Voices From the Grave:
Admiral Rickover’s Nukes Warning: ‘We’ll Probably Destroy Ourselves’

Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, who died in 1986, was among the more outspoken, abrasive, often controversial and innovative military leaders in the nation’s history. If Winston Churchill was the founder of Britain’s oil-powered Navy, Rickover was the founder of America’s nuclear-powered Navy. When Rickover died, President Reagan President marked his “commitment to excellence and uncompromising devotion to duty,” and President carter, who had served under Rickover as a naval officer before becoming commander in chief, noted how Rickover “deplored nuclear power’s use for destruction and, as a pioneer, was responsible for its use for peaceful purposes.”




Rickover last appeared before a congressional committee–the Joint Economic Committee–on Jan. 28, 1982, four days before his retirement. It would prove to be one of his most notable appearances. Both a farewell and a warning, Rickover’s remarks, and especially his remarkable exchange with Sen. William Proxmire, the Wisconsin Democrat, evoked Eisenhower’s farewell address in 1961, when he warned: “This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.”

Rickover went a step further and warned of the danger posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear power, predicted that the human race was on its way to extinction by nuclear conflagration, and deemed “silly” any talk of multiplying the Navy’s fleet, or even its aircraft carriers, which he said would last two days in a nuclear confrontation. There was knowing irony in Rickover’s declarations: an Annapolis classmate had been aboard the Enola Gay, arming the atomic bomb before it dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945.

Here are notable parts of Rickover’s exchange with Proxmier. The full hearing’s transcript is at the foot of the article.

SENATOR PROXMIER. A big issue in this country today is how much we’re spending for defense. It is an issue that relates to our economic health. It is an issue that relates, of course, also to our military security. In your opinion, as one who has served in the military, as Senator Jackson said, longer than perhaps any man in history and certainly with great excellence, are we spending more than we need to spend on national defense? Is it possible to spend such amounts well or is the pace of the buildup too fast?




Admiral RICKOVER. I believe we are spending too much, sir.

PROXMIRE. You think we are spending too much?

RICKOVER. I think we are spending too much. I think we should be more selective in our spending. There are certain areas from where it is obvious danger is going to come if it does come. I believe we should concentrate on those areas. When anyone has a large business establishment, it is self-limiting because, if it expands too far, too fast, you stop making a profit. In Government there is no such limitation and there is little strict scrutiny, sir. […]

For example, take the number of nuclear submarines. I will hit right close to home. I see no reason why we must have just as many as the Russians. At a certain point there is sufficiency. What is the difference whether we have 100 nuclear submarines or 200? I do not see what difference it makes. We can sink everything on the oceans several times over with the number we have, and so can they. That is the point I am making. There has to be some judgment used. Submarines are very expensive items. They take a lot of time and money to build-taxpayers’ money. I am not giving you any party line. I believe you asked me for what I personally believe.

PROXMIRE. Let me get specific on the nuclear submarines. We now have 91 submarines.

RICKOVER. We have more than that. We now have 121.




PROXMIRE. I was talking about attack submarines.

RICKOVER. I will give you the total. We have 33 ballistic missile submarines including one Trident; 88 nuclear attack submarines which includes 7 converted ballistic missile submarines. We have 21 additional attack submarines and 8 additional Tridents authorized. If you add the operational and authorized attack submarines, that is enough. What are we going to do with more? We need to continue to build submarines to maintain an adequate level and to replace those that wear out or become obsolete. However, the way we design them and build submarines now, they should last for 30 years. [See today’s submarine fleet facts here.]

PROXMIRE. There is talk about redundancy. There is a feeling that if we do not have more than we would seem to need that maybe what we have would be able to be detected, located, and destroyed, and would put us in a position where we wouldn’t have the ability to retaliate after a first strike by the Soviet Union.

RICKOVER. How far do you want to carry this? You are asking me for my opinion. I believe I have reasonably good judgment in this particular matter because I started the game. I do not think it is necessary to keep on adding all the time if you have achieved an adequate force. That is very expensive and takes much of the taxpayers’ money. I mentioned earlier the word “sufficiency.” I am not just giving you a party line.

