500.A/1–447
Memorandum by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the President 80
In accordance with your directive, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have examined a resolution on disarmament proposed by Senator Austin and forwarded to you by letter from the Secretary of State.81
The proposed resolution has been overtaken by events since on 30 November 1946 the United States submitted a materially different resolution on the subject and on 14 December 1946 the General Assembly, prior to adjournment of the 1946 session, formally approved a general resolution on disarmament. In view of the fact, however, that disarmament and the regulation of armaments seem now to be destined for further and more specific consideration in the Security Council of the United Nations, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are submitting their [Page 1108] views on the proposals contained in Senator Austin’s resolution for consideration in connection with future developments in this field.
Except for certain broad statements made in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the preamble on the subjects of aggressive warfare and United Nations security forces, respectively, comment on which is made below, the Joint Chiefs of Staff perceive no objection to the provisions of the proposed resolution from the strictly military point of view.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff do not regard, nor do they believe the world regards, the current military establishment of the United States as a menace either to world peace or to international security. They believe that armaments are a consequence and not a cause. The need for them, today as throughout history, arises from the existence of conflicting international aims and ideologies, and will pass only with the passing of such fundamental reasons for conflict between nations. Consequently the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not consider that commitments toward the regulation of armaments or disarmament should be made prior to or independently of the solution of other problems affecting world peace generally and, specifically, the security of the United States. They believe that United States armaments are a vital factor contributing to our own as well as to international peace and security and should not be considered independently of other problems affecting that security. Prior to the settlement of such problems the military requirements of the United States cannot be determined. Foremost among these problems, from the military point of view, are the establishment of a system of effective international control of atomic energy along the lines of that proposed by the United States in the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission; the conclusion of the peace treaties and enforcement of those terms therein having predominant military implications; and the conclusion of agreements for providing contingents of armed forces for the Security Council of the United Nations.
In connection with the inference in paragraph four of the preamble of the proposed resolution that a general reduction of armaments will remove the means of conducting aggressive warfare the Joint Chiefs of Staff would point out the position of the United States vis-a-vis the Soviet Union in this regard. The military strength of the United States rests in limited, but highly developed, ground, air and naval forces employing weapons and equipment of great technical complexity, whereas that of the Soviets rests principally on the large size of its ground armies which are not so dependent on technical armaments for possible aggressive operations, particularly on the Eurasian continent. Therefore, any attempt at disarmament or the regulation of armaments on the superficially attractive and seemingly logical basis [Page 1109] of eliminating or regulating “offensive” (“aggressive”) weapons (atomic bombs, strategic aircraft and naval combat vessels) would only serve to limit our own ability to defend the United States or retaliate against aggression without being correspondingly effective in depriving the Soviets of their large ground armies which could, in the absence of effective opposition, be used offensively to overrun Europe and Asia if the Soviets chose to do so.
It would appear unnecessary and unwise for the United States to state, as indicated in the fifth paragraph of the preamble of the proposed resolution, that the “ultimate objective of disarmament should be the reduction of armaments to a level of … (United Nations security forces) … together with the forces necessary to maintain domestic order and tranquillity.” Such a statement implies that the United Nations, under the present Charter, will possess the full capability of utilizing the forces called for by Article 43 of the Charter to maintain world peace and security. Such a statement is unrealistic since the veto provisions in the Security Council make it impossible for the security forces to be used against any one of the powers possessing the veto, or against a satellite or ally of one of those powers if the latter wished to prevent such action. Such a statement would be misleading to the American people and would encourage them to underestimate the military strength required to insure their own security.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff firmly believe that until the problems mentioned in the fourth paragraph of this memorandum are resolved it is premature to go beyond the discussion stage of disarmament and regulation of armaments. In this connection they would invite attention to their views on this general subject as transmitted to the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee on 6 December 1946 for forwarding to the Secretaries of State, War and Navy as follows:
[Here follows text of SWNCC 240/1, printed on p. 1091.]
Fleet Admiral, U.S. Navy, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy