National Security Council Memorandum Number 68 (1950)
In 1947, reacting to increasing Cold-War tensions, Congress passed the National Security Act. Part of that act established the National Security Council, which included the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, and the secretaries of the army, navy and air force. The role of the NSC was to advise the president on all national defense issues. When, in 1949, the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb, the Truman administration reacted by approving U.S. development of the hydrogen bomb. Secretary of State Dean Acheson then ordered a new national defense policy statement. The result was NSC 68, below, which outlined the administrations commitment to winning the Cold War regardless of the cost.
Within the past thirty-five years the world has experienced two global wars of tremendous violence. It has witnessed two revolutions-the Russian and the Chinese-of extreme scope and intensity. It has also seen the collapse of five empires-the Ottoman, the Austro-Hungarian, German, Italian and Japanese-and the drastic decline of two major imperial systems, the British and the French. During the span of one generation, the international distribution of power has been fundamentally altered. For several centuries it had proved impossible for any one nation to gain such preponderant strength that a coalition of other nations could not in time face it with greater strength. The international scene was marked by recurring periods of violence and war, but a system of sovereign and independent states was maintained, over which no state was able to achieve hegemony.
Two complex sets of factors have now basically altered this historical distribution of power. First, the defeat of Germany and Japan and the decline of the British and French Empires have interacted with the development of the United States and the Soviet Union in such a way that power has increasingly gravitated to these two centers. Second, the Soviet Union, unlike previous aspirants to hegemony, is animated by a new fanatic faith, antithetical to our own, and seeks to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world. Conflict has, therefore, become endemic and is waged, on the part of the Soviet Union, by violent or non-violent methods in accordance with the dictates of expediency. With the development of increasingly terrifying weapons of mass destruction, every individual faces the ever-present possibility of annihilation should the conflict enter the phase of total war.
On the one hand, the people of the world yearn for relief from the anxiety arising from the risk of atomic war. On the other hand, any substantial further extension of the area under the domination of the Kremlin would raise the possibility that no coalition adequate to confront the Kremlin with greater strength could be assembled. It is in this context that this Republic and its citizens in the ascendancy of their strength stand in their deepest peril. . . .
Military Evaluation of U.S. and U.S.S.R. Atomic Capabilities
1. The United States now has an atomic capability, including both numbers and deliverability, estimated to be adequate, if effectively utilized, to deliver a serious blow against the war-making capacity of the U.S.S.R. It is doubted whether such a blow, even if it resulted in the complete destruction of the contemplated target systems, would cause the U.S.S.R. to sue for terms or present [prevent] Soviet forces from occupying Western Europe against such ground resistance as could presently be mobilized. A very serious initial blow could, however, so reduce the capabilities of the U.S.S.R. to supply and equip its military organization and its civilian population as to give the United States the prospect of developing a general military superiority in a war of long duration.
2. As the atomic capability of the U.S.S.R. increases, it will have an increased ability to hit at our atomic bases and installations and thus seriously hamper the ability of the United States to carry out an attack such as that outlined above. It is quite possible that in the near future the U.S.S.R. will have a sufficient number of atomic bombs and a sufficient deliverability to raise a question whether Britain with its present inadequate air defense could be relied upon as an advance base from which a major portion of the U.S. attack could be launched.
It is estimated that, within the next four years, the U.S.S.R. will attain the capability of seriously damaging vital centers of the United States, provided it strikes a surprise blow and provided further that the blow is opposed by no more effective opposition than we now have programmed. Such a blow could so seriously damage the United States as to greatly reduce its superiority in economic potential.
Effective opposition to this Soviet capability will require among other measures greatly increased air warning systems, air defenses, and vigorous development and implementation of a civilian defense program which has been thoroughly integrated with the military defense systems.
In time the atomic capability of the U.S.S.R. can be expected to grow to a point where, given surprise and no more effective opposition than we now have programmed, the possibility of a decisive initial attack cannot be excluded.