PROXMIRE. I understand. You see, the difficulty is that this is constantly changing, isn’t it? The military technology is moving ahead very, very rapidly. I’m wondering, is our defense buildup justified to what the Soviet Union is doing? They’re moving ahead. Have we been overtaken or will we be overtaken if we don’t increase our budget as time goes on? You say we need no more. Would that be enough for the foreseeable future?

RICKOVER. I am probably more familiar with what the Soviets are doing along this line than you are, sir.

PROXMIRE. I’m sure of that.




RICKOVER. At least I know what information we do have. I will give you another thought along that line since you are talking about military matters. In my opinion, a future naval war may well be decided under the polar ice. That probably will be the only place where submarines can operate unfettered in the future.

PROXMIRE. Let me make sure I get an answer to the question. First, is our defense buildup justified with what the Soviet Union is doing?

RICKOVER. First, I must say I am no expert on the Army or Air Force. I cannot talk about them. I can say things but they are based on my experience in other areas. I would like not to get into areas where I am not expert. But I believe I do have expertise in submarines. I do not believe it is necessary to match the Russians, submarine for submarine.

PROXMIRE. Now the Defense Department’s fiscal year 1983 budget requests funding for two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers at a construction cost of about $6 billion. It doesn’t include the cost of the planes which is considerably more than $6 billion. In fact, it’s more than twice that. Considering the capability of the Soviet submarines, how long do you think one of these aircraft carriers would last in the case of an all-out war?

RICKOVER. About 2 days.

PROXMIRE. About 2 days?

RICKOVER. Is that a direct answer?

PROXMIRE. Yes, sir. How about the whole fleet of carriers?

RICKOVER. If they are in port they will last a little longer.

PROXMIRE. How much longer?

RICKOVER. I don’t know. If you use ballistic missiles, it does not make any difference whether or not you have carriers.

PROXMIRE. Wouldn’t they be more vulnerable in port than at sea?

RICKOVER. If the enemy decided to use ballistic missiles, they probably would be.

PROXMIRE. I’m talking about a confrontation with the Soviet Union in which nuclear weapons are used.

RICKOVER. Well, if there is a confrontation with nuclear weapons, there is no point to discussing it. I think the whole military buildup is silly on both sides. It is just a waste of material. Material is important because the kind of material we use in this country and all over the world, is getting scarce and more expensive. From the human standpoint this is a very wasteful generation. We are wasting items that can never be replaced because minerals do not grow. You can replace anything that grows. But you cannot replace minerals. Even when you can find substitutes it takes a great deal of energy to use these substitutes, and energy resources are really the limiting feature of the industrial processes. I am talking from a broad philosophical standpoint. The important thing to conserve is energy because that ultimately limits us. Every form of energy, including nuclear power, creates its own adverse consequences. So we are doing things today from the standpoint of the future of the human race that are incompatible with that objective. Most people do not have enough facts to understand fully what is going on. The ordinary person depends on his legislators and Government officials. And he is making a big mistake when he does so.




[…]

PROXMIRE. What do you think the appropriate role for Government is in the civilian nuclear power?

RICKOVER. I do not believe the Government should spend money fostering nuclear power. Government should have people checking on their operation. I do not believe the Government should subsidize the development of commercial nuclear power. They have done enough now.

PROXMIRE. Admiral, civilian nuclear energy has nearly come to a standstill in this country. Will it ever become a viable source of energy in the future? In our State, for example, 30 percent of the electricity is provided by nuclear power and yet I’m told they don’t have any plans at all, any prospects, of building any further nuclear facilities.

RICKOVER. You are asking me two different questions. I will try to answer them. One, I think that ultimately we will need nuclear power because we are exhausting our nonrenewable energy resources; that is, coal and oil. I think this exhaustion will go far more rapidly than we believe. The cost is already going up. I believe that nuclear power for commercial purposes may show itself to be more economic, but that is not the only line of reasoning to consider. We must also take into account the potential damage a major release of radioactivity could cause.

I will be philosophical. Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on earth; that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn’t have any life–fish or anything. Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet and probably in the entire system reduced and made it possible for some form of life to begin, and it started in the seas, I understand from what I’ve read, and that amount of radiation has been gradually decreasing because all radiation has a half-life, which means ultimately there will be no radiation.

Now, when we go back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible. Now that is the philosophical aspect, whether it’s nuclear power or using radiation for medical purposes or whatever. Of course, those are not bad because they don’t last long, but every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has life, in some cases for billions of years, and I think there the human race is going to wreck itself, and it’s far more important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.




