It does seem possible that there is a conscious or unconscious policy in Western Europe to downgrade, downplay, and perhaps eventually do away with American involvement in the affairs of that continent. That might not be all bad. In fact, I think we should all consider the possibility that the relevance of the Atlantic alliance is no longer as apparent as it used to be, and that in our self-interest and in theirs, we should cease to center our foreign policy on Western Europe.

Now, let us turn to the Middle East. The obligations which we have to the state of Israel are being fulfilled. We can all wish that Israel would realize that its best chance of ultimate survival is to have a tranquil, peaceful Middle East, and that they would be more cooperative in working toward that end. Nevertheless, the survival of Israel and its capability to defend itself is very important to the United States and its people and will continue to be.

But speaking purely from self-interest, the Middle East’s oil reserves are the prime reasons for such intense American activity in that region. Today, 30.9 percent of the world’s oil comes from the Middle East and 55.8 percent of the known reserves of oil are in that area. It is easy to see why people are preoccupied with keeping that oil available, because unfortunately we are still in the oil age and probably will be for quite some time.

And yet, when you consider the miles of ocean or air involved in our transporting and maintaining enough force to defend the Persian Gulf, one must realize that defending it absolutely against a determined, well-equipped, locally-based enemy is practically impossible. Nuclear weapons would be out of the question except in some tactical situations. We could provide sufficient force to make it expensive for any enemy to conquer that part of the world, but if the Russians, for instance, persisted, our prospects for ultimate victory are indeed small. Furthermore, the danger of triggering World War III is always present. Then, nobody wins and everybody loses.

Yet we are building a conventional rapid strike force at the expense of billions of dollars, the main purpose being for deployment in the area of the Persian Gulf. I suggest that this defense buildup and the foreign policy which it seeks to implement are costing defense dollars which could be used better in other ways.

All right, now where are we? I have indicated willingness to withdraw our troops from Europe. I have also said that I would cut the rapid deployment force drastically. (I would tailor it for use only in the Western Hemisphere, or perhaps in some of the nations of Western Africa.) Now let me suggest another cut in defense. I would not deploy the MX missile in anything resembling a race track. I think the missile should be developed and some should be deployed. However, we should put them in super-strong silos, and provide point-defense systems. I am not talking about deploying hundreds of MXs, I am talking about deploying only a few whose survivability would be assured long enough to fire them. At least for the present, I would keep the Minutemen which we now have deployed in order to make it very difficult for the Russians to defeat spot-defense systems by oversaturation. Deploying the MX in this manner would, in my opinion, save billions of dollars and accomplish the deterrence which we desire as well as the deployment of many hundreds would. I would certainly continue to build and deploy the Trident submarine and its very sophisticated missile system.

Another saving I would make is to cease building the B-1 bomber. I once was a leading advocate of the B-l. That was before the “stealth” concept came into the picture. Now I think we should go all out to develop “stealth.” We will have a better, more modern plane, which the Russians will have to match, or find a way to defeat. Also, the money spent on “stealth” in the next few critical budgetary years will be significantly less than the cash outlays for the B-1.

I am well aware of the problems of “stealth,” but I have great confidence that they will be solved. I am also aware that not building the B-1 may result in a defense “gap” in the middle and late 1980s. Personally, I will take a chance on that. I believe our deterrent, even without the B-1, is sufficient. The savings will cut the deficit, or will allow us to mitigate some of the deep cuts made in funds for higher education.

Now, you’re saying, “It looks like this guy is advocating unilateral disarmament.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. I said earlier that our defense systems are not geared to take advantage of the strengths of America, but only to respond to the strengths of Russia. The strength of America is in our scientific and technological capabilities. We have the capability now of putting satellites in orbit which would have the capability of defending themselves either with conventional weapons or beams, and which would also have the capability of killing hostile intercontinental ballistic missiles before they can reach the point of reentry into the atmosphere. Eventually, this capability would extend to destroying such missiles almost immediately after launch. We can develop the technology to do this, and it seems obvious to me that using that technology would be far better than building new missiles every time the Russians do. Doing this, we would truly be building a defensive system, not an offensive one aimed at mass destruction. The day of the “mutually assured destruction” theory of defense should be ended. Now, it can be.

