VII.

Finally, what can we do to move from the present pause toward enduring peace?  Again I would counsel caution.  I foresee no spectacular reversal in Communist methods or goals.  But if all these trends and developments can persuade the Soviet Union to walk the path of peace, then let her know that all free nations will journey with her.  But until that choice is made, and until the world can develop a reliable system of international security, the free peoples have no choice but to keep their arms nearby.

This country, therefore, continues to require the best defense in the world—­a defense which is suited to the sixties.  This means, unfortunately, a rising defense budget—­for there is no substitute for adequate defense, and no “bargain basement” way of achieving it.  It means the expenditure of more than $15 billion this year on nuclear weapons systems alone, a sum which is about equal to the combined defense budgets of our European Allies.

But it also means improved air and missile defenses, improved civil defense, a strengthened anti-guerrilla capacity and, of prime importance, more powerful and flexible non-nuclear forces.  For threats of massive retaliation may not deter piecemeal aggression—­and a line of destroyers in a quarantine, or a division of well-equipped men on a border, may be more useful to our real security than the multiplication of awesome weapons beyond all rational need.

But our commitment to national safety is not a commitment to expand our military establishment indefinitely.  We do not dismiss disarmament as merely an idle dream.  For we believe that, in the end, it is the only way to assure the security of all without impairing the interests of any.  Nor do we mistake honorable negotiation for appeasement.  While we shall never weary in the defense of freedom, neither shall we ever abandon the pursuit of peace.

In this quest, the United Nations requires our full and continued support.  Its value in serving the cause of peace has been shown anew in its role in the West New Guinea settlement, in its use as a forum for the Cuban crisis, and in its task of unification in the Congo.  Today the United Nations is primarily the protector of the small and the weak, and a safety valve for the strong.  Tomorrow it can form the framework for a world of law—­a world in which no nation dictates the destiny of another, and in which the vast resources now devoted to destructive means will serve constructive ends.

In short, let our adversaries choose.  If they choose peaceful competition, they shall have it.  If they come to realize that their ambitions cannot succeed—­if they see their “wars of liberation” and subversion will ultimately fail—­if they recognize that there is more security in accepting inspection than in permitting new nations to master the black arts of nuclear war—­and if they are willing to turn their energies, as we are, to the great unfinished tasks of our own peoples—­then, surely, the areas of agreement can be very wide indeed:  a clear understanding about Berlin, stability in Southeast Asia, an end to nuclear testing, new checks on surprise or accidental attack, and, ultimately, general and complete disarmament.