25.03.2013 Views

Noam Chomsky - Turning the Tide U.S. intervention in

Noam Chomsky - Turning the Tide U.S. intervention in

Noam Chomsky - Turning the Tide U.S. intervention in

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The Race to Destruction<br />

Classics <strong>in</strong> Politics: <strong>Turn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Tide</strong> <strong>Noam</strong> <strong>Chomsky</strong><br />

318<br />

justified on <strong>the</strong> basis of an alleged “missile gap,” which President<br />

Eisenhower correctly ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed did not exist; <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> “missile<br />

gap” lie <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> failure of an earlier “bomber gap” to materialize. The<br />

Russians <strong>in</strong> fact had four operational ICBMs, located at a s<strong>in</strong>gle missiletest<strong>in</strong>g<br />

site, when <strong>the</strong> Kennedy Adm<strong>in</strong>istration undertook <strong>the</strong><br />

construction of 1000 M<strong>in</strong>uteman missiles to compensate for <strong>the</strong> “gap”<br />

which it knew to be fraudulent, sett<strong>in</strong>g off <strong>the</strong> current phase of <strong>the</strong><br />

strategic arms race. At <strong>the</strong> time, Fred Kaplan observes, “<strong>the</strong>re was a<br />

missile gap, even a deterrent gap, and <strong>the</strong> ratio <strong>in</strong> forces was nearly ten<br />

to one—but <strong>the</strong> gap was <strong>in</strong> our favor.” Kennedy’s adviser for National<br />

Security Affairs, McGeorge Bundy, noted <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>ternal memo that <strong>the</strong><br />

phrase “missile gap” had had a “useful shorthand effect of call<strong>in</strong>g<br />

attention to . . . our basic military posture”; <strong>the</strong> facts were <strong>the</strong>refore a<br />

marg<strong>in</strong>al issue. The arms build-up proceeded, <strong>in</strong>dependently of <strong>the</strong><br />

alleged motive. 71<br />

The third major build-up under Reagan was justified to <strong>the</strong> public by<br />

an alleged “w<strong>in</strong>dow of vulnerability,” which would make it possible for<br />

<strong>the</strong> USSR to knock out 90% of <strong>the</strong> US ICBMs with only one fifth to one<br />

third of <strong>the</strong>ir long-range missiles, so Paul Nitze and o<strong>the</strong>r Reagan<br />

advisers argued. “This wonderful phrase,” Walter P<strong>in</strong>cus observes,<br />

“emerged dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> attack on former President Carter’s strategic arms<br />

limitation talks with <strong>the</strong> Russians . . . The ‘w<strong>in</strong>dow’ was supposed to<br />

open <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early 1980s and close only when U.S. deployment of<br />

substantial MX missiles was underway . . . While <strong>the</strong> ‘w<strong>in</strong>dow’ was<br />

open, however, <strong>the</strong> alleged Soviet advantage <strong>in</strong> ICBM power was go<strong>in</strong>g<br />

to encourage Moscow to undertake all sorts of aggressive adventures<br />

around <strong>the</strong> world, unafraid of any Wash<strong>in</strong>gton response.” But, P<strong>in</strong>cus<br />

cont<strong>in</strong>ues, <strong>the</strong> “w<strong>in</strong>dow” opened even wider under Reagan, with <strong>the</strong><br />

phas<strong>in</strong>g out of old systems before new ones come <strong>in</strong>to operation, and<br />

somehow <strong>the</strong> Russians did not rampage, though accord<strong>in</strong>g to official

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!