US course towards unleashing a nuclear war in Europe
With the coming to power of the Reagan administration more than a year ago, the turn of American foreign policy from détente to confrontation finally took shape. This policy is now being determined by the most reactionary and militant representatives of US imperialist circles. They set out to forcefully stop the inexorable forward march of history, regain lost positions, and assert American dominance by any means, including military, on a global scale.
The US military department, the Pentagon, has now come to personify the epicenter of militaristic, aggressive plans; in essence, it has become synonymous with modern war. And its priests, occupying a pentagonal building on the banks of the Potomac River, are obsessed with an extremely dangerous idea: to intimidate the peoples of capitalist countries with the so-called “Soviet military threat”, force them to make more and more victims on the monstrous altar of the arms race and on this basis achieve military superiority over USSR and its allies.
Today, in this global militaristic preparation, the United States devotes a special place to Western Europe, one of the most important centers of world civilization. In the strategic plans of the Pentagon military, NATO countries on the European continent are destined for the very unenviable role of a nuclear hostage of the United States.
What are the facts and arguments that support this idea? Let's name just a few. Having voted in December 1979 in Brussels at a NATO Council session for new American medium-range nuclear missiles, the United States' European partners gradually began to discover that the ruling circles of this country were only interested in that part of the NATO decision that was related to the use of European territory for the installation of American missiles . As for negotiations on the reduction of nuclear weapons in Europe, Washington politicians immediately reacted to this idea with marked skepticism.
Let us recall that, according to the decision made in Brussels, the United States plans to deploy 108 Pershing-2 ballistic missiles and 464 ground-based cruise missiles on the territory of some Western European countries. These missiles, equipped with nuclear warheads and having a significant range, are capable of striking targets in the Soviet Union.
Drawing by D. Tsinovsky
Why did American strategists need new missiles in Western Europe? After all, previously they had repeatedly publicly admitted that between the USSR and the USA there is approximate parity in nuclear missiles, including in Europe. As recently as 1980, the London Institute for Strategic Studies, in its calculations (usually with a bias in favor of the Atlanticists), reported: “The Soviets and NATO in Europe have approximately the same power.” But the whole point is that the current American administration, led by its President Reagan, has again decided to be guided by the bankrupt concept of “world leadership”, “the leading role of the United States in the world”, and, simply put, has made a bet on achieving unilateral military superiority over the USSR as a whole and in Europe in particular.
It is known, and this was again convincingly demonstrated by Comrade L. I. Brezhnev in his answers to the editors of the West German magazine Der Spiegel, as well as during negotiations during his visit to Germany, that both the USSR and NATO have approximately the same balance of nuclear forces in Europe. NATO has 986 nuclear weapons carriers here (including missiles and bombers), the Soviet Union has 975 similar units. In other words, today there is approximate equality, or, as they sometimes say, parity, in the nuclear missile potential of the two opposing sides.
However, President Reagan, deliberately distorting the truth, in his widely publicized speech in November 1981 at the National Press Club in the United States, stated that “the USSR has an overwhelming superiority in Europe over NATO in nuclear missiles, expressed by a ratio of 6:1.” Citing these fantastic data, he completely arbitrarily excluded from the NATO arsenal all American forward-based aircraft (carriers of nuclear weapons), as well as about 300 missiles and bombers from England and France. According to his logic, which openly distorts the facts, NATO in Europe is supposedly simply unarmed!
However, such statements, even if they come from the most senior US officials, are aimed at simpletons or completely misinformed people. There is an approximate balance of nuclear missile forces in Europe. By the way, a year or two ago this was stated by many leaders of Western European countries, who today prefer, apparently under pressure from the United States, to express different opinions. However, the emergence of “new” judgments could not disrupt parity.
Imagine what would happen if NATO “added” almost 600 more missiles to the existing thousand nuclear launch vehicles? NATO would have gained more than one and a half superiority over the USSR in carriers. If we consider that today the Atlanticists in Europe already have some advantage in the number of nuclear warheads, then it is not difficult to imagine how impressive the superiority of the United States and its allies in Europe would become.
It should also be borne in mind that all the new American missiles that NATO is preparing to deploy in Western Europe are strategic weapons in relation to the Soviet Union. Therefore, in the event of such “rearmament,” the parity of nuclear weapons would be violated not only on the continent, but also in general in favor of NATO and the United States. Is there at least a grain of realism in such a policy among those overseas who, in an effort to stuff Europe with nuclear weapons, explain this “purely out of concern for peace”? The hypocrisy of such statements is obvious to any unprejudiced person.
Advocates for militaristic preparations are trying to argue that the medium-range missiles that the Americans intend to deploy in densely populated Western Europe are only a small fraction of what the United States has in its overall strategic arsenal. Like, can they influence the overall balance of power? Yes, this is only a small part. And yet, they are assigned a special role in the various “models” of nuclear war being created at the Pentagon.
“The main idea of the United States, which is seeking to install its medium-range nuclear missile weapons in a number of European NATO countries,” says the book “Where the Threat to Peace Comes From,” recently released by the Military Publishing House of the USSR Ministry of Defense, “is not at all a concern for the security of Europe, but a desire to reduce the force of a retaliatory strike on US territory in the event of an attack on the USSR.” And this is where Pentagon planners were tempted to try to limit the war to Europe. The United States assigns it, first of all, the role of a launching pad, a springboard for aggression, and the role of a hostage. Washington prefers not to say publicly what will happen to Europe in the event of a nuclear war. But it should be clear to everyone: the strategists from the Pentagon themselves are pushing their partners in the bloc onto a very dangerous path of recklessness.
Comrade L.I. Brezhnev, answering a question from a Pravda correspondent on October 22, said quite clearly, clearly and firmly: no matter how powerful the aggressor may be, no matter what method of unleashing a nuclear war he chooses, he will not achieve his goals. Retribution will inevitably follow.
However, as is clear from press reports and other media, President R. Reagan, US Secretary of Defense K. Weinberger, and Secretary of State A. Haig did not abandon their statements about the admissibility of a “limited” nuclear war in Europe and the possibility of winning it. Moreover, trying to somehow muffle the explosion of indignation of millions of Europeans against atomic cannibalism, Washington politicians cannot find anything better than to justify the “possibility” of such a war. They have no honest arguments to justify their militaristic course, other than a big lie. The notorious pharisaical legend about the “Soviet military threat” is just such a big lie.
It is known that the myth of the “Soviet military threat” is used by imperialism to ideologically justify the arms race, material preparation for a new war, changing the balance of military forces in its favor, to implement its aggressive, hegemonic plans. American sociologist D. Donovan frankly admits: “The Soviet threat is the most convenient and constant enemy. If this “threat” did not exist, then the military would simply have to invent it.” Using the worst insidious recipes for psychological warfare, American hawks daily, hourly poison the minds of readers, viewers, and listeners with the idea that the “Soviet threat” is supposedly not a myth, but a reality. Intimidating people inexperienced in politics, they manipulate facts, falsify events, and resort to the most blatant lies. A thoughtful, calculated game is being played on the feelings of the petty and middle bourgeoisie, ordinary people who, due to their class character and misinformation, are not ready to recognize as fair the thesis about the equal security of the states of the two systems. In the wake of anti-Sovietism, as we see, the expediency of waging a nuclear war, its “legality” and, possibly, inevitability are justified.
No one should be misled by the so-called “zero solution” proposed by the American president. Washington puts into this concept a “solution” that is not connected with the actual “zero” - the complete absence of nuclear weapons on our continent. The essence of the “American solution” is that the Soviet Union is called upon to dismantle almost all of its medium-range missiles in the European part of the country. Essentially, we are being asked to disarm unilaterally. In other words, the Soviet Union is being asked to eliminate the very combat assets that it was forced to create as a counterweight to the forward-based American weapons aimed at it and its allies. In exchange, the United States promises to give up what it does not yet have—future “Euromissiles.” At the same time, hundreds of land- and sea-based missiles and aircraft with nuclear bombs belonging to the United States and its allies in Europe and in the sea and ocean waters surrounding it would still be aimed at the Soviet Union. This position of the United States and its allies is unrealistic and unconstructive. If we had agreed to this “zero solution,” then the current ratio of nuclear missile forces on the continent, expressed by the ratio 1:1, would have become different - 2:1 in favor of NATO. The Soviet Union will never agree to such an option.
