Created: 1/19/1960

OCR scan of the original document, errors are possible


OCIopy No.





Office of Current Intelligence CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY


Khrushchev on Nuclear Strategy

Thisorking paper. It is intendedmall contribution to the work of those concerned withSoviet intentions, and as the first of several papers on problems in the Slno-Soviet military relationship. The conclusions of the paper appear as pages

3tudlfl"ould welcome comment.



The rapid growth of Soviet ICBM capabilities posesproblems for intelligence. The task, in its broadest terms, is to determine the strategic assumptions underlying the Soviet Union's present military development programs. This paperodest contribution to this end bystatements on war that Khrushchev has made in public speeches and in interviews fromhrough histo the Supreme Soviet on

It may be asked why an effort should be made to describe Khrushchev's views when excellent analyses of Sovietthought already. Raymond L. Garthoff'sStrategy in the Nuclear) and his The Soviet image oi Future One reason is that thengolitical leader like Khrushchev may diverge in some respects from the thinking of his military specialists. Another reason is that there mayag of theory behind practice, particularlyeriod of rapid technological development. Khrushchev's statements, if for no otherthan that he is the dominant figure of tbe regime, mayseful supplement to the writings of Sovietspecialists.

Khrushchevange of choices. The Soviet Union, at one extreme, couldinimum deterrent strategy, reeing its resources for other purposes while relying on its possessionood retaliatory capability to deter the West from war. At the other extreme, Moscow couldreventive war strategy, building its capabilities for aknockout blow against the United States. The selection made from the spectrum of choices depends on the Sovietof such matters as the balance of power, the consequenceseneral war, Western intentions,the costs of achieving various levels of capability, etc.

Khrushchev has spoken directly on some of the matters to be considered inoviot estimate; His genuineare,of course, difficult to determine, because his statements on war have been calculated for political effect.

Nevertheless, such statements seem to reveal certainwhich are of intelligence value. Because othermay interpret the dataompilation of Khrurincipal statements on war since7 is

I. ance of Power

Communist doctrine onjoins Khrushchev to keep under study the "relation of forces" io order to avoid (hazardous courses) on the one hand, and "right (excessive caution) on the other. His statements in the past three years havealculation ofachievement of an approximate balance of forces between tho Soviet Union and the United States, with an increasingly confident estimate of tho Soviet position in this balance.

he year of the Sovietests and the first sputniks, some of Khrushchev's statements seemed toalculationecisive Soviet advantage. Be claimed, for example, that the Soviet Union had "outstripped" the US In the development of the ICBMs and that the ICBM had solved tho question ofydrogen charge to any point on the globe." He was careful, however, at the same time, to describe the Soviet stratogic capability against the American continent as composed not only of ICBMs but of "submarine missiles and other means which nowndicating athat the ICBM alone (in whatovor level of development it was available to the Soviet Union)dld notecisive military advantage. Moreover, subsequent statementsore modest appraisal of the Soviet military positionthe US.

have kept up with you xp-Bomehink wo are a-

who had talked

Inn an apparently candid moment,told r

in the arms

head." In the same month,

with Khrushchev reported thai auiusuiucv mJ not appear to

' wr-

believo that tho USSR had broken or was about to break tho existing military stalemate with tbe US.

In9 Khrushchev again spoke of the balance as being so nearly equal that distinctions wore not meaningful. Referring to instruments which measure tbe resistance ofKhrushchev observed that an instrument designed to measure strength in political and military affairs would show that tha Bloc and the "imperialist states" were bothstrong at present."

In his report to tbe Supreme Soviet onhrushchev expressod confidence in the superiority of Soviet military strength. At the same time, he acknowledged thatwest could inflict "great calamities" on the USSReneral war. Further, whileubstantial Soviet lead in tho development of missiles, he observed that the race is not over and that the Vest "may sooner or later draw even with us."

In sum, Khrushchev has notecisive advantage for the Sovietuch an advantage as wouldoviet victoryeneral war on terms to esponsible Soviet leader. He does not appear to believe that such an advantage has been achieved.

II. Consequenceseneral

Khrushchev has commented many tines ln recent years on the question of whethor under current conditions avictory would be possible, for either the USSR or thoeneral war.

His forecasts of the outcomeilitary clash with tbe West have been expressed in striking concepts of destru-tion. Italy could be knocked out in "twond Turkey in "fifteenS bases could be attackedmatter ofest Germany could be destroyed in "tenurther, "it suffices to press but one button and not only airfields and the means of communications of variousheadquarters, but whole cities, will be blown sky-high, whole countries can bo destroyed."

Khrushchev has omphasized that tho American continont would be within the range of actionuture general war, and that the united States would suffer great destruction. "It /Tho war7 will rage not only in Europe ande has said, "but with no less fury" ln the United States; he pointed out that inar "the American people will sufferlosses." "It is highe declared on another"for the American strategists to como out of their fool's paradise (ln which they believe) that ln the event of aconflict the territory of the United Statos would remain Invulnerable." Host recently, in hisanuary report to the Supreme Soviet, Khrushchev declared that the USSR "would bo able literally to wipe tbe country or countries which attack us /The Bloc7 off the face of tho earth."

Khrushchev has concededew war would bo trrim for the USSR as well. He admitted to7 that the Soviet Union would "suf*

a future war; on another occasion he spoke of tho lossesgreat ones"that the Soviet Union could expect. letter to Russell he described nuclear war asdangorous" for the "two" warring states "in termsdevastation and destruction of humannspeech, he said: "We know that if such aout, great damage will be inflicted on us too,wo too shall have to make great sacrifices. War doesany good . anuary) he acknowl-

edged again, that "We, too, would suffer great calamities; "we would havo many losses . . . ."