3. In the initial phases of an atomic war, the advantages of initiative and surprise would be very great. A police state living behind an iron curtain has an enormous advantage in maintaining the necessary security and centralization of decision required to capitalize on this advantage.
4. For the moment our atomic retaliatory capability is probably adequate to deter the Kremlin from a deliberate direct military attack against ourselves or other free peoples. However, when it calculates that it has a sufficient atomic capability to make a surprise attack on us, nullifying our atomic superiority and creating a military situation decisively in its favor, the Kremlin might be tempted to strike swiftly and with stealth. The existence of two large atomic capabilities in such a relationship might well act, therefore, not as a deterrent, but as an incitement to war.
5. A further increase in the number and power of our atomic weapons is necessary in order to assure the effectiveness of any U.S. retaliatory blow, but would not of itself seem to change the basic logic of the above points. Greatly increased general air, ground and sea strength, and increased air defense and civilian defense programs would also be necessary to provide reasonable assurance that the free world could survive an initial surprise atomic attack of the weight which it is estimated the U.S.S.R. will be capable of delivering by 1954 and still permit the free world to go on to the eventual attainment of its objectives. Furthermore, such a build-up of strength could safeguard and increase our retaliatory power, and thus might put off for some time the date when the Soviet Union could calculate that a surprise blow would be advantageous. This would provide additional time for the effects of our policies to produce a modification of the Soviet system.
6. If the U.S.S.R. develops a thermonuclear weapon ahead of the U.S., the risks of greatly increased Soviet pressure against all the free world, or an attack against the U.S., will be greatly increased.
7. If the U.S. develops a thermonuclear weapon ahead of the U.S.S.R., the U.S. should for the time being be able to bring increased pressure on the U.S.S.R. . . .
In the light of present and prospective Soviet atomic capabilities, the action which can be taken under present programs and plans, however, becomes dangerously inadequate, in both timing and scope, to accomplish the rapid progress toward the attainment of the United States political, economic, and military objectives which is now imperative.
A continuation of present trends would result in a serious decline in the strength of the free world relative to the Soviet Union and its satellites. This unfavorable trend arises from the inadequacy of current programs and plans rather than from any error in our objectives and aims. These trends lead in the direction of isolation, not by deliberate decision but by lack of the necessary basis for a vigorous initiative in the conflict with the Soviet Union.
Our position as the center of power in the free world places a heavy responsibility upon the United States for leadership. We must organize and enlist the energies and resources of the free world in a positive program for peace which will frustrate the Kremlin design for world domination by creating a situation in the free world to which the Kremlin will be compelled to adjust. Without such a cooperative effort, led by the United States, we will have to make gradual withdrawals under pressure until we discover one day that we have sacrificed positions of vital interest.
It is imperative that this trend be reversed by a much more rapid and concerted build-up of the actual strength of both the United States and the other nations of the free world. The analysis shows that this will be costly and will involve significant domestic financial and economic adjustments.
The execution of such a build-up, however, requires that the United States have an affirmative program beyond the solely defensive one of countering the threat posed by the Soviet Union. This program must light the path to peace and order among nations in a system based on freedom and justice, as contemplated in the Charter of the United Nations. Further, it must envisage the political and economic measures with which and the military shield behind which the free world can work to frustrate the Kremlin design by the strategy of the cold war; for every consideration of devotion to our fundamental values and to our national security demands that we achieve our objectives by the strategy of the cold war, building up our military strength in order that it may not have to be used. The only sure victory lies in the frustration of the Kremlin design by the steady development of the moral and material strength of the free world and its projection into the Soviet world in such a way as to bring about an internal change in the Soviet system. Such a positive program-harmonious with our fundamental national purpose and our objectives-is necessary if we are to regain and retain the initiative and to win and hold the necessary popular support and cooperation in the United States and the rest of the free world.
Document Analysis
What specific actions and policies did this document call for?
