Attached is a quick paper on the subject of the increased danger of
US-Soviet conflict. If there is
time, I would like to develop one additional point upon which I need to
secure additional information. That has to do with Soviet efforts to
improve flight control procedures in the Far East, in the aftermath of
our rhetorical censure of their behavior.
Tab I
Paper Prepared by Donald Fortier of the National Security Council
Staff2
INCREASED DANGER OF WAR FACT OR
FICTION?
During the last few months, a feeling has emerged in both the United
States and in West Europe that the danger of a war has increased.
The shootdown of the Korean Air Lines passenger jet, the bombing
attack on our peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, the terrorist bombing
of the leaders of the Republic of Korea in Rangoon, and the
suspension, which we hope is temporary, of the START and INF arms control discussions have all contributed to
the feeling that the world has become a more dangerous place, and
that the superpowers may be edging toward a conflict.
These events, of course, have had some effect, a negative effect, on
the state of US-Soviet relations. It
is curious, however, that the
[Page 584]
government of the United States is being held
responsible by some people for the present state of affairs. It was
not the United States that was the perpetrator of these acts, but
the Soviet Union, its allies and proteges who have attacked
civilians and walked out of negotiations.
Did the United States, by its actions, create an environment in which
clashes between the superpowers became more likely? What, in fact,
has the United States done over the last three years? We have made
substantial progress toward rebuilding our armed forces to repair
the damage that they suffered during the 1970s as a result of
reduced budgets. While there is some debate about exactly how large
the increases in our defense budget should be, no one that we know
of, aside from George McGovern, has denied the need for those
increases. It is interesting to notice that the chief defense
analyst of the Carter
administration Defense Department, Russell Murray, has now publicly
stated that his office completed a study back in 1980 that showed
that US defense spending increases
of the size we have recommended were in fact necessary to restore
the forces needed for our security (Washington
Times, 19 January 1984; Armed Forces
Journal International, June 1982, p. 57).
We have carried through on the policy chosen by NATO more than five years ago to
deploy cruise and ballistic missiles in Europe to respond to the
Soviet deployment of SS–20s. We remain ready to return to a world in
which no such missiles are deployed, or limited, equal numbers are
deployed.
We defended our citizens in Grenada and defeated a coup d’etat led by
pro-Soviet would-be dictators. And, unlike some other unfortunate
recent episodes, we acted effectively and in
time.
Part of what we are seeing, of course, is a self-conscious effort on
the part of the Soviet Union to use rhetoric to fan the belief that
the world is becoming more dangerous. They know that, to the extent
they succeed in convincing world opinion this is so, the onus will
increasingly be on us, rather than them, to make new concessions.
Precedents for this kind of behavior can be found both in
Khrushchev’s effort in 1960 to abort the summit with President
Eisenhower and also in subsequent Soviet provocations over Berlin,
which were intended to try to prevent President Kennedy’s defense
buildup.
The real question, of course, is whether the chances of war have been
increased by our programs to rebuild American military strength and
support our commitments around the world. The Soviet Union, by means
of its recent, angry statements, says that we have. History tells us
something quite different.3 World War II became unavoidable
[Page 585]
when the democratic powers of West
Europe surrendered first part, then all of Czechoslovakia to Adolf
Hitler. This capitulation only reinforced Hitler’s belief that it
was safe to attack Poland, because the great democracies were too
weak and timid to fight.4 It reinforced the feeling of other
nations that France and Britain were not reliable allies. The North
Korean attack on South Korea became more likely when the Truman
administration in 1950 mistakenly and inadvertently backed away from
its public commitment to defend South Korea.
The record is clear. War is not made more likely when the military
power of democracies is restored. It becomes more likely when the
strength or will of those nations comes into question. No one has
accused our Administration of allowing that to happen. We intend to
keep it that way, and by doing so, and by remaining willing to
engage in productive negotiations with the Soviet Union, we will
keep the world as safe a place as a strong, prudent, United States
can make it.