Khrushchev has sometimes qualified his assessment of the consequences of war for the USSR by asserting that Sovietfor survival are superior. In this connection, he has specified that the wide dispersal of population andin the USSR gives theegree of resilience which the US does not have, in making this point ln hisanuary report, Khrushchev observed that, despito the "greatand "many losses" which the USSR would sufferew war, "yet we wouldnd the West "would suffermore."

Sincehrushchev has most often spoken of the consequenceseneral war in terms of tho terrible results "for mankind" rather than for specific peoples or blocs. Be has observed that the number of victims would run intoof millions; that nuclear weapons could strike any point on the globe; that "no country" would be able tocrushingew war would entail the "destruction of all that has been created" in the course of history; and that war "would not spare anybody and would cause mankindsacrifices, devastation and suffering . . . ."

In sum. Just as he has spoken of the balance of forces as being so nearly equal tbat distinctions are notKhrushchev has tended to speak of general war as entailing consequences so severe for each participant as to be Even when he hasuperior Soviet ability to emergeuclear exchange, he has not indicatedto accept lossos on this scale.

III. American Intentions

Khrushchev holds the orthodox view that the United States is Intransigent^ hostile to tha Soviet Union and thatdefensive moasures are in fact an expression of this He has maintainedowever, that general war is not inevitable and indeed that the prospect of waras the bloc becomes stronger and the Westrecognizes that situation.

In7 Khrushchev denied that he believed the

alnst the DSSR. He repeated this laterut at the same time be referred to American bases as indicating that the US is "preparing" tolow at the Soviet Union or at least "wants" to do so.

Several times7 Khrushchev noted the possibilityeneral war beginning by accident, such as an actioneranged pilot. He made other such referencesne specified possibility was the accidental droppingomb on some territory (non-Soviet) being overflown by anPlane, which would be takenurprise attack and would seteneral war.

In while reaffirming that wars arehrushchev observed that any attempt to change the existing situation by force would require theof the doctrine of the "inevitability of war." The implication was that any attempt by the US to split one of the satellites away from the USSR would lead to war.

hrushchev for tne first timehe had some appreciation of the constitutional andfactors inhibiting the ITS from, initiating war. observed to-the Soviet Mon

ant war,;wui ajsiqu'the United States


Late Khrushchev noted again (as in haypossibility of war beginningesultarticular disputed issue. Bestatements to the effect

lu^-os worn a means io BorUn made apparently in the belief that the USSR would not

retaliate with military means. Khrushchev warned thatelief was false.

At the twenty-first party congress inhrushchevhird possibility of inducingaulty estimate by the US of its own capabilitiesis the USSR. Khrushchev citedgenerals and statesmen" who contend that the American military position is superior because US bases surround the USSR while the Soviet Union hasew ICBMs. admonished those who may be tempted "to use thismoment fornd warned of the disastrous consequences" of "strategic plans . .uiltalse pre-

In the foregoing statement, Khrushchev was concernedpossibility of an American decision to attack theAmerican capabilities were relatively high. Histo unrealistic plans could be projected, however,the possibility of an American attackimeUS would know its capabilities to be much inferiort0 strlkoit still had any capabilities

Just as he bad noted in8 that theeliberate recourse to war, so in June

e offered no domurral when

stated that it should be obviousuu wwimunder any circumstancesar." On several occasions subsequently9 he conceded, ln effect, that it isthat American leaders are contemplating an attack on the Soviet Union.

In bisanuary report, Khrushchev implied at several points that he does not believe that the United States is about to strike the USSR, "it is hard toe said,

that anyone in the United States is not aware of theconsequences toew world war wouldurther, in discussing tbe possibility that the West would

draw oven" in weapons development, be minimized thethat the West would thenurprise attack. He returned in this report to his concept of an attack by

term used this timeolitical rather than clinicalhe did not suggest that "madmen" now sit in "government, parliament and other responsible posts" In the West.

Khrushchev may genuinely believo in the possibllitveneral war arising from an accident,iscalculationarticular issue, or from an American estimate that tbe time has come to strike while American capabilities are high ot exist at all. At least at this time, however, he appears to believe it probable that the United States, calculating the balance of power and the consequences of nuclear war, will refrain fromeneral war.

Khrushchev, like Stalin, takes the position that the Soviet Union is never the aggressor. His statements on Soviet strategy have Invariablyestern attack on theattack which, whatever its initial result, would leave the USSRtrong enough position to win the war. However, some of Khrushchev's statements bear on .tin: possibility that the USSR would actually deliver the first blow, under the concept of "pre-emptive" action. And some of these statements are relevantonsideration of whether Khrushchev may be tempted to go beyond the "pre-emptive" concept totrategy of preventive war.

It is apparent that Khrushchevery highfor the ICBM. As early ashrushchev was describing the ICBM as tbe "absolutethat it could be launched very rapidly, could be delivered to any point of the globe, and could not be defended against. He has reaffirmed this evaluation on several occasions since that time, adding details. In the same period he has disparaged other weapons, remarking for example that bombers, fighters and surface fleets all are becoming obsolescent.