What changes in the worlds balance of power did this document describe?
How might people who opposed this strategy have answered this document?
1.What specific actions and policies did this document call for?
The document called for a scenario of what if situations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It stated different issues involving nuclear weapons being occupied by the two most powerful nations in the world at the time, the U.S. and the Soviet Union and what would happen if one nation should decide to use them against another. 2.What changes in the worlds balance of power did this document describe? The document described how the balance of power in the world had shifted from nations like Germany and Japan and imperialistic nations like England and France to nations like the United States and the Soviet Union who possessed many nuclear weapons and were advocating for their own personal beliefs. The Soviet Union was trying to convert countries into communist ones while the United States was trying to promote capitalism among independent nations. 3.How might people who opposed this strategy have answered this document? People who might have been opposed to this strategy might have not wanted to use as many nuclear weapons or might have not even wanted to use them at all. These strategies are very costly and people opposed to these strategies might want to save the money used. Other strategies such as blockades and diplomatic methods might have been alternatives.
It calls for an increase in the power and an increase to the amount of nuclear weapons we have, it also calls that if a war was imminent or to start, a quick decisive maneuver could disable them enough to gain an advantage.
It tells of the fall of the five empires of the ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, German, Italian, and Japanese people.Also it tells of the decline in the power of France and Britain.Then, while these powers were declining the Soviet Union and the United States were gaining power, and now the balance of power has shifted to their favor.
A person who would wish to appose this would not want to have a nuclear war, or even a prospect of a nuclear war.They would have wanted to decrease our stockpiles of nuclear arms, and they would most likely think that by doing so we become less of a threat to the Russian government so they would not attack us first.
1.) This document calls for the U.S. to increase its offensive capabilities in relation to atomic weapons along with what it already has for a defensive means against the Soviet Union. It also called for Air warning and defense systems along with a civilian defense program to provide effective opposition. Lastly it calls for the U.S. to increase political pressure if it should develop a thermonuclear weapon first. 2.) It says that the European nations have until now remained sovereign and independent states of which none of them could conquer all others faster than an alliance form among them to stop a threat. But now in the last thirty-five years the world has seen the fall of the Ottoman, the Austro-Hungarian, German, Italian and Japanese empires along with the decline of two major imperial systems of the British and French; it has also witnessed the revolutions of the Russians and Chinese. From this all of their power has been focused on two centers of power, the Soviet Union and the U.S., now called superpowers. 3.) They might argue that a defensive position is enough as long as we can develop some way to protect ourselves from their atomic weapons or they might argue that by taking an offensive stance we could eventually provoke, either purposefully or accidentally, the U.S.S.R. into launching an attack.
1. The document basically states that the us should make hydrogen bombs because the soviet union dropped its first bomb before experts thought. We wanted to be prepared for the worst. No one really knew what was going to happen between the United States and the Soviet Union. 2. Changes in power happened often in the past thirty five years before this document was written. There were two world wars, two revolutions. Five empires collapsed the ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, German, Italian, and Japanese. British and French imperial systems failed. Power is something that everyone wants, but not all of us can have. It seems that a lot of countries got to greedy with power and in result failed to dwell after that. 3. Someone who might have opposed might of said that atomic weapons were not necessary, and if we worked things out there would be no need for them.
What specific actions and policies did this document call for?
What changes in the worlds balance of power did this document describe?
How might people who opposed this strategy have answered this document?
1. This document called for greatly increased air warning systems, air defenses, and vigorous development and implementation of a civilian defense program which has been thoroughly integrated with the military defense systems.
2. The United States would have to make gradual withdrawals under pressure until we discover one day that we have sacrificed positions of vital interest.
3. They might have answered against the nuclear weapons and attacks. They might have been against the total use of atomic weapons and might have even stated that the United States shouldn't even have them.
