WORLD WEALTH
INSTEAD OF WAR

We, the people of the world, can and must prevent war. It is our business, yours and mine. Nations have perished but man-kind has survived thousands of wars. The hydrogen bomb is *new* and the human race cannot survive a nuclear war.¹* We must find *new* ways to prevent war. WORLD WEALTH is a *new* way.**

INDEX

Page 3 A New Way to Prevent War

4 What World Wealth Is

4 What World Wealth Is Not

4 How World Wealth Prevents War

5 Constitution for World Wealth

6 Operation of World Wealth

7 Discussion of World Wealth

8 I. World Wealth Costs

9 II. World Wealth Goods

9 III. World Wealth Manpower

11 IV. World Wealth and the United Nations

12 V. World Wealth and Disarmament

14 VI. World Wealth and a Higher Standard of Living for All

16 You and World Wealth

*Figures refer to source material in Appendix (not yet printed).

**World Wealth is sponsored by no organization. Please send comments to: Mrs. Donald Budd Armstrong, Scarborough-on-Hudson, New York, USA.

[LC]

WORLD WEALTH
INSTEAD OF WAR

Recommended Reading

WANTED: AN ASIAN POLICY by Edwin O. Reischauer—Knopf 1955

AN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY by Gunnar Myrdal—Harper 1956

NEW DIMENSIONS OF PEACE by Chester Bowles—Harper 1955

HUMAN SOCIETY—ETHICS AND POLITICS pp. 137-227—by Bertrand Russell
—Simon and Schuster 1952

ADDRESS by General MacArthur to the American Legion, Los Angeles, California,
January 26, 1955

ADDRESS by President Eisenhower "The Chance for Peace"—April 16, 1955

BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS—a monthly—$5.00 yearly—5750
Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Ill.

[LC]

# A NEW WAY TO PREVENT WAR

We dare not trust wholly to governments and the United Nations to save us from war. In the last 300 years, 8,000 peace treaties have been signed, an average of one every two weeks, each with an average duration of two years.² "When thermonuclear war has happened, it is too late to do anything about it."³ We must act now.

War may start at any moment on any continent. Great powers take sides. Small wars grow into global wars. Any government will use any weapon. The USA dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is too late and too dangerous to trust only to education—to the reduction of the causes of war, one by one — or to the establishment of world law to prevent war. We do not "limit" fires. We put them out — and not by using water and gasoline simultaneously. Radioactive strontium 90 is the fire that threatens us. "All radiation is harmful, all of it shortens life, all is cumulative and all affects not only the recipient but his heirs."⁴

We must act now.

Although there are thousands of men and women all over the world devotedly working to prevent war, no plan that can really prevent war is being considered at the present time. Every plan for inspection and limitation of arms can lead only to competition in cheating.

Yet fathers and mothers everywhere want a safe world for their children, just as much as you and I do for our children. But a warless world won't just happen—we all need to work together for it now. "We must dedicate ourselves with as much resourcefulness, with as great a sense of urgency as we have ever mustered in time of war."⁵ "Any problem that must be solved, can be solved."⁶

Is not *any* new way to prevent war, no matter who suggests it, worth trying?

World Wealth stresses world development instead of world disarma-
ment. World Wealth concentrates on starting something good instead of
stopping something bad. It replaces destructiveness with constructiveness.

How soon World Wealth is put into operation is less important than
that men and women recognize now that the habit of war can be broken,
and start at once to work for World Wealth or some better preventive.

3

[LC]

## CONSTITUTION FOR WORLD WEALTH

1. World Wealth is based on a Constitution formulated by representatives from every nation and every non-independent country.

2. It is signed by every government in the world.

3. It provides all the authority and legislation necessary to operate World Wealth.

4. It contains Articles providing for the organization and operation of World Wealth, including —

a. A formula to determine quotas of World Wealth Goods and Services to be received and contributed by each country. This formula might be based on such factors as — each country's request for and offers of contributions; national resources, shortages and surpluses; population; 1956 standard of living; also, the numbers in the armed forces of each country and its war expenditures in 1956.

b. A guarantee from each government of annual funds for World Wealth purposes equal to the funds expended for war preparations in 1956.

c. A guarantee of complete freedom of communication for all members of World Wealth Committees and Services with each other and with the Press of all countries.

d. The means to terminate or extend World Wealth after a minimum of four years.

e. The membership and duties of the Committees which administer World Wealth.

## EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES FOR WORLD WEALTH

<table><tr><td>Nuclear and Solar Energy</td><td>Co-ordination</td></tr><tr><td>Goods</td><td>Information</td></tr><tr><td>Services</td><td>Safety</td></tr><tr><td>Distribution</td><td>Finance</td></tr></table>

1. Each committee except the Co-ordination Committee includes at least one appointed government official and one elected private citizen from each nation and region.

