It is this refusal to look at the worst contingency which causes
disquiet about a great deal of the recent debate. One can-symptomize with
quest for
is valid.
the efforts to create stabler international relationships, but many recent
proposals - such as the neutral belt in Europe - are likely to make the
situation more fluid and more incalculable - this in fact may be the
strongest argument in their behalf. One can understand the effort of our
allies to gain a greater influence over our actions, but many measures prove
is understandable.
to achieve this goal are likely to result in exactly the opposite result.
The importance of negotiations is patent, but it is not clear why one can
propagate a basic change in the Soviet domestic scene as the primary
catalyst. And some of the conclusions that have been drawn from the assumed
United States strategic inferiority indicate a disturbing absence of
comprehension of the strategic relationships of the nuclear age.

at a fundamental if not hopeless disadvantage: "The Gaither report has
revealed that irrespective of any effort which America may now make the
Soviet preponderance in advanced weapons has reached such an absolute stage
that America's national survival will depend, until 1961 at least, on
Russian benevolence."⁷ As a result, so the argument goes, the establishment
of American missile bases in NATO is of primary benefit to the United States,
spreading the risks without adding to the common security. Yet the missile
agreement is one of the most extraordinary and complete surrenders of
sovereignty ever to be made by one country for the exclusive benefit of
another. For the missiles are not intended to defend Britain, on the con-
trary, they decisively increase its vulnerability. Their prime purpose is
to reduce the likelihood of a Soviet ICBM onslaught on America during the
crucial three year period which must elapse before America possesses the
ICBM herself. The sole beneficiary will be America."⁸

7. New Statesman and Nation, January 4, 1958.

⁸ Other, One also Speech by Viscount Hinchinbrook, M.P.: "Inutherto I
have always thought that the principle of an alliance was that it gave greater
protection to ourselves." On this occasion with these rockets we are
clearly inviting the risk of attack in some way and we are giving a one-
-sided protection to the United States." (Hansard No. 408, p. 506.)