x- 45 b

"ban the bomb" propaganda and disarmament. We should leave no
doubt that any aggression by the Communist bloc may be resisted
with nuclear weapons but we should make every effort to limit
their effect and to spare the civilian population as much as
possible.

*with a view to damage our interests. Without damage to
our interests, we could announce that Soviet aggression would
be resisted with nuclear weapons if necessary; that in
resisting we would not use more than 500 kilotons explosive
power unless the enemy used them first; that we would

power unless the enemy used them first; that we would
be resented with nuclear weapons if necessary; that in
our interests we could announce that Soviet aggression would
be possible. Without damage to
their effect and to spare the civilian population so much as
with nuclear weapons put we should make every effort to limit
doubt that any aggression by the Communist bloc may be resented
"pan the pomp" propagands and disarmament. We should leave no
a new form of marketing.
and it appears to me that the world would

42 p.

VII

X - 45

Other criticisms assert that a program of war limitation assumes a degree of human rationality for which history offers no warranty. But history offers no example for the extraordinary destructiveness of modern weapons either. A program that sought to establish some principles of war limitation in advance of hostilities would seem to make fewer demands on rationality than one which attempted to improvise the rules of war in the confusion of battle.

Still others argue that an effort should be made to define what we understand by limited war to be our opponent, the price to be paid for aggression and therefore weaken the deterrent. If this is true, however, the deliberate ambiguity of our present position is almost equally dangerous, for it makes sense only if we mean to imply that in certain circumstances we might resist locally. Moreover, the notion that deterrence is achieved only by the threat of maximum destruction deserves close scrutiny. It is an understandable outgrowth of the desire throughout our history to enjoy our existence without interference from the outside world. As a result, aggression has for us always had the quality of an

To enjoy our existence without interference from the outside world, is an understandable outgrowth of the desire throughout our history

By the threat of maximum destruction deserves close scrutiny. It

Locally. Moreover, the notion that deterrence is achieved only

We mean to imply that in certain circumstances we might resist

Position is almost usually dangerous, for it makes sense only if

It this is true, however, the deliberate ambiguity of our present

Price to be paid for aggression and therefore weaken the deterrent.

What we understand by limited war would tell the other side the

of battle.

One which attempted to improvise the rules of war in the confusion

Hostilities would seem to make fewer demands on rationality than

to exhaust some principles of war limitation in advance of

Warranty. But history offers no example for the extraordinary

Other critics have asserted that a program of war limitation

X - 42

x - 30

should offer a guarantee of stability. It is not at all obvious that weakness guarantees responsibility or that Powers which have difficulty playing a role in their own regions will be able to judge global problems with subtlety and discrimination. And this still overlooks the dilemmas of where to store the international stockpile of bombs, where to locate the bases of the international air force -- all of which will become matters of life-and-death to the nations of the world.

In short, there is no escaping from the responsibilities of the thermo-nuclear age into a supra-national authority, for if all its complicated problems could be negotiated, the substantive issues now dividing the world would be soluble too. The quest for an international Disarmament Authority is in fact the most absolute manifestation of total diplomacy, it is the counterpart in diplomacy to a military policy of all-out war. And it has the same pernicious consequences.

By leaving no room between total war and total peace it may ensure that war, if it does come, will take the most absolute