2. The Co-ordination Committee is elected by the members of all other Committees. On it, each Committee, but not each nation, is represented. It determines priorities, serves as liaison, and acts as final authority in interpreting the Constitution.

5

[L]

3. World-wide support for World Wealth is assured by the work of the Information Committee. It owns and operates a news service, a broadcasting service, a speakers bureau, etc. It also uses every other available means of communication in all countries. It makes full and frequent reports on the work of all Committees to the press, to all governments and all people, to every regional association and to the United Nations.

4. Each Committee member receives equal pay and perquisites, and is paid by World Wealth and not by his own country. Each serves for the duration of World Wealth, unless two-thirds of the membership of his Committee vote to request his resignation.

5. Each Committee is limited to the work assigned to it in the Constitution. The Committees employ *only* members of the World Wealth Forces.

6. The primary purpose of all committee work is to prevent the use during World Wealth of all weapons capable of destroying the human race, such as hydrogen bombs and bio-chemical weapons.

7. Two by-products of the work of the committees are —

a. Practical, self-enforcing, world-wide disarmament.

b. A higher standard of living in all countries.

## OPERATION OF WORLD WEALTH

1. Each country receives and contributes only such goods and services as are determined by the formula contained in the Constitution.

2. No country uses for itself any of the particular World Wealth Goods and Services which it produces.

3. World Wealth Goods are produced entirely in the country which contributes them. In their production the same number of civilians who worked during 1956 in war industry, whether employed by government or private enterprise, are employed at the same total annual wage. Priority in production is given to:

a. Everything required to produce and use nuclear energy and to harness and use solar energy for productive purposes.

b. Goods capable of producing other goods e.g. machine tools, farm equipment, building and distribution supplies, etc.

c. Consumer goods.

4. The same number of civilians (not working on war contracts) who were employed by governments in "defense establishments" to support armed services during 1956 are employed at the same pay to support World Wealth Services.

5. World Wealth Services are performed entirely by World Wealth Forces under the direction of World Wealth Committees. World Wealth Forces are composed exclusively of members of previously armed forces. Some of the armed forces of many countries were on foreign service dur-

6

[LC]

ing 1956.⁹ For the limited duration of World Wealth, *all* will be on foreign service for their entire customary enlistment or conscription period and will receive their customary pay, pension rights, etc. The same sort of useful work they do for foreigners, foreigners simultaneously do for them during World Wealth.

6. Some nations do not receive the full equivalent of the Goods and Services which they contribute to World Wealth in order that food-hungry and energy-hungry countries with small or no war expenditures may receive goods and services from World Wealth. World Wealth creates new jobs, develops new sources of power, expands agriculture and increases means of distribution and communication. Thus the standard of living in underdeveloped countries will be raised. This in turn will result in a larger world market and so raise the standard of living in many other countries.

## DISCUSSION OF WORLD WEALTH

World Wealth can be started as every project has always been started —first, as an idea in the mind of one individual and next in the minds of many individuals. Individuals in each country can think about World Wealth, discuss it, improve it, organize to publicize and support it, and insist on its acceptance by their government.

General of the Army Douglas MacArthur told the American Legion in January 1955 "The decision (against war) must be made by the masses whose survival is the issue."¹⁰ It may be impossible for the Congress of the USA or the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to initiate World Wealth. Often governments cannot or will not lead. Always they must follow. The foundation of sovereignty is the will of the people.

This outline is not intentionally oriented to the USA nor to any other nation, although most of the statistics and examples are from the USA.

Of course, World Wealth must be worked out and carried out by experts, but the needed experts and experience are available. (In the Second World War the Allies alone had 60,000 non-military economic missions which dovetailed the resources and the needs of all Allied countries.¹¹)

During World Wealth, there is no fear of spies, no need for secrecy, *no enemy*, so carrying out World Wealth, though a complicated operation, is far simpler than global war.

The non-white races and the older civilizations outnumber the white races and the Western nations three to one, but all nations and races share the obligation and the power to prevent the suicide of mankind. *World Wealth can prevent war.*

7

[LC]

# I. World Wealth Costs

World Wealth is a bargain compared with World Wars. It costs only what Cold War costs. For the USA this was $50 million a day in 1956.¹² But the money cost of the Second World War to the USA alone was $380 billion!¹³ That was $245 million a day for just one country. Four years of World Wealth will cost the entire world $440 billion, only $160 billion more than the Second World War cost the USA.

