ASPECTS OF NUCLEAR STRATEGY

by

Henry A. Kissinger

In his whimsical essay "Perpetual Peace" written in 1795, the German philosopher Kant predicted that world peace could be attained in one of two ways: by a moral consensus which he identified with a republican form of government, or by a cycle of wars of ever-increasing violence which would reduce the major powers to impotence.

There is no evidence that Kant's essay was taken seriously in his lifetime, or indeed for a century and a half afterwards. But much of current thought about the impact of new weapons has the apocalyptic quality of a premonition of Kant's second proposition. We respond to every Soviet advance in the nuclear field by what can best be described as a flight into technology, by devising ever more fearful weapons. The more powerful the weapons, however, the greater becomes our reluctance to use them. At a period of unparalleled military strength, the President has best summed up American reactions to the new weapons technology in the phrase: "There is no alternative to peace."

It is only natural, of course, that an age which has known two world wars and an uneasy armistice since should have as its central problem the attainment of peace. It is paradoxical, however, that so much hope should concentrate on man's most destructive capabilities. We are told that the growth of thermo-nuclear stockpiles has created a "nuclear stalemate" which makes war, if not too risky, at least unprofitable. Walter Lippman

- 2 -

[Y]

has interpreted the Geneva "summit conference" as a non-aggression
treaty: a recognition by the U. S. and the USSR that war is no longer a
conceivable instrument of policy and that for this reason international
disputes can be settled only by means of diplomacy. Mr. Stassen has
maintained that the peaceful application of nuclear energy has made
irrelevant most of the traditional reasons for fighting wars because each
major power can now bring about a tremendous increase in its power output
without annexing either foreign territory or foreign labor. And many of
the Democratic criticisms to Mr. Dulles' interview in *Life* concerned less
the question of tact or the wisdom of announcing a policy of bluff, but
the fact that a threat of war was made *at all*.

These assertions have passed almost without challenge. They fit
in well with a national psychology which considers peace as the "normal"
pattern of relations among states and which has few doubts that reasonable
men meeting in an atmosphere of good will can settle all differences by
honest compromise. Too much depends, however, on the correctness of such
propositions not to subject them to closer scrutiny. For the impact of

-3-

the new weapons -- as every revolution -- has not only a technical but
a conceptual side. Until power is used, it is, as Colonel Lincoln from
West Point has wisely said, what people think it is. But except for the
two explosions of obsolete type bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no
nuclear weapons have ever been set off in wartime; there exists, therefore,
no previous experience on which to draw. To a considerable extent the
impact of the new weapons on strategy, on policy, indeed on survival,
depends on our interpretation of their significance.

It, therefore, becomes of unusual importance that the U. S. not
paralyze itself by developing a calculus of risks according to which all
dangers would seem to be on our side. But this is precisely what has
happened to us recently. The slogan "there is no alternative to peace"
is the reverse side of the doctrine of "massive retaliation" and both
deprive us of flexibility. "Massive retaliation" because it poses risks
for us out of proportion to the objectives to be achieved and "there is
no alternative to peace" because it removes a large measure of the risk
of aggressive moves for the Soviets. If, then, the Soviets develop a more-

- 4 -

flexible doctrine, they may achieve a crucial advantage, not because
this action is wise, but because they possess a doctrine which permits
them to act at all.

But perhaps the Soviets are facing the same problem? Perhaps an
equilibrium can be attained, if not of mutual comprehension, then of
THIS IS TRUE DESPITE
mutual terror? There is some evidence for this in the reiterated Soviet
statements fo the horrors of a hydrogen war. But apart from the fact
that these statements are usually addressed to foreigners and may, therefore,
be designed to increase the inhibitions of others, it makes all the
difference which side has to initiate thermo-nuclear war. As long as the
Soviets possess a sufficiently flexible weapons system, they can confront
us with a series of contingencies which shift the risk of initiating an
all-out war on us; which force us to calculate peripheral objectives in
terms of the destruction of New York or Washington or Chicago.

It may be argued that the emphasis on the role of force mistakes
the main thrust of the current Soviet threat which presents more ambiguous

¹For a more detailed discussion of the doctrine of "massive retaliation" see the author's "Military Policy and the Defense of theGREY Areas." *Foreign Affairs*. April 1955.

- 5 -

and subtle challenges than over aggression. To be sure, the present period of revolutionary change will not be managed by a military doctrine alone. It requires an imaginative diplomacy and a consistent program to seek to identify ourselves with the aspirations of humanity. But we always seem in danger of focussing so much attention on the current Soviet threat that we are taken unaware by the changes of tactics in which their record abounds. During the period of Soviet militancy we were so preoccupied with building defensive barriers that we neglected the psychological and political framework which could make them meaningful. And now with the Soviet emphasis on more indirect methods of penetration, we stand in danger of forgetting that economic development in order to lead to political stability presupposes at least a modicum of security against foreign invasion. Moreover, it is one of the most difficult tasks of statesmanship to reconcile the professions of another power with its potential. If the international order possessed the sanction of domestic arrangements, relations could be conducted largely on the basis of what states assert their intentions to be. But in an international order

composed of sovereign states, the intentions of another power are subject
to no-compulsion, its potential is always capable of being used with
hostile intent. This is the real meaning of "atomic blackmail,": As the
Soviet nuclear stockpile grows over threats have become unnecessary; every
calculation of risks will have to include the Soviet stockpile of atomic
weapons and ballistic missiles.

The phrase "there is no alternative to peace" can, therefore, only
lead to a paralysis of policy. It is tantamount to a renunciation of
power and a staking of everything on the professions of another sovereign
state. This would have been difficult at any period; it becomes an invi-
tation to disaster when confronted with a revolutionary power which prides
itself on its superior understanding of "objective" forces, and to which
professions unrelated to a plausible possibility of employing force will
seem either hypocrisy or stupidity. Force and diplomacy are not discrete
realms; on the contrary, the ultimate pressure during negotiations has
always been the possibility that recourse might be had to force.²

²See the author's "The Congress of Vienna—A Reppraisal," World Politics, January 1956.

[y]

- 7 -

If the slogan "there is no alternative to peace" becomes accepted doctrine,
it will remove both a powerful brake on Soviet probing actions and any
incentive for making concessions. And if we couple it with the statement
that we do not accept the status quo we can only give impetus to Soviet
peace offensives without generating a meaningful pressure on the Soviet
sphere.

ARGUMENT THAT WAR IS "INCONCEIVABLE"/
The discussion about the inconceivability of war has, however,
performed this useful purpose: it has drawn attention to the paradox
that we are preparing for a war we were reluctant to fight even when we
possessed an atomic monopoly and that we have not yet found a rationale
for it when weapons have become incomparably more destructive. The
strength of the British position in the 19th century was a clear under-
standing of the nature of sea power and a strategic doctrine which permitted
this understanding to be translated into reality. The difficulty with
present military technology is that we are far from an agreement about its
essential components and that the very power of modern weapons far from
giving us freedom of action, seems to inhibit it. In short, our weapons
technology and the objectives for employing them have become incommensurable.
No more urgent task confronts the U. S. than to bring them into harmony.

- 8 -

II

But perhaps this incommensurability is inherent in the new weapons
and not in the military doctrine? Perhaps we are moving into a new era
of international relations in which the powers will have to adjust them-
selves to the fact that force can no longer be used? What of the "nuclear
stalemate" so often invoked?

Of course, "stalemates" have occurred before in the history of war,
particularly in the relation of offense to defense. The distinguishing
feature of the current use of the term is that it refers not to a balance
on the battlefield, but to a calculus of risks: with each side possessing
the capability to inflict catastrophic blows on the other, war is said
to be no longer a rational course of action.³ It is important, however,
to be precise about the deterrent effect of the "nuclear stalemate": just
as powers tend to be inhibited by the implications of their own weapons
 technology so the "nuclear stalemate" deters not only aggression, but

The nuclear equation cannot be determined, however, *uxu* merely through
an analysis of offensive capabilities. Rather it depends on the relation
of offense and defense to each other. The importance of this offense-defense
"mix" can be illustrated by the following example: If one power places all
its bets on strategic air power while the other side develops a very large
defensive capability and only moderate offensive air-power, it may happen
that the defensive capability of the offensively weaker power will absorb
the total offense of the other side, thus freeing the initially weaker
SAC for a *martial* blow.

[v]

- 10 -

humanitarian impulses, lack of clarity about the process in which we found
ourselves involved. But whatever the reason, the U. S. atomic monopoly
had at best a deterrent effect. It may have prevented a further expansion
of the Soviet sphere; it did not enable us to achieve a strategic trans-
formation in our favor. Even the deterrent effect is questionable: assuming
that there had never been an atomic bomb, would we have surrendered Europe
to the Soviets? Would the USSR have risked a general war, so soon after
having its territory devastated by the Germans and losing, on the most
conservative estimates, 10 million dead? Not even a dictatorship can do
everything simultaneously.

But apart from the questionable deterrence to an all-out war, the
period of our atomic monopoly witnessed the consolidation of a satellite
orbit in Eastern Europe, the triumph of Communism in China, and most funda-
mentally, the growth of the Soviet atomic stockpile. Those who expect
great things from technological breakthroughs would do well to study American
actions after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No foreseeable technological breakthrough
is likely to be more fundamental than the discovery of the A-bomb. Yet

[Y]

- 11 -

it is possession did not enable us to prevent another power which never hid its hostile intent to expand its orbit and to develop a capacity to inflict a mortal blow on the U. S.

What happened? Simply that we added the A-bomb to our military arsenal without integrating its implications into our thinking; that we saw in it a tool in a theory of warfare which had showed a poverty, indeed almost an absence of conception during the two world wars, but which became completely inapplicable after the explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For over a century before the outbreak of World War I, wars were an extension of policy. Because they were fought for determinate objectives there existed a rough commensurability between the force employed and the goal sought. But with the outbreak of World War I, war suddenly seemed to become an end in itself. After the first few months of the war, none of the protagonists would have been able to name an objective other than the total defeat of the enemy or, at least, they would have named objectives, such as the German demand for the annexation of Belgium, which amounted to unconditional surrender. There had occurred a hiatus between military and political planning which has never been bridged.

- 12 -

The military staffs had developed plans for total victory, because these
are the most determinate plans possible in which all factors are under
the control of the military. But their goals were achievable only at such
cost, that the relatively moderate war-aims with which the political leader-
ship entered the war were soon drowned in demands for vengeance. The result
was four years of war of ever-increasing violence which carried its
hatreds into a peace treaty that considered more the redressing of sacrifices
than the stability of the international order and led within less than a
generation to another world war fought in the same style.

