program and would produce a statement more suitably geared to existing collective defense arrangements. Moreover, it was in consonance with the President's letter of 5 January 1955 to the Secretary of Defense. In fact, it was a direct quotation from the letter. The proposal reflected the current strategic doctrine for general war favored by the Army and Navy, which the spokesmen of these two Services were also championing in deliberations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on strategic plans.

In NSC 5602 the previous short statement on US willingness to enter into negotiations had been considerably expanded, to the following:

The United States should continue its readiness to negotiate with the USSR whenever it clearly appears that U.S. security interests will be served thereby. Such negotiations have additional importance in maintaining free world initiative and cohesion and are desirable in order to probe the intentions and expose the meaning of Soviet policies. The United States and its major allies should be prepared to sponsor genuinely reciprocal concessions between the free world and the Communist Bloc which would leave unimpaired the net security position of the free world and which would contribute to the ultimate peaceful resolution of the communist threat.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended substituting the following text, which they thought justified by the history of communist behavior in and following negotiations:

The United States should be ready to negotiate with the USSR whenever it clearly appears that the U.S. security interests will be served thereby. The United States should not, however, make concessions in advance of similar action by the Soviets, in the hope of inspiring Soviet concessions. Until the USSR evídences a modification of its basic hostility toward the non-Communist world through concrete actions, agreements should be dependent upon a balance of advantages to the non-Communist world and not upon implied good will or trust in written agreements.

A new statement appearing in NSC 5602 was an explicit commitment to the goal of disarmament: "The United States in its own interest should...actively seek a comprehensive, phased and safeguarded international system for the regulation and reduction of armed forces and armaments." The Joint Chiefs of Staff considered it essential that the following sentence be added:

The acceptability and character of any international system for the regulation and reduction of armed forces and armaments depends primarily on the scope and effectiveness of the safeguards against violations and evasions, and especially the inspection system.

In drafting the statement on the mobilization base in NSC 5602, the Planning Board had divided into majority and minority positions, the latter held by the representatives of the Treasury and the Bureau of the Budget. They favored "a mobilization base adequate to maintain military readiness and to provide the basis for successful prosecution of general war," with allowance for estimated

bomb damage and meeting the material requirements of allies. "Emphasis in mobilization planning should be given to the protection of existing critical supplies and facilities from destruction during the initial phases of a nuclear war." The majority offered a broader statement that would encompass these purposes but would also support the prosecution of the succeeding phases of general war and would provide for prompt replenishment of materials that might be expended in military operations below the general war level.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed a revision of the majority's paragraph that would avoid any implication that mobilization base planning could be compartmented into initial phases on the one hand and succeeding stages on the other and that would also tighten the statement by removing certain factors that should more appropriately be treated in war plans. The JCS emphasis on flexibility was clear in the proposed first sentence:

Inasmuch as no one can foresee with certainty the nature and extent of future conflicts in which the United States may become involved, the national mobilization base must be so constituted as to maintain military readiness to enter combat, ranging from local to general war, and to provide the capability of meeting expeditiously the needs of our national effort to bring hostilities to an early and

successful conclusion.

The final specific recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the text of NSC 5602 affected one part of the several paragraphs on the critical matter of the use of nuclear weapons and other special capabilities. Here again the draft revision represented an expansion of the NSC 5501 text, leading off with the following new paragraphs:

It is the policy of the United States to integrate nuclear weapons with other weapons in the arsenal of the United States. Nuclear weapons will be used in general war and in military operations short of general war as authorized by the President.

To the extent that the military effectiveness of the armed forces will be enhanced by their use, the United States will be prepared to use chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons in general war. The decision as to their use will be made by the President.

