There Are Many Ways To Make The

It Is True That At The Time [1962] We Had A Strategic Nuclear Force Of Approximately Five Thousand Warheads Compared To The Soviet's Three Hundred.

The Greatest Contribution Vietnam Is Making-right Or Wrong Is Beside The Point-is That It Is Developing An Ability In The United States To Fight A Limited War, To Go To War Without The Necessity Of Arousing The Public Ire.

The Picture Of The World's Greatest Superpower Killing Or Seriously Injuring 1,000 Noncombatants A Week, While Trying To Pound A Tiny Backward Nation Into Submission On An Issue Whose Merits Are Hotly Disputed, Is Not A Pretty One.

The 'realist' Conception Of Continuing Old-fashioned 'balance Of Power' Politics May Have Been Well Founded In The Past, But It Is Inconsistent With Our Increasing Interdependent World. On Moral Grounds Alone There Can Be No Justification For The 20th Century Level Of Killing. To Settle Disputes Without Violence Must Become The Primary Goal Of Foreign Policy For Every Nation.

...but Highly Placed Sources Within The Kennedy Administration Disagreed: "[t]he Assumption That The Strategic Nuclear Balance Mattered In Any Way Was Wrong... As Far As I Am Concerned, It Made No Difference... If My Memory Serves Me Correctly, We Had Some Five Thousand Strategic Nuclear Warheads As Against T Heir Three Hundred. Can Anyone Seriously Tell Me That Their Having Three Hundred And Forty Would Have Made Any Difference? The Military Balance Wasn't Changed. I Didn't Believe It Then, And I Don't Believe It Now..."