The notion that war and peace, political and military goals were
discrete entities had become so commonplace by the end of World War II
that the most powerful nation in the world found itself paralyzed by the
enormity of its own weapons technology. In every concrete instance, even
in the matter of the regulation of the atom which affected our very survival
we found ourselves stalemated by our own preconceptions: the consequences
of our actions always seemed to outbalance the gains to be achieved. Thus
our policy became entirely defensive: we possessed a doctrine to repel overt
aggression, but we could not translate it into a positive goal. And even

aggression, but we could not transcribe it into a positive form. And even
our policy became entirely defensive: we possessed a doctrine to repel overt
of our actions always seemed to outbalance the gains to be achieved. Thus
we found ourselves astounded by our own misconceptions: the consequences
in the matter of the regulation of the atom which affected our very arrival
enormity of its own weapons technology. In every concrete instance, even
that the most powerful nation in the world would itself be analyzed by the
different entities had become so commonplace by the end of World War II.

The notion that war and peace, political and military goals were
 Generation to another world war brought in the same style.

than the adaptability of the international order and fed within few years a
barred into a peace treaty that considered more the repressing of sacrifices
was four years of war of ever-increasing violence which carried its
and brought the war were soon drowned in demands for vengence. The result
coast, that the relatively moderate war--sims with which the political leader-
the control of the military. But their goals were achievable only at such
are the most determine planes possible in which all factors are under
The military attests had developed planes for total victory, because they

The result entered the war were soon drowned in demands for vengence. The result
coast, that the relatively moderate war--sims with which the political leader-
the control of the military. But their goals were achievable only at such
are the most determine planes possible in which all factors are under
The military attests had developed planes for total victory, because they

- 13 -

in the one instance where we resisted aggression we did not use the weapon around which our whole military planning had been built. The hiatus between military and national policy was complete: Our power was incommensurable with the objectives of our national policy and our military doctrine could not find any intermediary application for our power. The growth of the Soviet atomic stockpile has merely brought the physical equation in line with the psychological one; it has increased the reluctance to engage in a general war even more. But it has not changed the fundamental question: how the political and military doctrines can be harmonized, how our power can give impetus to our policy rather than paralyzing it.

One way of avoiding this problem is to deny that it exists. It is possible to argue that the whole term "stalemate" is illusory, that in an all-out war one side is almost certain to be able to "win" in the sense of being able to impose its will on its antagonist. This is technically correct. But it does not affect the calculus by which the decision to enter the war is taken: in its crudest form whether it is "worth" fighting the war in the first place. Obviously no power will start a war it thinks it is going to lose. But it will also be reluctant to start a war during

- 14 -

the course of which it thinks it will lose its national substance. The
capacity to inflict greater losses on the enemy than one suffers, is the
<u>condition</u> of policy; it cannot be its end.

The transformation imposed by the "nuclear stalemate" is not that
victory in an all-out war has become technically impossible, but that it
can no longer be imposed <u>at an acceptable cost</u>. Nor is it possible to
avoid the consequences. Nor is this conclusion avoided by an appeal to
military rationality. In Paul Nitze's hypothetical all-out war, for example,
confined to air-fields and SAC installations, the bombing of cities would
be unwise in the early stages of the war and unnecessary in the later ones
after air-superiority has been achieved. ⁴ But this assumes that victory
is the only rational objective of a power in war. It overlooks that war
is not only the instrument for imposing one's will on the defeated, but
also a tool for defeating this intent by making it too costly. An air-battle
would be a rational strategy for the side which has a strategic advantage
either in terms of base structure or in weapons potential, for it would
put the enemy at its mercy at a minimum cost. But for the side, which
stands to lose the air-battle and which seekd to exact a maximum prize for
its defeat, the most rational strategy may well reside in the greatest

- 15 -

destructiveness. It may at least attempt to equalize the *threat* of
nuclear destruction by inflicting its *actuality* on the enemy and thereby
deprive him of the fruits of his victory or at least make it too risky
for him to seek total victory. Unconditional surrender -- or depriving
the enemy of his nuclear capability which amounts to the same thing --
cannot be achieved by subterfuge.

III

But does the stalemate defined as the impossibility of achieving
total victory at an acceptable cost extend to other forms of conflict?
Or in other words, is limited war a conceivable instrument of policy in
the nuclear period? It may be best to begin with an analysis of precisely
what is meant by limited war.

One can think of many models: a war confined to a geographic area,
a war that does not utilize the whole weapons system, a war which utilized
the whole weapons system but limits its employment to specific targets.
But none of these military definitions seems adequate: a war may be confined
geographically or in terms of targets and yet drain the national substance,
as happened in France in World War I. The fact that the whole weapons

- 16 -

system is not employed, or that the destructive capability of the existing weapons system is small, is of itself a factor of limitations. In the Thirty Year's War the number of men in each army was small by present-day standards, the power of the weapons was negligible measured against modern armaments and yet it is estimated that at least 30% of the population of Germany died during its course as a result of its length and its indeterminacy.

A distinction based on the difference between nuclear weapons and "conventional armaments" is no more fruitful. Apart from the fact that the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons becomes increasingly nebulous as the range of low-yield weapons is increased, [it will be impossible to reverse present trends.] The very existence of nuclear armaments WILL INSURE THAT, ON BOTH SIDES, ANY FUTURE WAR WILL BE NUCLEAR. AT A minimum forces will have to maneuver as if nuclear weapons might be used because the side which concentrates its forces might thereby give its opponent the precise incentive he needs to use nuclear weapons. BUT IF FORCES ARE DISPERSED, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HOLD A LINE OR ACHIEVE A breakthrough with conventional weapons, because the destructive power of conventional weapons, WHEN USED, IS SO MUCH SMALLER. FINALLY, NUCLEAR

- 17 -

weapons, particularly of the low-yield type, seem to offer the best opportunity to compensate for our inferiority in man-power and to use our superiority in technology to best advantage.

To be sure, we have to consider not only the damage we can inflict, but the losses we would suffer. On the balance, however, the advantage is probably on our side: An increase in fire-power has generally aided the defensive and we are much more likely to resist aggression than to initiate it; nuclear war raises special problems of control, of maneuver and of diversified capability which our system, industrial and political, should be better able to withstand than that of the Soviets. It is not for nothing that Soviet propaganda has played on two related themes: that there is no such thing as a "limited" nuclear war and "ban the bomb." For both have the corollary "there is no alternative to peace," and both deprive our policy of flexibility and sap resistance to the preferred form of Soviet strategy: peripheral wars, internal subversion and atomic blackmail.

Our discussion up to this point thus leads to these conclusions:

> *that any war will be a nuclear war; that nuclear war should be fought as something less than an all-out war, and that there exists no way to define a*

- 18 -

[y]

limited war in purely military terms. On the contrary, wars can be limited
only by political decisions, by defining objectives which do not threaten
the survival of the enemy. Thus an all-out war is a war to render the
enemy defenseless. A limited war is one for a specific objective which by
its very existence will establish a certain commensurability between the force
employed and the goal to be attained.

Limited war, therefore, presents the military with particular
difficulties. An all-out war is relatively simple to plan for, because its
limits are set by military considerations and even by military capacity.
The defining characteristic of limited wars, on the other hand, is that there
are ground rules which define the relationship of military to political
objectives. Planning here becomes much more conjectural, much more subtle
and much more indeterminate, as we found when considering intervention in
Indo-China. The military, therefore, tend to resist it as outside their
scope, unless the political leadership assumes the responsibility for defining
the framework within which the military are to develop plans and capabilities.
The prerequisite for a policy of limited war is the re-introduction of the
political element into our concept of warfare and the surrender of the notion
that policy ends when war begins or that war has goals different from those
of national policy.

that policy ends when war begins or that war has goals different from those
political element into our concept of warfare and the surrender of the nation
The preeminence for a policy of limited war is the re-introduction of the
case, unless the political leadership assumes the responsibility for defining
the framework within which the military are to develop bases and capabilities.
Indo-China. The military, therefore, tend to regard it as outside their
and much more indeterminate, as we found when considering intervention in
objectives. Planning here becomes much more conjectural, much more indefinite
are ground rules which define the relationship of military to political
The defining characteristic of limited war, on the other hand, is that there
limits are set by military considerations and even by military capacity.
difficulties. An all-out war is relatively simple to plan for, because its
limited war, therefore, presents the military with perhaps
employed and the goal to be attained.

its very existence will establish a certain commensurability between the force
enemy defenseless. A limited war is one for a specific objective which by
the arrival of the enemy. Thus an all-out war is a war to render the
only by political decisions, by defining objectives which do not threaten
limited war in merely military terms. On the contrary, wars can be limited

- 18 -

[x]

19.

IV

This raises the question to what extent the nuclear period permits a policy
of intermediary objectives. Do any of the factors which existed at other periods
which were distinguished by a diplomacy of limited objectives and a military policy
of limited wars apply today?

In the great periods of European Cabinet diplomacy between the Treaty of Westphalia and the French Revolution and between the Congress of Vienna and the outbreak of the first World War, wars were limited because there existed a political framework which led to a general consciousness of limited risks. This political framework was due to several factors: There was to begin with a conscious decision that the upheavals of the Thirty Year's War and of the Napoleonic wars should not occur again. More important was the fact that the international order did not contain a revolutionary power. No state was so dissatisfied with the peace settlement that it sought to gain its ends by overthrowing it and no power considered its domestic notion of justice as incompatible with that of the other components of the international order. Again, the domestic structure of most governments set a limit to the proportion of the national resources which could be devoted to war. Not even the most absolute ruler, by the grace of God, could think of conscripting his subjects or confiscating their property. Finally, in an era of stable weapons technology, both the strength of the powers and the assessment of it were relatively fixed, the risks of surprise attack and of unforeseen technological developments were relatively small.

If we inquire which of these factors -- fear of war, legitimacy, limits on
the exercise of power domestically, and a stable power relationship -- is present
today, little cause for optimism remains. The major powers refuse to accept either
the present framework of the international order or the domestic structure of the
other states. We are confronted by a power which for over a generation has pro-

20.

[Y]

claimed the incompatibility of its domestic notion of justice with that of other states, and which has built an internal control system on the myth of a permanently hostile world. The slogan of "peaceful coexistence" cannot obscure the fact that we are living in a revolutionary period. For the justification of peaceful coexistence advanced by the Soviets is precisely their conviction that it will enable them to subvert the existing structure by means other than all-out war.

Nor is the nature of power-relationships more reassuring. Even with a less volatile technology a two-power world would have an inherent element of instability because an increase in strength of one side cannot be made up by superior political dexterity but is tantamount to an absolute weakening of the other side. Moreover, the weapons technology is far from stable. Almost up to the outbreak of World War II a weapons system would be good for a generation at least, while today it may be out-dated when it has barely passed the blue-print stage. In the technological race, moreover, the side which has adopted the military doctrine that its opponent can always strike the first blow is at a distinct disadvantage, for it cannot afford a single mistake; it cannot afford to fall behind even for an instant. It must phase its planning and procurement over an indefinite period while its opponent, if he has determined on a slow-down, can plan for a target date. Finally one major

21.

[Y]

power will have to adopt a policy of limited objectives because of insufficient resources. With modern weapons systems, limited war will be an act of policy, not of necessity.

But if neither an agreed legitimacy nor a stable power relationship exist today, they may be outweighed by the third factor in the equation: the fear of thermo-nuclear war. Never before have the consequences of all-out war been so unambiguous; never the gains so incommensurable with the sacrifices. What statesman who declared war in 1914 would not have recoiled had he known the shape of the world in 1918? Today every weapons test augurs much worse horrors. There exists, therefore, a limiting condition to every diplomatic move. The distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons may be nebulous in military terms, but every power has a powerful incentive to make some distinction, however tenuous its logic: the fear of thermo-nuclear extinction. This fear should be utilized to guarantee the "limits" of war and diplomacy. (5)

5. These considerations do not apply, of course, to a totally irrational decision to enter a war; Hitler presumably would have been indifferent to bringing the world down around him. But even if Hitler would not have accepted this reasoning, the certainty of nuclear destruction might have given the German military, on the verge of revolt, the incentive to refuse to carry out the order to enter the war. Similar considerations may apply to the Soviet military leadership.

22.

The key problem of present-day strategy is, therefore, to devise alternative capabilities to confront the other side with contingencies from which it can extricate itself only by thermo-nuclear war; but to deter it from this step by our retaliatory capacity. All Soviet moves in the post-war period have had this character: They have faced us with problems which by themselves did not seem "worth" an all-out war, but with which we were unable to deal by an alternative strategy. We refused to defeat the Chinese in Korea because we were unwilling to risk an all-out conflict; we saw no solution to the Indo-Chinese crisis without dangers we were reluctant to confront. A doctrine for the graduated employment of force might reverse or at least arrest this trend. Graduated deterrence is thus not an alternative to massive retaliation, but its complement: for it is the capability for "massive retaliation" which provides the sanction against expanding war.

6. See for example Mr. Finletter's letter to the *Herald Tribune*, Dec. 22, 1955.

- 23 -

V

A doctrine for the graduated employment of force would enable us to escape
the vicious circle in which we find ourselves paralyzed by the implications
of our own weapons technology. The idea that the most effective strategy is
the thermo-nuclear bombardment of cities is a legacy of World War II, when we
could attack production centers without fear of retaliation. Because the
destructive power of individual weapons was then relatively small, a decision
on the battlefield could be reached only by using quantities too large to
stockpile, but which had to be supplied out of current production. Under
the circumstances it made sense to attempt to win through attrition by
bombing production facilities. The destructiveness of modern weapons, however,
makes attrition the most wasteful strategy. The stockpile in existence at
the beginning of the war, underconditions of nuclear plenty, will suffice to
achieve a decision so that nuclear weapons may be more decisively employed
on the battlefield or against military installations such as airfields than
against production centers, at least in wars which do not aim for unconditional
surrender.⁶

(6) For an elaboration of these ideas, see Richard C. Leghorn, "No Need to Bomb Cities to Win Wars." *U. S. News and World Report*. January 28, 1955.

- 24 -

a
The graduated employment of force, however, presupposes/capability which
is really "graduated." If we build our whole strategy around "absolute"
weapons of megaton size, professions of limited objectives will be meaningless
and any use of nuclear weapons is likely to touch off an all-out war. The
possibility of keeping a limited nuclear war limited depends on our ability
to extend the range of weapons in the low-yield range of a kiloton and below
and to devise tactics for their utilization on the battlefield. One
of the most important tasks of planning would seem to be the "war-gaming"
of battles which involve the use of nuclear weapons by both sides and which
lead to a consideration of what would constitute victory in such a war.

At the same time, a doctrine for the graduated employment of force and
the renunciation of unconditional surrender it implies should not be confused
with the acceptance of a stalemate. XXXXXXXXXXXX The flexibility of our
diplomacy will increase as our military alternatives multiply. And militarily,
the notion that there is no alternative between total victory or the status
quo ante is much too mechanical. If the military position of an enemy became
untenable and if he were offered other choices except unconditional surrender,
he might accept local withdrawals without resorting to all-out war. If SAC

retaliates

retaliation
retains its retaliatory capacity, the other side may decide that amputation is
preferable to suicide.
In these terms, the calculus

- 25 -

of risks by which a limited nuclear war is expanded into an all-out
thermo-nuclear exchange is almost the same as that by which a limited
conventional war is expanded into an all-out war. Whether we can achieve
local transformation will, therefore, depend on three conditions:

a) if on the ability to generate pressures other than the threat of thermo-nuclear war; b) on the ability to create a climate of opinion in which national survival is not thought to be at stake; c) on the ability to keep control of public opinion should a disagreement arise over whether national survival is at stake.

But is it possible to bring about a climate in which national
survival is thought not to be at stake? Pressures severe enough to cause
withdrawal may, after all, be severe enough to be thought to threaten
survival, especially in a regime like the Soviets'. It must be admitted
that there are grounds for pessimism. On the other hand, the problem is
not how to reassure the Soviets which is probably a well-high impossible
effort, but how to give effect to the one interest we have presumably in
common: that we both wish to avoid a thermo-nuclear war. Given this
attitude, an all-out war is likely only in two contingencies: If the Soviets

- 26 -

miscalculate their opportunity to achieve hegemony in Eurasia by peri-
pheral actions which, in the absence of a capability for the graduated
employment of force, may force us into an all-out war; or if the USSR
should misunderstand our intentions and treat every US military move as if
it were the prelude to an all-out war.

It, therefore, becomes the task of our diplomacy to convey to the
Soviet bloc that we are capable of courses other than all-out war or inaction,
and that we intend to use this capability. Fortunately, the imbalance
in our national strategy has been caused less by our diplomacy than by
our military policy. Indeed, our difficulty has been precisely the fact
that our moderate pronouncements have seemed incongrous in the face of an
all-or-nothing military policy and that our diplomacy has been deprived of
logical
flexibility because massive retaliation has had as its/corollary the slogan
"there is no alternative to peace." A modification of our military doctrine
would, therefore, go a long way towards creating a framework of limited
objectives; the next step would be to convey this change to the outside
world. Others have produced detailed models for such a diplomatic program.

⁸See, for example, Richard C. Leghorn. in a series of unpublished papers; and also Rear Admiral Anthony Buzzard. *Manchester Guardian*.

27
- 26 -

Possible measures might involve proposals for conventions regarding open cities, greater publicity for tests of low-yield nuclear weapons and a high-level pronouncement which defines as precisely as possible what is meant by the "graduated" employment of force, just as the doctrine of massive retaliation explained the rationale for all-out conflict.

Such a program should be distinguished sharply from the Soviet "ban the bomb" propaganda, however. We cannot afford even the implication that nuclear weapons are in a special category from modern weapons in general, for if nuclear weapons were outlawed the Soviet stockpile of conventional weapons would place Eurasia at their mercy, at least in an intermediary period while we adjust in our procurement, training and organization.

The diplomatic and psychological framework for the graduated employment of force is created not by ban the bomb proposals, but by proposals to define the conditions of its use. We cannot avoid the implications of modern technology, but we can seek to mitigate its horrors. Proposals of this kind would have substantial advantages even if xkayxxiki not accepted immediately: they would force a consideration of alternative strategies and prevent an all-out war caused by bureaucratic inertia because no war plans other than for a thermo-nuclear exchange exist. To be sure, a diplomatic

- 28 -

program for the graduated employment of force will not inevitably prevent an all-out war: if the Soviets feel strong enough to knock us out by a surprise attack, they will presumably do so. But it does prevent an all-out war based wither on a miscalculation or on a misunderstanding of our intentions.

Moreover, while the Marxist philosophy has heretofore imparted great flexibility to Soviet policy we may be able to use it as well to give effect to a policy of graduated deterrence. The belief in inevitable triumph is afterall as consistent with tactical withdrawal as with an effort to fill every power vacuum. All of Soviet history testifies to the fact that this is not a regime for last stands if other alternatives present themselves.

One need only study the abject efforts of the Politburo in the months before the German invasion to come to a settlement with Hitler to realize that if confronted with superior power the Soviets do not hesitate to apply Lenin's dictum "One step backward, two steps forward." And this tendency is supported by all of Russian history. Russia has always been less able force to apply/subtly than massively; it has always been more vulnerable to wars outside its territories than within, and to limited rather than all-out war.

- 29 -

[Y]

The U. S. strategic problem, then, can be summed up in these propo-
sitions: a) thermo-nuclear war should be avoided, except as a last resort.

b) No power possessing a thermo-nuclear capability will accept unconditional surrender without employing it and no nation is likely to risk thermo-nuclear destruction except to the extent that it believes its survival to be at stake.

c) It is, therefore, the task of our diplomacy to make clear that we do not aim for unconditional surrender; to create a framework in which the question of national survival is not involved in every issue. But equally we should leave no doubt about our determination to achieve inter-mediary objectives and to resist by force any Soviet military move.

d) Since diplomacy which is not related to aplausible employment of force is sterile, it must be the task of our military policy to develop a doctrine and a capability for the graduated employment of force.

VI

The discussion up to this point has concerned primarily the impact
of our diplomacy and of our military policy on the Soviet bloc. Its
impact on our allies and the uncommitted is no less important. The truism
that the contemporary crisis cannot be solved by the exercise of power,

- 30 -

[Y]

should not be confused with the notion that power plays no role in contemporary
affairs. Peace has never been maintained except by making aggression too
costly; the Free World still enjoys the benefits of diversity because of
the shield afforded by U. S. military strength. For this reason alone, the
quest for an adequate U. S. military doctrine concerns not only the U. S., but
also the rest of the world.

There can be little doubt that our system of alliances is undergoing
a crisis. Many reasons exist for this; the Soviet peace offensive, the
domestic problems of France, the economic stagnation of Britain. But surely
one fundamental cause is the absence of a unifying military doctrine. The
argument most frequently advanced for our coalition policy is that we
require overseas SAC bases. But whatever sense this policy makes to us,
it is not persuasive to countries who want above all to avoid the ravages
of another foreign occupation. Our Allies realize, moreover, that in an
all-out xxx thermo-nuclear war, the ground-strength of our NATO partners
will be almost irrelevant; in terms of the doctrine of massive retaliation
our Allies see little military significance in their own contribution.
The growth of the Soviet atomic stockpile compounds these difficulties.

Heretofore, a nation threatened with attack would generally resist,
because the worst that could happen to it, as the result of an unsuccessful
war, was the loss of its national substance. But now, where most of our
NATO partners consider the *outbreak* of a war as leading to national disintegration, our system of alliances is in dire jeopardy. It can be restored if

31

if at all, only by two measures: a) by a military doctrine and capability which makes clear that not every war is necessarily an all-out thermo-nuclear war, even in Europe; b) by measures such as the air-defense of NATO, which reduce the sense of impotence of our allies should thermo-nuclear war break out.

The problem with respect to the uncommitted, particularly the newly independent powers is more complicated. Where our NATO partners suffer from a perhaps excessive awareness of the reality of power, the former colonial states seem hardly aware of its existence and nature. This is understandable. Almost all the leaders of the newly independent states achieved their positions by distinguishing themselves in the struggle with the former colonial power. But the independence movements almost without exception provided a poor preparation for an understanding of modern power relationships. Based on the dogmas of late 19th century liberalism and its pacifism, the independence movements depended for their cohesion more on ideological agreement than on an evaluation of power factors. Indeed, the claim to superior spirituality was precisely the distinguishing feature

of, for example, Indian nationalism. Moreover, the bad conscience of
the colonial power and their increasing weakness gave the struggle for
independence more the character of a domestic debate conflict than of a power
dispute. To be sure, may of the leaders of the newly independent powers
spent many years in jail and suffered heroically for their cause. Still—
It is not to deny the measure of their dedication to assert that the results
achieved were out of proportion to their suffering. Empires which had
held vast dominions for hundreds of years disappeared without a shot being
fired and without making a serious effort to maintain themselves.

And if it is difficult for the leaders to retain a sense of proportion,
it is next to impossible for the mass of the people. On the whole they
were involved in the struggle for independence only with their sympathies;
to them the disappearance of the colonial powers must seem nothing short
of miraculous. Moreover, most of the people of the newly independent
states live in pre-industrial societies. It would be difficult enough
for them to grasp the full impact of industrialism, it is too much to
expect them to understand the meaning of nuclear technology. It is therefore
understandable that in most former colonial areas there is an over-estimation

of what can be achieved by the power of words alone; a penchant for

* believing that every problem can be solved by signing a proclamation.

Nor is this tendency diminished by the rewards that fall to the uncommitted in the struggle for allegiance of two big power centers. The temptation to defer the solution of difficult internal problems by entering the international arena, to solidify a complicated domestic position by triumphs in the field of foreign policy must be overwhelming.

But however, understandable, it is a dangerous trend. If this were a tranquil period, nothing would be involved but minor irritations. But in the present crisis, their dogmatism tends to make the newly independent states susceptible to Soviet blandishments and "peace offensives" and their lack of appreciation of power relationships may cause them to overestimate the protective power of moral precepts. Moreover, the only visible power in the newly independent states is that of Soviet or Chinese armies on their borders. The U.S. must therefore develop a 20th century concept for "showing the flag, which will permit us to make our power felt quickly and only decisively, not to deter Soviet aggression, but to impress the uncommitted

with our capacity for action. This does not mean rattling the "atom bomb." On the contrary, our show of force should be restrained and be used to underscore our moderation. What it does require is greater mobility and a weapons system that poses less absolute sanctions than thermo-nuclear war.

To be sure, this is an ungrateful and indeed an unpopular course. But we will not be able to avoid unpopularity; in the short run, all we can hope for is respect. Moreover, condescending as it may seem, we have an important educational task to perform with respect to *nuclear* power in the newly independent countries. Within a generation and probably/less time than that, most of these states will possess nuclear power plants and therefore the werewithal to manufacture nuclear weapons. And even if this should not prove the case, the Soviets may find it advantageous to increase international tensions by making available nuclear weapons, on the model of their arms deal with Egypt. But nuclear weapons in the hands of weak, irresponsible or merely ignorant governments present grave dangers.

- 35 -

Unless the U. S. has demonstrated its ability to prevent their use or
has at least established internationally accepted ground-rules for their
graduated employment, many areas of the world will begin to play the tra-
ditional role of the Balkans in European politics: the fuse which will
set off a holocaust.

VII

Paul Nitze in his searching article in *Foreign Affairs* has distin-
guished action policy from declaratory policy -- the policy one has and
the policy one announces. In addition, there exists a level of policy even more
fundamental -- the conception of alternatives which underlies any action,
the standards of debate which may be all the more fundamental for never
being made explicit. One of our difficulties in the nuclear period has
been our tendency to treat its problems primarily as technical. But power
is meaningless in the absence of a doctrine for employing it. The debate
provoked by Mr. Dulles' interview in *Life* has again underscored our dilemma:
the enormity of modern weapons makes any thought of war seem repugnant,
but the refusal to run any risk amounts to giving the Soviets a blank check.
This dilemma has been defined as the alternative of Armageddon or defeat
without war. We can overcome the paralysis induced by such a prospect
only by creating other alternatives both in our diplomacy, as well as in
our military policy. But these measures require strong nerves. We can
make the graduated employment of force stick only if we leave no doubt
about our readiness to face a final show-down; its effectiveness will
depend on our willingness to confront Armageddon.

FORCE AND DIPLOMACY IN THE NUCLEAR PERIOD

by

Henry A. Kissinger

In his whimsical essay "Perpetual Peace" written in 1795 the German philosopher Kant predicted that world peace could be attained in one of two ways: by a moral consensus which he identified with a republican form of government, or by a cycle of wars of ever-increasing violence which would reduce the major powers to impotence.

There is no evidence that Kant's essay was taken seriously in his lifetime, or indeed for a century and a half afterwards. But much of the current discussion about the impact of new weapons has the apocalyptic quality of a premonition of Kant's second proposition. It is only natural, of course, that an age which has known two world wars and an uneasy armistice since should have as its central problem the attainment of peace. It is paradoxical, however, that so much hope should concentrate on man's most destructive capabilities. We are told that the growth of thermo-nuclear stockpiles has created a "nuclear stalemate" which makes war, if not too risky, at least unprofitable. The President has argued that there is an increasing realization of the horrors of a nuclear holocaust, that there exists "no alternative to peace." Mr. Stassen has maintained that the peaceful application of nuclear energy has made irrelevant most of the traditional reasons for fighting wars because each major power can now bring about a tremendous increase in its power output without annexing either foreign territory or foreign labor. And Walter Lippman has interpreted the Geneva "summit conference" as a non-aggression treaty: a recognition by the U. S. and the U. S. S. R. that war is no

["FORM AND DIPLOMACY IN THE MODERN WORLD", "CHAPTER I. OF THE WORLD'S GREAT POWER", "In the beginning was the Word, which was with God, and in the Word was life, and in the life was the Word, and in the Word was the Spirit of God, and in the Spirit of God were all the holy口言語 of the Lord Jesus Christ, which are the life, and the power, and the authority, and the神能, and theWord, which is the Word of God, and which is the Life, and which is the Spirit of God, and which is the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, and which is the Spirit of the Father, and which is the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of the Father, and which is the Holy Spirit, and which is the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, and which is the Holy Spirit, and which is the Spirit of the Father, and which is the Holy Spirit, and which is the Spirit

- 2 -

These assertions have passed almost without challenge. They
fit in well with a national psychology which considers peace as the
"normal" pattern of relations among states and which has few doubts
that reasonable men meeting in an atmosphere of good will can settle
all differences by honest compromise. Too much depends, however, on
the correctness of such propositions not to subject them to closer
scrutiny. For the impact of the new weapons -- as every revolution --
has not only a technical but a conceptual side. Until power is used,
it is, as Colonel Lincoln from West Point has wisely said, what people
think it is. But except for the two explosions of obsolete type bombs
over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no nuclear weapons have ever been set off
in wartime; there exists therefore no previous experience on which to
draw. To a considerable extent the impact of the new weapons on
strategy, on policy, indeed on survival, depends on our interpretation
of their significance.

It, therefore, becomes of crucial importance that the U. S. not
paralyze itself by developing a calculus of risks according to which all
dangers would seem to be on our side. For if the Soviets interpret the
meaning of new technological developments more flexibly they may gain
a crucial advantage, not because their doctrine is correct, but because it
is flexible; not because their action is wise, but because they possess a
doctrine which permits them to act at all. Massive retaliation, our
current military doctrine, is no longer a workable strategic concept; it

- 3 -

simplifies Soviet policy because it puts a premium on probing actions where the risks of total war seem out of proportion to the objectives to be obtained. And it limits our flexibility because the decision to resist is never taken in the abstract; it always reflects a calculus of risks and as the Soviet nuclear stockpile grows our reluctance to run the risks of a major war will increase. We shall continue to insist that we shall fight for our vital interests; but the borderline between what is considered vital and what is peripheral will shift with the growth of the Soviet nuclear stockpile. ¹

But perhaps the Soviets are facing the same problem? Perhaps an equilibrium can be attained, if not of mutual comprehension, then of mutual terror? There is some evidence for this in the reiterated Soviet statements of the horrors of a hydrogen war. But apart from the fact that these statements are usually addressed to foreigners and may, therefore, be designed to increase the inhibitions of *others*, it makes all the difference which side has to *initiate* thermonuclear war. As long as the Soviets possess a sufficiently flexible weapons system, they can confront us with a series of contingencies which shift the risk of *initiating* an all-out war on us; which force us to calculate peripheral objectives in terms of the destruction of New York or Washington or Chicago.

Thus, even if the Soviet are sincere in their professions of their fear of *all-out* war, the need for a reappraisal of our military doctrine does not diminish. For it is one of the most difficult tasks of statesmanship

¹For a fuller discussion see the author's "Military Policy and the Defense of the Gray Areas," *Foreign Affairs*, April, 1955.

["The President may, by and through his military commission, appoint such officers as he may deem necessary and proper, and direct them to report to the President, and, in case of absence, to appoint others. The President may, in his任, appoint others, and, in case of absence, to appoint others, and, in like manner, may, by and through his military commission, appoint others, and, in case of absence, to appoint others, and, in like manner, may,

- 4 -

to reconcile the professions of another power with its potential. If
the international order possessed the sanction of domestic arrangements,
relations could be conducted largely on the basis of what states assert
their intentions to be. But in an international order composed of sovereign
states, the intentions of another power are subject to no compulsion, its
potential is always capable of being used with hostile intent. This is the
real meaning of "atomic blackmail." As the Soviet nuclear stockpile
grows overt threats have become unnecessary; every calculation of
risks will have to include the Soviet stockpile of atomic weapons and
ballistic missiles.

The phrase "there is no alternative to peace" can therefore only
lead to a paralysis of policy. It is tantamount to a renunciation of power
and a staking of everything on the professions of another sovereign state.
This would have been difficult at any period; it becomes an invitation to
disaster when confronted with a revolutionary power which prides itself
on its superior understanding of "objective" forces, and to which professions
unrelated to a plausible possibility of employing force will seem either
hypocrisy or stupidity. Force and diplomacy are not discrete realms; on the
contrary, the ultimate pressure during negotiations have always been the
possibility that recourse might be had to force. All the great international
congresses occurred either at the end of wars which had established the
relative strength of the contending powers or achieved their settlements on
the basis of a grouping of states whose strength was so well understood

II. Jatuhon an diwewoq redunna tosasooqatik, ani elisooet an
,ahmoqanazta olesmoh to oodonsa ani boosaaqoq rehso isohisacuoni ani
tsoosad sootsa tihw to isand ani do yisgaal hoiutanso od boosoo isohisain
nigiserevoa le boosognoo rehso isohisacuoni an aii toot, ad ani isohisaini viidt
ani ,naalasqooq on aii tootdaa ane tawoq redunna to isohisaini ani, sootsa
biih al alihT. Jueini siltsood diiw beaau gaid to isohisaa syawla al istimatoq
aliquibaa tasotona seivod ani aA "isohisaini boonqoq" le gaisasoo faat
to nolissooiso ytova yisaaavanneo soosad evad atsootit nawa swoy
haa aneqsaw boonqo to aliquibaa seivod ani obutioni an evad iliw aalih
.istimatoq atsootid

yinoo eholishtad anoo "sossoq of isivaharatis on aii erodi" soosatg anT
tawoq to ootisooisunooz s oot taumonsan al II. Yaliqoq to isivaharats s oot booi
,osotsa ngiserevoa redunna to soosaaalorr ani no gidiyrere to isohisaa a haa
of niilisaini no asnomod ti chalirq yaa to Hulilith nood evad hlaw alihT
liessi asinroq diiwaw tawoq yisaaatulevoq s diiw hoiutansoo nadoo seataeth
aritsasooz diiw on haa, esentol "evilsaide" to gahisainarasho soorsaqa ani so
redilis massi iliw sarsoq gidiyrere soo yitilisereeq olilisasig s oot hainairoo
ani so tamisat soorsalib son aas yisaaalib haa sarsoq. Yaliqisaa so yitilisereeq
sii nood syawla eonsi isohisineeq naivub strasaaq atsootit ani yisitnoo
isohisacuoni lsera ani ilh. Soorol on haa od yisgin eesuoneo tedi yitilisereeq
ani boonsifides bad doindw arso to boo ani to redilis hoiutansoo seataeyn
no atsoomefitesi viidt boevidas to aawoq gahisaini ani to isigurita evilsaide
hooetasona ilow oo anoo isignessa eesdw sootsa to gahisooq s oot isaad ani

- 5 -

that recourse to force was unnecessary.² To be sure, the threat to use force was not always made explicit and many conferences were conducted in a spirit of good-will and harmony. But this only reflected the fact that the protagonists understood the limits set by the ultimate sanction of using force and conducted themselves accordingly.

If the slogan "there is no alternative to peace" becomes accepted
doctrine, it will remove both a powerful brake on Soviet probing
actions and any incentive for making concessions. And if we couple it
with the statement that we do not accept the status quo we will only give
impetus to Soviet peace offensives without generating a meaningful pressure
on the Soviet sphere. The more terrible the weapons technology, the
greater will be the reluctance to run the risk of any action that may
involve its use. The strength of the British positions in the 19th
century was a clear understanding of the nature of sea power and a strategic
doctrine which permitted this understanding to be translated into reality.
The difficulty with present military technology is that we are far from an
agreement about its essential components and that the very power of
modern weapons far from giving us freedom of action, seems to inhibit
it. In short, our weapons technology and the objectives for employing them
have become incommensurable. No more urgent task confronts the U. S.
than to bring them into harmony.

² See the author's "The Congress of Vienna - A Reappraisal," *World Politics*, January, 1956.

["The law of the land is the same as that of the country where the person is taken, and the law of the country where the person is taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.", "In some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nIn some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nIn some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the country where the person was taken. For example, in the United States, the law of the state where the person was taken is the same as that of the state where the person was taken. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. For example, if a person is taken from a country where the law is different from that of the country where the person was taken, the law of the country where the person was taken will govern.\n\nFinally, in some countries the law of the state where the person was taken is the same

-6-

II

But perhaps this incommensurability is inherent in the new weapons and not in the military doctrine? Perhaps we are moving into a new era of international relations in which the powers will have to adjust themselves to the fact that force can no longer be used? What of the "nuclear stalemate" so often invoked?

The first thing to notice is that the term "nuclear stalemate" covers many relationships, each with different consequences for policy. In one sense, for example, it refers to a condition in which one side possesses a defensive capability to absorb for all practical purposes the maximum air-offensive potential of the other. In this case, there would occur a stalemate in the air battle and the issue of the war would depend on alternative weapons systems. Such a stalemate, moreover, would make war more, rather than less, likely because neither side would need to calculate with widespread physical destruction. Another kind of stalemate would occur if both sides possessed a sufficient offensive capability to inflict catastrophic blows on the other. This is the situation most frequently thought of when the term "stalemate" is used. Such a stalemate, if it exists, would have a deterrent effect, but not to all forms of aggression.

On the contrary, the deterrent effect works both ways: not only aggression, but the resistance to it becomes risky. What this type of stalemate deters is not war as such, but all-out war. The side which can present its challenges in less than all-out form would thereby gain a decided advantage.

- 7 -

Moreover, even if there does exist a stalemate, it does not make for stability in the present volatile state of technology, and much less for a consciousness of harmony. The specter of a technological breakthrough by the other side would always loom large; it would lend an apocalyptic quality to all current international relations. To be sure, not every technological breakthrough is of the same significance. A more elegant delivery system by itself will not prove decisive, provided either side can get a sufficient number of weapons on the target. A fundamental advance in the relation of offense to defense, on the other hand, may upset the military equation completely. Military superiority, therefore, depends not on the effectiveness of any one weapon, but on the relation of offense and defense to each other. The importance of this offense-defense "mix" can be illustrated by the following example: If one power places all its bets on strategic air power while the other side develops a very large defensive capability and only moderate offensive air power, it may happen that the defensive capability of the offensively weaker power will absorb the total offense of the other side, thus freeing the initially weaker SAC for a mortal blow.

Still the technical problems can be overdone. For the purpose of national policy the significance of the term "stalemate" resides not in the technical, but in the psychological aspect. For the "stalemate" is not anything new. In a very real sense there has been a nuclear stalemate since the explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was, to be sure, not a physical stalemate: for close to a decade the U. S, was relatively immune from Soviet retaliation. But it was a stalemate

- 8 -

none the less in the sense that we never succeeded in translating
our military advantage into an act of policy. This was due to
many factors: a theory of war which knew no issue save total
victory, humanitarian impulses, lack of clarity about the process
in which we found ourselves involved. But whatever the reason,
the U. S. atomic monopoly had at best a deterrent effect. It may
have prevented a further expansion of the Soviet sphere; it did not
enable us to achieve a strategic transformation in our favor. Even
the deterrent effect is questionable: assuming that there had never
been an atomic bomb, would we have surrendered Europe to the
Soviets? Would the U. S. S. R. have risked a general war, so soon
after having its territory devastated by the Germans and losing, on
the most conservative estimates, 10 million dead? Not even a dictator-
ship can do everything simultaneously.

But apart from the questionable deterrence to an all-out war, the
period of our atomic monopoly witnessed the consolidation of a satellite
orbit in Eastern Europe, the triumph of Communism in China and
most fundamentally, the growth of the Soviet atomic stockpile. Those who
expect great things from technological breakthroughs would do well to
study American actions after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No foreseeable
technological breakthrough is likely to be more fundamental than the
discovery of the A-bomb. Yet its possession did not enable us to
prevent another power which never hid its hostile intent to expand its
orbit and to develop a capacity to inflict a mortal blow on the U. S.

- 9 -

What happened? Simply that we added the A-bomb to our military arsenal without integrating its implications into our thinking; that we saw in it a tool in a theory of warfare which had showed a poverty, indeed almost an absence of conception during the two world wars, but which became completely inapplicable after the explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For over a century before the outbreak of World War I, wars were an extension of policy. Because they were fought for determinate objectives there existed a rough commensurability between the force employed and the goal sought. But with the outbreak of World War I, war suddenly seemed to become an end in itself. After the first few months of the war, none of the protagonists would have been able to name an objective other than the total defeat of the enemy or at least they would have named objectives, such as the German demand for the annexation of Belgium, which amounted to unconditional surrender. This was all the more remarkable because none of the political leaders had prepared for anything but a war in the 19th century style, with rapid movements and quick decisions, so that the stalemate of the first winter was due primarily to the exhaustion of the munitions supplies. There had in fact occurred a hiatus between military and political planning which has never been bridged. The military staffs had developed plans for total victory, because these are the most determinate plans possible in which all factors are under the control of the military. But the political leadership proved incapable of giving this conception a concrete expression

³ Raymond Aron. *A Century of Total War*, Chapter I.

- 10 -

in terms of peace aims. The result was four years of war of ever-
increasing violence which carried its hatreds into a peace treaty that
considered more the redressing of sacrifices than the stability of the
international order and led within less than a generation to another world
war fought in the same style.

The notion that war and peace, political and military goals were
discrete entities had become so commonplace by the end of World War II
that the most powerful nation in the world found itself paralyzed by the
enormity of its own weapons technology. In every concrete instance,
even in the matter of the regulation of the atom which affected our very
survival we found ourselves stalemated by our own preconceptions:
the consequences of our actions always seemed to outbalance the
gains to be achieved. Thus our policy became entirely defensive: we
possessed a doctrine of power to repel overt aggression, but we could
not translate it into a positive goal. And even in the one instance where
we resisted aggression we did not use the weapon around which our
whole military planning had been built. The hiatus between military
and national policy was complete: our power was incommensurable
with the objectives of our national policy and our military doctrine could
not find any intermediary application for our power. The growth of the
Soviet atomic stockpile has merely brought the physical equation in
line with the psychological one; it has increased the reluctance to
engage in a general war even more. But it has not changed the funda-
mental question: how the political and military doctrines can be harmonized,
how our power can give impetus to our policy rather than paralyze it.