High taxes must continue in order to make World Wealth possible. Eighty-five cents of every USA tax dollar in 1956 was spent for war—of that, seventy-two cents went to prepare for a war which it would be insane folly ever to fight. The same amount, no more and no less, that the armed nations spent for war preparations in 1956 will be spent annually for World Wealth.

The identical sums spent during the Cold War to build new plants, buy war materials, and pay owners, management and labor in war industry will be available during World Wealth for useful production.

The increased costs of maintaining all forces abroad are more than compensated by the enormous savings resulting from cessation of defense and war preparation activities, such as:

a. Research and development of ultimate weapons for mutual suicide.

b. Research and development of useless defense and warning systems.

c. Costly fuel for warships and warplanes.

d. Costly stockpiling of munitions and military supplies.

e. Costly "self-sufficiency" stockpiling of raw materials.

f. Destruction costs necessary in training for combat.

g. Military and economic aid to allies.

h. National maintenance of foreign bases.

Also available for use at home will be the funds spent in 1956 on foreign aid programs; and the raw material which would have been destroyed for military purposes.

Since World Wealth Forces are paid by their own countries, the pay they spend in foreign countries adds to the national income of those countries, and also creates jobs, as do tourist expenditures. The rentals and supplies needed to maintain World Wealth Forces in the host countries will also add to the national income of the host countries.

Cost is never counted in making war, and it certainly ought not to be counted in preventing war. But these $110 billion spent each year for World Wealth do much more than prevent war. War destroys, impoverishes, and kills. World Wealth builds, enriches and makes life longer.

8

[LC]

## II. World Wealth Goods

Industry has converted from war production to production for use after every war. Governments make World Wealth contracts with industry just as they made war contracts. Management and labor are as free as before to refuse such contracts.

World Wealth affects only a small segment of industry, even in those private enterprise systems where production is geared to a war economy. For example, the USA spent 36.5 billion dollars for war preparations in 1956, but its total national product was $410 billion.¹⁵

Consumer goods instead of war goods can be produced by any economic system. In socialist economies, consumer goods can be produced and made available without creating inflation or deflation. In private enterprise systems, whose prosperity presently depends on war preparation, World Wealth maintains this prosperity by continuing existing employment and purchasing power without increasing the amount of goods available for purchase. Nations do not accept goods which compete with their own products, nor services which affect their labor market disadvantageously.

Countries with surplus agricultural products will benefit by the need to provide food for millions of men stationed outside their own countries. As the purchasing power of farmers increases, the incomes of manufacturers increase.

## III. World Wealth Manpower

World Wealth replaces only the war apparatus of any country and so affects but a small segment of the population; only those employed in war industries, civilians in "defense establishments," and the personnel of the armed forces. In the USA in 1956 this was a total of seven millions out of a population of 170 million. Millions of people all over the world will be no more directly conscious of World Wealth than they were of the cold war, but indirectly all will be blessed instead of cursed.

In peacetime or in cold war, all armed forces are engaged in a gigantic public works project which creates jobs and purchasing power but no consumer goods. But the world needs this manpower to produce many more goods to make health a reality in those areas where it is now impossible to achieve.

In the USA the average *weekly* income is $79.¹⁶ But "two-thirds of humanity live in the underdeveloped regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Two out of three men must live on less than $100—occasionally less than $60—per year."¹⁷

9

[LC]

Four hundred million people, mostly of the white race, have a life expectancy of 70 years, *but* the life expectancy of the other two thousand million people is only 40 years—in certain countries only 27 years, and the infant mortality runs as high as 36% of babies born. The diet of these multi-millions never exceeds the bare minimum required to stave off starvation.¹⁷

These gross inequalities among the inhabitants of our earth indicate that more work needs to be done than there are workers to do it.

Even in the USA, there are jobs to be done if there were labor available to do them without pay—work which is postponed because labor is unavailable, because it is not profitable for private enterprise, or because it would increase taxes if done by the government.

In most countries, work done by the World Wealth Forces will be that kind of work. They will install reactors for nuclear and solar energy and train workers in their maintenance and operation and in the use of the power developed by them.

The World Wealth Forces will also be occupied in various engineering projects such as road and air-strip making; flood control, irrigation and sanitation projects; water supply development, school building, etc. The new power developed and projects accomplished by World Wealth create a multitude of new jobs. Dr. Gunnar Myrdal, noted Swedish economist, says: "The justification for economic development is . . . that it draws surplus or uneconomically employed labor and other resources into productive employment. This cannot be done without creating at the same time new incomes and causing old incomes to rise, with the consequence that consumption demands will also rise."¹⁸

Severe unemployment exists today in heavily populated countries whose people need almost everything, but it is caused by too few jobs rather than by too many workers. World Wealth creates jobs.

Governments have the right to send their men and women anywhere in the world in the service of their country. The World Wealth Forces provide a true national defense since they prevent the use of hydrogen bombs.

The members of the previously armed forces constitute a healthy disciplined body of workers, skilled in many fields. Most of them, from general to private, will continue during World Wealth to do much the same things all armies do when not engaged in combat or training for combat. World Wealth makes killing and being killed unnecessary but the need continues to feed, clothe, shelter, provide medical care, transport and assign; as also the need to train and supervise. All these require only existing officer skills.

10

[LC]

World Wealth Forces provide skilled labor for the Services Committee from plumbers to photographers, from radio technicians to bridge builders, from aviation mechanics to pharmacists, as well as experts in training in needed skills. In World War II, of 14 million in the armed forces, only 1½ million were combat troops — a ratio of 9 to 1. The skills required by the 80% of non-combat troops are civilian skills.¹⁹

Men who remain in their own countries who were previously employed in defense establishments or war industry also have every skill that World Wealth requires.

Men with the brains to smash the atom or launch the Earth satellite will certainly be able to solve any problems that World Wealth presents. New techniques of communication may be needed to provide world-wide publicity. Such devices will surely be no more difficult to invent nor costly to manufacture than the weapons for modern war.

The same problems which occur in war production and global war will occur in World Wealth. Many national contingents will be represented in each foreign service unit. There will be difficulties about language, customs, pay, etc. There will be laziness, greed, jealousy, hoarding, smuggling, inefficiency and corruption.

But the cost, the amount, and the quality of World Wealth Goods and Services are not criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of World Wealth. One bicycle has more consumer value than any number of tanks. Any consumer goods at any cost in place of useless and dangerous war materiel are better than no goods. An irrigation system or a highway is useful for many years. A bomber is "useful" only when it is destroying something, and, as is true of most weapons, the arms race makes it obsolete within a few years.²⁰

World Wealth provides every country with more goods and more utilities than it possessed in 1956. How many more or what quality is not vital since the prevention of war is the purpose and achievement of World Wealth.

#### IV. World Wealth and the United Nations

The United Nations is the guardian of man's peace. World Wealth strengthens the United Nations by providing some safe years in which it can get closer to its goal of true peace, for the United Nations can be destroyed, as was the League of Nations, by war and the threat of war. During World Wealth, the United Nations continues the magnificent, world-serving work of its many councils and specialized agencies.²¹

11

[L]

will be able to contribute more generously to such agencies because of the end of other expenditures which World Wealth makes unnecessary.

World Wealth in turn benefits from the United Nations' invaluable accumulation of data especially regarding resources, shortages and surpluses; and from the experience of thousands of trained personnel working in or with the United Nations.

However, the United Nations cannot do the work of World Wealth because it does not represent the whole world and represents only governments and not peoples. "In the ultimate governing body of the UN ... five per cent of the world's population can carry the day against the other 95% and ten per cent could claim a two-third majority ... Half the population of the world is represented by four delegates, the other half by seventy-five."²²

## V. World Wealth and Disarmament

In 1957 the arms race continues although the concepts which previously made it valid have no present value. Superior physical force no longer provides security. Collective security is no security at all against radioactive fallout. Security through strength threatens the strong as well as the weak. Force without stint guarantees the destruction of all living things. New means of offense no longer result in new means of defense. The H-bomb is not "just another weapon." There is no defence against fallout. It is a fatal poison that is inevitably eaten by animals and men.²³ Victory and defeat now both mean only extinction.

The arms race continues because:

It is self-accelerating. Bomb begets bomb. "Anything you can build I can build bigger." "Whatever we can do to them they can do to us."²⁴ Preparations for defense by one nation look like preparations for war to another.

Governments fear they cannot win the armament race, and as Sir Anthony Eden said, "There is always the danger that the one that believes it is the stronger may be tempted to strike first."²⁵

No major power will stop trying to win the armament race, because no alternative has been proposed.

No major power will permit a United Nations Force or a World Army stronger than its own forces.²⁶

No major power will agree to any disarmament plan which does not provide for its own greater comparative war strength.²⁶

12

[LC]

Governments and peoples fear their dependency for vital raw materials on possibly hostile countries and may start a war to gain control of such resources.²⁷

Governments fear revolution by citizens from whom too much is de-
manded and to whom too little is given, and may start attention-diverting,
patriotism-rousing external wars.²⁸

Military leaders and manufacturers may start a war to demonstrate that
more new weapons are needed.²⁹

Rising nationalism and increasing poverty in most of the world³⁰
threatens war.

