« 이전계속 »
Dr. WEXLER. Yes, sir; it would.
FUTURE POSSIBILITY OF WEATHER CONTROL
Senator SYMINGTON. Dr. Wexler, do you think that we are going to be able to control weather from the standpoint of agriculture fairly soon?
Dr. WEXLER. This is a very difficult question, Senator. I think we are arriving now at a point in our technology where we are beginning to have energy sources available to us which are commensurate to some degree with some of the minor atmospheric storms. Parallel to this availability of energy sources, we are learning a lot more about how the atmosphere operates. I think the time is coming when we will know more about how the atmosphere operates and here the satellite will certainly give very vital data, so that we may be able to select those weak spots, those Achilles heels in the atmospheric cycle where, with application of our relatively puny sources of energy, even with the megaton weapons and nuclear energy sources, we might perhaps exert an influence along beneficial lines.
There is a good deal of thinking going on about this. In fact, I have read recently a translation of a speech, given in the Pravda last December by a Soviet scientist whose name is Eugeny
Senator SYMINGTON. It is pretty clear this morning that they are ahead of us in missiles. You don't mean that they are ahead of us in weather, too?
Dr. WEXLER. No, sir. I am trying to indicate that people are thinking along these lines, and Eugeny Feodorov, who was formerly head of the Soviet Hydro-Meteorological Service and now head of their satellite project, proposed that the nations of the world get together in a sort of new International Geophysical Year effort to see about controlling weather along beneficial lines. I mention this not to say that this is a serious proposal, but that there are people thinking about these things, because they are aware of the fact that we are not too far from this goal.
Senator SYMINGTON. Getting together would be constructive, don't you think? It might help break down the Iron Curtain, at least.
Dr. WEXLER. Well, Senator, meteorologists have been together for at least a century. Even during the worst of the cold war, there was full exchange of weather information across the Iron Curtain. Both sides of the Iron Curtain realize that they must have this information in order to carry out their forecasts in service to the public.
This is a rather rambling answer to your question, but there is no question in my mind but that weather control of some sort will emerge. I don't think it will be rapid. We have to learn a lot about the atmosphere. I think it would be very dangerous, indeed, to engage in experiments in the atmosphere without more confidence of what may happen. We may try something that we think would be beneficial, but it might turn into a disaster.
I have in mind as an example that proposals have been made to hasten the melting of the Arctic icepack, which has been melting for the last 20 years, anyway, although slowly. If we could by some means hasten the melting of the Arctic icepack, this would not raise the ocean surface, as has been mentioned as a possibility, because this
is floating ice and would not change the volume of water. But it would give you an open source of water in the wintertime, which would increase the frequency and intensity of the snowstorms in the coastal regions around the Arctic, and might begin a minor ice age. In fact, such a theory of ice ages has been proposed recently by Professor Ewing of Columbia University. He believes that if the Arctic Ocean were open, it would provide additional moisture which could be deposited in the form of heavy snow and in time create large continental ice masses.
If we are looking now for the establishment of milder winters by eliminating the icepack, we might possibly cause disaster by building up over decades large ice sheets in the communities around the Arctic Ocean. These things have to be examined very carefully.
Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Doctor. As you know, farmers are becoming more interested in this. Senator McClellan's State and mine have been visited by very bad droughts in 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956, and then last year, by heavy rainfall.
Dr. WEXLER. Yes, I know.
WEATHER BUREAU COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Senator SYMINGTON. We appreciate your testimony, Dr. Wexler. I would like to ask one more question.
We have had some testimony here about the National Science Foundation being a better place than the NACA or this contemplated new agency, the NASA, for handling meteorological studies. What do you think about that?
Dr. WEXLER. Well, sir, this is a little bit out of my field of weather prediction. All I can say is that the Weather Bureau has worked harmoniously with both these Agencies.
Senator SÝMINGTON. Thank you very much. We appreciate having the advantage of your testimony.
Our final witness today is Dr. Richard Van Wagenen, dean of the Graduate School of American University.
