CNN

August 10, 1992

Larry King Live

Doomsday - Should We Still Prepare?

BYLINE: LARRY KING;

SECTION: News; Domestic

LENGTH: 8185 words

HIGHLIGHT: With the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the threat of a
massive nuclear exchange receding, should the U.S. abandon plans for civil defense;
or is the world still too unstable and unsafe a place?

ANNOUNCER: Welcome to Larry King Live. Tonight: Unearthing secret strategies for
enduring the unthinkable, nuclear war - who and what the Government planned to
save from world war III, and how the survivors would have lived. Plus, Garry
Shandling takes on talk shows in a funny new blend of the real and the surreal. Now,
here's Larry King.

LARRY KING: Good evening from Washington - the start of another night, another
week of Larry King Live.

A couple of notes: We will be at the Republican convention all next week, and air
time for Larry King Live from Houston will be 5:00 P.M. Eastern Time because, of
course, at 9:00 P.M., the regular starting time, the CNN cameras will be at the
podium - 5:00 P.M. in Houston. We will do a special on the eve of the convention this
Sunday night at 9:00.

Imagine a nuclear attack on Washington, D.C. For decades, officials in this city did
more than imagine it. They dreamed up ways to survive it. The President, Cabinet
members, Supreme Court justices, and lawmakers - even the Declaration of
Independence and selected works of art would have been sealed into massive
bunkers in the nearby country side. It cost the taxpayers millions, but most
taxpayers would have been locked out. Only now, in the aftermath of the cold war,
are we learning the extent of doomsday preparations for the powerful, after the idea
of saving the general population has been virtually abandoned.

Here tonight is J. Leo Bourassa. Mr. Bourassa, a retired military official, ran an
underground city that would have been a seat of the United States Government after
a nuclear strike. And also here is Ted Gup, author of a recent Time magazine cover
story on doomsday planning. We'll be joined soon by a member of Congress who has
to decide what to do with these shelters, now that the threat has receded. Leo
Bourassa was director of what they called the Mount Weather station.

What was that?

J. LEO BOURASSA, Former Director, Mount Weather Station: That was a station up
in northern Virginia that had good, firm underground rock that we could operate
from that would give us a reasonable amount of security for detonations.

KING: What was under there? Had you built things?

Mr. BOURASSA: Oh, yes, yes.

KING: Like?

Mr. BOURASSA: Originally, the thing started as a Bureau of Mines mine for testing,
for testing their mining equipment. And then, we took it over in 1955- '45. And we
then converted it into an underground installation having hard communications
capability.

KING: How were you involved?

Mr. BOURASSA: In this way. Prior to my coming there, I worked for the OEP, the
Office of Emergency Planning. And we went out to the states to alert the states to
the possibility of nuclear war. Now, it's pretty hard to imagine the damage of a
nuclear war if you haven't been in one. Now, the thing we did was try to get all of
the state governors to form an area of having a secure communications capability.

KING: Did you succeed?

Mr. BOURASSA: Oh, yes. Yes.

KING: Every state has some doomsday backup?

Mr. BOURASSA: Yes, to some degree. Of course, you understand, over the years
some of it may have melted off, but I don't think so.

KING: All right. Was this a secret?

Mr. BOURASSA: Yes.

KING: Why would it be a secret from us?

Mr. BOURASSA: Well, there were a lot of things. First of all, as important as the site
was to what we wanted to do, we had to protect it, not make it a target or an
invitation. Now, I don't say that the Russians didn't know it was there, but why alert
all the other infiltrators that could come in and give you some hard times? Well, now,
we did organize the states. That's there, even to this day. Now-

KING: Every state had something?

Mr. BOURASSA: Well, I'm going to say this with tongue in cheek, because I think
so. I know that most of the states I know about have it. Now, that's the residue.
That's the fallout from the original intent. Now, the original intent was that we had to
save the population. Now, let's say the city of Washington, D.C., was hit- or some
other city. I don't care where.

KING: All right, Seattle.

Mr. BOURASSA: All right, take it. If that was hit, not everybody would be killed, but
a good part of them would be killed, if not from the exact point of identification of
the strike, maybe from the fallout. That's just as dangerous. So with this in mind, we
had an idea to try to see if we could inform the people that there was still a
Government surviving. The worst thing you could do was to take a bunch of people
who had been hurt and segregate them or-

KING: So it was important that the governor of Washington, the mayor of Seattle,
key officials stay alive, and in Washington-

Mr. BOURASSA: And be able to talk to Washington.

KING: Right. And in Washington, that the President be alive, and the Vice President,
right?

Mr. BOURASSA: Yes, our recognized President, yes-

KING: All right.