Khrushchev'sanuary report well illustrated his appreciation of missiles, particularly the ICBM. Hethat "almost the entire military air force is benng replaced by rocketnd that, while the submarine fleet "assumes greaturface vessels "can no longer play the part tbey once did." Further, he argued that the new weapons make feasible his proposed reduction of the armedthe ground forces (wblch Is absolute terms will probably bear the largest share of thee went on to specify that the Soviet armed forces have "combat moans and firepower never before possessed" by any arraod forces, that these weapons enable the USSR to wipe tbe attackers "off the face of thehat every strategic center in the enemy camp could bein the first minutesar, and so on.

Khrushchev appears In hisanuary report to have moved some distance from existing Soviethas heldew general war would be protracted

and would require the use of very large conventional forces. Be aoes not appear, however, to have committed himself to tho contrary propositions that the war would be short and would require only small forces. He noted at one point Id his report that the USSR, should it be threatened, could increase "considerably" the slxe of Its armed forces.

Khrushchev implied in hisanuary report that his positions are accepted by Soviet military leaders and specialists. Id connection with his proposal for aof the armed forces, he said that "We have studied this question in detail from every angle, consulted with the military and the generalnd are able to state firmly that "our defense will be fullyefense Minister Malinovsky's speech to tbe Supremetbe same day, did In fact give emphatic support to Khrushchev's positions.

Khrushchev seems to believe Id the possibllt ty that the Soviet Uolon could ln fact strike the lirst blow if an enemy attack appeared imminent. This concept has been discussed in Soviet military literature as "pre-emptive" actioo. The discussions have generally affirmed that the USSR would be able to get in the first blow by virtue of discovering the enemy's preparations to attack. This would mean beating the enemy to the punch, as distinct fromthe blow and retaliating.

Khrushchev may have been referring to "pre-emptive" action, conceived rather narrowly,9 statement in which he took note of statements about American ability to devastate tbe USSR with air attacksatter of hours." Ho observed that the USSR did not depend onand could launch more devastating attacks in aof minutes from missile bases within the USSR."

In hisanuary report, Khrushchev twice implied the possibility of effective pre-emptive action, ne said that the Soviet armed forces have tbe necessary firepower to deter an enemy attack or to "giveroper rebuff should he attempt (sic) to attack." Again, ln noting thepossibilityurprise attack, he Implied thatwould probably not be achieved. His formulation was, "even If ono supposesoment that it /the attacker7 succeeded inurprise

It Is obvious, however, that Khrushchev is not relying on tho mere possibility that effective pre-emptive action could be taken. Fie has consistently held that the Soviet Union, however hard it might be hit, should be able and would be able to retaliate with even greater force.

Khrushchev put this clearly In hisanuary report. Assumingurprise blow could In fact be struck, he said, would the attacker "be able to put out of orderall tho stocks of nuclear weapons, all the rocket installations, on the territory of the power attacked? Certainly not." arge state thus attacked, he went on, would "always be able toowerful rebuff to the aggressor." Khrushchev specified that Soviet missile facilities were so sited as "to Insure duplication and triplication," so that if some retalitory capabilities were knocked rout -'the US SB could yet "bit the targets from reserve positions."

Khrushchev's apparent positionedicated nissile-man, and as one convinced of the military and technical soundness of his position, might suggest that ho would be tempted to go beyond the concept of "pre-emptive" action and totrategy of preventive war. That is, Khrushchev's assessment of the speed with which an ICBM attack can be launched, of the accuracy with which it can be delivered, and of the enormous damage lt cancould conceivably lead hla to believe that the advantagesirst strike would bethat the USSR should attempt to seize theseby preventive war.

Khrushchev'sanuary report argues against this line of thought. His positions (noted above) onuccessful surprise attack, and on the retaliatory power which would survive an attack, were stated as applying to any large state, not simply tbe USSR. At another point in his report, be observed that modern methods of waging war do not give "anyecisive advantage through surprise attack.

his connection, if It is-argued-that Khrushchev'sanuary report does not genuinely represent his views and that he has reallytrategy of preventive war, he would be expected to be thinking in terms of a


particular period of tine in which to initiateeriod in which his forces would have overwhelmingand the risk of employing them aggressively would be small. On this hypothesis, the concept of "pre-emption" could be usedlanning and training doctrine to cover secret preparationsreventive strategy. Suitable American intentions could easily be "discovered" attime the USSR was prepared to strike.

However, Khrushchev presumably recognizes thatretaliation to an ICBM attack will become more nearly automatic as the American ICBM system becomes hardened, and hence that surprise attack will teed increasingly to lose its advantages. The practical questions, therefore,hether Khrushcheveriod in the next few years in which the relative Soviet and Americancould makeoviet-initiated general war,, if so, whether Khrushchev is taking steps to exploit the arrival oferiod, beginning bis preparations now and concentrating his military andresources to that end.

At least one of Khrushchev's interviews seems to bear rtlTflrtln on fhaaw. quostioDS. In9 Khrushchev told

tbat if the Soviet Union were to spend l_

illion ruDias on missiles in the next five or six years, it could achieve tbe capability to destroy every Industrial center in the United States and Europe. Khrushchev went on to remark that he was speaking only of the Sovietnot of Soviet intentions.

This statement is interesting, on the one hand, as an Indication of Khrushchev's possible thinking in termsoint ln time at which his forces could havesuporlority. The statement is of greater Interest, on the other hand, as an indication that Khrushchev was not thinking in termsoviet dash toward an early point ln timo at which Soviet capabilities would be in an optimum position relative to US defensive capabilities.