I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear-powered ships? That’s a necessary evil. I would sink them all. Have I given you an answer to your question?

PROXMIRE. You have certainly given me a surprising answer. I didn’t expect it and it is very logical.

RICKOVER. Why wouldn’t you expect it?

PROXMIRE. Well, I hadn’t felt that somebody who has been as close to nuclear power as you have and who has been so expert in it and advanced it so greatly would point out that, as you say, it destroys life.

RICKOVER. I am not proud–

PROXMIRE. Without eliminating it or reducing it many years ago, we couldn’t have had life on Earth. It’s fascinating.

RICKOVER. I am proud of the part I have played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of our country. That is why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war. Unfortunately, attempts to outlaw war have always failed. One lesson of history is when a war erupts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon is available. That is a lesson learned time and again. Therefore, we must expect, if another war–a serious war–were to break out, we will use nuclear energy in some form. That is due to the imperfection of human beings.

I’m not proud of the part I’ve played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of this country. That’s why I’m such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war and attempt to limit war have always failed. The lesson of history is: When a war starts, every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon has been available. That is the lesson learned time and again. Therefore, we must expect, if another war – a serious war – breaks out, we will use nuclear energy in some form. That’s due to the imperfection of human beings.

PROXMIER. What do you think is the prospect, then, of nuclear war?

RICKOVER. A. I think we will probably destroy ourselves, so what difference will it make? Some new species will come up that might be wiser. We think we are wise because we have–




PROXMIER. With that knowledge, it would seem to me that we could control, limit, reduce nuclear weapons. Everybody loses.

RICKOVER. I think from a long-range standpoint–I’m talking about humanity–the most important thing we could do is start in having an international meeting where we first outlaw nuclear weapons to start with, then we outlaw nuclear reactors, too.

PROXMIER. Do you think that’s realistic in a world with the Soviet Union?

RICKOVER. I don’t know. You’re asking me to think as a person who probably knows more about this and has thought more about it than anybody in the world. I’m trying to give you–and I think I have a reasonable mind and I can think these things through and I understand what humanity is all about and the part that human beings play on this earth. I do not believe in divine intercession. I think we are making our own bed, and we have to lie in it.

PROXMIER. So you think if we have the commitment, we can limit and reduce our arms?

RICKOVER. Yes. I remember the 1921 disarmament conference. That’s the one Charles Evans went to. The United States called that conference and it came to very significant results. There was an arms race going on. England and France and Italy were building a lot of ships and we were building a lot and it was decided and it worked and resulted in the limitation of arms. The treaty expired in 1935.

I think it would be the finest thing in the world for the President of the United States to initiate immediately another disarmament conference where we at least stop that. It can be done. They did it then. They did it for a period of 15 years. It expired in 1935, and then by that time Hitler had come to power in Germany and there was no choice of continuing it. Had it not been for him, probably the disarmament would have gone on and decreased the amount of armaments even more. But I think this is a very propitious time, when the military expenses are eating up so much money and it’s completely unproductive, and using so much of the people’s taxes. I think this is a fine thing for the President to do and I urge you, in your capacity as a Senator, to try to do so and make me a member of it. I’ll do something. Put me in charge of it, and I’ll get you some results.




PROXMIRE. I’m sure you would and I’ll do my best to help. […] Admiral, a final question. As a legacy to other Government officials who would like to achieve your record of honesty and efficiency, and the elimination of waste and fraud, but who are frustrated and defeated by superiors who want to cover up such abuses, how did you do it? How did you survive so long? What’s your secret?

RICKOVER. I never have tried to survive. Whenever I got a job to do, I knew I was getting paid for it. I also knew I was a citizen of the United States. I knew that I had come to the most marvelous country in the world, and I was always devoted to the concept of trying to do something in return for all the benefits given me by this country. That is very simple. I was paid for it, too; very well paid. So there was no sacrifice on my part.

PROXMIRE. It’s more than that. You survived and others have not. Other people have blown the whistle. Other people have called attention to abuse. Other people have protested coverups and they are gone.

RICKOVER. I have never made any particular attempt to survive. I have done as I liked. I have done my job, come hell or high water, any job I had, as soon as I got out to the Naval Academy.

admiral-rickover-testimony

 

nmmm