I am we aware that such a system would take some years to develop and deploy. For that reason, I would certainly keep most of the present systems which we have now for deterrence in good working order, and well manned. But there must come a time when we can say to the Russians, “We can zap your missiles any time we want. So, let’s each destroy our missiles, and build no more.”

Operations in space are now being downgraded. They shouldn’t be. I am not a newcomer to the ranks of those who believe that the development of our capabilities in space is important not only to our civilian economy, but to our defense. I was on the Independent Offices Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee when we committed the great acts of faith which resulted in funding manned space flight, served to encourage and develop the various planetary probes which NASA has accomplished so brilliantly, and resulted in the capability to produce reusable manned space vehicles, such as the “Columbia.”

To me, with what military training I possess, space represents a flank, the high ground which we must occupy. If we don’t, others will, to our detriment. We can do it. We should do it. And doing it will give us great benefits in the future.

One of those benefits is to develop sources of energy which would lessen considerably, if not end, our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and the consequent strains and distortions it causes in our economy and in our foreign policy. The sun’s energy is there for the taking. With the flights of the Columbia, and the attendant capability to produce satellites in orbit, we can use the sun’s rays with a photovoltaic array and produce huge amounts of electric power. I am well aware of the environmental problems which production of that much power and its transfer through the atmosphere might cause. I just happen to believe that the chances of success in developing power which could be made available anywhere in the world cheaply is so great that we would find ways to overcome whatever disadvantages might be inherent.

I am most unhappy with those portions of the Reagan budget which have reduced governmental investment in research and development, not only in solar energy but in fusion of the hydrogen atom and its isotopes. We should be working contemporaneously on solar energy and fusion to the very limit of our capabilities. Not only would development of power from these sources be the means of deflecting the thrust of our defense dollars and our foreign policy away from the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, but it would be the means of providing the underdeveloped world with the wherewithal to work toward better lives for their people. Energy plus technology plus raw materials plus a good labor supply plus good management can make an industrialized nation out of an underdeveloped one in just a few years.

To sum up, I would make the following changes to provide (1) a better defense, (2) a sounder foreign policy, not dependent on access to oil, (3) a chance to build a peaceful, affluent world population, and (4) significant savings to our government which will help lower deficits, cut the interest rate, and provide a sound base for economic recovery.

A. I would take our troops out of Europe, after consultation and, hopefully I trust, agreement with the nations of Western Europe.

B. I would cut the MX program by at least 70%.

C. I would abandon the B-1 and proceed to perfect the “stealth” manned bomber.

D. I would cut the Rapid Deployment Force and change its mission to operate mainly in the Western Hemisphere.

E. I would build a strategic defensive system in space, and eventually would dismantle all ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, if other nations did the same.

F. I would proceed to build a consortium of interested nations to construct satellites in space to produce cheap electric energy for all, and proceed full speed to develop electric energy from fusion of the hydrogen atom.

Now I hope you realize that I know that all of these things cannot be accomplished overnight. In fact, I am probably talking about some things which should be accomplished within the next fifty years. We must have a peaceful world, or as Admiral Rickover said, we will destroy ourselves. For the next several years, we will have to continue to rely on deterrence of aggressors. But after that period of time, we should have the most sophisticated defensive systems in the world in earth orbit, and we should by then have been able to recruit most of the nations in the world in a mutual undertaking to provide cheap energy so that all the peoples of the globe can share in its wealth and its affluence.

This is the new frontier. In years past when populations became restive and people got bored, there was always new land to be utilized and put to the plow. This is the new land, and American science and technology are the plows which we must use to create a peaceful, better world for all of humanity. The time to put our hands to that plow and begin the task is now.