A similar lack of commitmentrogram of maximum military development was reflected ineport. He said that present Soviet allocations to the military were well below Soviet economic capabilities, and that additional "tens of billions" of rubles could beif international developments were to require that.


The pattern of strategic thinking which emerges from Khrushchev's statements on waruture which is not immediately alarming, but is hardly reassuring, in terms. security interests.

The central element in Khrushchev's thought appears toelief that the USSR and. hold in roughly equal measure weapons of terrible destructive power. In consequence, he seems to believe that the United States at this time is deterred from initiating general war, and he himself seems to be deterred.

The prospecteriod of military stalemate, in which general war will be unacceptable to either side, is in his view compatible with Soviet interests. Be probably believes that Soviet strategy should aim to maintain and reinforce this situation, and that the USSR can effectively exploit this situation by various forms of action short of general war.

In this connection, Khrushchev does not necessarily regard limited war as unlikely innext few years. Khrushchev's calculation of an approximate balance of power, deterring both sides from general war,ituation in which it might be concluded that limited war could be waged with relatively small risks. Soviet armed forces are apparently to retain the capabilities for limited war as well as for general war.

Khrushchev appears to believe in the possibility of effective Soviet "pre-emptive" action against an enemy At present, tbe danger seems small that American statements and actions will be Interpreted by Khrushchev, as indicating American intentions which would justify the USSR in striking the first blow under the "pre-emptive" concept. The danger would, of course, increase If Khrushchev were to see signs of American restlessness to. nuclear capabilities, or of American distress or desperation. position.

In any case, Khrushchev clearly does not rely on the possibility of .effective "pre-emptive" action. He intends toilitary capability which will enable the

Soviet Union toeavy blow and to retaliate

The Halted evidence considered in this paper does notudgment as to whether Khrushchev is seriously temptedtrategy of preventive war. Tbe evidence simply appoars, on balance, to give some small support to the view that Khrushchev to date has not adoptedtrategy and is not at this time attempting to achieve the capabilities which vould maketrategy feasible.




1. CBS Interview, 7

(Cutler recalled Khrushchev's recent statement (to Catledge) that the US Is unquestionablyar against the USSR and asked for comment.)

(Khrushchev:) That is no opinion of mine. Iwhat your politicians, your generals, youradmirals say. God knows how many speeches are madecountry and all of them try to prove that the USof destroying the Soviet Unionatter ofon the contrary, do not indulge in such talk; ourdo not make speeches showing how we are goingthe US

(Schorr recalled Marshal Zhukov saying something to that effect.)

(Khrushchev:) Let us recall what Marshal Zhukovthink Zhukov did not say that. Why do you notand where Zhukov said anything like we are goingAmerica? Hero is what we said,o not if military and certain political leaders in tbethat they can destroy tbe Soviet Union, ifmake it possible to destroy another country,which they wish to destroy apparently isofertain country. We are surestrength on this score

FBIS Daily7

2.. Boston7

The present period is somethingurning point. Military specialists believe that planes, whether bombers or fighters, are in their decline. Bombers have such speeds and altitudes that they are vulnerable to attack by modern rockets /missiles/. Fighters, on the other hand, now havereat speed that their use against fighters is becoming

difficult, while against bonbers tboy are also insufficiently effective. Moreover, fighters are Banned by people, whoa of course we do not want to lose.

X. not implying that all this is true of our Although the United States does not havo the you will havo it, since science is constantly The same may bo said of the Soviet Union: we do not have something that you have, we will too

NTT, 7

Telegram Interview

Tbe producing of Intercontinental missies has solved the question ofydrogen charge to any point of the globe. Distance no longer prevents this. If reference has to be made to the military bases in Europe, Africa, and Asia, then there have been in existenceong timemissiles which can reach any region of thesehink that it isecret now that there is anof missiles with which any task of air operations of strategical character can be solved. It is, of course, also noecret that such missiles have now both atomic and bydrogen IS it', really possible to presume that military bases are known only to those who set them up? And when the position of these bases is known then, considering present developments in rocket and other tachnics, these bases can be incapacitated

Soviet News Bulletin 7

Interview, 7

German militarists understand that if they were toar now, several hours would be sufficient to crush all the bases in Vest Germany which are of military importance. Such are realistic conditions. Therefore we think that In the long run it will bo possible to bring the mostpeople to their senses. However much they are spoilingtraltjacket could be put on them

The American people however do not want war and fear lt. And not without reason, elieve, for war todayrim war, and the United States, barring the Civil War and the small campaign against Mexico, still does not know what war

means. If war is not averted, the Americans will experience the most devastating war ever known by mankind. It will rage not only in Europe and Asia but, with no lessin tbe United States.

Somo American leaders threaten the Soviet Union, saying that they bave encircled our country with military bases. It is true, we are surrounded by American bases. But lt should be borne in mind that modern military techniques make lt possible to keep all ot America's vital centers under fire from submarines and with the help of ballistic missiles, and to blockade the US coast. This means that the United States is now Just as vulnerable as any other

(Shapiro:) Are military bases losing their importance with the development of rocket weapons?

(Khrushchev:) Unquestionably. Bombers could in their time be stopped by antiaircraft fire, artillery, or rockets, but thero is no stopping the intercontlnontal ballistic missile.

You will say: But will not the Soviet.Union suffer too? Of course, we too will suffer great losses. But look at the vast spaces on our map and look at Germany, France, and Britain. One does not have toilitary man, to see the difference.

(Shapiro:) America too has vast expanses.