- 11 -

III

One way of avoiding the problem is to deny that it exists. It is
possible to argue that the whole term "stalemate" is illusory, that in
an all-out war one side is almost certain to be able to "win" in the
sense of being able to impose its will on its antagonist. This is technically
correct. But it does not affect the calculus by which the decision to enter
the war is taken; in its crudest form whether it is "worth" fighting the
war in the first place. Obviously no power will start a war it thinks
it is going to lose. But it will also be reluctant to start a war during the
course of which it thinks it will lose its national substance. It is doubt-
ful whether France would have entered World War I had she known the
losses she would suffer. The capacity to inflict greater losses on the
enemy than one suffers, is the condition of policy; it cannot be its end.

The transformation imposed by the "nuclear stalemate" is not that
victory in an all-out war has become technically impossible, but that it
can no longer be imposed at an acceptable cost. Nor is this conclusion
avoided by an appeal to military rationality. In Paul Nitze's hypothetical
all-out war, for example, confined to air-fields and SAC installations,
the bombing of cities would be unwise in the early stages of the war and
unnecessary in the later ones after air-superiority has been achieved.

⁴ See *Foreign Affairs*, January 1956, pp. 187ff.

[Y]

- 12 -

has a strategic advantage either in terms of base structure or in
weapons potential, for it would put the enemy at its mercy at a
minimum cost. But for the side, which stands to lose the air-battle
and which seeks to exact a maximum price for its defeat, the most
rational strategy may well reside in the greatest destructiveness.
It may at least attempt to equalize the *threat* of nuclear destruction
by inflicting its *actuality* on the enemy and thereby deprive him of the
fruits of his victory or at least make it too risky for him to seek total
victory. Unconditional surrender -- or depriving the enemy of his
nuclear capability which amounts to the same thing--cannot be
achieved by subterfuge.

Others seek to avoid the horrors of nuclear war by outlawing
nuclear weapons and returning to "conventional armaments," But
apart from the fact that the distinction between nuclear and conventional
weapons becomes increasingly nebulous as the range of low-yield
weapons is increased, it will be impossible to reverse present trends.
The whole planning and procurement of our defense establishment pre-
supposes the use of nuclear weapons and procurement cycles cannot be
altered every few years.

To be sure, the above argument is circular: it reasons from
existing policy and policy can be reversed. But the author has become
reluctantly convinced that the emphasis on nuclear weapons is correct,
provided it can find a proper diversification and political expression.
For the possession of nuclear weapons systems by both sides insures that
any future war will be nuclear. At a minimum, forces will have to

- 13 -

maneuver as if nuclear weapons might be used. This is true because the side which concentrates its forces might thereby give its opponent the precise incentive he needs to use nuclear weapons. But if forces are dispersed, they will not be able to hold a line or achieve a breakthrough with conventional weapons, because the destructive power of conventional weapons is so much smaller. Finally, nuclear weapons, particularly of the low-yield type, seem to offer the best opportunity to compensate for our inferiority in man-power and to use our superiority in technology to best advantage. Of course, we have to consider not only the damage we can inflict, but the losses we would suffer. On the balance, however, the advantage is probably on our side: an increase in fire-power has generally aided the defensive and we are much more likely to resist aggression than to initiate it; nuclear war raises special problems of control, of maneuver and of diversified capability which our system, industrial and political, should be better able to withstand than that of the Soviets.

It is not for nothing that Soviet propaganda has played on two related themes: that there is no such thing as a "limited" nuclear war and "ban the bomb." For both have the corollary "There is no alternative to peace," and both deprive our policy of flexibility and sap resistance to the preferred form of Soviet strategy: peripheral wars, internal subversion and atomic blackmail.

- 14 -

IV

We have, therefore, to return to an earlier question: whether the nuclear period permits a policy of limited wars? Before answering this question, it may be useful to analyze precisely what is meant by a limited war. Is a war limited because it involves less than the available military resources or is it limited because not all national resources are used for it? In the 17th century, for example, Louis XIV employed almost his whole army constantly for a period of close to twenty-five years. But his military establishment utilized only a relatively small proportion of the national resources. This was not due to any self-restraint on the part of the French king, but to the nature of his domestic structure which made it impossible for him to conscript his subjects or to levy income-taxes or to confiscate property. His military establishment was, therefore, limited by his available resources and with it the wars he fought. On the other hand, the wars of Prussia while they did not exceed in scope those of France, involved an incomparably greater mobilization of national resources. This was because Prussia's wealth was so much less that she could retain her position as a major power only by a domestic tour de force, by organizing the whole state for war. Still Prussia's exertions only gave her a precarious parity with stronger states; she did not force them to emulate her; the wars remained limited because the major powers were able to mobilize only a small proportion of their national resources for war and because the one power which was not so restricted did not thereby achieve a decisive advantage.

["The King of England, who had been a guest in the castle, was very pleased with himself and his guests, and said to his guests, \"Now, my friends, I will tell you a secret. The King of France is coming this way, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of England will go to the aid of the King of France, and we shall have a great battle between our forces. The King of France will go to the aid of the King of England, and we shall have a great

- 15 -

Since the French Revolution, the domestic restrictions on the
capacity of governments to mobilize national resources have increasingly
disappeared. To be sure, there still exist differences not in the power,
but in the willingness to exact sacrifices: one of the sources of Soviet
strength is her readiness to devote a much larger proportion of the
national income to military expenditures than the U.S. But for our
present purpose it is sufficient to point out that no major power will
be forced to adopt a strategy of limited objectives because of insuffi-
cient resources. With modern weapons systems, a limited war will be an
act of policy, not of necessity.

What then is a limited war under modern conditions? One can
think of many models: a war confined to a geographic area, a war that
does not utilize the whole weapons system, but limits its employment to
specific targets. But none of these military definitions seem adequate:
a way may be confined geographically or in terms of targets and yet drain
the national substance, as happened in France in World War I. The fact
that the whole weapons system is not employed, or that the destructive
capability of the existing weapons system is small, is no more a gua-
rantee against excessive suffering. A new world war fought with World
War II weapons might in the long run prove as destructive as a short
nuclear war. In the Thirty Year's War the number in each army was small
by present-day standards, the power of the weapons was negligible measured
against modern armaments and yet it is estimated that at least 30% of the
population of Germany died during its course as a result of its length
and its indetermination. In short, there exists no military way to

[y]

["and to the general government of the country, and to the general government of the state, and to the general government of the nation, and to the general government of the world, and to the general government of all the nations of the earth, and to the general government of all the living things on the earth, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the living things on the land, and to the general government of all the living things on the sea, and to the general government of all the living things in the air, and to the general government of all the

limit a war, expressed in Clausewitz's dictum that wars tend towards the maximum of violence and that the only rational military objective is the destruction of the enemy's will to resist.⁶ Wars can be limited only by political decisions, by defining objectives which do not threaten the survival of the enemy. In these terms, an all-out war is a war the objective of which is to render the enemy defenseless. A limited war is one for a determinate objective which by its very existence will establish a certain commensurability between the force employed and the goal to be attained. The prerequisite for a policy of limited war is the re-introduction of the political element into our concept of warfare; the surrender of the notion that policy ends when war begins, or that war has goals different from those of national policy.⁷

In the great periods of European Cabinet diplomacy between the Treaty of Westphalia and the French Revolution and between the Congress of Vienna and the outbreak of the first World War, wars were limited but not through an agreement on the battlefield. Rather there existed a political framework which led to a general consciousness of limited risks. This political framework was due to several factors: there was, to begin with, a conscious decision that the upheavals of the Thirty Year's War and of the Napoleonic wars should not occur again. This decision proved most effective in the period immediately following the wars, but it gave the international orders created by the Treaty of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna the breathing spell necessary to

6 Clausewitz. *Vom Kriege*. Leipzig: B Behr's Verlag, 1918. p. 3.

⁷ This too was recognized by Clausewitz. Although wars, he argued, tend towards a maximum of violence, they never reach it. The violence is always tempered by the political reactions of states, by their domestic structures and by their calculation of risk. Clausewitz, *op. cit.*, p. 10ff.

- 17 -

convince the major powers that none of the outstanding disputes involved their survival. More important was the fact that the international order did not contain a revolutionary power. No state was so dissatisfied with the peace settlement that it sought to gain its ends by overthrowing it and no power considered its domestic notion of justice as incompatible with that of the other components of the international order. Finally, in an era of stable weapons technology, both the strength of the powers and the assessment of it were relatively fixed, the risks of surprise attack and of unforeseen technological developments were relatively small. All this did not make conflicts impossible, but it limited them to disputes within a given framework; wars occurred, but they were fought in the name of the existing framework and the peace was legitimized as the better expression of an agreed consensus.

If we inquire which of these factors -- fear of war, legitimacy and a stable power relationship -- is present today, little cause for optimism remains. None of the major powers accept either the present framework of the international order or the domestic structure of the other states. On the contrary, we are confronted by a power which for over a generation has proclaimed the incompatibility of its domestic notion of justice with that of other states, and which has built an internal control system on the myth of a permanently hostile world. Every agreement with the Soviet bloc has proved temporary because it has been interpreted by the Soviet bloc as a tactical maneuver to prepare positions for the inevitable showdown. The slogan of "peaceful coexistence" cannot obscure the fact that we are living in a revolutionary period. For the

["The American people have been given the impression that the American government is a benevolent one, and that the American people are the center of the government. This is not true. The American government is a complex one, and the American people are only a part of it. The American government is a federal government, and the American people are only a part of the government. They have no real power, and the government has no real control over them. The American government is a constitutional government, and the American people are only a part of the government.

- 18 -

[Y]

Nor is the nature of power relationships more reassuring. Even with a less volatile technology a two-power world would have an inherent element of instability because an increase in strength of one side cannot be made up by superior political dexterity, but is tantamount to an absolute weakening of the other side. Moreover, the weapons technology is far from stable. Almost up to the outbreak of World War II a weapons system would be good for a generation at least, while today it may be out-dated when it has barely passed the blue-print stage. Yet the failure to plan on the basis of these "prematurely aged" weapons might at any given point of time create a vital weakness. In the technological race, moreover, the side which has adopted the military doctrine that its opponent can always strike the first blow is at a distinct disadvantage, for it cannot afford a single mistake; it cannot afford to fall behind even for an instant. It must phase its planning and procurement over an indefinite period while its opponent, if he is determined on a show-down, can plan for a target date.

- 19 -

Today every weapons test augurs much worse horrors. There exists, therefore, a limiting condition to every diplomatic move. The distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons may be nebulous in military terms, but every power has a powerful incentive to make some distinction, however tenuous its logic: the fear of thermo-nuclear extinction. This fear should be utilized to guarantee the "limits" of war and diplomacy.⁸

The problem of present-day strategy is, therefore, to devise alternative strategies and weapons systems to confront the other side with contingencies from which it can extricate itself only by thermo-nuclear war; but to deter it from this step by an adequate retaliatory capacity. All Soviet moves in the post-war period have had this character: they have faced us with problems which by themselves did not seem "worth" an all-out nuclear war,⁹ but with which we were unable to deal by an alternative strategy. We refused to defeat the Chinese in Korea because we were unwilling to risk an all-out conflict; we saw no solution to the Indo-Chinese crisis without increasing dangers we were reluctant to confront. A capability for the graduated employment of force may reverse or at least arrest this trend. Graduated deterrence is thus not an alternative to massive retaliation, but its complement: for it is the capability for "massive retaliation" which provides the sanction against expanding the war.

⁸These considerations do not apply, of course, to a totally irrational decision to enter a war; Hitler presumably would have been in-different to bringing the world down around him. But even if Hitler would not have accepted this reasoning, the certainty of nuclear destruction might have given the German military, on the verge of revolt, the incentive to refuse to carry out the order to enter the war. Similar considerations may apply to the Soviet military leadership.

⁹See for example Mr. Finletter's letter to the *Herald Tribune*, Dec. 22, '55.

["The_idea of a_ social system which is based on the principle of the\nsocial organization of the community, and which is intended to\nprovide for the general welfare of the members of the community,\nwithout伤to the individual interests of any one of them, is\nconsidered as a fundamental principle of the new social system\nwhich is to be established in place of the old system of\nslavery, and which is to be established in place of the old\nsocial organization which has existed up to the present time,\nunder the name of the Slave system, and which is to be\nabolished in all its forms and in all its aspects, whether\nexpressed or implied, whether direct or indirect, whether\ngoverned by law or not, whether the aim of the system is to\nenslave the individual or to benefit him, whether the object of\nthe system is to make the individual dependent on the community\nor to make the community dependent on the individual, whether\nthe system is to be established by law or by custom, whether\nit is to be established by general agreement or by contract,\nwhether the system is to be established for the benefit of the\ncommunity or for the benefit of the individual, whether the\nsystem is to be established for the benefit of the master or\nfor the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master\nor for the benefit of the slave, whether the system is to be\nestablished for the benefit of the master or for the benefit of\nthe slave, whether the system is to be established for the\nbenefit of the master or for the benefit of the slave, whether\nthe system is to be established for the benefit of the master

- 20 -

The U. S strategic problem, then, can be summed up in these propositions:

a) All-out thermo-nuclear war should be avoided, except as a last resort.

c) It is, therefore, the task of our diplomacy to make clear that we do not aim for unconditional surrender; to create a framework in which the question of national survival is not involved in every issue. But equally we should leave no doubt about our determination to achieve intermediate objectives.

d) Since diplomacy which is not related to a plausible employment of force is sterile, it must be the task of our military policy to develop a doctrine and a capability for the graduated employment of force.

The house of my forefathers was destroyed in a fire.

The fire destroyed all the houses in the city.

In the city of Tyre there was a great fire which destroyed all the houses.

In Tyre there was a great fire which destroyed all the houses.

This is what happened.

The city of Tyre was destroyed by a great fire.

This is what happened.

This is what happened.

- 21 -

V

A doctrine for the graduated employment of force would enable us to escape the vicious circle in which we find ourselves and which can best be described as a flight into technology. We reply to every Soviet advance in the nuclear field by devising more fearful weapons, but in the process we reduce our willingness to employ them. A more flexible weapons system, which emphasized low-yield weapons, would extend the range of our alternatives by posing less absolute consequences. Such weapons system and the doctrine it implies can, however, only be the result of a political decision; the military cannot be asked to arrive at it on the basis of purely military considerations, for it presents them with peculiar difficulties. An all-out war is relatively simple to plan for, because its limits are set by military considerations and even by military capacity. The defining characteristic of limited wars, on the other hand, is precisely the imposition of ground rules which define its relationship to political objectives. Planning here becomes much more conjectural, much more subtle and much more indeterminate.

In devising a doctrine for the graduated employment of force, we should have no illusions of the political objectives attainable by it. Graduated deterrence is not a cheap substitute for "massive retaliation"; it involves the recognition that with the passing of our atomic monopoly, the possibility of imposing unconditional surrender at an acceptable cost has disappeared. The graduated employment of force, therefore, presupposes

- 22 -

[Y]

a capability which is really "graduated." If we build our whole strategy around "absolute" weapons, professions of limited objectives will be meaningless and any use of nuclear weapons is likely to touch off an all-out war. Our ability to fight a limited nuclear war depends, therefore, on our ability to extend the range of weapons in the low-yield field and to devise tactics for their utilization.<sup>10</sup>

The renunciation of unconditional surrender does not mean the acceptance of a military stalemate. The notion that there is no alternative between total victory or the *status quo ante* is much too mechanical. An enemy might accept intermediary transformations if his military position became untenable without resorting to all-out war. If SAC retains its retaliatory capacity, the other side may decide that amputation is preferable to suicide. In these terms, the calculus of risks by which a limited nuclear war is expanded into an all-out thermo-nuclear exchange is almost the same as that by which a limited conventional war is expanded into an all-out war. Whether we can achieve local transformations will, therefore, depend on three conditions:

a) on the ability to generate pressures other than the threat of thermo-nuclear war;

<sup>10</sup>One of the most important tasks of planning would seem to be the "war-gaming" of situations which involve the use of nuclear weapons by both sides and what would constitute victory in such a war. It is only fair to say that both the importance of low-yield weapons and changed tactics are being recognized by the military.

- 23 -

[Y]

The prerequisite for the graduated employment of force, then, is not only the capability for it, but its plausibility to the other side. Soviet reactions to American measures will depend not only on what we intend to do but what we are thought to intend to do. But is it possible to bring about a climate in which national survival is thought not to be at stake? Will the Soviets accept any withdrawal or will they not consider it a first step in an attempt to overthrow them? It must be admitted that there are reasonable grounds for pessimism. One cause of the revolutionary intransigence of the Soviets is, after all, their sense of insecurity, their conviction of a permanently hostile outside world. It is a conviction, moreover, which is produced not by U.S. policies, but by the existence of the U.S. as the strongest capitalist power. On the other hand, the problem is not simply one of reassuring the Soviets which is probably a well-nigh impossible effort, but of giving effect to the one interest we have presumably in common: that we both wish to avoid a thermo-nuclear war. Given this attitude, an all-out war is likely only in two contingencies: If the Soviets miscalculate their opportunity to achieve hegemony in Eurasia by peripheral actions which, in the absence of a capability for the graduated employment of force, may force us into an all-out war; or if the USSR should misunderstand our intentions and treat every US military move as if it were the prelude to an all-out war. It, therefore, becomes the task of our diplomacy to convey to the Soviet bloc that we are capable of courses other than all-out war, or inaction, and that we intend to use this capability. This will not inevitably prevent an all-out war: if the Soviets feel strong enough

- 24 -

to knock us out by a surprise attack, they will presumably do so. But it may prevent an all-out war based either on a miscalculation or on a misunderstanding of our intentions.

Moreover, while the Marxist philosophy has heretofore imparted great flexibility to Soviet policy, we may be able to use it as well to give effect to a policy of graduated deterrence. The belief in inevitable triumph is after all as consistent with tactical withdrawal as with an effort to fill every power vacuum. All of Soviet history testifies to the fact that this is not a regime for last stands if other alternatives present themselves. One need only study the abject efforts of the Politburo in the months before the German invasion to come to a settlement with Hitler to realize that if confronted with superior power the Soviets do not hesitate to apply Lenin's dictum: one step backward, two steps forward. And this tendency is supported by all of Russian history. Russia has always been less able to apply force subtly than massively; it has always been more vulnerable to wars outside its territories than within, and to limited rather than all-out war.

But what measures are available to our diplomacy to create a framework of limited objectives? Fortunately the imbalance in our national strategy has been caused less by our diplomacy than by our military policy. Indeed, our difficulty has been precisely the fact that our moderate pronouncements have seemed incongruous in the face of an all-or-nothing military policy and that our diplomacy has been deprived of flexibility because massive retaliation has had as its corollary the slogan "there is no alternative to peace." A modification of our military doctrine

- 25 -

[Y]

would, therefore, go a long way towards creating a framework of limited objectives; the next step would be to convey this change to the outside world. In this task, it may be well to remember that every act of a major power has not only a substantive but a symbolic significance. Tests of high-yield weapons no doubt have their place, although there must be an upper limit of practical effectiveness, and their deterrent effect has to be weighed against their impact on the growth of neutralism abroad and eventually in this country. But in the present situation, low-yield weapons are much more likely to be translatable into political advantage. No one doubts our ability to fight an all-out war; what is at issue is our willingness to fight for anything save a direct attack on the U. S. and the meaningfulness of such a resistance should it take place.

But if it is one task of our diplomacy to present our intentions in a way to give us maximum flexibility, it is another to leave no doubt about the aspects of our military policy we cannot compromise. We cannot sacrifice basic national strategy to propaganda victories. Foreign policy is the art of utilizing the facts of life, not of denying their existence. And one of the fundamental facts of life is that any future war will be nuclear, that present trends should not be reversed. To speak of abolishing nuclear arms even as a long-range goal, even with a fool-proof inspection system is extremely hazardous. If we surrender our nuclear capability the Soviets will retain a conventional strength which would place all of Eurasia at their mercy; they would, therefore, be in a position to confront us with impossible alternatives by accepting our own proposals.

- 26 -

[Y]

We should, for this reason, reject even the implications that nuclear weapons are in a special category from modern weapons in general. But while we cannot escape the facts imposed on us by modern technology we should express our willingness to mitigate their horrors. The political framework for the graduated employment of force is not created by "ban the bomb" agitation, but by proposals which seek to define the conditions of its use. It is, therefore, important that there occur a high-level pronouncement which would define as precisely as possible what is understood by the graduated employment of force, just as the doctrine of massive retaliation explained the rationale for all-out conflicts.

Such a declaration might then lead to proposals which would attempt to make these conditions bi-lateral. One fruitful field of activity might be conventions based on the established concept of "open cities". We could announce, for example, that we shall not bomb cities except in retaliation and provided that they are not used as military bases. Although a systematic effort to define the term "military base" is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to stress one point: that because of the luxury we enjoyed in World War II of being able to bomb the enemy without fear of retaliation, we may have come to define the term "military" much too widely. To be sure, almost every civilian activity bears on a war effort in some way, but no commander attacks every enemy position. On the contrary, he attacks where his losses will be fewest, where there exists the most favorable relationship between his risks and his gains. We cannot define "military base" in such a way that every production facility

- 27 -

is a target. Nor is this necessary. Up to World War II, the destructive potential of individual weapons was relatively so small that huge quantities were required to achieve a decision on the battlefield. Since these could only be supplied out of current production it made sense to seek to cut them off at the source. The destructiveness of modern weapons is such, however, that the stockpile at the outbreak of a war will probably suffice for its course and, in any case, it may be more decisively employed on the battlefield than against production centers.¹¹ The concept of "open city" should, therefore, exclude primarily air-bases, troop concentrations and weapons stockpiles.

Such a proposal would have substantial advantages even if not accepted by the Soviets. It would, at a minimum, shift attention from the unrealistic and dangerous "ban the bomb", and "there is no alternative to peace" agititation to a field where constructive progress is possible. It may force the Soviets to consider alternatives to all-out war which they may embody in counter-proposals. In the process, a clearer understanding of the opposing strategies may remove at least the danger that an all-out war breaks out because of a misunderstanding of the intentions of the other side.¹²

¹¹For an elaboration of these ideas see Richard C. Leghorn, "No Need to Bomb Cities to Win Wars." U.S. News and World Report. Jan. 28, 1955.

¹²Most of these ideas have been advanced in greater length and detail elsewhere. They are outlined here only to indicate the direction our diplomacy might take.

- 28 -

[Y]

Many variations and alternatives of the above proposal are possible. They are intended to indicate a direction, not a program. However, both our diplomacy and our military policy will be sterile unless they are backed by an enlightened public opinion. (Theoretically the Soviets face the same problem, but their power and willingness to manipulate public opinion and to suppress it is much greater than ours). And public opinion in the U. S. is faced by two contradictory dangers: on the one hand, the residue from the period of our atomic monopoly which considers only what the damage we can inflict, not the losses we might suffer and which might therefore have little patience with intermediary solutions; on the other, the prospect that as the destructive potential of the new weapons comes to be increasingly realized there may grow up an American neutralism. Our leadership will have to steer between this Scylla and Charybdis, it must educate the people not only to our dangers, but also to our opportunities. It can take comfort from the fact that despite all the confusions and disappointments of the post-war period, the American people have at no time been unresponsive to firm presidential leadership

- 29 -

VI

The discussion up to this point has concerned primarily the impact
of our diplomacy and of our military policy on the Soviet bloc. Its
impact on our Allies and the uncommitted is no less important. There
can be little doubt that our system of alliance is undergoing a crisis.
Many reasons exist for this, the Soviet peace offensive, the domestic
problems of France, the economic stagnation of Britain. But perhaps
the most fundamental cause is the absence of a unifying military doctrine.
The purpose of an alliance is two-fold: to confront the aggressor with
superior force and to give each ally a greater degree of security than
he could attain alone. But our current military doctrine coupled with
the growth of the Soviet nuclear stockpile makes both of these conditions
problematical in the eyes of our NATO partners. In an all-out thermo-
nuclear war the ground strength of our NATO partners will be almost
irrelevant; in terms of the doctrine of massive retaliation our Allies
see little military significance in their own contribution. To be sure,
their air-bases are important to our strategy, but this is no inducement
to countries who want above all to avoid the ravages of an all-out war.
We have for this reason to develop a military doctrine which makes not
only sense to us, but also to our Allies; which guarantees not only our
ultimate victory, but their own survival.

The situation is complicated by the growth of the Soviet atomic
stockpile which confronts all of Western Europe with the imminence of
nuclear destruction. This places an entirely different complexion on
the decision to enter a war or on a policy of alliances which implies it.

- 30 -

Heretofore, a nation threatened with attack would generally resist, because the worst that could happen to it, as the result of an unsuccessful war, was the loss of its national substance. But not, where most of our NATO partners consider the outbreak of a war as leading to national disintegration, our system of alliances is in dire jeopardy. It can be restored, if at all, only by two measures:

a) by a military doctrine and capability which makes clear that not every war is necessarily an all-out thermonuclear war, even in Europe;

b) by measures such as the air-defense of NATO, which reduce the sense of impotence of our Allies should thermonuclear war break out.

The problem with respect to the uncommitted, particularly the newly independent powers is more complicated. Where our NATO partners suffer from a perhaps excessive awareness of the reality of power, the former colonial states seem hardly aware of its existence and nature. This is understandable. The leaders of the newly independent states achieved their positions by distinguishing themselves in the struggle with the former colonial power. But the independence movements almost without exception provided a poor preparation for an understanding of modern power relationships. Based on the dogmas of late 19th century liberalism and its pacifism, the independence movements depended for their cohesion more on ideological agreement than on an evaluation of power factors. Indeed, the claim to superior spirituality was and is the battlecry of, for example, Indian nationalism. Moreover, the bad conscience of the colonial power and their increasing weakness gave the struggle for independence more the character of a domestic debate than of a power dispute. To be

- 30 -

sure, many of the leaders of the newly independent powers spent years
in jail and suffered heroically for their cause. It is not to deny the
measure of their dedication to assert that the results achieved were
out of proportion to their suffering. Empires which had held vast dominions
for hundreds of years disappeared without a shot being fired and without
making a serious effort to maintain themselves.

And if it is difficult for the leaders to retain a sense of
proportion, it is next to impossible for the mass of the people. On the
whole, they were involved in the struggle for independence only with their
sympathies; to them the disappearance of the colonial powers must seem
nothing short of miraculous. Moreover, most of the people of the newly
independent states live in pre-industrial societies. It would be difficult
enough for them to grasp the full impact of industrialism, it is too much to
expect them to understand the meaning of nuclear technology. It is, therefore,
understandable that in former colonial areas there is an over-estimation of
what can be achieved by the power of words alone; a penchant for believing
that every problem can be solved by a proclamation. Nor is this tendency
diminished by the rewards that fall to the uncommitted in the struggle
for allegiance of two big power centers. The temptation to defer the
solution of difficult internal problems by entering the international
arena, to solidify a complicated domestic position by triumphs in the
field of foreign policy must be overwhelming.

But, however understandable, it is a dangerous trend. If this were
a tranquil period, nothing would be involved but minor irritations. But
in the present crisis, their dogmatism tends to make the newly independent

states susceptible to Soviet "peace offensives" and their lack of appreciation of power relationships may cause them to overestimate the protective power of moral precepts. Moreover, the only visible power in the newly independent states is that of Soviet or Chinese armies on their borders. The U. S., therefore, requires a 20th century concept for "showing the flag", which will permit us to make our power felt quickly and decisively, not only to deter Soviet aggression, but to impress the uncommitted with our capacity for action. This does not mean rattling the "atom bomb". On the contrary, our show of force should be restrained and be used to underscore our moderation. What it does require is greater mobility and a weapons system that poses less absolute sanctions than thermonuclear war.

To be sure, this is an ungrateful and indeed an unpopular course. But we will not be able to avoid unpopularity; in the short run, all we can hope for is respect. Moreover, condescending as it may seem, we have an important educational task to perform with respect to nuclear power in the newly independent countries. Within a generation and probably in less time than that, most of these states will possess nuclear power plants and, therefore, the wherewithal to manufacture nuclear weapons. And even if this should not prove the case, the Soviets may find it advantageous to increase international tensions by making available nuclear weapons, on the model of their arms deal with Egypt. But nuclear weapons in the hands of weak or irresponsible or merely ignorant governments present grave dangers. Unless the U. S. has demonstrated its ability to

- 33-

prevent their use or has at least established internationally accepted ground-rules for their graduated employment, many areas of the world will begin to play the traditional role of the Balkans in European politics: the fuse which will set off a holocaust.

VII

Paul Nitze in his searching article in *Foreign Affairs* has distinguished action policy from declaratory policy -- the policy one has and the policy one announces. But there exists a level of policy even more fundamental -- the conception of alternatives which underlies any action, the standards of debate which may be all the more fundamental for never being made explicit. One of our difficulties in the nuclear period has been our tendency to treat its problems primarily as technical. But power is meaningless in the absence of a doctrine for employing it. It has always been true that the side which developed the more flexible doctrine thereby achieved a decided advantage, all other factors being equal: superior mobility and the use of artillery, a superior relationship between fire and movement furnished the basis of Napoleon's victories. The ability to understand the importance of railroads in concentrating forces was a reason for Prussia's victories in the 19th century. Similar examples would be the victories of the Roman legions over the Macedonian phalanx, of the English archers against the medieval knights (in part, of course, also a technological breakthrough). All these were victories not of superior resources, but of superior doctrine: the ability to break the framework which had come to be taken for granted and of making the victory all the more complete for facing the antagonist with contingencies which he had never even considered.

- 34 -

To be sure, military doctrine will not by itself be able to deal
with the present period of revolutionary change. We need other measures:
an imaginative diplomacy, an ability to identify ourselves with the
aspirations of humanity. But we always seem in danger of focussing on
the current Soviet threat and of neglecting the alternative strategies
open to them. During the period of Soviet militancy, we were so pre-
occupied with building defensive barriers that we neglected the psycho-
logical framework which could alone make them meaningful. And now, with
the Soviet emphasis on more indirect methods of penetration, we stand
in danger of forgetting that economic aid presupposes at least a modicum
of security against foreign invasion.

The debate provoked by Mr. Dulles' statements in *Life* against empha-
sized our dilemma: the enormity of modern weapons makes any thought of
war seem repugnant, but the refusal to run the risk of war amounts to giving
the Soviets a blank check. The dilemma has been defined as the alter-
native between Armageddon or defeat without war. We can overcome the
paralysis induced by this prospect only by creating other alternatives both
in our diplomacy, as well as in our military policy. But these measures
require strong nerves. We can make the graduated employment of force stick
only if we leave no doubt about our readiness to face a final show-down;
its effectiveness will depend on our willingness to confront Armageddon.