Each of the peoples of the communist and capitalist states believes the
other wishes to destroy it.³¹

People are taught by lying propaganda to hate and fear people of other countries.³²

World Wealth alters this situation. It ends the armament race and
gives all people, instead, something they are glad to pay for and glad to
work with other people to accomplish.

World Wealth has no World Wealth Army. Its Constitution cannot be
enforced by arms. The use of nuclear weapons, no matter who uses them,
is equally fatal to all men.

Coercion is not necessary to make men work for something they want.

Present communications techniques are adequate, when sufficient funds
are available, to let all people know what specific goods and services they
are entitled to receive from World Wealth. Peoples will not permit their
own government to sabotage World Wealth for this would deprive them
of benefits they want and know they can get. An informed public opinion
has greater force than arms. Seven hundred million people, although far
weaker in arms than their masters have freed themselves since 1946.³³

Disarmament during World Wealth is self-enforcing. All peoples
have been told of the horrors and annihilation from inter-continental
guided missiles carrying hydrogen bombs and they know World Wealth
is their protection.

Each country is host to foreigners trained in the use of weapons. These
men in the World Wealth Forces could seize weapons if they were avail-
able. So nations will fear to retain any except primitive weapons.

No government of any great power can afford to "lead a double life."
The double expense of maintaining hidden armies and secretly producing
hidden weapons, and at the same time contributing its share of men and
goods to World Wealth would require intolerable taxation. People will

13

[Lc]

not endure crushing taxes and deprivation except for a cause such as war.
Secrecy is possible in wartime but people will not keep secrets against
themselves, and so they will not permit their governments to possess
weapons which endanger World Wealth.

The Safety Committee assists governments in maintaining order in
national disaster. Order can be maintained in floods and fires quite as
well with non-national as with national troops. The Safety Committee
assists governments in converting, destroying or storing all war materiel.
Warships, warplanes, etc., where possible and economical, can be con-
verted to use for World Wealth. The remainder can be destroyed or
"moth-balled" and sequestered together in one huge non-national area
with mechanisms which will automatically destroy the entire area if it is
entered by anyone during World Wealth.

Civil wars and coup d'états will not endanger the safety of the world
since only primitive weapons are available.

People will not endure a government which forces on them war, hard-
ship and hunger which they know World Wealth makes unnecessary.
Government depends upon the consent of the governed.

## VI. World Wealth and a Higher Standard of Living for All

War cannot be prevented unless the standard of living is raised for
most of the peoples of the world. The standard of living has risen in the
last twenty-five years for less than one-sixth of the world's population;
but in those same years, poverty has increased, and the standard of living
decreased for most of the world's inhabitants.³⁰ The have-not peoples
know that "want is no longer a necessary condition of human existence."³⁴
"All revolutions have grown out of the age-old theme of revolt against
injustice and misery."³⁵

Here is what leaders of two of the great powers, Eisenhower and Bul-
ganin, say regarding the relation between war and poverty:

"For wherever in the world a people knows desperate want, there
must appear at least the spark of hope, the hope of progress—or there
will surely rise at last the flames of conflict."³⁶

"What (these peoples) need is neither atom bombs nor tanks nor
guns; they need clothing, food, houses, schools for children, a tranquil
and secure future . . . To raise the living standard . . . and develop the
productive forces of society . . . can be assured, not in conditions of war,
but in conditions of peaceful development."³⁷

14

[LC]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. . . . We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . *is there no other way the world may live?*"⁵ Yes, World Wealth is another way!

For the first time, it is possible, by the development of nuclear and solar energy, to end the long ages of want and begin the nuclear age of abundance. Nuclear and solar energy must be developed because the fossil fuels are being rapidly exhausted and they and water power are not evenly distributed. The fuel to produce power sufficient to end the present hunger and back breaking toil of almost two billion people does not now exist.³⁸ But one pound of nuclear fuel produces the energy equivalent of two hundred and fifty thousand gallons of gasoline.³⁹

In the USA, each man, woman and child has, on the average, at his or her disposal the equivalent work-energy of 780 able-bodied servants.⁴⁰ Except in the USA and some other Western countries, human muscle is the chief source of power. The work energy of one adult male equals one-twentieth of one horse power.

World Wealth puts in first place the development of nuclear and solar energy. "Peoples of the underdeveloped countries want to do away with the age-old backwardness and poverty; . . . and can do (so if) atomic and solar energy is available to them."³⁷ But the great powers will not now permit the use of adequate quantities of atomic energy⁴¹ for productive purposes because they fear it will be converted to destructive use.

"(The great powers exist in) perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth."³⁶

World Wealth can raise the standard of living for all the people of the earth. Foreign aid programs cannot.

