1916, nixon was in los angeles and jon kennedy. Good evening, im abcs, it is my privilege this evening to preside at this that third in the series meetings on radio on television, on the two major president ial candidates. Like the last meeting, the subjects being discussed will be suggested by a panel of correspondents. Unlike the first programs, two candidates will not be sharing the same platform. In new york, the democratic president ial nominee, senator john f. Kennedy separated by 3000 miles in the los angeles studio, the republican president ial nominee richard and nixon. Now joining us for tonights discussion, this permits each candidate to see and hear the other. Good evening, senator kennedy. Fifth evening. Good evening to you, Vice President nixon. Now the panel of correspondents. This is, frank mcgee, nbc news. Douglas cater reporter magazine, ross go drummond, the tribune. As you probably notice, for reporters including a newspaper man in a mixing reporter, these two were presented by the press secretarys. The rules for this evening have been agreed upon by the representatives of both candidates in radio and television networks. There will be no Opening Statement by the candidates nor any closing summation. The entire hour will be devoted to answering questions from the reporters. Each candidate, to the question in turn with opportunity to comment on the other. Each answer will be limited to two and one half minutes, each comment to one and a half minutes. The reporters are free to ask any question they choose on any subject. Neither candidate knows what question will be asked. Time alone will be certain and deterrence of who will be asked the final question. The first question is from mr. Mcguinness but president senator kennedy yesterday you use the words triggerhappy in referring to Richard Nixons stand. Last week on a program like this one, you said the next president s will come face to face with a serious crisis in berlin. So the question is, would you take military action to defend berlin . We have a contractual right to be in berlin coming out about the conversation of potsdam and world war ii, that has been read forced by the president of the United States and reinforced by other nations other nato, ive stated on many occasions, the u. S. Must meet its commitment to berlin. If we are going to protect the security of western europe. And therefore on this question, i do not think that there is any doubt on the mind of any american, i hope there is not any doubt on the mind in a community of west dylan, im sure there isnt any doubt in the mind of the russians. We will meet our commitments to maintain the freedom and independence of a spin. Mister Vice President , you wish to comment . Yes, as matter fact misstatement that senator kaine of the made was that, today effects that there were triggerhappy republicans that my standard came away with some indication of triggerhappy. Republican i resent that comment. I resent it because its implication that republicans have been triggerhappy and therefore would lead this nation into war. I would remind senator kennedy of the past 50 years. I would ask him to name one republican president who led this nation into war. A wreath Free Democratic president s to lead us into war. I do not mean by that that won parties a war party any others apiece party. But i do say that any statement the effect that the Republican Party is triggerhappy as blood for the. Record we had a war when we came into power in 1953, we got rid of that we kept out of other wars and certainly that doesnt indicate that were triggerhappy. Weve been strong but we havent been triggerhappy. As far as berlin is concerned, there isnt any question about the necessity of defending berlin, the rights of people there to be free, and there isnt any question about what the united american people, republicans democrats alike would do in the event theyre one attempt by the communists to take over a spa and was berlin. The next question is for mr. Vine print for Vice President nixon. The sister Vice President , a two part question regarding the islands in the form of straight. If you were president , and the Chinese Communist began invasion in quote sue, would you launch the United States into a war by sending the seventh fleet and other military forces to resistance aggression . Secondly, and if regular conventional forces failed to halt failed to stop invasion would you authorize the use of Nuclear Weapons . It would be completely irresponsible to indicate the course of action whether it be to get into a war or use atomic weapons. Weather was a prelude to some other one that would be the indication today because the communist china me to say over and over again that their objective has not the offshore islands, that they consider only stepping stones to taking formosa. In the event that their attack that were a prelude to formosa and there would be any question whether the United States would then again as in the case of berlin honor our treaty obligations to stand by our ally of formosa. Between a kate in advance how we respond, to indicate the nature of this response would be incorrect, it would be inappropriate and would not be in the best interests of the United States. I will only say this for however in addition. To do with senator kennedy has suggested, to suggest that we will surrender these islands are force are Chinese Nationalist allies to surrender them in a sense, is not something that would lead to peace. It is something that would lead in my opinion to war. This is the history of dealing with dictators. This is something that senator kennedy and all americans must know. We tried this with hitler, it didnt work. He wanted first that we gave him austria and, then the other lands and then and for age time without thats all we wanted. Now one of the communist . Why they dont just what