To berlin. It is a commitment we must meet if we are going to protect the security of western europe. I dont think theres any doubt in the mind of any american and i hope there is not any doubt in the mind of people in west berlin. Im sure there is not any doubt in the mind of the russians. We will knit meet our commitment to the freedom of west berlin. The statement that senator kennedy made was to the effect that there were triggerhappy republicans, that an indication of triggerhappy republicans. I resent that comment because it is an implication that republicans have been triggerhappy and would lead the nation into war. , would remind senator kennedy senator whoublican has led the country into the war. I do say that any statement to the effect that the Republican Party is triggerhappy is belied by the record. We have kept out of other wars and that does not indicate that we have been sure happy. We have been strong but not triggerhappy. There is some concern about the necessity of defending or len of berlin. There isnt any question about what the united American People would do in the event there were an attempt by the communist takeover berlin. For the next question is Vice President next nixon. Paneled concerning the offshore islands in the formosa strait. The unitedaunch states into a war by sending the military forces to resist this if theion, and conventional forces failed to halt such an invasion, would you authorize the use of Nuclear Weapons . It would be completely irresponsible for a candidate for presidency or the president himself to indicate the course of action and weapons he would use in the event of such an attack. I will say this, in the event such an attack occurred and in the event the attack was a prelude to an attack on formosa, which would be the indication today because the Chinese Communist say over and over again that there objective is not the or offshore island that they only consider them a stepping stone to taking formosa. There isnt any question that the United States would again honor our treaty obligations and standby our ally in formosa but it in formosa. But to indicate the nature of this response would be incorrect and inappropriate and not in the best interest of the United States. I will only say this in addition. To do what senator kennedy has suggested, that we will surrender these islands or force our allies to surrender them in advance is not something that would lead to peace. It would lead, in my opinion, to war. This is the history of dealing with dictators and something that senator kennedy and all americans must know. We tried this with hitlers and it did not work. Austria and then he went on to the sedate and land, and each time this was all that he wanted. What do the Chinese Communists want . They dont just want formosa, they want the world. The question is that if you surrender or indicate in advance that you are not going to surrender any part of the free them, it does not satisfy come it only whets the appetite. The question comes, when do you stop them . I have often heard president eisenhower make the statement, that is it, we will not start the process of indicating this point are that point is not the place to stop those who threaten the peace and freedom of the world, where do we stop . I say those of us who stand against the surrender of territory, this or any others, in the face of blackmail or force, are standing in the course that will lead to peace. Bill senator kennedy . Kennedy the United States has a treaty which i voted for in the senate in 1955, defend formosa and the islands. The islands that nixon is discussing our five miles off china. When i Relations Committee wrote to the president , we received back, neither you nor any other american need feel that the u. S. Will be involved in hostilities. That is the issue, i believe we must meet our commitment to formosa. I support it and the islands. The treaty does not include these two islands. Mr. Nixon suggest that the United States should go to war if these islands are attacked. I suggest that if formosa is attacked or any area that formosa, an attack on then of course the United States is at war. What mr. Nick some wants to do us to theed commit defense of these islands, when they are free territory and not part of the defense of formosa. The commander of the adriatic fleet has said these islands are not worth the bones of a single american. They are not within the treaty area. They were not within the treaty area when the treaty was passed in 1955. Spoken with china about reducing the number of troops he has on the islands. Bill the next question is percent of the kennedy. St you said that it is important that the United States builds its strength. What sort of long period you envisage before there can be a summit conference, and do you think there can be any new initiatives on the ground of Nuclear Disarmament or weapons control during this period . Kennedy i think we should strengthen our conventional forces. We should increase the increase. He airlift capacity it may be a long period but we must get started immediately. I must say that i feel that another effort must be made by a new administration in january of 1961 to renew negotiations with the soviet union and see whether it is 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 capacity. There are indications that because of new inventions that 1020 nations will have nuclear capacity, including red china, by the end of the president ial office in 1964. This is extremely serious. Of not makingce every effort we could make to provide for some control over these weapons i think would be a great mistake. One of my disagreements with the present administration is that i dont feel a real effort has been made on the sensitive subject not only of nuclear control the general disarmament. People in the federal government have been working on this problem. I believe it is reflected on our successes and failures in geneva. We may not be able to get satisfactory assurance, and maybe necessary for us to begin testing again, but i hope that the next administration will make one last great effort to provide control of Nuclear Testing and Nuclear Weapons, and if possible, control of outer space free from Nuclear Weapons. If we cannot succeed we must strengthen ourselves, but i would make the effort, because i think the state of the world and future and human race is involved in defense preventing a nuclear war. Nixon im going to make a major speech on the subject next week before the next debate. I will have an opportunity then to answer questions which may arise with regard to my position on it. There is no question but that we must move forward and every possible way to reduce the danger of war and move toward controlled disarmament. This,so lets have in mind when senator kennedy suggests we have not been making an effort, he does not know hes been talking about. It is not the number of people working in an administration, it is a matter of who they are. This is one of the highest level operations. We have gone the extra mile and then some and making offers to the soviet union on disarmament. We should make a great effort, but under no circumstances must the United States ever make an agreement based on trust. There must be an absolute guarantee. That inkennedy forgets the same beat debate about the formosa resolution, he voted against an amendment, and in this amendment, which passed the senate overwhelmingly, it puts the senate of the United States on record with the majority of the senators on party holding fort for it, put them on record against the very position the senator takes now of surrendering or indicating in advance that the United States will not defend the offshore islands. Bill the next question is by mr. Drummond for Vice President nixon. Panelist i would like to raise another aspect of the same question. It is my understanding that president eisenhower never and matsuthat hanoi could be defended under all circumstances is a matter of principle. I heard secretary dulles at a press conference in 1958 say that he thought it was a mistake for shanghai scheck to deploy troops to these islands. What has led you to take what appears to be a different position on this subject . Nixon referring to the secretary dulles and his press conference, i think if you read it all, you will find that he also indicated in the press conference that when the troops are withdrawn from hanoi, the implication was that someone could be better defended. There is not enough heavy artillery. I dont think there is any indication that keneally and matsu should not be defended. As far as president eisenhower is concerned, i have often heard him discuss this question, as i related a moment ago, the president has always indicated that we must not make the mistake in dealing with dictators, and indicating we will make a concession at the point of a gun. Whatever you do that, inevitably the dictator is encouraged to try it again. First it will be these islands, next it may be formosa. What will we do then . My point is this, once you follow this course of action of indicating youre not going to defend a particular area, the inevitable result is that it encourages a man who is determined to congress a world to press you to the point of no return. That means war. We went through this tragic experience leading to world war ii and learned our lesson again in korea. We must not learned again. Again learnd it again. Senator johnson was among those who rejected the position. The senate was right because they knew the lessons of history. I would trust that senator kennedy would change his position on it, change it because as long as he is a major president ial candidate, he continues to suggest that we turn over these islands, he is only encouraging the aggressors to press the United States to the point where war would be inedible. Inevitable. The road to war is always paved with good intentions. We are not quite have peace by giving an and indicating in advance that we are not going to defend what has become a symbol of freedom. Kennedy i dont think it is possible for mr. Nexen to state the record. Facts. Distorted the fromress conference secretary dulles says that we dis this colluded those cluded those islands from the treaty. That does not commit us to defend that area. I completely sustain the treaty, i voted for it, i would take any action necessary to defend the treaty, formosa, and the pesky door islands. The islands are not within the treaty area, and i do not in 1955, the administration was continuing to try and dissuade in 1959. To go to war to me would seem a tragic mistake. I stand with the secretary of state who said these islands are indefensible. Attack formosa, they know it would mean a war. I would not hand over control of these islands under any wing of gun, but the treaty is very precise. Off theher islands are coast of china, and i would question why nixon is questioning the defense of these islands and not the communist control of cuba. The chairman of the Republican National committee declared earlier this week that you owed Vice President nixon and the Republican Party a public apology for some strong charges made by former president harry truman who bluntly suggested where the Republican Party could go. To think you own apology . Mr. Edy i must say that truman has his method of expressing things. He has been in politics for 50 years and been president of the United States. I dont think there is anything that i can say to resident truman that is going to cause him at the age of 76 to change his particular speaking pattern. Perhaps mrs. Truman can, but i cannot. Any comment, mr. Vice president . Nixon i think so. Both senator kennedy and i have ire. Had mr. Trumans i do want to see one thing, we all have tempers. But when a man is president of the United States or a former president , he has an obligation not to lose his temper in public. One thing ive noted as i have traveled around the country is the tremendous number of children who come out see the president ial candidates. Theirmothers Holding Babies up so they can see a man who might be president of the United States. I know senator kennedy sees them, too. It makes you realize that whoever is president is going to be a man who all of the children of america will either look up to or down to. I can only say that im very proud that president eisenhower restored dignity and decency, and frankly, good language and good conduct to the presidency of the United States. I only hope it should i win this election, that i can approach president eisenhower in maintaining the dignity of the office, in seeing to it that whenever any mother or father talks to his child, he can look to the man in the white house, and whatever he may think of his policies, he can say, there is a man who maintains the kind of personal standards that i would want my child staff. Vice president , i would like to return to the area of dealing with the communists. Critics have claimed that on at least three occasions in recent years, on the sending of american troops in indochina american troops to indochina, and the flight of the u2 in may, and our commitment to the offshore islands, you have overstated the administrative position, that you have taken a more bellicose position in president eisenhower. Just two days ago you said that you called on senator kennedy to serve notice around the world that we will not concede one inch more anyplace, when we did retreat from the balkan islands. Nixon of course it is a criticism that is being made. I have supported the administrations position and i think that position has been correct. I think my position is been correct. As far as indochina was concerned, i stated over and over that it was essential during that. During that period that we would not tolerate indochina falling under communist domination. As a result of our taking a strong stand, the civil war was ended, and today at least in the south of indochina, the communist have moved out and we have a strong, free area there. I would like to point out that i have been supporting the president s position on u2s throughout. I think he was correct in ordering these flights and correct in his decision to continue the flight while the process was going on. A discussion that senator kennedy had shortly after his statement about regret, that he made the statement that he felt these particular flights were ones that should not have occurred at that time, and the indication was how mr. Khrushchev what felt how we would have felt if mr. Khrushchev had a flight over the United States while he was visiting here . Communistswer is the espionage goes on all the time. The answer is that the United States cannot afford to have an espionage lapse or intelligence lag. Referring to your question about i amffshore islands, what against is the constant reference of surrendering these islands. The senator forgets to point out that the key vote in a boat i have referred to many times is one that rejected his position. That thew senators knew that you should not indicate to the communists in advance you will surrender an area. Because they know as senator kennedy will have to know that if you do that, you encourage them to more aggression. Kennedy on indochina, mr. Nick to and talked about putting american voice boys into indochina. On the question of the u2 flights, i thought the u2 flight in may just before the conference was a mistake and timing because of the hazards involved if the summit had any hope of success. I never criticized the u2 flights in general. I know that espionage continues to go on on both sides. After the u2 flights, the president indicated the fights were going on even though the administration had canceled the flight on may 12. Number three, the Vice President suggest we should keep the communist in doubt as to whether we should fight. Het is not what hes saying, is indicating we should fight for these islands come what may because they are, in his words, in the area free. In the area of freedom. He did not take this position in other areas, including cuba. Im merely saying that the United States should meet its commitments to formosa. The admiral has indicated that these islands we are talking about are not worth the bones of a single american soldier. I think we should make it very clear, mr. Nixon is extending the commitment. Panelist mr. Kennedy, adam powell, in the course of his speaking tour on your behalf is saying, the ku klux klan is rising again in this campaign. If it does not stop, all bigots will vote for nixon and all right thinking christians and jews will vote for kennedy rather than be found in the ranks of the klanminded. Governor tsao is saying much the same thing. What i would like to ask is what is the purpose of this sort of thing and how you feel about it . Clandy the head of the has indicated in a statement that he was not going to vote for me, that he would vote for mr. Nixon. Suggest that this indicates mr. Nixon has the slightest sympathy, involvement or in any way or any inferences, involvement with the ku klux klan. This wholenows that suggestedt ive never he has done anything but disapprove of this. That is what i do now, i disapprove the issue, i do not suggest that mr. Next dozen anyway. Nixon i welcome this opportunity to join senator kennedy in that statement and say before this Largest Television audience in history, something ive been saying in the past and will always see in the future. In our last debate, i pointed out that it was my position that americans must choose the best man that either party can produce. We cannot settle for anything but the best. That of course means the