The enclosed memorandum from the Acting Secretary, National Aeronautics
and Space Council, concerning paragraph 62 of NSC 5906, is transmitted herewith for the information of
the National Security Council in connection with its consideration of
the subject at its meeting on Thursday, June 25, 1959.
Your attention is invited to the statement in the enclosure that, because
of the imminent consideration of the subject draft policy, there has
only been opportunity for individual members of the National Aeronautics
and Space Council to comment without the benefit of discussion at a
NASC meeting.
cc: The Secretary of the Treasury
The Attorney General
The Secretary of Commerce
The Director, Bureau of the Budget
The Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
The Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers
The Chairman, Council on Foreign Economic Policy
Enclosure
Memorandum From Phillips to Lay
Washington,
June 19,
1959
[Facsimile Page 2]
SUBJECT
- Paragraph 62 of Basic National Security Policy 5906
1. The subject draft paragraph supplied with your memorandum of June
3, 1959, was forwarded to those members of the National Aeronautics
and Space Council whose departments had not participated in
preparation of the draft. It is my understanding that the Department
of State, Department of Defense, and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration had participated in its drafting. Because of the
imminent consideration of this policy by the NSC, there has only been opportunity
for individual members to comment without the benefit of discussion
at a NASC meeting.
2. AEC Chairman McCone, NSF Director Waterman, and
Messrs. Bronk, Burden, and Rettaliata have concurred in the
paragraph with the following exceptions:
- a.
- Both Mr. Burden and Dr. Bronk objected to the bracketed
phrase proposed by Budget and Treasury. Mr. Burden was the
more eloquent: “I am strongly opposed to the insertion of
the phrase, ‘in fields where such applications appear to
offer advantages over other possible means for achieving
required capabilities.’ I think that proposals in relation
to the military space program should be judged on their
merit and not
[Typeset Page 742]
hampered in their development by a
qualifying phrase of this kind in the policy. I feel that
there are ample checks and balances for controlling an
unrealistically expanded military program in the present
setup of the Council. I also feel that the military part of
the program is of greatest importance.”
- b.
- Mr. Burden also expressed himself as follows: “I have also
been troubled for a long time by the phrase in the present
NSC paragraph that the
‘United States is a recognized leader
in this field.’ It does not seem to me that this is a strong
enough. If there are only two major powers in the race, what
does a “recognized leader” really mean? I would suggest some
language along the following lines:
[Facsimile Page 3]
‘The United States should continue actively and with
a sense of urgency to pursue programs to develop and
exploit outer space as necessary or desirable to
insure the attainment of national objectives and the
achievement of scientific, military and political
purposes. These programs and the national policy
should be designed to secure and maintain a national
position of supremacy, or at the minimum, equality,
in outer space.’”
- c.
- Dr. Waterman has suggested that objectives (1) and (3)
read as follows: “(1) A broad-based scientific and
technological program for the development and scientific
exploitation of space flight and planetary-interplanetary
exploration;” and “(3) a civil space program designed to
develop and promote the peaceful use of outer space;”
3. The point made by Mr. Burden and repeated in the foregoing item
2–b is so fundamental that it should be discussed at a meeting of
the NASC. I suggest therefore,
that if this part of the paragraph is approved as now drafted, it be
done with the understanding that the NASC will consider this matter at its meeting on June
29 and possibly on June 30.
4. We appreciate the opportunity to make these comments on that
portion of the basic national security policy that is of such direct
concern to the NASC.
/S/ Franklyn W.
Phillips
Acting Secretary