(Khrushchev:) Not quite as vast. And it should be kept in mind that American cities such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco and othersarge concentration of Our industries are more widely dispersed. the reorganization of industry that we have carried outore autonomous management of industry, which alsolus

The United Statesut oott-tbe.intorcon-tlnental ones. For us, the intercontinental ballistic missileettled question. If necessary, we can launch any number of sputniks we want. And we will launch them, for there is no technical problem to it. It Isatter of placing the necessary equipment in place of the hydrogen chargo. We have already developed an

intercontinental ballistic missileydrogen warhead. However, the tests were conducted with blanks. We would like never to have to launch rockets with hydrogen warheads.

(Shapiro:) You said earlier that bombers have been made obsolete by the development of rocket techniques, but our military leaders say that this is not so.

(Khrushchev:) But they cannot say differently. If they admitted that it is so, the American taxpayers wouldou have taken so many billions from us and built bombers. What are you going to do with then? Your military leaders are hard put to it to give up the policy they have pursued thus far with regard to the technicalof the army.

(Shapiro:) You bellevo that the Soviet Union has surpassed the United States not only regarding theballistic missile, but also in the manufacture of rockets in general?

(Khrushchev:) Hostur designers have also developed rockets tbat can, ln the event of an attack on our country, dispose of any base ln Europe, Asia, and Africa. On the very first try our rocket hit the

FBIS Daily Report,7

5. Hearst Interview, 7

I also want to tell you, Mr. Hearst, that in theof new types of weapons we have outstripped your country. We now possess the absolute weapon, perfect in everyand createdhort period of time. m not saying this to intimidate, there is no need form simplyact! Our scientists, engineers, technlcans, and workers have produced the most up-to-date weapon. The Soviet Union possesses Intercontinental ballistic missiles. It has missiles of different systems for different purposes; all our missiles can be fitted with atomic and hydrogen war-beads. Thus, we have proved our superiority in this question. And If war now breakslt can be unleashed only by.the aggressive circles of the United States of America, because other countries will not dare to unleashthis willreat misfortune for the peoples of those countries on whose territories American bases are situated, and from which

the USA Is preparing tolow at tho Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. Obviously, tho peoples whose governments have, behind the peoples' backs,American military bases to be set up on tbeof their countries, may suffer severely. This Ishreat either. But since the USA has set up military bases and wants to strike blows at the Soviet Union from these bases, we are forced to take protective measures. The American bases are not situated od plots of wasteland, but on densely populated territories, and we hope that the peoples of those countries, where the military bases are situated, will soberly appraise the situation and will understand what military blocs, NATO Id the first place, lead to. That is the first point.

The secood polot is that it should be takou into account that the United States of America has neverwaged war on its own territory and your people do not know what war means. ar is unleashed now by the aggressive circles of the USA, It will be waged not only in Europe, Asia, or Africa; this war will immediately be carried onto the territory of the united States of America because now the intercontinental ballisticmake lt possible to hit rttargets in any area of the globe.. In this case, the American people will suffer enormous losses. Allballistic missiles, submarine missiles, and other means which nowbo usod in case of an armed conflict. You yourself understaod that this is the logic of war, the logic of

Believe me, gentlemeo, that we want only peaco and friendship. The Soviet Union has lotercootlDODtalmissiles with bydrogeo warheads. ave already stated od behalf of our party and the Government of the Soviet Union, on behalf of the Soviet people,epeat now, that we shall never launchissile against tbe USA if tbe USA Itself does Dot compel us to this byar against us directly or through its satellites. The Soviet Union will never resort to arms first, atomic and hydrogen weapons included, eep them to deal any aggressor ao appropriate counterblow..


(Consldine Interjected: You said that in case of war, American bases, both in the country and abroad, will be demolished by Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles. Does this mean that already today they are specially trained on all these targets?)

(Khrushchev continued:) Thisuestion for the Chief of the General Staff, as it lies outside the scope of my duties. That's vhat the General Staff exists for, to be ready in case of var to hit those centers which are decisive for the speedy ending of the var, for defeating the enemy.

In connection vith this, ould like to express my views with regard to statements made by certainof military circles and published in the press. It was reported that,art of tho American bomber force, with hydrogen and atomic bombs, is- constantly io tho air, and always roady to strike against the Soviet Union. Reports have it that one-half of tho pianos are in the air.

This is very dangerous. ituation servos as an Illustration of the extent of the military psychosis in the USA. When planes with hydrogen bombs take off that means that many people will be in the air piloting them. Thoreis always the possibilityental blackout when the pilot may take the slightest signalignal for action and fly to the target that he had been Instructed to fly to. Under suchar may start purely by chance, since retaliatory action would be taken immediately.

Does this not go to show that inar may startesultheer misunderstanding orerangoment in tho normal psychic stateerson, which may happen to anybody. orrible possibility must be excluded. It may be that both sides will bo against war, and yet war may still startesult of the military psychosis whipped up in the United States of

The fact that the Soviet Union was tbe first to launch an artificial earth satellite, whichonth was followed by another one, speaksot. If necessary, tomorrow we can launch ten or twenty satellites. All that is required for this is to replace the warheads of anballistic rocket with the necessary instruments, and launch the whole thing with the Instruments. atellite for


with W. Sinnbeck, editor of DanskJanuary

The launching of the Soviet sputniks first of all shows the outstanding successes scored by the Soviet Union in the development of science and technology and also that the USSR has outstripped the leading capitalist country, the United States, in the field of scientific and technical

The launching of the sputniks also shows, without doubt,erious change has occurred in thef forces between the countries of socialism and capitalism in favor of the socialist-nations.