he may, see they dont want for most, they want the world. And the question is if you surrender or indicate in advance they are not gonna defend any part of the free world, if you think thats going to satisfy them, it doesnt satisfy them. It only wets their appetite. And then the question comes, when the stop them . Ive often heard president eisenhower in discussing this coppa statement make the statement that if we want to start the process of indicating that this point or that point is not the place to stop those who threaten the peace of the world, where do we stop . And i say that those of us who stand against surrender of territory, this or any other in the face of blackmail, in the face for the communists, are standing for the course that will lead to peace. Senator kennedy do wish to comment . Yes the United States now has a treaty which i voted for in the United States senate in 1955 to defend formosa in the past couple or a islands. The islands that mr. Nixon are discussing a 45 miles respectively off the coast of china. Now when senator greene the, chanted ofs chairman of the Senate ForeignRelations Committee wrote to the president and receive back on october 2nd of 1958 not a human or any other americans, feel that the u. S. Would be involved in u. S. Hostilities merely in the defense of the islands. I believe we must meet our commitments to formosa. I said more boarded in the tuscany or islands. The treaty does not include these two islands. Mr. Nixon suggests that the United States should go to war if these two islands are attacked. I suggest that it formosa is attacked of the past doors or the any military action in any area which indicates an attack on the pass could ors then of course the United States is at war to defend it. Now i must say what mr. Nixon wants to say is commit us so we can be a clear to the disagreement, he wants us to be committed to the defensive these islands merely as the defensive these islands is free territory, not as part of the defensive formosa. The admiral of the commander of the idiotically, its not worth anything to the United States. President of the United States is indicated theyre not within the treaty area. They were not within the treaty area when the tree was passed in 1955. Weve attempted to persuade shank check check, this is a serious issue and i thank you out and understand completely if we disagree and if so where. Mr. Cater has the next question for senator kennedy. Senator kennedy, last week you said that before we should hold another Senate Conference it was important the United States feel its strength. Modern weapons takes quite a long time to build. What sort of long period you envisage before there can be a summit conference . Do you think that can be any new initiatives on the grounds of nuclear disarmament, nuclear control or weapons control during this period . I think we should strengthen our conventional forces and we should attempt in january, february in march of next year to increase the airlift capacity of our conventional forces. I believe that we should move fulltime on our missile production, particularly on minuteman ampler us. Maybe a long period but we must get started immediately. Now on the question of disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, i must say that i feel it another effort should be made by new administration in january of 1961 to renew negotiations with the soviet union to see whether its possible to come to some conclusion which will lessen the chances of contamination of the atmosphere. And also lessen the chances that other powers will begin to possess a nuclear weapon. There are indications because of new inventions a ten, 15 or 20 nations will have a nuclear capacity, including red china by the end of the president ial office in 1964. This is extremely serious. There have been many wars in the history of mankind, but taking chats now not to make any every effort that we could make to provide some control over these weapons would be a great mistake. One of my disagreements with the present administration is that i dont feel a real effort has been made of this very sensitive subject not only of nuclear control but also general discernment. Less than 100 people have been working throughout the entire federal government on this subject and i believe its been reflected in our substantive feelers at geneva. And we may not succeed, soviet union may not agree distant inspections. We may not get satisfactory insurances, and we may not begin testing again but i hope the next administration have i have anything to do with it, the next administration will make one last great effort to provide control of nuclear, testing control of Nuclear Weapons, and control and make outer space free for Nuclear Weapons, and also start to generalists on minute levels. If this cannot be, done we must make we must strengthen ourselves. But i will make the effort because i feel the faith not only of our civilization, but for the world, the human race is is new involved in this setting a nuclear. War mister Vice President your. Comments im gonna make a whole speech on the subject before the next debate and i will have a whole opportunity then to answer any questions that may arise a my position on it. There is not any question that we must move forward in every possible way to reduce the danger of war, to move toward controlled discern minute. But also lets have in mind this. Whens what senator kennedy, he simply doesnt know what hes talking about. It isnt a question of the number of people who are working in this administration, its a question of who they are. This is been one of the highest level operations in the whole state department right under the president himself. We have drawn certainly the extra mile and then some, and making offers to the soviet union for control of chess and discernment and every other. Way i