Ted Gup, of Time magazine, how did you latch onto this as a story of 1992?

TED GUP, 'Time' Magazine Correspondent: Well, as a child of the cold war - I was
born in 1950 - I've had a lifelong interest, perhaps obsession, in this subject. Even
as a child, I wanted to know what were the plans for survival and who it was that
was to be rescued and what was to be rescued. Only now, really, can the story be
told.

KING: Because?

Mr. GUP: Because of the relaxation in world tensions, the demise of the Soviet
Union, and the perception that a threat of a massive nuclear exchange is, at least for
the time being, relegated to the past.

KING: How did you get the story?

Mr. GUP: I've been working on and off on this story for several years, but in a more
concentrated effort over the last year. And, basically, I've used a lot of presidential
libraries, U.S. archives, former military officials, civilian officials. I've probably
interviewed several hundred people over the course of the last year.

KING: Did Mr. Bourassa do a good job?

Mr. GUP: Yes. You know, I have to tell you that it's very easy in hindsight from 1992
to view this all as preposterous or ridiculous. We do so with a sigh of relief. But if we
look at the times from the perspective of the '50s and '60s, these were fellows who
were, by and large, real patriots, with backgrounds in OSS, SAC, and other very
secret services, who devoted their lives in pursuit of trying to preserve the continuity
of Government. And not even their families knew what they did for a living. And I
have to tell you that I have profound respect for these people.

KING: Even though some young people might think of a 'Strangelovian' kind of
aspect to it?

Mr. GUP: You know, I certainly had those associations, just from the movies and
books. But as I got into this area, I found no one that fit that description.

KING: Now, the question is: What do we do with it now?

Mr. GUP: Well, that's a good question. The world is not necessarily safer today.
There are not fewer nuclear weapons; there are more fingers near the buttons. You
still have the threat of nuclear proliferation, the resurgence of nationalism, the
potential for terrorism. What has apparently passed for the time being is the notion
of a massive nuclear exchange by a superpower.

KING: So do you keep doomsday operations going?

Mr. GUP: Well, I think that there's a need for something. I think that secrecy has not
only shrouded this vast shadow government from the perceived enemy, but also
from the American public, and I think it needs to be subjected to intense scrutiny. I
think that there was a desire to keep this not only from the Soviets, but from the
American people.

KING: Was it a tough secret to keep, Leo?

Mr. BOURASSA: Terrible. [laughs]

KING: I'll bet.

Mr. BOURASSA: Well, imagine, all the people that you have in your normal social
life, your family. You're very careful with what you have to say because your kids go
to school with the other kids.

KING: Now, every day you would go to an underground place, right?

Mr. BOURASSA: That's right.

KING: Well, when your wife wanted to call you, how did she call you? Did she have a
number?

Mr. BOURASSA: She knew how to call me.

KING: She just didn't know where you were?

Mr. BOURASSA: That's- No, she knew where I was.

KING: She knew?

Mr. BOURASSA: She didn't know what I was doing, but she knew where I was.

KING: What did she think you were doing?

Mr. BOURASSA: Well, she thought I was working for the Government in an
installation, of course, that wasn't connected with nuclear warfare.

KING: We'll come back. We'll be joined by Congressman Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma.
He is chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee. He has some thoughts
on what we do with it now. And we'll look back at it, and we'll take your phone calls,
as well.

And Garry Shandling is still to come, and Willem Dafoe [sp?] will be here tomorrow
night. And don't go away. We'll be right back.

[Commercial break]

KING: Welcome back to Larry King Live.

Our guests are Leo Bourassa - he was associated with the top-secret Mount
Weather station for 30 years and was once its director; Ted Gup, the Time magazine
correspondent who wrote the August 10th cover story, 'The Doomsday Blueprints.'
We're now joined by Congressman Dave McCurdy. The Oklahoma Democrat is
chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee and a member of the Armed
Services Committee, and both committees have to deal with this.

First, did you know anything about this?

Rep. DAVE McCURDY (D-OK), Intelligence Committee: Well, we've known about
continuity of Government programs for some time.

KING: But did you know anything about stations?

Rep. McCURDY: Well, it's highly classified but, yes, there have been plans for some
time. And I think the fact that some of these earlier reports have come out now
about the post-Eisenhower days and the activities of Mr. Bourassa and others has
become rather common knowledge. And especially, we know about what the Soviets
were doing.

KING: Did you also learn from reading the Time story?

Rep. McCURDY: Well, more of a historical perspective, and I thought it was an

interesting piece.

KING: Now what?

