indeed). The use of such multilateral channels would minimize such a possi-
bility.

2. Collective efforts among groups of countries in the advancement of science
as a general rule yield returns in terms of a larger community of science than accrue
from support of efforts of individual countries. Where feasible, the United States
should support cooperative research projects undertaken by two or more countries
or by regional or other organizations.

3. Other considerations being equal, special attention should be given to those
countries having relatively large reservoirs of underutilized (or less than fully
utilized) scientific talent in relation to financial resources (e.g., certain South
American countries, Japan, Italy, etc.).

4. Bilateral support activities of the U.S. Government should be based upon
a formal framework of government-to-government bilateral agreements where
necessary. While there is need for minimizing the role of government vis-a-vis
science, and while every effort should be made to keep the bilateral agreements
as flexible as possible, the "sovereignty-consciousness" of most countries with
respect to external aid is so strong and widespread as to make self-defeating any
attempted bypassing of local institutions of government.

H. Program magnitude

1. The magnitude of financial support by the U.S. Government in behalf of the
advancement of science in other countries where such support constitutes an
integral part of a program directed to other U.S. objectives (e.g., military, eco-
nomic, etc.) should be as dictated by the considerations underlying those other
objectives. In other words, no attempt should be made to enlarge the science
components of military or economic aid programs unless essential to the success
of those programs. To do otherwise would be to confuse program objectives
unnecessarily (although this would be the easy road to more Federal funds for
the support of science abroad). On the contrary, it would be desirable to screen
out those science projects now being supported under special programs which are
peripheral to the missions of such programs and to place these projects under the
aegis of a general international science program.

2. The magnitude of additional financial support by the U.S. Government to
the advancement of science abroad, as an end in itself, as recommended in this
report, must be small to begin with and never more than "modest." Due to
its nature, much experimentation will be required and a great deal will depend
upon the discrimination with which it is applied.

I. Program framework

1. It is not possible without intensive interagency study and consultation, to
propose assignment of responsibilities or the organizational framework within
the executive branch to carry out the program recommended herein. The
Department of State, the National Science Foundation, the Atomic Energy
Commission, the Smithsonian Institution, the Department of Commerce, and
other agencies of the Government would be concerned in particular areas of the

program.

2. What is needed at the immediate next stage is interagency consideration of
the broad issues involved in the proposed enlargement of the activities of the
Federal Government in the field of international science. Questions of agency
responsibility and organization come into focus at a later stage.

O

1

OF MICHIGAN

1960

MAIN
READING ROOM

ORGANIZING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

A BIBLIOGRAPHY

PREPARED FOR THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

AND ITS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL POLICY MACHINERY
(Pursuant to S. Res. 115, 86th Cong.)

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations

47597

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1959

PURCHASED T

DOC. EX. PROJECT

FOREWORD

The National Security Act of 1947, which created the Department of Defense and the National Security Council and called for "the establishment of integrated policies and procedures * * * relating to the national security," represents the last major revision of national security policymaking machinery. In essence, it codified the experience and lessons of World War II.

The years following the passage of the act have seen the cold war become the dominant fact of international life. Time-honored distinctions between foreign and domestic policy have been obliterated. The resources required for national security have multiplied. New demands are being made, not only on material, but also on our intellectual resources. Science and technology have moved to the center of the policymaking stage.

The Subcommittee on National Policy Machinery was established in July 1959 for the purpose of making the first comprehensive review of our national security policy machinery undertaken since the discussion and debate preceding the act of 1947. The subcommittee's goal is to review the effectiveness of existing policymaking organizations and methods against the background of the changed perspectives and problems of the last 12 years, and to make such recommendations for improvement of the policy process as are appropriate.

At the subcommittee's request, the Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, has prepared a bibliography concerned with the national security policymaking process. This bibliography was compiled and annotated by Frederick John Rosenthal, Albert Stillson, and James Threlkeld, under the supervision of Drs. Roger Hilsman and Howard Wriggins, all of the Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress. The subcommittee is most grateful for their interest and cooperation.

Because of growing interest in the subject of national security policy, especially in its organizational aspects, the subcommittee believes that publication of this bibliography will serve a useful purpose.

HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Policy Machinery.

December 15, 1959.

III

NOTE ON ANNOTATION PROCEDURE

Annotations in this bibliography have been provided for nearly all of the books cited, for most of the articles, and for a few selected United States Government publications. Where annotations were omitted for some articles, the omission was mainly justified by the self-explanatory nature of the title.

Where annotations are set off by double quotation marks, they were either entirely or in part quoted from a number of sources available to the bibliographers. Such sources include some of the biblographies cited in section IV; synopses, resumes, or subtitles of periodical articles; introductions, forewords, or publishers' summaries of books; and brief book reviews.