Massive Retaliation Essay Example

existing boundaries. NSC-68 called for rearmament, remobilization, and remilitarization of the United States and its Western allies “with the purpose of reaching, if possible, a tolerable state of order among nations without war and of preparing to defend ourselves in the event that the free world is attacked”.

The Truman administration concentrated primarily on protective measures in the case that the Soviet Union attempted to spread its communist ideals in the free world, exemplifying the correlation between NSC-68 and the administration’s defensive focus. Towards the end of the Truman administration, NSC-68 broke down due to consecutive communist triumphs, specifically in the Asia region where the Soviet Union succeeded in expanding its influence and filling the political void left after World War II. The apparent threat of communism expanding further than U.S. S. R.

borders triggered the Eisenhower administration to pursue a more proactive approach in order to push communism back to its origin. Massive retaliation aimed at intimidating the Soviet Union to its roots through United States assurance that “aggressive activity in certain strategically situated areas of the globe would automatically trigger an American nuclear response”. Massive retaliation rationalized and scaled back American commitments to the defense of Western Europe without giving rise to concerns on the part of its allies.Apprehension among the Atlantic alliance members compelled the United States to rearm, remobilize and remilitarize in order to lend itself credibility.

Its Western European allies feared that the United States would hesitate to act if the Soviet Union attempted to advance its influence because of the United States’ distant location. With conventional military building as the most expensive component in the defense budget, a focus on

military buildup to ease allied fears resulted in high defense expenditures and an unbalanced budget.This fell in line with Soviet efforts aimed at forcing the United States “to become permanently committed to military expenditures so vast that they lead to what Lenin called ‘practical bankruptcy’. ” President Eisenhower received cost pressures from the American public who were not accustomed to high military budgets during peacetime and wanted to avoid a depression.

Massive retaliation retained America’s military strength and reduced defense expenditures through cost efficiency that nuclear weapons made possible without sacrificing the security interests of the Atlantic alliance.The timidly reactive nature of NSC-68 permitted communism to spread into the Asia region. The focus on nuclear power in massive retaliation stopped the spread of communism and allowed the United States to “shape [its] military establishment to fit what is [its] policy, instead of having to try to be ready to meet the enemy’s many choices. ” Originally, the Atlantic alliance pledged itself to prepare for defense in all areas with additional conventional military buildup because it could not be selective in the location of its conventional military when adhering to NSC-68.

Considering the belief among the Atlantic alliance that its conventional military was inferior to that of the Soviet Union, this policy did not correspond to containment of Soviet forces, especially on the occasion that “a potential aggressor who is glutted with manpower might be tempted to attack in confidence that resistance would be confined to manpower. He might be tempted to attack in places where superiority was decisive. , A stronger reliance on nuclear weapons as the backbone of America’s defense threatened potential adversaries aggressively and

effectively through “a community security system so well equipped to catch and punish any who break in and steal that, in fact, would-be aggressors are generally deterred. ” By refraining from labeling the new American strategy “massive retaliation”, Dulles purposefully attempted to mask the offensive measures implicitly conveyed in this foreign policy towards the Soviet Union.The Eisenhower administration feared that outward aggression would alarm the Soviet Union and prompt them to respond forcefully. Stalin had died in the spring of 1953, and by early 1954, Moscow had yet to supply a new Soviet leading figure.

The uncertainty in the direction that the Soviet Union would follow brought a sense of uneasiness in the world. The existence of two possible circumstances, either better relations with the Communist bloc or a more aggressive Soviet Union, compelled the Eisenhower administration to be cautious in drafting foreign policy from fear of pushing the Soviet Union towards the latter alternative.Pressured also by the angry American citizens who believed that the United States allowed communism to spread by being submissive and passive, the Eisenhower administration needed to transform current foreign policies. Through careful word choices by Dulles, massive retaliation implicitly told the public of the United States more aggressive approach to force back the Soviet Union and deter the advancement of communism.To further distract the Soviet Union from the United States new offensive measures, Dulles heavily spoke about the focal importance of reducing the military defense budget and refrained from using the term “massive retaliation” to label American foreign policy which gave off a hostile undertone.

As a response to the undeniable spread of communism, the manner in which the United

States managed its national defense during peacetime drastically transformed into an aggressive and offensive strategy through the adoption of “massive retaliation”.The United States needed to tackle the reactive nature of NSC-68 and an unbalanced budget due to high military defense costs without losing its military prowess, concerning its West European allies, and alarming the Communist bloc. This new aggressive and offensive outlook on peacetime defense appeared to be the perfect solution with its cost efficiencies and its threat of a damaging reprisal, but only time would tell if the United States received a bigger bang for its buck.