Rep. McCURDY: Well, I think it's time to reassess all these programs that were
associated with the cold war, and I think both the administration and Congress are
conducting that assessment.

KING: What does that mean?

Rep. McCURDY: Well, it means: Where do we go from here?

KING: It's a good political word, 'reassess,' but what does it mean?

Rep. McCURDY: Well, it means that it's now time to review the budgets and see at
what level do you need some planning against an instance that's probably not going
to happen - the likelihood of a nuclear war against us?

KING: Would you disband Mount Weather?

Rep. McCURDY: I think what you do is you mothball. You go into programs at a
much reduced level. But to close up any plants, whatsoever, I think would be foolish.

KING: But you'd mothball.

You said 'No'?

Mr. BOURASSA: I wouldn't, not at this point, no.

KING: What are we in danger of?

Mr. BOURASSA: I want to make one other correction to what you said. I was the
director of the site for five years. Then I was the executive reservist, on call to the
site for 10 years.

KING: OK.

Mr. BOURASSA: So that gives me 15 years, but not there permanently because, in
the meantime, we've had a couple of other directors - and good men.

KING: All right. Why wouldn't you mothball?

Mr. BOURASSA: Now, we are making use of a lot of materials if it's a fallout. For
instance, the FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, goes out and does
relief work in all of these natural disasters throughout the country. And they're all
associated with this system. There's direct communications to every state governor
from the unit, and we can make some use for giving better assistance to the people
of the United States.

Rep. McCURDY: Well, first of all, Larry, when I say 'mothball,' I think there's a draw-
down on most of those strategic programs that occurred. But we even saw recently
where the House of Representatives had a supposed site at a facility in Virginia,
itself, which was ludicrous. It was a well-kept secret for a number of years.

KING: Do you think the public would be ticked to know that the House was going to
live and they were going to go?

Rep. McCURDY: I'm not sure the House would have lived, and I'm not sure members
would have packed up to go to such a facility.

KING: What feeling do you get from the constituency now on this?

Rep. McCURDY: Well, you know, I don't think they blame Government for trying to
plan with the existing knowledge that was there at the time.

KING: It's silly not to plan, isn't it?

Rep. McCURDY: That's right, and they should have planned. And it was part of the
deterrent posture. And that is, if the Soviets knew that we were going to continue
Government, there was a possibility of retaliatory strikes. Then the deterrent
posture, even though it was called MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction - remained
viable. And so it was important to have that kind of plan.

KING: All right, I want to get some phone calls in.

Ted, what do you think about this thin line here between mothballing and not
mothballing?

Mr. GUP: Well, I do think that there has to be a substantial reassessment or review
of the facilities and the programs and the plans. The legacy of the cold war of the
'50s and '60s is pegged in many ways to a very outdated technology when it was
long-range bombers, not intercontinental ballistic missiles; when there was more
advanced warning, less precision, lighter payloads. I mean, it's a different world, and
I think we need to fundamentally reassess this whole area.

KING: Let's go to some phone calls for Leo Bourassa, formerly with Mount Weather
station; Ted Gup of Time magazine; and Congressman Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma.

We go to Madrid, Spain. Hello.

1st CALLER: [Madrid, Spain] Hello. Good evening. My question was- I recently read it
in a Spanish newspaper article that any person who tried to get into these bunkers
that they had was supposed to be shot, and only the people who were important
enough to go in there were allowed in there and anyone else would be shot who tried
to get in there.

KING: True, Leo?

Mr. BOURASSA: Not so. Anybody who tried to force his way in there, not knowing
whether they were saboteurs or what they were, they might be, yes. But to say
they'd just shoot civilians that are running to see their fathers or their sons that
might be in there - That's silly!

KING: Now, Ted, you wrote that they would have been shot, right?

Mr. GUP: What I wrote was that, if people tried to get in in a real crisis moment and
their names did not appear on the roster, that in order to preserve order and prevent
chaos at the facilities, that there were orders to preserve order at any cost. And I
would refer this one to Leo. He knows better than I do. But I do think that the peril
of losing control in a situation like this would have brought about some pretty dire
exigencies.

KING: Amsterdam, Holland, hello.

2nd CALLER: [Amsterdam, The Netherlands] Hello. This is Jan Kilus [sp?] from
Contact Network International, Holland.

KING: Yes.

2nd CALLER: My question is, what is the FEMA involvement in this major plan? And
also, I want to know, if there is a global money crisis, will there be a new world
order, and what will be the new constitution of that new world order?

KING: That's the federal monetary, right?

Mr. BOURASSA: Yes, apparently.

KING: What do you know about that, Leo?

Mr. BOURASSA: I don't know very much about that particular agency.

KING: Do you know, Congressman?

Rep. McCURDY: No.

KING: You don't know.

Do you know, Ted?

Mr. GUP: No, I'll decline on that one.

KING: You mean, we have no answer for our friend from Amsterdam?

Rep. McCURDY: Well, I think his question- The first part of the question was
regarding FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And that works for
both natural disasters and disasters through war. And it's important to have some
civil defense, but it's not nearly as sophisticated as what the Soviets or others have
planned.

KING: If a bomb were on the way, there was a plan to go- Someone went, got the
President, took him to this place; got the Vice President?

Mr. BOURASSA: To one of many places. He didn't have one single place to go to. He
had many choices. The one that he happened to be the closest to, that's where he
went.

Now, after the fact, after the weapon went off- Let's assume he survived someplace.
Now to come back to our place where there was the-

KING: Communications-

Mr. BOURASSA: -communications to the rest of the country is now-

KING: How long would they have lived down there?

Mr. BOURASSA: Oh, for months.

KING: Could have lived?

Mr. BOURASSA: Yes, sure.

KING: Stocked, storehouse, food?

Mr. BOURASSA: Yes. Yes.

KING: Everything there, Ted?

Mr. GUP: Everything, and more. That facility could have accommodated thousands of
people. They would have rotated the bunks. They would have been working very
long shifts. There was a crematorium to dispose of bodies, people that had been
killed from either blast burns or radiation. It was a remarkably sophisticated and
complete facility, and one of several around the country.

KING: I've got to take a break-

Rep. McCURDY: And minor compared to what the Soviets were planning.

KING: What they were doing?

Rep. McCURDY: And what they had in underground cities.

KING: How many in Congress knew of this?

Rep. McCURDY: A small number.

KING: We'll be right back with more phone calls.

Garry Shandling is still to come. And William Dafoe- Willem Dafoe- you want to say
'William,' don't you? - Willem Dafoe tomorrow night. This is Larry King Live. We'll be
right back.

[Commercial break]

KING: The Congressman was just saying, this is one of the best-kept secrets- This
ranks with the Manhattan Project in being kept secret.

Santa Maria, California, with Leo Bourassa, Ted Gup, and Dave McCurdy. Hello.

3rd CALLER: [Santa Maria, California] Hello. Just a quick comment, Larry. I think it's
exceedingly important that we maintain these facilities. People are under the
impression in this country that the nuclear arms race is over, and that isn't true. As
long as the technology remains, there is that chance, and we must maintain the
Union, at all costs.

KING: Leo agrees-

Right?

Mr. BOURASSA: I agree with that 100 percent - 100 percent.

KING: Congressman, you don't?

Rep. McCURDY: No, I agree that there will be a draw-down. I think it's
commensurate with the draw-down in the nuclear weapons. As long as you have an
agreement with the Soviets and they're taking it down in that range, I think we
reassess what the wartime status is.
KING: Ted?

Mr. GUP: Well, I think we live in a very unstable world and we need to take some
precautions. I think what we need to do is review the nature of those precautions,
fundamentally.

KING: Sprague River, Oregon, hello.

4th CALLER: [Sprague River, Oregon] Yes, Larry - love your show.

KING: Thank you.

4th CALLER: We're wondering how old the Congressman was while we were digging
bomb shelters and storing water and food down in a big hole?

Rep. McCURDY: I was doing 'duck-and-cover' in grade school, as well. In 1960 or '61
during the missile crisis, I learned from the story that Ted wrote, they didn't go on
an alert at that point. And that may have been one of the most critical periods in our
history.

KING: What's the pertinence of the question, caller?

4th CALLER: What is what?

KING: Why is it pertinent as to what age the Congressman is?

4th CALLER: Oh, you know, it's like what happened in World War II and all the rest.
We have these young people that- You know, they're experts on everything. But
they weren't there.

KING: Well, we can't do anything about that. [laughs]

4th CALLER: No. [laughs]

Rep. McCURDY: First of all, to the caller and others, the fact of the matter is that
there's not been any dismantling. The fact is that as we- What I talked about is
reassessment of what our strategy is vis--vis nuclear weapons and the draw-down
and the questions over a draw-down over a period of time.

KING: A lot of that equipment down there must be a little antiquated, huh?

Mr. BOURASSA: No, no, no, no.

KING: It's all kept up to-

Mr. BOURASSA: It's been gradually updated. It's been gradually updated. Now, you
understand, as an executive reservist, I was not a direct commander. I was there to
brief myself to stay up to date in case I was called.

KING: Do we know what the Russians are going to do with theirs?

Rep. McCURDY: No, but the Russians had very elaborate systems and they continue
to be in place.
KING: They were scared, too.

Rep. McCURDY: Oh, well, they planned for wartime survival, and I think that was a
very real impetus for our continued planning, as well.

KING: Boise, Idaho, hello.

5th CALLER: [Boise, Idaho] Hello, Larry.

KING: Hi.

5th CALLER: There was kind of a Dr. Strangelove kind of rumor that there were plans
to repopulate the country after a war and that clean individuals - 'clean individuals' -
would be used to do this. And were there plans to reeducate, bring children up
underground, that sort of thing?

KING: Leo?

Mr. BOURASSA: Do you see all this gray hair? [laughs] I'm not going to- It's a
result of that.

Of course, not. There was no plan for that type of thing at all. The thing was
immediate survival, and then to try to recover, rebuild, and go.

KING: OK, Buffalo, New York, hello.

6th CALLER: [Buffalo, New York] Buffalo, New York?

KING: Yes, sir.

6th CALLER: Yes, I worked at the underground Pentagon in 1957.

KING: Uh-huh.

6th CALLER: I just wonder if either of those gentlemen knows about that? That's
question one. And then, question two would be: Where do you draw the line on
secrecy?

KING: Ted, did you know about the underground Pentagon?

Mr. GUP: Uh-huh, I did, if he's referring to Site R, or Raven Rock.

KING: Is that what you're referring to, sir?

6th CALLER: I'm sorry, I had the volume up. What was it again?

KING: OK, Site R, or Raven Rock.

6th CALLER: This was at Fort Ritchie, just north of-

Mr. GUP: Yes.

KING: Yes, Ted is aware of it.

Mr. GUP: Right, that's the joint alternate command post.

KING: Right. And your question, sir, is: Where do we draw the line?

6th CALLER: Yes, given all of the problems that we have with secrecy in recent
political issues, internationally and locally, where does one draw the line for the
public's benefit?

KING: Congressman?

Rep. McCURDY: Well-

KING: That's a good question.

Rep. McCURDY: It is a good question. And, as a matter of fact, tonight we're talking
about the one article and the story that Mr. Bourassa is discussing, as opposed to
current plans and where we are today. I think the article was illustrative of a period
of time, technology that was known at that period of time. It's clear that there's
been changes and updates over time, but it is and continues to be a very closely-
held secret.

KING: How did you do it, Leo?

Stafford, Virginia, hello.

7th CALLER: [Stafford, Virginia] Good evening, Larry and gentlemen. How are you
doing?

KING: Hi.

7th CALLER: I have a question about the retreat in West Virginia at the Greenbriar.
Exactly what are the plans for the future for it, other than maybe mothballing? And
when has it been used? Has it ever been used? Has anyone ever occupied the thing,
thinking that something had come down?

KING: Anyone?

Rep. McCURDY: Well, you're talking about a closely-held secret. There's probably two
or three members of Congress that knew about it, and it never did leak out.

KING: Never used it?

Rep. McCURDY: No.

KING: No?

Rep. McCURDY: And the Pentagon is going to determine what the use should be.

KING: Let me get in one more call, quickly.

Arlington, Virginia, hello.

BOB CLARK (8th CALLER): [Arlington, Virginia] Hi, Larry. This is Bob Clark [sp?] of
ABC.

KING: Hi.

Mr. CLARK: [on telephone] I wanted to disperse a little of the mystery, here. I was
at Mount Weather twice - once with President Eisenhower, once with President
Johnson. The only mystic part of it, we were all supposed to leave our families in the
event of a nuclear attack on Washington. Nobody would have done that. But
hundreds of people knew when we went along with the Presidents.

KING: But you didn't write about it, right, or broadcast it?

Mr. CLARK: [on telephone] No, it was all off the record. But we went there once with
Eisenhower, who held a full Cabinet meeting there.

KING: Why do you think it didn't spread?

Mr. CLARK: [on telephone] Why what?

KING: Why was it kept so well a secret, then?

Mr. CLARK: [on telephone] Well, it was off the record, and people abided by off-the-
record confidences in those days, and still would today.

Rep. McCURDY: Well, an important point, too, is it was in the national interest to
maintain that. It was not seen as anything sinister or anything against the American
public.

KING: And you think it still would be held today, too?

Mr. BOURASSA: If the system was the same, yes.

KING: Yes. Thank you all very much. Thanks for calling, Bob. We thank you very
much, Leo Bourassa, Ted Gup, and Congressman Dave McCurdy.

We'll be back with Garry Shandling. He's going to start a new TV show this fall. It's
based on a talk show - the host's name is 'Larry.' We'll be right back.