DASA 2019-2 “a 300 meant that the world situation wae getting worse and that we might be going to do something. Therefore, we might even try to knock out somebody else's atomic capabilities, AYRES. Unquestionably eo with the doves, OUNHAM: Yes, bul didn't somebody point out that the powers that be oa the other side, as it were, wouldn't be so stupid aa to aseume that a etrong civil defense was euch « grest threat to thy ms aad meant more in lerms uf provoking war than all theee ofner things ? The same peuple who are yeiling about the provocation of having sheltere and things, they yell some but not nearly ae loud about these other things. , EISENBUD: What about the argument that was used egainst the Harbor report, for example’ ago under NAS auspices. AYRES. This report came out a year oF two 196). EISENBUD Time flilee, A committee of rather distinguished people, headed up by Kugene Vigner, drew up a report on civil de. fense, One of the arguments that was made against the report and ite recommendations wae that it was less costly to add to the affenoive por er encugh ta overcome the civil defense than it ie to build additional civil defense to counter the offensive power, So that if we invested, for example, $30 billion ina civil defense program, perhaps ite value could be offset by, let's say, a $10 millon increase tn the offensive power of a potential enemy, fla this a valid argument’ ‘HEMLERTAYLOR: It's an argument that's been used. No, thie statement has been made by the Secretary of Defense over and over again, I've looked very hard for any backup interms of any American analysis that demonstrates that this ie a fact and I've never seen any such argument, AYRES TAYLOR: The Kent Study (Reference $5) did show that, didn't it? No. The question te whether it's cheaper to build up an clifensive force shich will kill as nany people ina situation where they now have a blast and a post- fallout shelter system, not an indi-+ vidual fallout ehelter, N ow - Aes