SESSION til 167 DE BOER: [don't necessarily agree with you on that. The Vietnam War costs us a lot of money, true, and there may even be an argument whether it is a worthwhile cause or not. But we are selling ourselves short if we let the Vietnam conflict be the reason that stands in our way of making progress which eventually may save our skins. The entire expenditure of the DOD cannot be laid on the doorsteps of the Vietnam conflict. For a true cost of that conflict, one would need an economic analyst. The facts are: (t) We are in Vietnam; (2) We need to know more about howto defend ourselves when attacked with nuclear weapons; (3) We do not have a sound and well-thought-out priority system—a defense system based on the best this country has to offer, Indeed, we argue, we compete and work hard, but not on the real issues. FREMONT-SMITH: Supposing that the Vietnam War was atopped tomorrow, is there any likelihood—and I think it's highly unlikely—that the money which is now being used for the Vietnam War would be used for Civil Defense? [don't think it would be at all. I think it would be used for a variety of other useful things, but [ think it would take a tremendous something, a change in attitude, to get any significant use of money for Civil Defense, whether there's a Vietnam War-or not. TAYLOR: I think that change is taking place and this is indeperdent of whether the end of the Vietnam War comes, and the change 18 simply a transition from a state in which we are able to rely on stable deterrents to 2 new world in which we can't. FREMON?1-SM“TH: rely on. TAYLOR: In which there ar no deterrents that we can There's beginning to be a sort of awakening in this country. FREMONT-SMITH: Have you seen some signs of this? TAYLOR: Yes, by all means. More and more people are concerned about criminals using nuclear explosives for all kinds of uses in which itis not nec essary for them to identify themselves to serve their pur- poses. The material is becoming much more available. The combina- tion of thes things is making it much more rational to imagine some kind of even very limited use of nuclear explosives for violent purposes. As soon as that begins to be a really understuud threat.....