Foreign aid programs cause hatred and hatred causes war. The great powers compete in providing foreign aid in order to gain control of other peoples. Peoples taxed for foreign aid hate its recipients because its cost deprives them of things they want for themselves⁴² and because peoples whose support is bought do not stay bought.⁴³ The recipients of foreign aid hate their need to accept it, the obligations that they incur from accepting it and the people who can afford to give it.⁴⁴ World Wealth

15

[LC]

ends all this dangerous hate by ending the need for national foreign aid expenditures.

*World Wealth is not a gift, nor a loan, nor a bribe. It is new wealth—contributed by all, administered by all, shared by all—as a human right.*

## YOU AND WORLD WEALTH

Nuclear energy has created both the necessity of preventing war and the possibility of much greater equality in material possessions for all people. Material progress can further intellectual and spiritual progress. It is easier for men to think clearly and act kindly when they are not hungry or frightened. The President of the USA has said, "A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments. . . . No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be an enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice. . . . (we need) a declared total war, not upon any human enemy, but upon the brute forces of poverty and need."⁵

World Wealth makes it possible and practical for men to put into practice the precepts "If thine enemy hunger, feed him" and "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." World Wealth is worth working for.

War must be prevented. You and I are responsible. We dare not wait. We must act now.

Will you send a copy of this World Wealth outline to the head of your church, to the head of your government, to your representative in government, to your employer, to the head of your school and the head of your labor union?

Will you distribute this outline of World Wealth with your name or mine on it? Or will you make a better plan now?

## OR WHAT WILL YOU DO?

Please reply to:

Mrs. Donald Budd Armstrong
Scarborough-on-Hudson
New York, USA

March 28, 1957

16

THE REPORTER

136 EAST 57th STREET
NEW YORK 22, N. Y.
Murray Hill 8-4033

June 21, 1957

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

I have just returned from a belated spring vacation out on the Island, and with a sense of real dismay and embarrassment, found your letter of June 12 waiting for me.

I gather our office was in touch with you about printing the correction, so there is no point in reviewing the mechanical slip which caused the error, but I do want to drop you a personal note to say how terribly sorry I was that such a silly mechanical slip should have marred an otherwise excellent article which we were very proud to print.

I have been hearing enthusiastic comments about it from friends about town since my return and I am sure you will agree that the timing of publication could not have been better.

Once again, many thanks for your cooperation. I do hope we can keep in touch and squeeze in an occasional luncheon now and then. It goes without saying that whenever you feel the urge to break into print, The Reporter is always at your disposal.

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger
Director of Special Studies
22 West 55th Street
New York 19, New York

PH/el

THE MARTIN COMPANY

Baltimore 3, Maryland

June 19, 1957

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger
Directorate of Harvard International Seminar
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

I have just read your penetrating paper entitled, "Strategy and Organization" in the May 1957 issue of the Army magazine. I would like very much to have a reprint of this article or a reprint of your parent paper appearing in Foreign Affairs - April 1957.

If you send more than one (several) I would like to disseminate
your thinking to others in appropriate area.

ARW:cmc

July 13, 1957

Dear Dean:

Thank you for your very nice letter of July 9th. I quite agree
that a study of pre-World War II disarmament efforts would be extremely
fruitful. The factor of rapid technological change would be absent but
many of the other features of our present dilemma would be eliminated.

It would be good to have a talk about the middle ground between
total peace and total war. Your point about the Korean War is a telling
and profound one. It indicates that in such a situation there may be an
interest in not making the opponent lose too badly lest he attempt to
restore the status quo by stepping up the violence of his reaction.

I quite agree that my views about disarmament do not in the
slightest remove the necessity for a substantial political settlement nor
do I place too great stock in previous announcements except as a means
for giving the opponent some indication of our intention. An announcement
will not automatically prevent all-out war -- only the kind of war which
is produced by a misunderstanding of our intentions.

I hope you have a very good trip to Asia.

All the best.

Mr. Dean Rusk
Rockefeller Foundation
49 West 49th Street
New York 20, New York

ROOM 5500
49 WEST 49TH STREET
NEW YORK 20

July 9, 1957

Dear Henry:

I have read your article in my copy of the Reporter, and have,
thanks to you, received a second copy from them.

Your discussion of disarmament is cogent and convincing and I
suspect that the weight of your argument could be increased by calling
upon pre-World-War-II experience in disarmament efforts. Even though
the rate of technological advance was not nearly so fast, the attempt
to encompass both quantitative and qualitative factors into some
workable formula proved illusory.

