But our strength may be tested at many levels.  We intend to have at all times the capacity to resist non-nuclear or limited attacks—­as a complement to our nuclear capacity, not as a substitute.  We have rejected any all-or-nothing posture which would leave no choice but inglorious retreat or unlimited retaliation.

Thus we have doubled the number of ready combat divisions in the Army’s strategic reserve—­increased our troops in Europe—­built up the Marines—­added new sealift and airlift capacity—­modernized our weapons and ammunition—­expanded our anti-guerrilla forces—­and increased the active fleet by more than 70 vessels and our tactical air forces by nearly a dozen wings.

Because we needed to reach this higher long-term level of readiness more quickly, 155,000 members of the Reserve and National Guard were activated under the Act of this Congress.  Some disruptions and distress were inevitable.  But the overwhelming majority bear their burdens—­and their Nation’s burdens—­with admirable and traditional devotion.

In the coming year, our reserve programs will be revised—­two Army Divisions will, I hope, replace those Guard Divisions on duty—­and substantial other increases will boost our Air Force fighter units, the procurement of equipment, and our continental defense and warning efforts.  The Nation’s first serious civil defense shelter program is under way, identifying, marking, and stocking 50 million spaces; and I urge your approval of Federal incentives for the construction of public fall-out shelters in schools and hospitals and similar centers.

VI.  THE UNITED NATIONS

But arms alone are not enough to keep the peace—­it must be kept by men.  Our instrument and our hope is the United Nations—­and I see little merit in the impatience of those who would abandon this imperfect world instrument because they dislike our imperfect world.  For the troubles of a world organization merely reflect the troubles of the world itself.  And if the organization is weakened, these troubles can only increase.  We may not always agree with every detailed action taken by every officer of the United Nations, or with every voting majority.  But as an institution, it should have in the future, as it has had in the past since its inception, no stronger or more faithful member than the United States of America.

In 1961 the peace-keeping strength of the United Nations was reinforced.  And those who preferred or predicted its demise, envisioning a troika in the seat of Hammarskjold—­or Red China inside the Assembly—­have seen instead a new vigor, under a new Secretary General and a fully independent Secretariat.  In making plans for a new forum and principles on disarmament —­for peace-keeping in outer space—­for a decade of development effort—­the Un fulfilled its Charter’s lofty aim.

Eighteen months ago the tangled and turbulent Congo presented the Un with its gravest challenge.  The prospect was one of chaos—­or certain big-power confrontation, with all of its hazards and all of its risks, to us and to others.  Today the hopes have improved for peaceful conciliation within a united Congo.  This is the objective of our policy in this important area.