FBIS Daily Report, 8

Times Interview,8

Mow that the Soviet Union is not alone and the mighty socialist camp, embracingillion people, isstronger, hopes to destroy the socialist countries by force are illusory. This is out of tbe question. That is why we maintain powerful armedserve to cool the ardor of the imperialist madmen.

FBIS Dally Report,8

Forces Day Celebration,8

Khrushchev said that the armed forces were being equipped with "the most terrifying weapons of all time.uch weapons as have never existed before."


Letter to Russell,8

The Soviet Union, of course, has weapons against theseases. It also has lnter-continental ballistic rockets. And although the United States of Americaonsiderable way from the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union now possesses the means of fighting against the USA if the latter should unleash war against us. The Soviet Union had these means previously also, in the form of inter-continental bombers, but the ballistic rocket is of course an improved

You know very well. Lord Russell, that modernatomic and hydrogen bombs, will be exceptionally dangerousime of war not only for the twostates, In terms of direct devastation and destruction of human beings; they will also be deadly for statesto stay aside from the military operations, since the poisoned soil, air, food,ould become the source of terrible torments and the slow annihilation of millions of people. There is in the world today an enormous quantity of atom and hydrogen bombs. According to the scientists' calculations, if they were all to be exploded simultaneously, the existence of almost every living thing on earth would be threatened.


12. Luncheon for Finnish President,8

In order to establish stability in the world andew war, it is necessary to recognize the statusthat is, the prevailingnot to try to change that situation by force. Otherwise, the inevitability of war will have to be recognized.



13. Letter to Presidenteptember 8

Does lt not seen to you, Mr. President, that such dispatch of warships now ln one direction, now in another, loses today much of its sense, at least with respect to countries possessing modern weapons? o not know what your military advisers tell you, but it seems to us they cannot but know that the heyday of surface navy powers is over. In the age of nuclear and rocket weapons ofpower and rapid action, these once formidable warships are fit, in fact, for nothing but courtesy visits and gun salutes, and can serve as targets for the right types of rockets. This may hurt the pride of the people closely connected with the navy, but these aro thefacts one cannot ignore.

FBIS Daily8

15. Lippmap Interview,8

/Khrushchev's view of the existing military balance of power7n his confidence that the Soviet Union has mastered the intermediate and short range missilesoint there it can dominate with thorn Germany andEurope, Turkey and Iran. o not know, of course, whether his confidence in these missiles is justified. But there Is no doubt that ho assumed their existence ln his thinking, and that they have now become, as the sayingrincipal instrument of Soviet foreign policy.

On the other hand, nothing that he said implied that he thinks the USSR has long range missiles which have broken, or are about to break, the existing military stalemate with the United States. His conception of his military position in relation toUnited States is that neither country can defeat the otherirect conflict, but that the American forward positions, particularly in Germany and Turkey, can, because of the development of the rocket, no longer be defended. He feels, therefore, that American policy rests on an obsolete estimate of the existing balance of power.

New York Herald Tribune,8

Acadomy Speech, 8

Given modern means of destruction, the emergence of atomic and hydrogen weapons, the creation ofballistic rockets and winged rockets, and submarines armed with ballistic and winged rockets, of what significance isfact that the NATO armed forces can now insure the establishment of communications between Paris and Osloew seconds? Now it suffices to press but one button and not only airfields and the means of communications of various headquarters, but whole cities will be blown sky-high, whole countries can be destroyed. Such is the enormous destructive power of modern weapons created by man.

Moscow Radio Broadcast8

Interview, 8

(Regarding Berlin, Khrushchev said:) Some of your military men have made stupid statements lately, statements to the effect that the United States will break through with

tanks if the East German Republic tries to get ln the way. The Soviets have tanks, too, lots ofarn you that we will use them. We have rockets, too, and we don't even have to fire them from East Germany. We can send them from the USSR.

/Regarding nuclear weapons, Khrushchev made three points, according to Humphrey;' Tbe'Soviet Union nowuperabundance of atomic and hydrogen bombs of all sizes and missiles to deliver them anywhere it chooses; he Soviet Union seriously wants an agreement to suspend further "tests of nuclear weapons; Tbe Soviet Union has no Intention of agreeing to anything that will restrict its ability to deliver surprise attacks?

Humphrey article LIFE9

19. Concluding Speech at;irst Party Congress,9

merican generals and statesmen often say that the United States Isore favorable position militarily than the Soviet Onion, because ittring of military bases in the territories of European and Asian countries which may be used to strike at our country, whereas the Soviet Union, they say, still has few Intercontinental rockets.

For this reason, they assert that war is notreat menace to the United States. For. Defense Secretary McElroy stated the other day that the United States would conduct military operations from the territories of its allies located near the borders of the OSSR, while the Soviet Union would have to depend solely on rockets that it can launch from its own

When strategic plans are builtalse premise this can lead to errors holding disastrous consequences for the cause of peace. tate thinks that at any given moment its adversary lacks the weapon to strike at its territory, the temptation may arise to use this propitious moment forar. If any OS statesmen happen to think that today their territory is invulnerable they might arrive at the conclusion tbat the right time has come for them toar, and to pay-the price of war with the blood


and lives of Englishmen, Frenchmen. Italians, Germans, Turks, and their other allies, whose territory would Intho event of war be laid bare with Intermediate and short-range rockets, while the United States would, in the opinion of these myopic militarye able to safeguard itself from

I think It is high time for the American strategists to come out of their fool's paradise that in the eventilitary conflict the territory of the United States would remain invulnerable. ong time now this has not accorded with reality, and has been nothing acre than wishful thinking on the part of America's generals. In point of fact, the Soviet Union has today the means torushing blow to the aggressor at any point of the globe. After all, lt isere figure of speech when we say we have organized serial production ofballistic rockets. Nor do we say it to threaten anyono, but rather to bring clarity into tbe existing state of affAtrs.


20. Remarks at Berlin Airport en route to Leipzig,9

There exist instruments which measure the resistance of materials. If lt were possible to invent an instrument which would measure with the same precision, in politics and in military affairs, the resistance of both sides, the socialist: camp and the imperialist states, it would show you that both sides are sufficiently strong at

We do not want war, and we will do everything to pro-vent lt. But if tho Western powers were to start war, its outcome, given modern military technology, would be fatal to them. After all when they say that they have military bases close to our frontiers, it is to be understood that these bases are not located on the moon, but in densely populated areas. And if these bases are close to us, this means that we are close to them.

FBIS Dally9

31. Kremlin Press Conference, 9

Some exceedingly boastful American generals and admirals say that tbe US, If Itar now, would

destroy the USSR In several days. Obviously they are weak in mathematics. Otherwise they might ask themselves tho question: and how long would it take to destroy the United States If itar? For war isne-sided operation; it can turn badly against the side which begins it. It is common knowledge that the other side has no fewer forces and possibilities thah those represented by Taylor and Burke.

FBIS Daily Report9

22. Interview with German SPD9

You may say: But would the Soviet Union suffer no losses in the event of war? Yes, it would have losses, and great ones. But, while we would suffer losses, the Western powers would be literally wiped off the face of the earth.

FBIS Daily Report9

24. Speech at Writers' Congress,9

We are experiencing an expansive development of science and technology. Our technology chaoges and our artillery changes. Things happen now as ln the song: "The cudgel and tha wooden plow have been laid up. The machine Is queen ln their place." The artillery and air force have been replaced by tho rocket, which has already been launched into the cosaos andatellite of the sun. You Bust natch the development of technology. Sharpen and improve your weapons, so that you may fireonger range and more accurately.



I furtherr.If the West German

militarists went to war, we couldew hours byaction wipe West Germany from the face of the earth, along with the other countries where military bases are located that are aimed against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. We know that ifar breaks out, great damage will be inflicted on us, too, and that we, too, shall have to bear great sacrifices. War does no one any good...

Comrades, the Central Committee of our party and the Soviet Government believeituation has at present been created in which the Imperialists will hardly dare toar against our motherland and against theof socialism. Our forces and those of our socialist allies are colossal, and in the West, apparently, this is now understood.

FBIS Daily Report9



27. Dnepropetrovsk Speech, 28 9

Mooting, ugust9

Despite all those negative features, we regard the International situation as not being bad at all. Why? Is itontradiction? No. Although the dyed-in-the-wool militarists apparently have not yet finally dropped the attempts to "tryilitaryagainst theact that every year the number of the advocates of such adventures is diminishing. Even many block-headed imperialists come to realize that acting wltb military means against the Soviet Union and the socialist countriesery risky and dangerous business, that itouble-edged weapon. Some of the fanatical militarists admit that having unleashed war they nay perish in its flames.

FBIS Daily9

Press Club Speoch,9

In the Twentieth Century mankind has already had two world wars, and they claimed more victims than any other war in the past. Now that people have learned to control the energy of tbe atom, and rockets have been developed capable of covering thousands of kilometersatter of minutes, the most advanced planes, warships, and tanks used in World War II look like toys compared with the latest means of warfare. Under these circumstances lt would bo sheer madness toew world war to comeead.

FBIS Supplement "Speeches by N. S. Khrushchev during his US visit"

Speech, 9

It Is hard to Imagine the consequences for mankindar in which these monstrous means of destruction andwore used. Xf it were allowed to start, tbe number of victims would run not into millions but into tens and avon hundrods of millions of human lives. It wouldar ln which there would be no difference between the front and the rear, between soldiers and children.

FBIS Supplement, "Speeches by N. S. Khrushchev during bis US visit."

Angeles Speech, 9

In the not-so-distant past great spans of land and oceans servedatural barrier against the extension of armed conflicts, against their leaping from continent to continent. Both Worldnd World War II devastated mainly Europe, and seme areas of Asia and Africa. The situationifferent today. The distances betweon most remote points on the globe are measured now in more tens of minutes, and the most devastating means ofbo carried to any area of the globe.

FBIS Supplement "Speeches by N. S. Khrushchev during his US visit."

ln Foreign Affairs,

The point is that with military techniques what they are today, there are no inaccessible places in the world. orld war break out, no country will be able to shutoffrushing blow...

Is lt possible that when mankind has advancedlana where it has proved capable of the greatestthe establishmenttableThat lt will instead turnhe preparation of another warthe destruction of all that has been created by its labor over many millenlums?'

Foreign Affairs,9



34. Speech In Pelping,9

The socialistave created mighty potential forcesThey have the means to defend themselves from tbe attacks of imperialistut we must thinkand understand the contemporary situation correctly. This, of course, does not by any means signify that if we are so strong then we must test by force the stability of the capitalist system...

FBIS Daily Report (Far9

38. Vladivostok Speech,9

Some timerominent Western statesman declared that Khrushchev is afraid of war and that therefore he will not start it. onversation with Mr. Elsenhower,sked hiraV "What do you think? Is this statement correct or not? If that public figure saysear war,ould reply that he fears war, to what would this lead? Is this wise? This would resemble two cocks facing each other ready to lay hold and peck each other. What do you think about this question, Mr.e replied: ilitary man, andm very much afraid ofYou are quiteold him. "Only an unreasonable person can be fearless of war in our days."

FBIS Daily9

36. Speech to Supreme Soviet,9

At last ovor broaderegin to understandar under the present conditions, with the existence of nuclear and rocket weapons, threatens with unprecedented sacrifices and destruction primarily those countries which would venture toew world war...

Under the present relationship of forces in.the internationalobody can, without losing his sense of reality, propose any other way toward devloping relations among states with different social systems than peaceful...

ew minutes the most potent means ofan be transferred to any point on the globe. ew war would not spare anybody and would cause mankind unprecendented sacrifice, devastation, and suffering...

FBIS Daily9

37. Report to Supremo Soviet, 0

e are several years ahead of other countries in the creation and mass'production of intercontinentalrockets of various types...

It is hard to believe than anyone in the United States is not aware of the catastrophic consequences toew world war would lead. Neither millions, nor evenof dollars can insure the aggressors against being smashed if theyew war;..

We have every right to say that never before inof the glorious history of the existence of thestate has the defense of our country been soagainst any fortituous incidents andoutside as at

Our state has at its disposal powerful rocket The military air force and navy have losthis type bf armament is ndt beingreplaced. Almost the entire military air force is being replaced by rocket equipment. We have by now sharply cut, and it seems will continue sharply to cut and even discontinue the manufacture of bombers and other obsolete equipment. In the navy, the submarine fleetgreat Importance, while surface ships can no longer play the part they once did. In our country the armed forces have beenonsiderable extent transferred to rocket and nuclear arms...

he arms we now possess arehe arms being designed arid, so to speak, in the portfolios ofand designers are incredible arms...

The proposedbe armed forces^lll in no way weaken the firepower of our armed forces, and this is the main point. In fact, tbe state maintains its army for the very purpose of having the firepower necessary tothe likely enemy and to prevent him from attack or giveroper rebuff should be attempt to attack our country.

The Soviet Army now has combat means and firepower never before possessed by anyepeat that7 should any madman launch an attack on-our state or on other socialist states we would be able literally to wipe the country or countries which attack us off the face of the earth.

Any sober-minded person understands full well that atomic and hydrogen weapons constitute the greatest threat to those countries whichreat density of In the eventew world war all countries would ultimately suffer in one way or another. We too would suffer great calamities; we would have many losses, yet we would survive. Our territory is immense and theis less concentrated in major industrial centers than in many other countries. The West would suffer Incomparably more...

Naturally, impregnabilityather relative concept. One must not ignore the fact that ourill >not .be marking time. Even though these states do not now have as many rockets as we do, and if their rockets are not asdeveloped, they can make good their temporary lagging, improve their rocket technology, and may, sooner or later, draw eeen with us.

The United States has set itself the task of catching up with the Soviet Union in the production of rockets in five years. They will naturally make every effort to raise their rocketry from the state it is now in and reach etter position. But it would be naive to think that we are meanwhile going to sit with arms

The following questionf the possibility is not excluded that some capitalist countries will draw even with us in the field of modern armaments, will they not, possibly, act perfidiously and attack us first in order to make use of the factor of surprise attack withormidable weapon as the rocket atomic weapon and thus havo an advantage for achieving victory? No, modern means of waging war do not give any country such advantages. One can be the first to attack; for this one does not need to be particularly clever, one must instead be reckless to do this...

Let us, however, assume that some stato or group of states succeeds In preparing and carryingurprise attackower which has nuclear and rocket weapons'. But could the attacking side, even if one supposesoment that lt succeeded inurprise attack, be able to put out of order immediately all the stocks of nuclear weapons, all ahe rocket installations, on the territory of the power attacked? Certainly not. The state subjectedudden attack, if, of course, the state ln questionufficiently big one, will always be able toowerful rebuff to the aggressor, we take into account the fact that foreign military bases are located around our country. That is why we site our rocket facilities inay as to insure duplication and triplicationWe are creatingystem tbat if some means earmarkedetaliatory blow were put odt of commission one could always send into action the means duplicating them and hit tbe targets from reserve.

All this is quite sufficient to exercise aon any person of normal psychology... one cannot speak for madmen... Like awho on leaving home makes sure that no flammableinto the handsillyations

ought to take care tbat government, parliament and other responsible posts for insuring peace are not penetrated by people who have aad and criminal

/Again with regard to concern lest the reduction In the armed forces endanger theNow if war begins, military operations would proceedar would begin ln the beart of the warring countries; moreover there would notingle capital,ingle major Industrial or administrative center,ingle strategic area which would not be subjected to attack, not onlythe first days, butfirst minutes of the war.,,

We.are embarking on the reduction of our armed forces not because of any economic or budgetarybut because of our strength andnd it should be clear to everybody tbatituation arise which would require an increase io expenditure for the maintanance of the army, our budget and our economy



would make it possible to allocate extra tens of billions of rubles for strengthening the security of our motherland. Should the country be threatened with Immediate danger of attack, not only should we be able to maintain our armed forces at their present strength but to increase them..

Daily Report, Supplement No.40


Original document.

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: