Sacrifice for Action

President Eisenhower has failed to disguise the grim reality of Russian scientific advancements. Intending to maintain public complacency rather than risk alarm, he dispensed a warm shower of emotional confidence. His specious argument and vague exhortations should only draw attention to the weakness of his remedies.

In an effort to reinstill faith in American military might, he listed achievements which prove beyond doubt that today's army is stronger than that which fought in World War II. Unforunately the pretext for Thursday's speech was evidence that Russian armed forces are not only more powerful than ever before but, in rocketry and perhaps other fields, more advanced than our own.

The Sputniks should serve to stimulate scientific research, even as Korea shocked the United States out of a total military lapse. Any attempt to diminish the shock effect should have been carried out with more attention to its beneficial aspects. If people are somewhat disturbed about the possibility of Soviet air and space superiority they will be more willing to pay for programs to regain a lead. If, however, they are allowed or encouraged to slip back into apathy, Russia's margin which does not depend on her public psychology, will increase.

Eisenhower said little to bring out the necessity of new financial sacrifices for a modern defense set-up. This was probably his greater error, for while Americans may accept the fact of Russia's lead, they may think his proposals sufficient without the additional spending to make them work.

The proposals themselves are a step in the right direction but, unless subsequent definition gives the new appointees more independence and support, they will fall into the tangle of interservice rivalry and irrational economizing which has already put us behind. Killian will need full Presidential backing without which his plans would succumb to inevitable Pentagon opposition.

Perhaps the most heartening item in the President's speech was his recognition of the problem of deficient scientific education. If Americans, despite the President's apparent unwillingness to inform them, sense the need for a concentrated national effort, their concern will find expression in public school emphasis on science and technology. And our hopes of overtaking the Russians ultimately rest on confidence in our ability to match their numerical production of scientists with enough better men.

If Eisenhower will take a more realistic and explicit stand and if the people will make the sacrifices such a stand demands, there need be no more lag in our technology or our teaching.