This applies also to the Red River dike mentioned in another New York Times story.

So as not to mislead you, I want to point out that the Dao River is one boundary of the transshipment facility in Nam Dinh. That facility is an approved military target. It has been bombed and a good many storage buildings have been de stroyed. The dike is adjacent to that target.

We cannot and do not state, therefore, that the dike has never been struck. Our intelligence people inform me that they have no knowledge of accidental hits on it. But they point out also that the dike is made of earth, that repairs would not be difficult and that accidental damage inflicted on it would not necessarily show up on later intelligence photography taken subsequent to the repairs. I am unaware of any charges, even by Mr. Salisbury and the Communists that dikes have been destroyed and the surrounding area flooded. It seems evident that there would be no doubt whatever had the United States targeted and deliberately attacked any dikes.

Have you any comments about that?

Mr. SALISBURY. Of course, I cannot challenge any statement that dikes are not listed as targets. I know they have said they are not. All I can say is, to repeat what I said in the story, which was that bombs had fallen on the dikes and they had to be repaired and the residents of that area believed that they were being attacked, because the bombs fell on them, and a number fell very close to the dikes, too. I happened to see some of these bomb craters myself. It is quite true, as they say, that the dikes are made of earth and they can be refilled and they have been refilled.

I also reported something which I think is fairly significant as far as the belief of the people in that area is concerned. I reported that I had seen them working on a very large supplementary dike which was designed to hold back the Dao waters if the main dike was burst, and it involved the expenditure of a great deal of manpower and effort to build this darned thing.

They also had constructed dikes in the city of Nam Dinh itself running through the city, because they obviously felt the danger was great. Now, they can be completely fooled.

We were just trying for something else, but the truth is some of the bombs did fall on the dikes, enough that they were willing to invest large amounts of manpower in this project.

Now, we might say, "Well, that is a very good military operation. We have caused them to put a lot of effort into something we were not going to attack, and if that is true, well, then, that is fine." Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

NAM DINH AS A MILITARY OBJECTIVE

Now, the letter goes on:

As you know, Nam Dinh is the third largest city in North Vietnam. It is a major trans-shipment point along the Hanoi-Dong Hoi rail line. It is on the only major highway to the south and the only rail line to the south. Major military targets within it are four: the power plant, a POL storage depot, a railroad yard and the trans-shipment installation of large size. In the trans-shipment area are many storage buildings; with it are the naval facilities for unloading from Dao River. Antiaircraft defenses are heavy, both in the city itself and in the area around it. Some anti-aircraft sites have been put in the midst of the city. In response to any suggestion that the North Vietnamese consider Nam Dinh to be without military targets, I would point out that the North Vietnamese have established more than 500 anti-aircraft weapons in the Nam Dinh air defense area.

There is a pencil notation on this letter given me which says "(including 165 in Nam Dinh itself.)"

The care taken to avoid damage to civilian areas can be indicated in another way.

The United States has flown more than 50 missions in 1965 and 1966 against military targets in the Nam Dinh area. Numbers of aircraft on each mission vary.

Mr. Salisbury made the flat statement that 89 persons have been killed in Nam Dinh. He offered no evidence to support this statement. Presumably it was given to him by his Communist hosts. Certainly he accepted it as fact and reported it as fact.

We have no possible way of ascertaining whether the figure of 89 is an accurate one. Even if we were to accept it as accurate, which we do not, we would have no way of knowing how many of those 89 civilians might have been workers in the railroad yard, the trans-shipment facility, or the other military targets.

But those who do accept the figure as legitimate must acknowledge the care taken by the United States to avoid damage to civilian areas if no more than 89 persons have been killed during more than fifty raids against military targets in and around a city of 90,000 persons-and a city heavily defended by antiaircraft weapons. (One can scarcely believe that the Communists have given Mr. Salisbury a low figure on their casualties).

Would you comment on that?

Mr. SALISBURY. I would agree that they are not likely to have given me a low figure. I would be very surprised if they did. They probably gave me a figure as close to being accurate as they could make it. I think it is a low figure myself.

They would offer, perhaps, another explanation or one in addition to the one that the Defense Department does for the reason that the casualties were so low. They would say, as they told me, that the city had been very extensively evacuated. I believe this is true since I saw large areas of the city where no one was living. They had just packed up and gone away. The population was around 90,000 before the war started. I believe it is down in the neighborhood of 30,000 or 40,000.

I think I may have reported the figure in one of my dispatches, but I do not have it in my mind at the present time.

They would also say that their antiaircraft precautions are extensive and quite effective, and I would support them on that, having seen them.

They have a very good trench and bunker system. They have excellent individual air raid shelters of the manhole type, flush concrete things that are very secure unless you get a direct hit. So I would say so far as the low loss of life is concerned, these played a factor in that low loss.

Now, so far as the bombardment of the military targets or the statement that they had no military targets in their city, this, of course, is a matter of opinion.

I was reporting, and I did report, and specifically said that the civilian officials of this city did not believe that their city contained military objectives. They described it as a textile manufacturing city, which it is in large measure, and the damage which I saw, and which I reported about, was in the area of the textile plant, also in the area of a silk plant, which has been bombed out of existence.

Now, there is no doubt in my mind that there are other things in that city, and the things which are listed there which sound quite impres

sive, undoubtedly do exist there, although they sound more impressive than they are.

To take, for example, the transshipment area they are talking about, which is adjacent to the dikes, this would appear to be not a large series of wharves and naval installations and things of that kind, but actually an open area alongside the Dao River, where stuff that is brought down in barges and things of that kind is dumped out on the shore and then reshipped. I think this is quite a legitimate military target and I have no doubt we have attacked it. I also have no doubt of the statement that they make that some of these bombs may have gone on and hit the dike or other areas around that. This is just what you would expect from bombardment.

Now we come down to the busines about the number of antiaircraft sites around Nam Dinh. I am not an intelligence officer and I could be quite wrong about what I saw. It did not appear to me that the antiaircraft installations were as dense as these statistics would lead one to believe.

I have been told since, in discussing this matter with someone who should have some opinion, that these figures relate not necessarily to Nam Dinh city but to the Nam Dinh area, and the Nam Dinh area is defined in rather broad terms; in fact, it extends right up into what I would call sort of the outskirts of Hanoi.

Now, if we take an area of that size, certainly I would not challenge the number of antiaircraft installations. It is probably true.

So far as there being a lot of them right in the city themselves, maybe they are, and I am not going to challenge a fellow who had to fly over that to get through ack-ack. He knows better than I do.

The antiaircraft installations in North Vietnam are not very well camouflaged. I saw plenty of them and I would.not have thought myself that Nam Dinh was as heavily defended as they say it is. Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

POLICY TO AVOID CIVILIAN TARGETS IN NORTH VIETNAM

The letter continues:

In summary:

No United States aircraft have been ordered to strike any civilian targets in North Vietnam at any time.

United States policy is to target military targets only. There has been no deviation from this policy.

All reasonable care is taken to avoid civilian casualties.

No official of the United States Government, to my knowledge, has even stated that there have been no civilian casualties caused by U.S. bombing of North Vietnam or that there has been no damage to any civilian areas.

In Nam Dinh are four major military targets.

Additionally, in and around it are the major highways south and the only rail line south.

The United States has not targeted such installations as textile plants, fruitcanning plants, silk factories and thread cooperatives.

No dikes have been targeted in North Vietnam, in Nam Dinh or elsewhere. We have no knowledge that any pilot has disobeyed his orders and deliberately attacked these or any other nonmilitary targets in North Vietnam.

It is impossible to avoid all damage to civilian areas, particularly in view of the concerted effort of the North Vietnamese to emplace anti-aircraft and critical military targets among the civilian population.

In view of the great strength of the United States air power, it is patently obvious that the damage would be very much greater,and, indeed, unmistakeable, had the U.S. deliberately attacked any civilian targets in Vietnam.

Would you have any comments? answered much of that.

Probably you have already

Mr. SALISBURY. It seems to me, Senator, I covered it pretty well. Senator SYMINGTON. Yes.

Mr. SALISBURY. I have no knowledge of my own that we have targeted civilian objectives, and I think any inference drawn from my dispatches that we did do that is false.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

Mr. SALISBURY. On the other hand, that the civilians feel that they are being attacked I think this is also obvious.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the Senator from Missouri yield for a question?

NORTH VIETNAM CHARGES THAT WE TARGET CIVILIAN TARGETS

Has anyone charged that our Government has deliberately targeted nonmilitary targets? I did not know that anyone has. Mr. SALISBURY. North Vietnam has charged that. charged that repeatedly.

Hanoi has

The CHAIRMAN. I thought they charged only that we hit them, not that we targeted them?

Mr. SALISBURY. They charged it?

The CHAIRMAN. Which is different?

Mr. SALISBURY. North Vietnam has specifically charged us with deliberate attacks on the civilian population.

The CHAIRMAN. That is still different from what I was trying to get at in this business of the Government having targeted a church, for example. How would Hanoi know whether the Government targeted it? They do not know, nobody here, except the President and those in his confidence, know what he targets.

Senator SYMINGTON. I am sure the President has never targeted any churches.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, but Hanoi does not know either. I did not know anyone had charged it.

Senator SYMINGTON. As long as this aspect of the subject has come, up, I would mention what a young American who has a right to talk said to me. He has had over 200 combat missions. He said the greatest proof of morale of air force and naval aviators is that when they often go over a large airfield, many miles from Hanoi and watch MIGS taking off to attack them at 6 o'clock, nobody has dropped a bomb on the field by mistake.

ACCURACY OF U.S. PILOTS

The letter says:

One final point should be made.

More than 450 United States aircraft have been shot down over North Vietnam. Many of the pilots have been rescued by the unbelievable bravery of Air Rescue Units. Many have died. Some have been captured.

These men are doing an incredible job for their country. Their morale is unsurpassed. Their skill in operating high-performance aircraft under combat conditions is unparalleled. The air defenses they face are described by top Air Force officers as the heaviest ever encountered by any pilot anywhere.

That is also true of the top naval officers, incidentally.

The discipline under which they fly is without precedent.

I know of no United States official-in Washington, in Honolulu or in Saigon-who has contended that every bomb dropped by these men in 24,000 missions over North Vietnam has impacted precisely on target.

You have asked for examples of accidental damage.

Bomb release mechanisms do not always work flawlessly. Pilots have jettisoned armed bombs in order to take evasive action to save their lives when MIG fighters are bearing in on them. Despite his skill, his training and his courage, not every pilot who sees the aircraft ahead of him burst into flames as a result of enemy fire always delivers his own weapons with surgical accuracy. Each day announcements have been made of the number of missions flown over North Vietnam. Periodically, the total losses of United States aircraft have been made public. The total ordnance tonnage delivered in Vietnamhundreds of thousands of tons-has been disclosed. While military security prevents disclosure of the exact weight of effort, the general magnitude of it is known to everyone.

United States pilots who are flying these missions over this heavily defended territory and dropping these amounts of bombs under the most stringent controls in the history of air warfare are performing magnificently.

I hope that this information answers your questions. Please let me know if I can be of additional assistance.

Have you any comments?

Mr. SALISBURY. No.

MILITARY IMPORTANCE OF PHU LY

Senator SYMINGTON. Another letter is to Mr. Frank Leonard of New York City. It says:

You have asked for comment on another one of Mr. Harrison Salisbury's Hanoi stories. You point out that on December 27 last he stated in the New York Times that "every house and building" in the town of Phu Ly had been destroyed by United States bombing. The relevant paragraphs about Phy [sic] Ly read:

"A notable example is Phuly, a town about 35 miles south of Hanoi on Route 1. The town had a population of about 10,000. In attacks on October 1, 2 and 9, every house and building was destroyed. Only 40 were killed and wounded because many people had left town and because an excellent manhole-shelter system was available.

"The community had no industry, but lay astride a highway and a railroad line running from Hanoi, which had a couple of sidings in town. Presumably, planes were attacking the railroad. But in the process they destroyed another residential community."

Mr. Salisbury's statement that "every house and building" was destroyed is false. It is true that there has been damage to civilian structure. But the Department of Defense has at no time said or suggested that U.S. bombing attacks on North Vietnam were causing no civilian damage.

Mr. Salisbury did point out Phu Ly is astride a highway and railroad line running from Hanoi. This is, in fact, the major highway to the south. The railroad is the primary railroad south and also a major resupply avenue.

You suggest that the railroad and highway could be cut on either side of the town. Railways and highways are bombed outside populated areas. Attacks are made on a truck-by-truck basis. But it is still necessary to strike bridges, rail yards, storage areas, and other such military targets.

Intelligence reports indicate that the North Vietnamese are using some 300,000 persons to offset the bomb damage to roads, rail lines and other military facilities used to infiltrate soldiers and material into South Vietnam to attack American and South Vietnamese forces.

There has never been doubt that roads and railroads could be repaired-and repaired rapidly, given sufficient manpower and material. This was proven over and over again in both World Wars and the Korean War.

Storage areas and port facilities can also be rebuilt. But the military advantages of destroying them and of destroying military material in a storage