The World & I Online Magazine, ONline Archive and Educational Resource  
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library
Username:   Password:      Subscribe Now   Register   About Us | Contact Us | FAQs      
The World & I Archive Peoples of the World Book Reviews Worldwide Folktales Fathers of Faith
Search  
Sort by: Results Listed:
Date Range:    Advanced Search

The World & I Magazine
 
Current Issue
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Modern Thought
  Resources
American Waves
Book Reviews
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Profiles in Character
Traveling the Globe
Writers and Writing

The Changing Threat


Article # : 15146 

Section : CURRENT ISSUES
Issue Date : 4 / 1989  2,671 Words
Author : William E. Odom
William E. Odom, formerly director of the National Security Agency, is director of national security studies at the Hudson Institute.

       Is the military threat to NATO declining, and will it diminish significantly in the 1990s? The answer is not clear, but it is big news that the question can be raised at all. It is bigger news yet that the answer might be yes, considering that the answer has been consistently no over the past four decades.
       
        In 1949, Soviet military power looked threatening: While its quality was poor, the number of divisions was large, and the Soviets also had just exploded their first nuclear weapon. In early 1950, Paul Nitze, as director of the Policy Planning Staff at the State Department, completed NSC-68, a study of the Soviet challenge. It projected a growing Soviet military capability that would present NATO with "maximum vulnerability" in 1954 unless the balance were rectified.
       
        The 1960s began with concern over the "missile gap." Although the extent of the gap proved to be an exaggeration, the sixties did witness the beginning of a broad-based Soviet military buildup. By the 1970s, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's prediction that Soviet ICBM forces would not exceed ours looked dubious, if not yet flatly wrong. The Nixon administration was sufficiently troubled to reverse its aversion to arms negotiations and to begin SALT. Notwithstanding the SALT I treaty, Soviet forces continued to expand, particularly ground and naval units. Sen. Mike Mansfield introduced an amendment to reduce the number of U.S. forces deployed in Europe. The Nixon administration responded by initiating the Mutual Balanced Force Reduction (MBFR) talks in Vienna. While not achieving results, the negotiations served their real purpose of preventing unilateral American troop ... (1905 of 16584 Characters)
Read Full Article

Copyright © 2004 The World & I Online. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy