Finally, what can we do to move from the present pause toward enduring
peace? Again I would counsel caution. I foresee no spectacular reversal in
Communist methods or goals. But if all these trends and developments can
persuade the Soviet Union to walk the path of peace, then let her know that
all free nations will journey with her. But until that choice is made, and
until the world can develop a reliable system of international security,
the free peoples have no choice but to keep their arms nearby.
This country, therefore, continues to require the best defense in the
world--a defense which is suited to the sixties. This means, unfortunately,
a rising defense budget--for there is no substitute for adequate defense,
and no "bargain basement" way of achieving it. It means the expenditure of
more than $15 billion this year on nuclear weapons systems alone, a sum
which is about equal to the combined defense budgets of our European
Allies.
But it also means improved air and missile defenses, improved civil
defense, a strengthened anti-guerrilla capacity and, of prime importance,
more powerful and flexible non-nuclear forces. For threats of massive
retaliation may not deter piecemeal aggression--and a line of destroyers in
a quarantine, or a division of well-equipped men on a border, may be more
useful to our real security than the multiplication of awesome weapons
beyond all rational need.
But our commitment to national safety is not a commitment to expand our
military establishment indefinitely. We do not dismiss disarmament as
merely an idle dream. For we believe that, in the end, it is the only way
to assure the security of all without impairing the interests of any. Nor
do we mistake honorable negotiation for appeasement. While we shall never
weary in the defense of freedom, neither shall we ever abandon the pursuit
of peace.
In this quest, the United Nations requires our full and continued support.
Its value in serving the cause of peace has been shown anew in its role in
the West New Guinea settlement, in its use as a forum for the Cuban crisis,
and in its task of unification in the Congo. Today the United Nations is
primarily the protector of the small and the weak, and a safety valve for
the strong. Tomorrow it can form the framework for a world of law--a world
in which no nation dictates the destiny of another, and in which the vast
resources now devoted to destructive means will serve constructive ends.
In short, let our adversaries choose. If they choose peaceful competition,
they shall have it. If they come to realize that their ambitions cannot
succeed--if they see their "wars of liberation" and subversion will
ultimately fail--if they recognize that there is more security in accepting
inspection than in permitting new nations to master the black arts of
nuclear war--and if they are willing to turn their energies, as we are, to
the great unfinished tasks of our own peoples--then, surely, the areas of
agreement can be very wide indeed: a clear understanding about Berlin,
stability in Southeast Asia, an end to nuclear testing, new checks on
surprise or accidental attack, and, ultimately, general and complete
disarmament.