1. What specific actions and policies did this document call for?
- This document basically states that we need to make more nuclear weapons and that they need to be more powerful than anything the Soviets could ever use against us. To be able to do that we needed to be able to break through all of the scientific barriers surrounding nuclear weapons, so that everything we created was top of the line.
2. What changes in the worlds balance of power did this document describe?
- The document described the shift of power from all of the previously superior nations [i.e. Britain, France, Germany etc.] to a new set of superior nations [The United States, and the Soviet Union]. Much of this shift was accredited to the creation and use of atomic energy.
3. How might people who opposed this strategy have answered this document?
- There are a lot of people who dont agree with the use of atomic energy as a weapon, basically due to the fact it causes tremendous damage and usually includes mass casualties. To answer this document they would have to come up with some way for the United States to avoid M.A.D. through the use of these weapons whether it be to talk it out with the Soviets or use some sort of alternative weapon.
What specific actions and policies did this document call for?
This document called for a build up of strength for the United States and other free world countries.It called for affirmative programs beyond the defensive ones which means a call for more nuclear weapons so that the free world nations would have such a great arsenal of these weapons that the Soviet Union would feel frustrated and be in fear. The belief was that the Soviet Union would not use their nuclear weapons against a free world nation knowing that those nations could and would retaliate because they had the power and weapons to do so.
What changes in the worlds balance of power did this document describe?
The document explained that the world balance of power had changed due to the defeat of Germany and Japan and the great decline of the nations of Britain and France.Due to these changes, the balance of power had shifted to the United States and the Soviet Union.
How might people who oppose this strategy have answered this document?
People who oppose these strategies would disagree with approval of a large amount of funds for building additional nuclear weapons and for building up the military force in the U.S.They may argue that it is enough to establish a sufficient amount of weapons needed to maintain a satisfactory defensive stance.They may also argue that the arms race could continue indefinitely with more and more money being needed to keep up with the U.S.S.R. and that by doing so the U.S. would fall into severe debt.
1. The document seeks to stimulate Americas policy concerning the USSR. It brings up different strategies in dealing with the Soviets, the importance of thermonuclear development, and the responsibility we have in being the leader of the free world. 2. This document describes the global situation that arose post World War II. That era saw the fall of two great empires, the decline of two great imperial powers, and the rise from the ashes of two future world superpowers. At the time, and as the document details, everything either gravitated towards the Soviets or the Yankees. In actuality, the situation was much like this. 3. One might argue that further development of nuclear arms would only hinder the chances and possibility of global peace. The production of arms as means of peace through deterrence can be criticized as being redundant.
1.What specific actions and policies did this document call for? The document calls for an immediate and significant rise in the production of nuclear arms stating that a much more rapid and concerted build-up of the actual strength of both the United States and the other nations of the free world. The document also states that, A further increase in the number and power of our atomic weapons is necessary in order to assure the effectiveness of any U.S. retaliatory blow. The fear of Soviet nuclear development, the writers of the document feared that the U.S. S. R. would try to increase pressure on the U.S. and the free world to comply with its wishes and demands. 2.What changes in the worlds balance of power did this document describe?
The document describes the power lost in the dissent of powerful European (and Japanese) empires and imperialistic systems, along with the rise of powerful sovereign states, especially superpowers like the U.S. and the Soviet Union, have shifted the balance of power and created a power vacuum where the world influence and power held by several strong imperial systems has been concentrated basically in two nations (the U.S. and U.S.S. R.).
3.How might people who opposed this strategy have answered this document?Opposing arguments to this document may respond by saying that the U. S.s strategy of substantially increasing the number and effectiveness of its nukes would prompt other countries (Soviet Union) to meet that same demand which would continue in a perpetual pattern of arms escalation with no end in sight. The growing numbers of nukes may act more like a catalyst more than a deterrent also, because if the threat of and American massive nuclear bombardment on the Soviet Union increases enough than the Soviets may act out in fear and launch the first strike to protect their country against a massive retaliatory threat.
