare situation of a Russian advance in which our only choice would be to surrender or loose a nuclear holocaust on the world. Yes, it is horrible to think of soldiers helpless against a weapon that kills them instantly with silent invisible rays. But, what if it prevents anyone from being killed at all simply because it exists? As the Chinese said nearly 2500 years ago, "The greatest art is to break the enemy's opposition without a fight on the battlefield." This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.		Details Batch Number 76-17-A3 Production Date 07/??/1977 Book/Page Online PDF Audio Youtube? No
		Added Notes