Now, when Soviet-American negotiations are underway in Geneva regarding the limitation and reduction of nuclear weapons in Europe, the proposals outlined on this problem by the head of the Soviet delegation, Comrade L. I. Brezhnev during a visit to Germany and in a conversation with representatives of the Advisory Council of the Socialist International on Disarmament , are a good basis for negotiations. They serve one purpose - to find a mutually acceptable agreement, to save Europe - our common home - from the danger of a nuclear fire. What does the USSR offer?
Firstly, the Soviet Union significantly supplemented its earlier proposal for a moratorium on the deployment of new and modernization of existing medium-range nuclear weapons in Europe for the period while negotiations on these types of weapons are underway. The Soviet side expressed its readiness - with the consent of the other side to such a moratorium - to reduce some of its medium-range nuclear weapons in the European part of the USSR unilaterally, moving to that lower level that the USSR and the USA could agree on as a result of negotiations in Geneva.
Secondly, the intention of the Soviet Union was emphasized during the Geneva negotiations to advocate for radical reductions by both sides of medium-range nuclear weapons - not by tens, but by hundreds. In this case, of course, it is necessary to take into account both American forward-based weapons and the corresponding nuclear weapons of England and France.
Thirdly, the USSR would be ready to agree on the complete renunciation of both sides - West and East - from all types of medium-range nuclear weapons aimed at targets in Europe.
Moreover, the Soviet Union is generally in favor of Europe ultimately becoming free of nuclear weapons - both medium-range and tactical. This would be a real “zero solution”, fair for all parties.
The key to the success of the negotiations is strict adherence by both sides to the principle of complete equality and equal security.
The Soviet proposals were perceived by the wider world community as a new manifestation of goodwill, as a sincere desire to preserve and develop detente and establish peaceful coexistence in practice. The peoples of the planet have the right to expect that the Western side will respond positively to these proposals. However, today's belligerent speeches by American government and military leaders and their practical steps speak of something else. Let's limit ourselves to two or three examples.
Already on the day of the open conference in Geneva on November 30, Secretary of Defense K. Weinberger stated: “... the President and the government are determined to restore America’s military power, to rearm America, so that we can negotiate from a position of strength.”
At the last session of the NATO Council (December 1981), the United States again forced its partners to continue accelerated preparations for the implementation of plans to deploy new American medium-range nuclear missiles on the continent. Speaking in Brussels, A. Haig spoke of Washington's intention to implement its plans regardless of the course of the Geneva negotiations. In fact, in a number of European countries, in particular in England and Germany, practical preparations are already underway for the deployment of such missiles.
Atlasistimi has taken a course towards further increasing military spending and increasing arms production. The US military budget in the 1982 fiscal year will amount to an amount unprecedented in the history of the country - $223.7 billion. And the entire gigantic arms race program developed by the Reagan administration will cost Americans $1.5 trillion over the next five years. Essentially, it looks like a mountain of gold rising above the flat plain of the country's social and other programs.
Millions of ordinary people in Europe and numerous progressive organizations in its various countries are strongly protesting against militaristic preparations. NATO and the USA, threatening what is most dear to a person - the right to life.
In the intense class struggle of the two systems, the Soviet Union and other fraternal socialist countries persistently defend the cause of peace. The role of the Armed Forces in this process is enormous. Soviet soldiers understand that not a single challenge that threatens our security can go unanswered. They remember the party's order that the higher their combat readiness, the less likely it is that the aggressor will decide on a nuclear adventure. Combat readiness depends on each individual and must be maintained at all times. Today and always. A man in a military overcoat, located at the controls of missiles, the controls of airplanes, the levers of tanks, is entrusted with the most valuable thing - the security of the socialist Fatherland, which we have nothing more valuable than which and which must always be reliably protected.
Lieutenant General D. Volkogonov, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor
“Soviet warrior” No. 5 1982
*** |
