Dwight Eisenhower on War & Peace

Tac nukes to defend Taiwan from China

By saying that, Eisenhower did something that he did rarely--he alarmed the nation. Whatever was meant by "tactical" nuclear weapons, the public was not likely to discern much difference between the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and a thermonuclear device capable of obliterating entire cities.

1966: Any action to win in Vietnam, even nukes

Since leaving office, Ike was still beloved; and when it came to questions of war and peace, no one spoke with more authority. So it was something of a surprise when the former president in 1966 said, "I'd take any action to win" in Vietnam, adding that he would not "automatically preclude anything," including automatic weapons. That was enough to set off multiple alarms.

A few days later he said, "This is silly. How could you use nuclear weapons in Vietnam?" But at the core of Ike's "clarification" was something more interesting than a rejection of nuclear weaponry. What he did say was that the US needed to end the war quickly because otherwise "it will grow in costs, both in money & lives, and the nation's morale will be lowered."

LBJ should formulate a "more sensible" policy on Vietnam

1956: Supported Egypt against Israel, UK, and France in Suez

We must expect British and French intervention. In fact, they appear to be ready for it and may even have concerted their action with the Israelis.

Under the 1950 agreement the US was pledged to support the victim of an aggression in the Middle East. The only honorable course was to carry out that pledge.

"The prestige of the US and the British is involved in the developments in the Middle East," I said. "I feel it is incumbent upon both of us to redeem our world about supporting any victim of aggression. Last spring, when we declined to give arms to Israel and to Egypt, we said that our word was enough."

In WWII, none doubted need for sacrifice; unlike in Cold War

The whole design of the defense against Communism could not be completed with guns alone. For freedom was menaced by the poverty that Communism exploits. We could not fight poverty with guns.

Berlin: Why is our only feasible response to start WWIII?

During the next few days I had ample occasion to reflect at length on Berlin. I had lived with this problem intermittently for the past 13 years. Inevitably, despite intimate acquaintance with it, the question kept coming back to me: "How, or rather why did the Free World get into this mess? How did we every accept a situation in which our only feasible response to an attack on a 13,000-man garrison surrounded by numerous Communist divisions would likely mean the initiation of WWIII?

Wars occur because of government arrogance & ambition

With the desire for peace to universally and deeply felt, the obvious question is "Why do wars occur?" The answer is not to be found in peoples themselves (save where they have been deliberately misled), but in the blind arrogance and conflicting ambitions of governments, especially those whose philosophy is essentially hostile to others and whose objective is nakedly imperialistic.

Initiated economic sanctions against Communist Cuba

But in the meantime, there were moves we could make. It was silly, for example, to continue to give Cuba favored treatment regarding its sugar exports. A proclamation was issued cutting the 1960 quota by 700,000 short tons. (Later I set the quota for the first three months of 1961 at zero). "This action," I remarked on the day I signed, "amounts to economic sanctions against Cuba. Now we must look ahead to other moves--economic, diplomatic, strategic."

Soviets are waging total Cold War; build even more missiles

The only answer to a regime that wages total cold war is to wage total peace. This means bringing to bear every asset of our personal and national lives upon the task of building the conditions in which security and peace can grow.

Only a brief time back, we were spending at the rate of only about $1 million dollars a year on long range ballistic missiles. In 1957 we spent more than $1 billion on the Arias, Titan, Thor, Jupiter, and Polaris programs alone. But gratifying though this rate of progress is, we must still do more! Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow.

Sought authority for US military against Vietnam Communism

LBJ: What do you think we ought to do in Vietnam?

KNIGHT: I never thought we belonged there. I think President Kennedy thought at one time that we were overcommitted in that area.

LBJ: Well, I opposed it in '54. But we're there now, and there's one of three things you can do. You can run, or you can fight, as we are doing, or you can sit down and agree to neutralize all of it. But nobody is going to neutralize North Vietnam, so that's totally impractical. And so it really boils down to one of two decisions: getting in or getting out.

War in Korea part of worldwide Communist aggression

The administration is giving immediate increased attention to the development of additional Republic of Korea forces. The citizens of that country have proved their capacity as fighting men and their eagerness to take a greater share in the defense of their homeland. Organization, equipment, and training will allow them to do so. Increased assistance to Korea for this purpose conforms fully to our global policies.