National Affairs: Atomics to Billboards

Once brother Edgar was laughed out of the way, the President's fast-moving press conference ranged through 32 questions—from Britain to the Middle East, from atomics to billboards. What was the news from the disarmament talks in London? "Of course, I'm not there," said Ike, but Presidential Disarmament Adviser Harold Stassen, attending London meetings, had indicated that "we are now engaged in the most serious talks on disarmament . . . since World War II." This brought on a query on armament: Since the U.S. has agreed to arm Britain with guided missiles without atomic warheads, does the U.S. plan similarly to place guided-missile sites "all around the Soviet Union?" Said Ike: "Well, I wouldn't comment on the general policy. I will merely say this: we have no such plans."

What about the statement of General Curtis LeMay, boss of the Strategic Air Command, that SAC is ready to put out brush-fire wars with nuclear weapons? Replied the President: SAC can be used wherever the Defense Department sends it. But "when you get a picture of the great Strategic Air Command charging all over the world for little police troubles, of course, that would be entirely wrong."

Nagging Worries. One newsman quoted a State Department official as saying that "the U.S. would come to the aid of Jordan if it were attacked." Did this mean that the Eisenhower Doctrine would apply, assuming that Jordan's King Hussein requested help? The President cited two vital instruments that are applicable: 1) "The May 25th [1950] statement, which was an effort to promote peace in the area as between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries, in which the U.S. joined with Britain and France in saying we would come to the aid of the victims if either were attacked," and 2) "the Mideast resolution [i.e., Eisenhower Doctrine], which authorizes the U.S. to go to the aid of any nation which is attacked by Communist aggression, and where it requests our aid."*

Many a U.S. policy planner was still nagged by worries that Great Britain's revolutionary defense cutback (TIME, April 15) would lead to a general weakening of NATO, and a newsman put the question to Ike. "Everybody agrees," he replied, "that Britain must have a sound economic base on which to build its forces, or in the long run it is not an effective partner . . . Now, while we are disappointed to see in this coming year 13,500 [British] men taken out of Europe, still it does not, in our opinion, obviate the necessity for a shield ... in Western Europe. And certainly," said Ike, taking oblique note of German talk of cutting NATO commitments (see FOREIGN NEWS), "the compromise plan that was adopted and the phasing out of these people was in order to give the Germans an opportunity to fill that gap."