158 DASA 2039-2 If itis a true assumption that we're going ahead to increase our anti-missile defense potential, it would seem to me that any attempt to make any kind of recommendation would have to be focused around that possibility. This iooks as though perhaps the tide might be turning away from this assumption of absolute disaster toward the possivility of some kind of defense and it isn't clear as far as The Times or other public media information atates whether the orientation of this defense system igs primarily anti--Russian or primarily anti-Chinese. TAYLOR: Hacn't it been called primarily anti-Chinese by the Secretary of Defense? It seems to me thai was fairly definitely said. en em te remem ee MILLET: Yes, it has been said, I think, but..... TAYLOR: So far as the real reasons for going ahead with that decision are concerned, I think there's one interesting development that hasn't happened yet that will help reveal what was really in some people's minds in making that decision, and that is the decision with respect to fallout shelters. MILLET: Yes. TAYLOR: Curiously, in the recent decision to go ahead with the small ABM, whatever one wants to call it, I've seen no mention of. any kind about any civil defense measures associated with that deCision. It's always been coupled in the past, but this time it was not. The question is why? ‘MILLET: I was coming to that point ina sense. [ was thinking that if we assume that this is going to be the policy, then this would seem like a great opportunity for public works possibilities for putting a lot of people to work to build appropriately distanced shelters to take care of a. lot of people. TAYLOR: The difficulty is that other few billion dollars which have not been mentioned so far as part of this decision to spend $5 billion on this active part of the defense. This would be an unpopular thing to promote.