For many years, our policy-makers have paid lip-service to the idea of
disarmament. This seems to be one of the ways, in modern diplomacy,
of proving your virtue. Recently, however--under strong Communist
propaganda pressure--we have acted as though we mean this talk to be
taken seriously. I cite our government’s momentous decision to suspend
nuclear tests.
Students of history have always recognized that armament races are a
symptom of international friction--not a cause of it. Peace has never
been achieved, and it will not in our time, by rival nations suddenly
deciding to turn their swords into plowshares. No nation in its right
mind will give up the means of defending itself without first making
sure that hostile powers are no longer in a position to threaten it.
The Communist leaders are, of course, in their right minds. They would
not dream of adopting a policy that would leave them, on balance,
relatively weaker than before they adopted such a policy. They might
preach general disarmament for propaganda purposes. They also might
seriously promote mutual disarmament in certain weapons in the
knowledge that their superior strength in other weapons would leave
them, on balance, decisively stronger than the West. Thus, in the light
of the West’s weakness in conventional weapons, it might make sense for
the Communists to seek disarmament in the nuclear field; if all nuclear
weapons suddenly ceased to exist, much of the world would immediately
be laid open to conquest by the masses of Russian and Chinese manpower.
American leaders have not shown a comparable solicitude for our
security needs. After the Second World War, the United States had a
conventional military establishment rivaling the Soviet Union’s, and an
absolute monopoly in nuclear power. The former weapon we hastily and
irresponsibly dismantled. The latter we failed to exploit politically,
and then we proceeded to fritter away our lead by belated entry into
the hydrogen bomb and guided missile fields. The result is that we
are out-classed in the conventional means for waging land warfare;
regarding nuclear weapons, we are approaching the point, if it has not
already been reached, where Communist power is equal to our own.
To the impending physical parity in nuclear weapons must be added a
psychological factor assiduously cultivated by Communist propaganda.
The horrors of all-out warfare are said to be so great that no nation
would consider resorting to nuclear weapons unless under direct attack
by those same weapons. Now the moment our leaders really accept this,
strategic nuclear weapons will be neutralized and Communist armies
will be able to launch limited wars without fear of retaliation by our
Strategic Air Command. I fear they are coming to accept it, and thus
that a military and psychological situation is fast developing in which
aggressive Communist forces will be free to maneuver under the umbrella
of nuclear terror.
It is in this context that we must view the Communist propaganda
drive for a permanent ban on the testing of nuclear weapons, and the
inclination of our own leaders to go along with the proposal. There are
two preliminary reasons why such proposals ought to be firmly rejected.
First, there is no reliable means of preventing the Communists from
secretly breaking such an agreement. Our most recent tests demonstrated
that underground atomic explosions can be set off without detection.
Secondly, we cannot hope to maintain even an effective _strategic_
deterrent unless we keep our present nuclear arsenal up to date; this
requires testing. But the main point I want to make is that tests
are needed to develop _tactical_ nuclear weapons for possible use
in limited wars. Our military experts have long recognized that for
limited warfare purposes we must have a weapons superiority to offset
the Communists’ manpower superiority. This means we must develop
and perfect a variety of small, clean nuclear weapons; and this in
turn means: testing. The development of such a weapons system is the
only way in which America will be able to fight itself out of the
dilemma--one horn of which is superior Communist manpower, the other,
the impending neutralization of strategic nuclear weapons.
Our government was originally pushed into suspending tests by
Communist-induced hysteria on the subject of radio-active fallout.
However one may rate that danger, it simply has no bearing on the
problem at hand. The facts are that there is practically no fallout
from tests conducted above the earth’s atmosphere, and none at all
from underground tests. Therefore, the only excuse for suspending
tests is that our forbearance somehow contributes to peace. And my
answer is that I am unable to see how peace is brought any nearer by a
policy that may reduce our relative military strength. Such a policy
makes sense only under the assumption that Communist leaders have
given up their plan for world revolution and will settle for peaceful
coexistence--an assumption we make at the risk of losing our national
life.
If our objective is victory over Communism, we must achieve
superiority in all of the weapons--military, as well as political and
economic--that may be useful in reaching that goal. Such a program
costs money, but so long as the money is spent wisely and efficiently,
I would spend it. I am not in favor of “economizing” on the nation’s
safety. As a Conservative, I deplore the huge tax levy that is needed
to finance the world’s number-one military establishment. But even more
do I deplore the prospect of a foreign conquest, which the absence of
that establishment would quickly accomplish.