Dr. Van Wagenen, I understand that you are appearing here today on behalf of the American Association for the United Nations. We are very much interested in having the benefit of your advice and counsel.
I am asking unanimous consent to place in the record a copy of your biography
(The biography referred to is as follows:) BIOGRAPHY OF DR. RICHARD W. Van WAGENEN, DEAN OF GRADUATE SCHOOL,
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Dr. Van Wagenen was born in Denver, Colo., in 1912. He received a bachelor of arts from Stanford University, a master of science degree from Syracuse University, and a doctor of philosophy degree from Stanford University.
He was with the New Hampshire Foundation in 1935, the Council of State Governments from 1935 to 1937 and the Pennsylvania Economy League from 1937 to 1938. He was a teaching assistant at Stanford University 1938 to 1941 and an instructor at Yale University from 1941 to 1942. From 1942 to 1947 he served in the United States Army attaining the rank of lieutenant colonel. He was an associate professor at Duke University from 1947 to 1950 and a visiting associate professor at Columbia University from 1949 to 1950. He was director of the Center for Research on World Political Institutions at Princeton University from 1950 to 1957 and a member of the civilian faculty of the National War College from 1956 to 1957. He was appointed dean of the Graduate School and professor of international relations at the American University in 1957.
He is a member of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, the American Political Science Association and other professional organizations. He has written many publications on international relations.
Senator SYMINGTON. The committee is ready to receive your statement, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. VAN WAGENEN, DEAN OF THE
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Dr. VAN WAGENEN. Thank you, sir. First, I want to say that I am representing the position of the American Association for the United Nations, and not that of the American University, which has no position on this matter. I have never been a member of the American Association for the United Nations, but have been, and am, a member of its research affiliate, the Commission To Study the Organization of Peace. It is mainly from the tenth report of the commission, published last fall, that I speak. For the record, this book is entitled Strengthening the United Nations,” by Arthur N. Holcombe, published by Harper & Bros.
The American Association for the United Nations is an educational organization, and takes no position on legislation. Therefore, we express no opinion concerning the bill which is before you. This does not prevent us, I hope, from congratulating Senator Johnson upon the depth of his interest in matters of outer space.
The bill before you contains a mere reminder of the primacy of the international aspects of this problem of controlling outer space. We must not forget that, while we may already be a little way into the space age, we are—and have been for a very long time-deeply into the international age. We believe that, by all means, we should be sure that we do not slip back into the isolationist pattern just when a new frontier is about to be opened.
Indeed, the position of the AAUN is that the security of the United States, which is now inseparable from the security of a large part of the world, would be enhanced by international control of outer space. Certainly the United States, powerful as we are, cannot control outer space by ourselves. Therefore, we must think of any space agency that may be created for handling this problem in the United States, as connected somehow with similar agencies of other countries. To put our position in briefest form, it is that space is a global problem, if ever there was one-by definition--and that it should, therefore, be handled by as close to a global political agency as may be developed.
When I use the terms "handle" and "political,” of course, I am implying the need for some kind of control over this new area by society, through some kind of agency. If we each claim this new territory, what would have been squabbles in the distant past may, very possibly, be fatal acts of national destruction in the present day. To whom does outer space belong? Shall we fight in order to find out? We believe that it would be better for the United Nations to declare that this area, which is now outside the jurisdiction of any nation or group of nations, actually belongs to the international community
This does not mean that we believe the United Nations should handle all aspects of the problem, nor does it mean that agreements ought not be reached outside the U. N. To us, the analogy of the
high seas points the way, to some extent. So does the Antarctic Continent. But I shall have to skip over that point because of time limitations. But we see no reason why both Antarctica and outer space cannot be owned by the United Nations as the nearest thing we have to a representative of the so-called international community. We recognize the value of other proposals, such as internationalization by a few nations. These may be, by all odds, the most practical first steps.
QUESTION OF RED CHINA Senator SYMINGTON. Let me ask you a question there to clarify my own mind. What would you do about Communist China, which is not a member of the U. N.,
if they started their own independent unit? I'm not trying to pin you down; I'm just asking for my own information.
Dr. VAN WAGENEN. We didn't cover that.
Senator SYMINGTON. They are getting their own scientists, and getting interested in other aspects of world affairs. If the United Nations controlled it, that would mean Red China had no rights in it.
Dr. VAN WAGENEN. Yes, sir. I think they also would have no obligations, which is a point for worry.
Senator SYMINGTON. Yes. Please proceed.
Dr. VAN WAGENEN. We would welcome any beginnings of agreement on international inspection, for instance, however limited they might be. Full control of armaments, under proper safeguards, is the objective which, I think, almost all of us have in mind. think that, if this can be done in connection with the United Nations, or if the results can be attached to the U. N., we will gain a priceless dividend for the future. We will be strengthening an organization which can, by being stronger, meet other international problems that may arise in the future. As we said in the foreword of the tenth report:
Our program calls for moving forward in what we believe to be the right direction at as fast a pace as fits the spirit of the times and the temper of the nations (p. xi).
We recognize the overriding importance of national policies, as distinguished from international mechanisms, in world affairs today. It is debatable whether there is an international community today sufficiently developed to succeed fully in controlling activities in outer space. And few people would want these activities controlled, provided they could be assured that they are peaceful activities. But it takes considerable powers to insure that they are peaceful. It would be a bold step, but not too bold for the times, to put the United Nations in the middle of this picture. I do not presume to say whether the eminent chairman of this space committee of the Senate would support all of our recommendations, but we certainly support him in his broad proposal, stated last January and February in such ringing terms, that exploration of outer space be undertaken by the United Nations to make this territory "an outpost of peace.” He said the time to act was now, “while the satellites are searching for facts instead of targets,” and we agree with him that “here is an opportunity to bring men together in common cause as never before. Senator Saltonstall, another distinguished member of this committee, has also
expressed the hope that the first steps "may be taken through the United Nations."
We do not advocate, of course, that the United States give up its activities in the race for supremacy in outer space until thoroughly reliable agreements can be reached. We have had too many bad experiences with the Soviets. We recognize that the United States is engaged in a global struggle with the Soviet Union and that the innocent earth satellites of the present day will become highly dangerous instruments of destruction in their future forms. If it would seriously threaten our security to bring the United Nations closer to the center of this problem, naturally we would not, as you would not, advocate any such move. We insist upon the fundamental significance of power, whether national or international. We feel that by bringing the United Nations into the center, we are contributing to the long-run security of our country by acting boldly as soon as possible.
We do not advocate placing ownership of space vehicles in the United Nations unless and until a thoroughgoing system of international control over armaments is established. To do so would not seem to be politically wise or practicable. Rather, we advocate five things at present:
1. That the principle should be accepted that outer space is not subject to ownership or control by individual states, but only by the international community, represented by the United Nations. This means that the United States delegation should press this principle in the General Assembly.
2. That international ownership and operation of all or certain types of spacecraft be adopted as the long-run goal of United States policy in this field.
3. That international registration of spacecraft and verification of flights be adopted as the short-run policy of the United States regarding earth satellites only.
4. That the missile which is designed to travel in outer space, but not in an orbit, should be treated as any other piece of armament. It would therefore be handled by any program of arms control that may result from current and future international discussions.
5. That the international agency administering the registration, inspection, and verification function recommended here should be a branch of whatever international body may be agreed upon to carry out arms control as a whole, and should share in the powers of enforcement granted to that body.
Finally, we cannot repeat too often the fact that to support—even to strengthen—the United Nations is good clean official United States policy of long standing. President Roosevelt fought it through a very willing Senate. President Truman put the United States more solidly behind the United Nations than ever; it is sometimes forgotten that point 1 of his famous point 4 speech was "unfaltering support of the United Nations.” Leading Senators of both parties, from Arthur Vandenberg and Tom Connally onward, have seen the United Nations as an asset to the United States. The list includes some of the most eminent Members of the present Senate and, indeed, several members of this committee.