dont want to make something very clear. Yes we should make a great african under no circumstances must the United States ever make an agreement based on trust. There must be an absolute guarantee. Now just to comment on senate is kennedys last comment. He forgets and in the same debate on the formosa resolution that he voted, for he voted against an amendment and on this particular an amendment i must say which posted past the seven overwhelmingly 70 to 12 on record with the majority of the senators own party voted for it as well as the majority of republicans. Put them on record against a very positions the senator is taking now, surrendering, indicating in bans the United States will not defend the offshore island. The next question is for Vice President nixon. I would like to ask one more aspect, raise another aspect of the same question. It is my understanding that president eisenhower never advocated that they should be defended under also consensus under a matter of principle. I heard secretary dollars at a press conference in 58 say that he thought it was a mistake for to deploy troops to the silence. I would like to ask, what has led you to take what appears to be a different position on the subject . First of all, referring to that press conference, if you read it all and i know that you have that you will find that secretary dulles also indicated that press conference that when the troops are withdrawn, that the implication was that everything he said that it could be better dependent. They were too many infantry men there. And not enough heavy artillery. And i think there is any implication that he my math soon should not be defended in the event that they were attacked and that attack was preliminary in an attack. We as far as president eisenhowers concert, ive often heard him discuss this question. As a related a moment ago, the president has always indicated that we must not make the mistake of dealing with the dictator of indicating that we are going to make the concession at the point of a gun, whatever you do, and evidently the dictator is encouraged to try again so first it will be them, next it will be somewhere else. What we do then . My point is this, once you do this course of action of indicating that you are not going to defend a particular area, the never double result is that it encourages a man who is determined to conquer the world to press you to the point of no return. That means for. We went through this tragic experience leading to world war ii, we learned our lesson again increase, we must not learned again. That is why i think the senate was right including the majority of the democrats, the majority of republicans, when they rejected senator kennedys position in 1955. Incidentally, senator johnson was one that also rejected it. The senate was right because they knew the lesson of history. And may i say, i would trust that senator kennedy would change his position, changeup. As long as he is a major president ial candidate continues to suggest that we are going to turn over these islands, hes only encouraging that chinese and the soviet to press the United States, presses to the point where war would be inevitable. We rose to more the good intentions are a desire for peace. But we are certainly not going to have piece by giving in an indicating in advance that we are not going to defend what has become a war. I dont think its possible for mr. Nixon to state the record, with distortion of the facts with more position that he just did. 1955 at a conference dollar said, the treaty we have with the propublica of china, exposed them from the treaty area. That was done with much thought and deliberation. Therefore that treaty does not fit the United States to defend anything except for the pescatarians and that treaty area. I completely believed it could take any action necessary to defend that treaty. What we are now talking about, the Vice President of determination. These are foreign glance off the coast of red china, not in a treaty area, i do not say that it has been attempted since 1955 to lessen his commitment, instead of mission with 1955 of mr. Robertson said they are still doing it in 1959. His general said to go to war with matthew would seem unwarranted in a tragic forced to take and that concept is repugnant. I stand with them. I stand with the secretary of state who said these islands were indefensible. I believe that we should meet our commitments and if the Chinese Communist attack and they will know it will mean a war. I will not hand over these islands at any point in time. I say, the treaty is precise. And i sustain the treaty. Mr. Nixon would add a guarantee that is five miles off the republic of china when he is never really protest communist seizing cuba, 90 miles of the United States. Senator kennedy, i would like to shift the conversation to a domestic problem. The chairman of the Republican National committee declared earlier this week that you owed a public apology for some strong charges made by former president harry truman who bluntly suggested that you told the Vice President where he could go do you think you owe an apology . I must say that mr. Truman has his methods up expression, he has been in politics for 50 years, president of the United States, he is not my style, but i really dont think theres anything i could say the president truman to cause him at age of 76 to change his particular speaking matter. Maybe this instrument can, but i cannot. You can pass that message on. Any comment . He has, i think so. Of course, both senator kennedy and i have felt mr. Trumans ire, and consequently i think he can speak with some feeling on the subject. I do want to say one thing, we all have tempers, i have one, im sure cinder can be has won, but when a man is president of the United States, he has an obligation not to lose his temper in public. One thing i