195. Editorial Note
On July 7, 1962, the Department of Defense released to the public some of the preliminary results of its seismic research program, known as Project Vela. (Press Release No. 1150-62, printed in Documents on Disarmament, 1962, volume II, pages 633-635) As summarized by Glenn Seaborg, among the technical conclusions of this project were: 1) the possibility of improved detection by properly placing and reinforcing instruments; 2) the promise of ocean-bottom seismometers; 3) the large variation in signal strength of underground explosions depending on the medium surrounding the shot place; and 4) the existence of many fewer earthquakes in the Soviet Union that might be mistaken for nuclear explosions than had previously been estimated. (Seaborg, Kennedy, Khrushchev and the Test Ban, page 162)
U.S. officials had earlier learned about the Vela findings and their implications for U.S. insistence on control posts in disarmament, but this knowledge had not yet resulted in any change in policy. Nevertheless, when Ambassador Dean arrived at the airport in Geneva on July 14, he reportedly said that the Vela findings suggested that international detection stations inside the Soviet Union might not be necessary if the United States could get non-nuclear nations to cooperate.
When Secretary Rusk learned of Dean’s statement, he telephoned ACDA Deputy Director Adrian Fisher (Foster was away), and together the Secretary and Fisher sent a message to Dean, which reads in part:
“A Reuters dispatch from Paris quotes you as having said ‘Perhaps we could do without them’ referring to control posts in the Soviet Union and that you may be able to cut down the number of on-site inspections but it is too early to tell. While we have no way of knowing whether or not this is an accurate quotation of what you said, you should know that there has been no decision on the part of the U.S. Government, in its position on a test ban, authorizing a change, and that my position and the [Page 488] position of the Department and ACDA, when asked, will continue to be that, while the recent results of the Vela Program are promising and are being evaluated, the evaluation to date has not led to a decision to abandon necessity of control posts in the Soviet Union or reduce the number of on-site inspections. Your position should be the same. Whether and to what extent U.S. position should be revised, based on new data now under active consideration in Executive Branch and in consultation with Congress, and speculation as to possibility of a change can only prejudice this consideration.” (Todis 432 to Geneva, July 14; Department of State, Central Files, 600.0012/7-1462)
The Secretary and Fisher also wrote a statement emphasizing that the conclusions of the Vela program were preliminary and “do not demonstrate the possibility of doing away with control posts and on-site inspections to determine the precise nature of suspicious events.” As a result of further evaluation of the Vela findings, the statement continued, the United States “will make in the near future whatever modifications in its present position as seem possible.” This statement was given to the press on July 16. (Department of State Bulletin, August 6, 1962, page 234)
Fisher later recalled President Kennedy’s reaction to Dean’s statement:
“Now I didn’t discuss this with the President directly, but I talked with Mac Bundy about it. And frankly, the President was very upset. He liked to have things done well. And the idea that we had made a proposition and we were saying something else: he had a rather adverse reaction to that, to put it mildly. So he passed the word down: ‘Now look, let’s get this thing straight. Either we’ve got a position or we don’t have.’ (Frank Sieverts, interview with Adrian S. Fisher, May 13, 1964, page 34; Kennedy Library, Oral History Program)
The Embassy in Moscow reported on July 19: “Soviet press predictably seizes on US press stories that Ambassador Dean publicly corrected by Department following his alleged July 14 statement Vela tests might make it possible for US to accept national control system. Pravda describes Dean statement as constituting ‘certain retreat from former US position’ but asserts even this hint at change ‘created panic in Washington.’ New York Times Finney article quoted at length to bolster Soviet contention US obstructing test ban agreement.” (Telegram 178 from Moscow, July 19; Department of State, Central Files, 397.5611-GE/7-1962)
John W. Finney’s feature article on the Soviet and U.S. nuclear tests and on the impasse in the Geneva negotiations for a nuclear test ban treaty was published in The New York Times, July 15, 1962.