Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2011
The foreign policy of the United States appears to have two primary political objectives: the maintenance of peace, if possible; and, if this becomes impossible, the maximization of military effort against its enemies. This duality of purpose raises a number of perplexing questions. If we could assume with Clausewitz that the making or avoidance of war simply involves a choice between means—the endbeing given—, then these questions would disappear. As it is, we have to recognize that in fact the pursuit of peace may well involve actions which tend to diminish United States military potential and that attempts to maximize military potential may well increase the possibility of war. Under these circumstances only a compromise solution seems sensible. We must consider best how peace may be maintained, but be ready to reject those methods which would leave the United States defenseless in the event that war cannot be avoided.
1 Pursuit of the political objectives of preparedness and peace may interfere with the maximum attainment of prosperity. For present purposes, the absolute priority of these two political objectives over any economic objectives of foreign policy is taken for granted. With Adam Smith, it is assumed that defense is more important than opulence.
2 In the following discussion, the sources and requirements of raw material for atomic warfare are neglected. The author, through lack of knowledge, is not prepared to assess the significance of this omission.