That nuclear weapons would be integrated in the US arsenal and would be used in general war had been well understood but not previously stated in the basic national security policy paper. When treating the use of nuclear weapons in lesser conflicts, NSC 5501 had included a sentence on the balance of military and political considerations that must be weighed before deciding to employ them. NSC 5602 read, simply, "nuclear weapons will be used... in military operations short of general war as authorized by the President," and its description of the forces to be kept ready for such contingencies placed somewhat greater stress than before on the need for a conventional warfare capability. It was notable, too, that the revised passage no longer called for the ready mobile forces to be sufficient "to punish swiftly and severely any such local aggression." It read as follows:

Within the total U.S. military forces there must be included ready forces which, with such help as may realistically be expected from allied forces, would be adequate (a) to present a deterrent to any resort to local aggression, and (b) to defeat or hold, in conjunction with indigenous forces, any such local aggression, pending the application of such additional U.S. and allied power as may be required to suppress quickly the local aggression in a manner and on a scale best calculated to avoid the hostilities broadening into general war. Such ready forces must be sufficiently versatile to use both conventional and nuclear weapons. They must be highly mobile and suitably deployed, recognizing that some degree of maldeployment from the viewpoint of general war must be accepted. Such forces must not become so dependent on tactical nuclear capabilities that any decision to intervene against local aggression would probably be tantamount to a decision to use nuclear weapons. However, these forces must also have a flexible and selective nuclear capability, since the United States will not preclude itself from using nuclear weapons even in a local situation.

In a further paragraph it was noted that "the apprehensions of U.S. allies as to using nuclear weapons to counter local aggression can be lessened if the U.S. deterrent force is not solely dependent on such weapons." However, if the deterrent failed and local aggression actually occurred, "the United States should, if necessary, make its own decision as to the use of nuclear weapons."

To all the above the Joint Chiefs of Staff offered a single amendment. It was designed to provide somewhat clearer guidance on the circumstances in which nuclear weapons would be employed against localized aggression and was similar to some of the language of NSC 5501 that had been dropped:

Nuclear weapons will be used in general war, and will be used in military operations short of general war when the effectiveness of the operations and capabilities of the U.S. forces employed will be enhanced thereby. For such operations, the decision as to specific uses will be made by the President.

The five proposed amendments to NSC 5602 were for the most part adopted from a report by the Joint Strategic Survey Committee (JSSC).20 But the Joint Chiefs of Staff rejected the JSSC draft of a covering memorandum, which closed with a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense that he concur in the adoption of NSC 5602, subject to the changes, as an acceptable statement of basic national security policy to supersede NSC 5501. Using a forwarding memorandum of their own composition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent their proposed changes to Secretary Wilson on 24 February 1956 with notice that they were more concerned with the overall aspects of NSC 5602, which they judged to be essentially a restatement of the policy contained in NSC 5501:

They feel strongly that there has been a marked deterioration of the Free World position in the past year, due mainly to a new and more flexible approach on the part of the Communist Bloc (USSR). Unless U.S. policy is realistically revised to meet the new Soviet tactics, U.S. leadership of the Free World will be jeopardized.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended a complete restudy of basic national security policy as a matter of urgency, regardless of the action taken by the Council on NSC 5602.21

Secretary Wilson forwarded the JCS comments to the National Security Council with a strong endorsement. He wrote that the Armed Forces Policy Council had reached the unanimous view that, "while NSC 5602 is some small improvement in detail over NSC 5501,... it does not represent the incisive and clear statement of the basic U.S. security policies which we believe is needed to meet the challenge of new Soviet moves." Since the approval of NSC 5501, he continued, Soviet military strength had grown rapidly to the point where the Soviets could be confident of their ability to protect the security of their regime and hold together the communist bloc. As a consequence, Soviet leaders were now moving with "far greater flexibility and assurance to isolate the U.S. from the rest of the free world and to create doubts in the minds of our allies as to U.S. intentions."

