|
My fellow Americans,
thank you for sharing your time with me tonight.
The subject I want to discuss with you, peace and national
security, is both timely and important. Timely, because I've
reached a decision which offers a new hope for our children in
the 21st century, a decision I'll tell you about in a few
minutes. And important because there's a very big decision that
you must make for yourselves. This subject involves the most
basic duty that any President and any people share, the duty to
protect and strengthen the peace.
At the beginning of this year, I submitted to the Congress a
defence budget which reflects my best judgment of the best
understanding of the experts and specialists who advise me about
what we and our allies must do to protect our people in the
years ahead. That budget is much more than a long list of
numbers, for behind all the numbers lies America's ability to
prevent the greatest of human tragedies and preserve our free
way of life in a sometimes dangerous world. It is part of a
careful, long-term plan to make America strong again after too
many years of neglect and mistakes.
Our efforts to rebuild America's defences and strengthen the
peace began 2 years ago when we requested a major increase in
the defence program. Since then, the amount of those increases
we first proposed has been reduced by half, through improvements
in management and procurement and other savings.
The budget request that is now before the Congress has been
trimmed to the limits of safety. Further deep cuts cannot be
made without seriously endangering the security of the Nation.
The choice is up to the men and women you've elected to the
Congress, and that means the choice is up to you.
Tonight, I want to explain to you what this defence debate is
all about and why I'm convinced that the budget now before the
Congress is necessary, responsible, and deserving of your
support. And I want to offer hope for the future.
But first, let me say what the defence debate is not about. It
is not about spending arithmetic. I know that in the last few
weeks you've been bombarded with numbers and percentages. Some
say we need only a 5 percent increase in defence spending. The
so called alternate budget backed by liberals in the House of
Representatives would lower the figure to 2 to 3 percent,
cutting our defence spending by $163 billion over the next 5
years. The trouble with all these numbers is that they tell us
little about the kind of defence program America needs or the
benefits and security and freedom that our defence effort buys
for us.
What seems to have been lost in all this debate is the simple
truth of how a defence budget is arrived at. It isn't done by
deciding to spend a certain number of dollars. Those loud voices
that are occasionally heard charging that the Government is
trying to solve a security problem by throwing money at it are
nothing more than noise based on ignorance. We start by
considering what must be done to maintain peace and review all
the possible threats against our security. Then a strategy for
strengthening peace and defending against those threats must be
agreed upon. And, finally, our defence establishment must be
evaluated to see what is necessary to protect against any or all
of the potential threats. The cost of achieving these ends is
totalled up, and the result is the budget for national defence.
There is no logical way that you can say, let's spend x billion
dollars less. You can only say, which part of our defence
measures do we believe we can do without and still have security
against all contingencies? Anyone in the Congress who advocates
a percentage or a specific dollar cut in defence spending should
be made to say what part of our defences he would eliminate, and
he should be candid enough to acknowledge that his cuts mean
cutting our commitments to allies or inviting greater risk or
both.
The defence policy of the United States is based on a simple
premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never
be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and
defend against aggression - to preserve freedom and peace.
Since the dawn of the atomic age, we've sought to reduce the
risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking
genuine arms control. "Deterrence" means simply this: making
sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States,
or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks
to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that,
he won't attack. We maintain the peace through our strength;
weakness only invites aggression. This strategy of deterrence
has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain
deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to
deter an attack when we had far more nuclear weapons than any
other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for
example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to
destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now, this
is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on
us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable - quite the contrary.
But what must be recognized is that our security is based on
being prepared to meet all threats.
There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and artillery
batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any attack
would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different world,
and our defenses must be based on recognition and awareness of
the weaponry possessed by other nations in the nuclear age. We
can't afford to believe that we will never be threatened. There
have been two world wars in my lifetime. We didn't start them
and, indeed, did everything we could to avoid being drawn into
them. But we were ill-prepared for both. Had we been better
prepared, peace might have been preserved.
For 20 years the Soviet Union has been accumulating enormous
military might. They didn't stop when their forces exceeded all
requirements of a legitimate defensive capability. And they
haven't stopped now. During the past decade and a half, the
Soviets have built up a massive arsenal of new strategic nuclear
weapons- weapons that can strike directly at the United States.
As an example, the United States introduced its last new
intercontinental ballistic missile, the Minute Man Ill, in 1969,
and we're now dismantling our even older Titan missiles. But
what has the Soviet Union done in these intervening years? Well,
since 1969 the Soviet Union has built five new classes of
ICBM's, and upgraded these eight times. As a result, their
missiles are much more powerful and accurate than they were
several years ago, and they continue to develop more, while ours
are increasingly obsolete.
The same thing has happened in other areas. Over the same
period, the Soviet Union built 4 new classes of
submarine-launched ballistic missiles and over 60 new missile
submarines. We built 2 new types of submarine missiles and
actually withdrew 10 submarines from strategic missions. The
Soviet Union built over 200 new Backfire bombers, and their
brand new Blackjack bomber is now under development. We haven't
built a new long-range bomber since our B52's were deployed
about a quarter of a century ago, and we've already retired
several hundred of those because of old age. Indeed, despite
what many people think, our strategic forces only cost about 15
percent of the defence budget.
Another example of what's happened: In 1978 the Soviets had 600
intermediate-range nuclear missiles based on land and were
beginning to add the SS20 - a new, highly accurate, mobile
missile with 3 warheads. We had none. Since then the Soviets
have strengthened their lead. By the end of 1979, when Soviet
leader Brezhnev declared "a balance now exists," the Soviets had
over 800 warheads. We still had none. A year ago this month, Mr.
Brezhnev pledged a moratorium, or freeze, on SS20 deployment.
But by last August, their 800 warheads had become more than
1,200. We still had none. Some freeze. At this time Soviet
Defence Minister Ustinov announced "approximate parity of forces
continues to exist." But the Soviets are still adding an average
of 3 new warheads a week, and now have 1,300. These warheads can
reach their targets in a matter of a few minutes. We still have
none. So far, it seems that the Soviet definition of parity is a
box score of 1,300 to nothing, in their favour.
So, together with our NATO allies, we decided in 1979 to deploy
new weapons, beginning this year, as a deterrent to their SS20's
and as an incentive to the Soviet Union to meet us in serious
arms control negotiations. We will begin that deployment late
this year. At the same time, however, we're willing to cancel
our program if the Soviets will dismantle theirs. This is what
we've called a zero-zero plan. The Soviets are now at the
negotiating table - and I think it's fair to say that without
our planned deployments, they wouldn't be there.
Now, let's consider conventional forces. Since 1974 the United
States has produced 3,050 tactical combat aircraft. By contrast,
the Soviet Union has produced twice as many. When we look at
attack submarines, the United States has produced 27 while the
Soviet Union has produced 61. For armoured vehicles, including
tanks, we have produced 11,200. The Soviet Union has produced
54,000 - nearly 5 to 1 in their favour. Finally, with artillery,
we've produced 950 artillery and rocket launchers while the
Soviets have produced more than 13,000 - a staggering 14-to-1
ratio. There was a time when we were able to offset superior
Soviet numbers with higher quality, but today they are building
weapons as sophisticated and modern as our own.
As the Soviets have increased their military power, they've been
emboldened to extend that power. They're spreading their
military influence in ways that can directly challenge our vital
interests and those of our allies.
The following aerial photographs, most of them secret until now,
illustrate this point in a crucial area very close to home:
Central America and the Caribbean Basin. They're not dramatic
photographs. But I think they help give you a better
understanding of what I'm talking about.
This Soviet intelligence collection facility, less than a
hundred miles from our coast, is the largest of its kind in the
world. The acres and acres of antennae fields and intelligence
monitors are targeted on key U.S. military installations and
sensitive activities. The installation in Lourdes, Cuba, is
manned by 1,500 Soviet technicians. And the satellite ground
station allows instant communications with Moscow. This
28-square mile facility has grown by more than 60 percent in
size and capability during the past decade.
In western Cuba, we see this military airfield and it complement
of modern, Soviet-built Mig23 aircraft. The Soviet Union uses
this Cuban airfield for its own long-range reconnaissance
missions. And earlier this month, two modern Soviet
antisubmarine warfare aircraft began operating from it. During
the past 2 years, the level of Soviet arms exports to Cuba can
only be compared to the levels reached during the Cuban missile
crisis 20 years ago.
This third photo, which is the only one in this series that has
been previously made public, shows Soviet military hardware that
has made its way to Central America. This airfield with is Ml-8
helicopters, anti-aircraft guns, and protected fighter sites is
one of a number of military facilities in Nicaragua which has
received Soviet equipment funnelled through Cuba, and reflects
the massive military build-up going on in that country.
On the small island of Grenada, at the southern end of the
Caribbean chain, the Cubans, with Soviet financing and backing,
are in the process of building an airfield with a 10,000-foot
runway. Grenada doesn't even have an air force. Who is it
intended for? The Caribbean is a very important passageway for
our international commerce and military lines of communication.
More than half of all American oil imports now pass through the
Caribbean. The rapid build-up of Grenada's military potential is
unrelated to any conceivable threat to this island country of
under 110,000 people and totally at odds with the pattern of
other eastern Caribbean States, most of which are unarmed.
The Soviet-Cuban militarisation of Grenada, in short, can only
be seen as power projection into the region. And it is in this
important economic and strategic area that we're trying to help
the Governments of El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras, and others
in their struggles for democracy against guerrillas supported
through Cuba and Nicaragua.
These pictures only tell a small part of the story. l wish I
could show you more without compromising our most sensitive
intelligence sources and methods. But the Soviet Union is also
supporting Cuban military forces in Angola and Ethiopia. They
have bases in Ethiopia and South Yemen, near the Persian Gulf
oil fields. They've taken over the port that we built at Cam
Ranh Bay in Vietnam. And now for the first time in history, the
Soviet Navy is a force to be reckoned with in the South Pacific.
Some people may still ask: Would the Soviets ever use their
formidable military power? Well, again, can we afford to believe
they won't? There is Afghanistan. And in Poland, the Soviets
denied the will of the people and in so doing demonstrated to
the world how their military power could also be used to
intimidate.
The final fact is that the Soviet Union is acquiring what can
only be considered an offensive military force. They have
continued to build far more intercontinental ballistic missiles
than they could possibly need simply to deter an attack. Their
conventional forces are trained and equipped not so much to
defend against an attack as they are to permit sudden, surprise
offensives of their own.
Our NATO allies have assumed a great defence burden, including
the military draft in most countries. We're working with them
and our other friends around the world to do more. Our defensive
strategy means we need military forces that can move very
quickly, forces that are trained and ready to respond to any
emergency. Every item in our defence program - our ships, our
tanks, our planes, our funds for training and spare parts - is
intended for one all-important purpose: to keep the peace.
Unfortunately, a decade of neglecting our military forces had
called into question our ability to do that.
When I took office in January 1981, I was appalled by what I
found: American planes that couldn't fly and American ships that
couldn't sail for lack of spare parts and trained personnel and
insufficient fuel and ammunition for essential training. The
inevitable result of all this was poor morale in our Armed
Forces, difficulty in recruiting the brightest young Americans
to wear the uniform, and difficulty in convincing our most
experienced military personnel to stay on.
There was a real question then about how well we could meet a
crisis. And it was obvious that we had to begin a major
modernization program to ensure we could deter aggression and
preserve the peace in the years ahead.
We had to move immediately to improve the basic readiness and
staying power of our conventional forces, so they could meet -
and therefore help deter-a crisis. We had to make up for lost
years of investment by moving forward with a long- term plan to
prepare our forces to counter the military capabilities our
adversaries were developing for the future.
I know that all of you want peace, and so do 1. I know too that
many of you seriously believe that a nuclear freeze would
further the cause of peace. But a freeze now would make us less,
not more, secure and would raise, not reduce, the risks of war.
It would be largely unverifiable and would seriously undercut
our negotiations on arms reduction. It would reward the Soviets
for their massive military build-up while preventing us from
modernizing our aging and increasingly vulnerable forces. With
their present margin of superiority, why should they agree to
arms reductions knowing that we were prohibited from catching
up?
Believe me, it wasn't pleasant for someone who had come to
Washington determined to reduce government spending, but we had
to move forward with the task of repairing our defences or we
would lose our ability to deter conflict now and in the future.
We had to demonstrate to any adversary that aggression could not
succeed, and that the only real solution was substantial,
equitable, and effectively verifiable arms reduction - the kind
we're working for right now in Geneva. Thanks to your strong
support, and bipartisan support from the Congress, we began to
turn things around. Already, we're seeing some very encouraging
results. Quality recruitment and retention are up dramatically -
more high school graduates are choosing military careers, and
more experienced career personnel are choosing to stay. Our men
and women in uniform at last are getting the tools and training
they need to do their jobs.
Ask around today, especially among our young people, and I think
you will find a whole new attitude toward serving their country.
This reflects more than just better pay, equipment, and
leadership. You the American people have sent a signal to these
young people that it is once again an honour to wear the
uniform. That's not something you measure in a budget, but it's
a very real part of our nation's strength. It'll take us longer
to build the kind of equipment we need to keep peace in the
future, but we've made a good start.
We haven't built a new long-range bomber for 21 years. Now we're
building the B-1. We hadn't launched one new strategic submarine
for 17 years. Now we're building one Trident submarine a year.
Our land-based missiles are increasingly threatened by the many
huge, new Soviet ICBM's. We're determining how to solve that
problem. At the same time, we're working in the START and INF
negotiations with the goal of achieving deep reductions in the
strategic and intermediate nuclear arsenals of both sides.
We have also begun the long-needed modernization of our
conventional forces. The Army is getting its first new tank in
20 years. The Air Force is modernizing. We're rebuilding our
Navy, which shrank from about a thousand ships in the late
1960's to 453 during the 1970's. Our nation needs a superior
navy to sup port our military forces and vital interests
overseas. We're now on the road to achieving a 600-ship navy and
increasing the amphibious capabilities of our marines, who are
now serving the cause of peace in Lebanon. And we're building a
real capability to assist our friends in the vitally important
Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf region. This adds up to a major
effort, and it isn't cheap. It comes at a time when there are
many other pressures on our budget and when the American people
have already had to make major sacrifices during the recession.
But we must not be misled by those who would make defence once
again the scapegoat of the Federal budget.
The fact is that in the past few decades we have seen a dramatic
shift in how we spend the taxpayer's dollar. Back in 1955,
payments to individuals took up only about 20 percent of the
Federal budget. For nearly three decades, these payments
steadily increased and, this year, will account for 49 percent
of the budget. By contrast, in 1955 defence took up more than
half of the Federal budget. By 1980 this spending had fallen to
a low of 23 percent. Even with the increase that I am requesting
this year, defence will still amount to only 28 percent of the
budget. The calls for cutting back the defence budget come in
nice, simple arithmetic. They're the same kind of talk that led
the democracies to neglect their defences in the 1930's and
invited the tragedy of World War II. We must not let that grim
chapter of history repeat itself through apathy or neglect.
This is why I'm speaking to you tonight - to urge you to tell
your Senators and Congressmen that you know we must continue to
restore our military strength. If we stop in midstream, we will
send a signal of decline, of lessened will, to friends and
adversaries alike. Free people must voluntarily, through open
debate and democratic means, meet the challenge that
totalitarians pose by compulsion. It's up to us, in our time, to
choose and choose wisely between the hard but necessary task of
preserving peace and freedom and the temptation to ignore our
duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom
grow stronger day by day.
The solution is well within our grasp. But to reach it, there is
simply no alternative but to continue this year, in this budget,
to provide the resources we need to preserve the peace and
guarantee our freedom.
Now, thus far tonight I've shared with you my thoughts on the
problems of national security we must face together. My
predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on
other occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power and
have proposed steps to address that threat. But since the advent
of nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly directed
toward deterrence of aggression through the promise of
retaliation.
This approach to stability through offensive threat has worked.
We and our allies have succeeded in preventing nuclear war for
more than three decades. In recent months, however, my advisers,
including in particular the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have
underscored the necessity to break out of a future that relies
solely on offensive retaliation for our security.
Over the course of these discussions, I've become more and more
deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable of rising
above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening
their existence. Feeling this way, l believe we must thoroughly
examine every opportunity for reducing tensions and for
introducing greater stability into the strategic calculus on
both sides.
One of the most important contributions we can make is, of
course, to lower the level of all arms, and particularly nuclear
arms. We're engaged right now in several negotiations with the
Soviet Union to bring about a mutual reduction of weapons. I
will report to you a week from tomorrow my thoughts on that
score. But let me just say, I'm totally committed to this
course.
If the Soviet Union will join with us in our effort to achieve
major arms reduction, we will have succeeded in stabilizing the
nuclear balance. Nevertheless, it will still be necessary to
rely on the spectre of retaliation, on mutual threat. And that's
a sad commentary on the human condition. Wouldn't it be better
to save lives than to avenge them? Are we not capable of
demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our
abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting
stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.
After careful consultation with my advisers, including the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, l believe there is a way. Let me share with you
a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we embark
on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with
measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths
in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that
have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that
their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S.
retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept
and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our
own soil or that of our allies?
I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be
accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current
technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's
reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years,
probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be
failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and
breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in
preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid
capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every
investment necessary to free the world from the threat of
nuclear war? We know it is.
In the meantime, we will continue to pursue real reductions in
nuclear arms, negotiating from a position of strength that can
be ensured only by modernizing our strategic forces. At the same
time, we must take steps to reduce the risk of a conventional
military conflict escalating to nuclear war by improving our
non-nuclear capabilities.
America does possess - now - the technologies to attain very
significant improvements in the effectiveness of our
conventional, non-nuclear forces. Proceeding boldly with these
new technologies, we can significantly reduce any incentive that
the Soviet Union may have to threaten attack against the United
States or its allies.
As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we recognize
that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive power to deter
attacks against them. Their vital interests and ours are
inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are one. And no
change in technology can or will alter that reality. We must and
shall continue to honour our commitments.
I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations and
raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with offensive
systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy,
and no one wants that. But with these considerations firmly in
mind, I call upon the scientific community in our country, those
who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to
the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of
rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.
Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty and
recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies,
I'm taking an important first step. I am directing a
comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term
research and development program to begin to achieve our
ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic
nuclear missiles. This could pave the way for arms control
measures to eliminate the weapons themselves. We seek neither
military superiority nor political advantage. Our only purpose
one all people share - is to search for ways to reduce the
danger of nuclear war.
My fellow Americans, tonight we're launching an effort which
holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There
will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do
it. As we cross this threshold, l ask for your prayers and your
support.
Thank you, good night, and God bless you. |