I hope that we can have an opportunity for a leisurely talk
about the middle ground between total peace and total war. I have
been trying to imagine a situation in which a great power would accept
defeat on an objective toward which it is fully committed, without
increasing the violence of its military action into all-out war.
All-out war did not result from Korea, in my judgment, for two main
reasons: (1) The Soviet Union itself was not publicly committed to
seizure of South Korea; they were careful to maintain a fiction of
non-involvement and, altnough we and all the rest of the world knew
the facts, we helped to maintain that fiction. This seems a flimsy
difference, but it was a very important difference. (2) The United
States was successful in obtaining the objective for which it entered
the war, namely, the restoration of the military status quo ante. It
is my considered judgment that had our forces been thrown off the
Korean peninsula, the war would have expanded in violence very fast.
Whether it would have become a two-way nuclear war would have turned
upon Soviet capabilities in that field at that time.

I am not much more inclined to rely upon previous announcements
of war policy than I am upon disarmament agreements. It may be that
a more fruitful line would be to start with the Soviet Union and the
United States as the two parties who almost certainly would have to be
involved to set off an all-out nuclear war and to think of certain
areas which, for each, would be off-limits militarily to the other and
out of which neither would attempt to break by military action. I
doubt that the United Kingdom would become involved independently in
a nuclear war with the Soviet Union nor do I suppose that the Soviet
Union would think that it could start a nuclear war against the United
Kingdom and expect us to stay out of it. By concentrating upon the

July 13, 1957

Dear Mr. Palmer:

I promised to let you know about the Berle review.
I will try for the tenth but I am not too optimistic. It may
seem unbelievable that one can get so busy that even the
afternoon's writing which would be involved here becomes
too much, but I am afraid that this may well prove to be
the situation.

Again, please accept my deepest apology.

Mr. Joe Palmer
Editor, Yale Review
New Haven, Connecticut

July 19, 1957

My dear Sir William:

It was awfully nice of you to write me and I
appreciated your reaction to my article.

It was too bad that Sir John Slessor and I missed
each other in Chicago but big conferences usually depress
me and I escaped as soon as I had made my speech.

Will you be at the Bilderberg meeting early in
October? If at all possible I am planning to attend,
otherwise I shall count on seeing you again on your
visit to the States.

Kindest regards.

Sir William Elliot
30a Hill Street
London, W. 1, England

30^ HILL STREET,
LONDON, W. I.
GROSVENOR 5781.

[LC]

June 26th 1957.

How very good of you to send me the transcript
of your article in "Foreign Affairs". I shall read
it with great interest - and ought to have done so
already, but I have been abroad and only returned
a few days ago.

As evidence of the interest which I take in
your views, you will perhaps forgive me if I enclose
a copy of a letter which I sent yesterday to a
number of people with whom I had a discussion at
the House of Commons on the subject of whether
N.A.T.O.'s needs and objectives have changed or
should be changed in the altered circumstances of
1957.

You will remember that when I had the pleasure
of lunching with you in New York I tried to arrange
a meeting between you and Sir John Slessor, but
unfortunately he had then just left the States for
England. When I got back I found that he had again
returned to the States, and in fact you and he were
present at some meeting in Chicago where, he
subsequently told me, he had been much impressed by
what you had had to say at the meeting and had tried
to get hold of you, but to his disappointment you
had flown. If, on some future occasion, you should
be present at a meeting together, please do make
yourself known to him as he, like myself, is much
interested in your writings.

Meanwhile, should you come to England do not
fail to let me know. Otherwise, I hope to see you
when I come to the States next October.

June 25th 1957.

On returning home last night after our
interesting meeting I picked up the "Reporter of
June 13th to find in it an article by a young
American Professor of mine called Henry A. Kissinger,
about whom you may know.

He has recently been writing some very
pertinent - and, to my mind, sensible - things
about the relationship between diplomacy and
strategy in the nuclear age, including an article
in the April number of "Foreign Affairs" entitled
"Strategy and Organisation". His opening remarks
in the "Reporter" seem to me so apposite to what
we were discussing yesterday evening that I have
had them reproduced and send them to you. I am
also sending copies to the others who were present
yesterday.

I am so sorry that I shall not be here to
continue the discussion on the 27th June and 3rd
July.

SIGNED WILLIAM ELLIOT

A.J. Champion, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
S.W.1.

July 25, 1957

Dear Mrs. Allison:

Thank you for your letter of July 11th asking me to
review Hans Speier's new book for the Bulletin. Because
of my heavy schedule in connection with the preparation
of our Special Studies reports for fall publication, it will
be impossible for me to take on any other commitment at
this time.

Many thanks for thinking of me.

Mrs. Helen C. Allison
Book Editor, The Bulletin
5734 University Avenue
Chicago 37, Illinois

[L]

Atlantic Beach, Fla.

