Evening star., 1960-12-25


both sides must follow tina
strategy If it is to prevail; i
one begins to hit cities. TIL
other Is certain to follow suit
The officers who are seeking
the re-examination Of our nu,
clear-war strategy believe that
Russia would join in a spare.
the-cities strategy for two rea.
sons:
Soviet strategists can easily
make the same computations
and can prove that they will
suffer less in retaliation If they
do not destroy our cities. And
they can as easily learn that
they cannot improve their
chances Of victory by starting
a city exchange.
Unanswered Questions
However, other questions
about Soviet cooperation are
still unanswered. For instarcc,
do the Russians now reject city
destruction? Can they choose a
different strategy and beat US?
Would the prospect Of a low
casualty war encourage them to
attack? Should we bluff them
with one strategy, then use an
other? II the war is fought
against strictly military tar
gets, and their cities are spared,
how can the Soviets be con.
vipced that they have lost?
VIII they beat US then with
limited war, conventional
Weapons? How will they know,
when the devastation starts,
that we are trying to spare
their cities?
The blanket answer to all
these questions Is simple and
realistic: II we accept the con-
clusiOns Of the Air Forces COM
puter war games" America
must reject the strategy Of
hitting cities and then hope Tor
the best.
Here Is how those who accept
the computers' findings reason:
They believe that their oppo-
Gte numbers in the USSR are
planning for a war against
Western forces, not against
Western cities. They do not
know, however, whether the
Soviet StrategiStS also share |
our Strategic Air Commands |
philosophy Of bonus benefits"
~. e., II nuclear attacks start, |
one might as well wipe out |
some Of the enemy's cities |
along with his forces, since the |
added devastation takes no ex-
TIRE effort and should hurt. |
Russian Study Indicated
The critical factor would be
whether there was q deliberate
effort, recognizable as such. on
the part Of the enemy to spare |
our cities. Even 80, q few
smaller cities near military |
targets would be certain to |
suffer, In which event nearly oil
million Americans would die,
according to the computer's |
most optimistic estimate. j
1t Is assumed that the Rus
slams. upon learning of our
studies In this area, will doubt
less make their own, and their
conclusions should be the same.
Of course, they could choose
to build weapons for sheer, au.
tomato observation-disclosures.
Day weapons"-and thereby
assure the deaths Of $50 mil
lion Americans. But since our
forces, no matter what the
planned strategy, could be used
to destroy Russian cities IL
necessary, this move by the
Soviets would result in the
reprisal deaths Of $50 million
Russians. Therefore, it is
argued, such a course should
hold little attraction for them
Would they then decide to
accept low casualties and start
a war, hitting only our bomber
and missile bases? This seems
to depend. on their intentions
and strength in comparison
with ours.
Limited War Seen
Thus the crux is for us to
make certain that they do not
have q margin in the future
that would make war attractive
to them.
Many Pentagon officers be.
Heve that the Soviets will shift
to a limited war strategy, using
conventional weapons, or, after
. nuclear exchange, will invade
Western Europe with conven-
tional armies.
The latter possibility would be
greatly reduced, it is believed, il
the nuclear exchange ends with
our bombers everything Soviet
territory and with some of our
missiles held In reserve. Our
lluclear bombs could block the
Soviet army from its homeland,
ana q modern army cannot
operate without regular home
sources Of supply.
But II the Communists reject
nuclear war against US in favor
Of q conventional war against
some other country, the prob
lem becomes more complex.
Almost all Pentagon officers say