Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-04-28
NATO Chiefs Review
West Defense Strategy
Continued From First Page

Continued From First Page
themselves. does the Western
world need two distinct armed
forces - one "retaliatory," in
case we want to destroy Russia,
and the other Containing" to
handle smaller local aggressions.
The containing army would fight
a small war to the finish with
out ever calling on SAC or the
V-bombers. 1t would never plan
to enter Iron Curtain territory.
New Conditions
II the newly proposed strategy
Is accepted-and not only NATO
generals like Montgomery and
Norstad. but also Whitehall and
State Department thinkers are
seriously examining it-several
new conditions would prevail!
First, the Western and COM
munist camps would be brought
into q new relation to each
other, q relation which it is
thought might be safer for the
world.
Second. taxpayers, particularly
In America. would have to buy
a better NATO army. equipped
with expensive new atomic
weapons.
Third. European allies who
have some doubts about NATO
and the possible boomeranging
power behind 1t would feel safer
in supporting the grand alliance.
The new strategic idea is a
natural outgrowth Of the Vests
defensive evolution. To under
stand it. one must 60 back to
1851 when the European nations
first made up their minds what
kind of defense they wanted. The
Communists then were lighting
in Korea. The world wondered If
some European country would be
next.
The NATO leaders meeting in
Lisbon. Portugal. decided that
about 80 divisions would be
needed to protect the North At
lantic Community from Russian
aggression. It was assumed that
decisive battles would be fought
on the ground by NATO. which
would hold of the enemy long
enough for Americas budding
nuclear power to be brought into
action.
This long range. atomic power
was not and still is not part Of
NATO. But it has been there
since the start Of NATO, ready to
deliver the knockout blow.
More and better atomic wea-
pons were developed into post
Lisbon years. until by 1854 It
became clear that an entire de-
fensive system. NATO, could be
built around nuclear weapons.
So a second basic decision was
made to reduce the planned
strength of NATO to one-third,
about 80 divisions, and give itI
modern weapons.
1t was assumed that the small
er. stronger force could check an
invasion for perhaps a month
long enough for the ever-growing
SAC retaliatory force to break
Russia's back. This strategy was
explained to Russia carefully and
repeatedly. 1t was made clear
that aggression could be held
and that the holding operation
would be followed almost imme-
diately by atomic devastation of
Russia.
NATO is Shield
This is still the basic strategy.
NATO is the shield, holding of
the Russians. SAC and now Bri-I
tains V-bombers make up the
sword which will automatically
arc through the sky and make
mincemeat Of the aggressor.
But since the 1854 decision.
both Russia and the West have
increased their retaliatory power
until today both sides assume the
other can and will wipe it out in
case Of war. Russia cannot stop
the American and European
based long-range bombers. But
neither can Russia's atomic
bombers be stopped.
So, 1t is now assumed further. I
neither side will start World War
III. For no matter who starts 1t,
both will be destroyed.
The question now is whether
1t is wise for the West to put all
its eggs in that horrible basket.
A retaliatory threat will not deter
war unless the other side is con-
WINGED the West will use its big
bombers. But to use them is
suicide. Still. the West is without
q doubt committed to use them.
But what If Russia miscalcu-
lates slightly and moves tenta-
lively against the West? Or
what If Russia decides to probe
cautiously at the Western de-
tense just to see what will really
happen? Or supposing some
reckless border commander in
the satellite countries does
something he shouldn't?
Does the West want to start
a suicidal World War III over
fhat0