7 July, 1957

My dear Dr. Kissinger,

To start may I first introduce myself as one who has greatly enjoyed reading your recent articles in Foreign Affairs. My interest is perhaps professional in nature and no doubt to some extent shaped by postgraduate education in the field of missile development.

Your concept of the primacy of a strategic doctrine regarding the operational organization of our military forces is well put. In truth it would seem that the joint command form that you proposed is an eventuality dictated by logic. Already we have a theater type command in the Pacific. Continental Air Defense is slowly assuming the functional form. A final, but not the only remaining example can be found at Sandia Base. Determined advocacy of such an organization should manage to bring it about in an evolutionary process in the not too distant future. (If you will allow me to digress with tongue in cheek on the subject of unification, might I point out that not only should the Air Force not have separated from the Army but we should have integrated our forces in the form of the service which best represented the three conventional forms of warfare - the Navy. Well, it never hurts to have a sense of humor.)

My main reason for writing is to express the wish that you may at some future time see fit to expand on the concept of primacy of doctrine with regard to the application of military force as such. Here I feel is one of our major present day weaknesses.

You write of the need for long range objectives for the basis of any doctrine. Here it might be better to specify these objectives as being acceptable areas of compromise. Not only is this desirable if one considers a series of limited approaches toward the area, but also it should be considered that all except the most general objectives are apt to change or lose significance after two or three decades. (Kruschev maintains that our grandchildren will live a socialist life. One might conjecture just how your own grandfather would have viewed the present day as seen from the beginning of this century.)

It may be that our present day strategy suffers from a tendency to depend upon present capabilities and weapons. It seems only logical that our strategy is best based upon our objectives rather than the means of obtaining them. We should decide upon our objective area, determine the best attainable means for reaching the area and then set about the development and organization of these means.

Well, this is about all that I intended to write, and it is hoped that I've managed to say something that wasn't already obvious. There is, however, one last point.

October 25, 1957

Dr. Max Ascoli, Editor
The Reporter
136 East 57th Street
New York, New York

Dear Dr. Ascoli:

This is to thank you for your thoughtful comments on my essay "War, Limited or Protracted? I am delighted that you will publish it in *The Reporter*. May I suggest that it be published for its own sake rather than as a sequel in the controversy over Henry Kissinger's book. Once published, Henry or, for that matter, anybody else may wish to take issue with my views. I decided, therefore, not to advise Henry of the forthcoming publication of my piece in *The Reporter*. My piece is not designed as a rebuttal to Henry's specific thesis, but rather as a critique of a school-of-thought of which Henry is by no means the most characteristic representative. Although I disagree with some views he expresses, I deem his book a useful contribution to the debate on foreign policy and military strategy. On some of the most important issues he raises, I side with him without reservations. Henry is an Associate of this Institute; he is my friend. I feel, therefore, that it would be unfortunate indeed were my piece published as a foil to Henry's prospective rejoinder rather than as a thesis in its own right.

The changes you suggested will improve my essay. The classification of limited war can be omitted. Your added emphasis on the technological race will strengthen my thesis.

My essay was submitted to the Associates of the Institute in the form of a mimeograph, a copy of which I enclose. It is, except for minor changes, identical with the manuscript which I submitted to you. The "box" in the *Proceedings* of the Naval Institute, contains biographical information.

It was a pleasure to renew our old acquaintance. I look forward to our next meeting. With the kindest regards,

jw

November 13, 1957

Dear Mac:

You asked me to comment on this Strausz-Hupb article.
Unhappily, I am leaving town and my comments therefore have to be
very brief and hurried.

Frankly the article baffles me. Aside from a somewhat condescending,
tone which I find personally offensive, I simply do not understand what
the point of the article is.

Is Strausz-Hupb opposed to limited war or to limited nuclear war
only? Is he saying the Soviet Union will engage only in all-out war or
is he saying that we should engage in preventive war? The distinction
between protracted and limited war escapes me completely. I should
have thought that a protracted war would have to be a limited war. The
fact that the Soviet Union has total objectives does not mean that the
means they will employ to reach them will be equally total. At least their
whole history seems to be against that.

I consider the argument that limited war can be conducted only
in an environment in which all parties agree that the international system
should be maintained quite wrong. In fact, I have dealt with it at
length in my book but since the Strausz-Hupb article does not purport to
be a review of my book I cannot object to it. The argument under present
conditions would be that the consequences of expanding the war would
seem to be worse for both sides than the consequences of keeping it
limited. All the concept of limited war requires a conviction on both
sides that the alternative would be national suicide. Needless to say,
the "rules" that I propose were meant as illustrations and it seems to me
altogether too easy to demolish the concept of limited war by picking on
any one model.