In the face of this considerably changed situation, Secretary Wilson strongly recommended "that a number of very fundamental problems confronting us should be thrashed out by a small group meeting with the President," leading to a much shorter, positive and affirmative statement of US policy to meet the challenge of the new Soviet cold war offensive.22

Neither the Joint Chiefs of Staff nor the Secretary of Defense had felt it necessary to identify the elements of the new Soviet approach in detail. That the Soviet Union had introduced a greater flexibility and a more conciliatory tone into the conduct of its foreign policy since the beginning of 1955 was readily apparent to any informed observer. Already coming into evidence in 1954, the changed attitude had been highlighted by Soviet Premier Georgi M. Malenkov in a rare response to questions from a foreign press representative, which the Soviet news organs published on 1 January 1955. He declared that peace between his country and the United States could best be maintained by basing their relations on recognition of "the possibility and necessity of peaceful coexistence with one another and on consideration for their legal mutual interests." While he did not forego the opportunity to condemn US leadership in the rearmament of West Germany, Malenkov said that the Soviet Union was ready to settle existing differences, bearing in mind that such readiness also should be shown on the part of the United States.23

Premier Malenkov had made this statement barely a month before taking the unprecedented step of resigning his office. To replace him, the Supreme Soviet named Nikolai A. Bulganin, but the real political power was believed to be in the hands of Nikita S. Khrushchev, the First Secretary of the Communist Party, who had opposed Malenkov's emphasis on consumer goods production and advocated instead a concentration on building up heavy industry.24

Judging by his position on domestic affairs, Khrushchev might have been expected to revert to a Stalinist hard line in foreign policy, but such was not the case. In the ensuing months, he appeared to be carrying on the relaxation of tensions initiated by Malenkov. On 15 May, the Soviet Government signed the Austrian peace treaty, which had been under negotiation among the victors of World War II since 1946, and in July 1955 the Soviet leaders participated in a summit conference with the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Although no agreements were reached, the occasion raised hopes that the direct communication among the leaders of the world's most

important governments had evoked a spirit of Geneva that would be conducive to the settlement of East-West differences in ensuing negotiations at lower levels.25

The professed devotion to peaceful coexistence had also been manifest in a number of lesser Soviet actions. In June, Khrushchev and Bulganin visited Belgrade, where they took the extraordinary step of confessing Soviet guilt for the rift between their country and Yugoslavia that had persisted since 1948. The Soviet Government also relinquished its bases at Porkalla, Finland, and Port Arthur, China; returned a number of ships received from the United States under Lend-Lease during World War II; and announced a 640,000-man reduction in its armed forces. This last action, according to the Soviet statement, was taken "with a view to promoting the relaxation of international tension and establishing confidence among the nations.” 26

While these developments in Soviet foreign policy were either of direct advantage to the West or might conceivably develop in that direction, there was another aspect of the new flexibility that had the opposite effect. The Soviet Government had now apparently decided to play down the use or threat of military force and to place greater emphasis on economic moves and other forms of enticement. These efforts seemed particularly successful in the uncommitted lands of Asia and Africa, where the memories of European colonial domination were still fresh. Bulganin and Khrushchev toured India, Burma, and Afghanistan, stressing alleged identity of interest between these countries and the Soviet Union and offering economic and technical aid. Following up on these offers, the Soviet Government negotiated agreements to build a steel mill in India, to pave the streets of Kabul, Afghanistan, and to buy or barter for large quantities of Burmese rice. Of far greater significance than these economic penetrations was the Soviet intrusion into the military balance of power in the Middle East. This intrusion was accomplished by means of a barter agreement reached in September 1955, under which Czechoslovakia was to accept Egyptian cotton in exchange for Soviet bloc military equipment.27

As 1956 began, President Eisenhower in his State of the Union message took note that after the hopeful beginning at the Geneva summit conference the previous July, a further meeting of the foreign ministers in October had demonstrated conclusively that the Soviet leaders were not yet willing to create the indispensable conditions for a secure and lasting peace. Nevertheless, he said, it was clear that the East-West conflict had taken on a new complexion. "Communist tactics against the free nations have shifted in emphasis from reliance on violence and the threat of violence to reliance on division, enticement and duplicity." While maintaining its deterrent military power against possible attack, the United States must also take measures to meet the current Soviet tactics, which posed a dangerous though less obvious threat.28

A Revised National Security Policy: NSC 5602/1

A&

gainst this background the National Security Council took up the consideration of NSC 5602 at two meetings on 27 February and 1 March 1956. During