- 6 weeks ago
A Frontline/Time joint examination into the new realities facing NATO following the American-Soviet nuclear arms treaty.
Category
📺
TVTranscript
00:00Funding for Frontline is provided by this station and other public television stations nationwide.
00:07And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
00:11Tonight, Frontline and Time Magazine examine the future of the U.S. commitment to the NATO alliance.
00:19We're the cutting edge. The Frontline, the first people that will be engaged in any type of conflict.
00:26But when nuclear weapons are reduced in Europe, could the armies of NATO actually win a war?
00:32We feel that our skills outnumber their numbers.
00:39Tonight, the defense of Europe.
00:41From the network of public television stations, a presentation of KCTS Seattle, WNET New York, WPBT Miami, WTVS Detroit, and WGBH Boston.
01:06This is Frontline, in association with Time Magazine, a special report with Judy Woodruff.
01:17Good evening. This is an unusual Frontline.
01:20In the first place, we have combined forces with Time Magazine to co-produce periodic specials for public television.
01:28This is our first venture.
01:30Second, tonight's program will be somewhat different in form, made up of five separate stories, but all with a common theme.
01:38Tomorrow, President Reagan leaves for Moscow in the next summit with Mikhail Gorbachev.
01:44He takes with him not only an American agenda, but also the hopes and fears of our West European allies.
01:51Today, the 16 nations of NATO field a combined armed force of nearly two and a half million troops.
01:59The United States has committed 335,000 Americans to active duty in Europe, two-thirds stationed in Germany.
02:08To see what life is like for the American servicemen and women in Europe,
02:12we spent five wintry days with the U.S. 5th Army Corps on the East German frontier.
02:19Every time he takes his AeroScout helicopter on Border Patrol, Captain Michael Dwyer must be ready for the worst.
02:37We're the cutting edge, the front line, the first people that will be engaged in any type of conflict.
02:44We're looking for any signs of an increase in activity on the East German side when we're flying the border.
02:54I guess everybody's a little bit worried.
02:58You would be inhuman if you weren't worried about the possibility of becoming involved in World War III.
03:04Both sides are very wary and cautious of ever bringing about an escalation of small incidents.
03:16This is the front line of the Cold War, perhaps the most militarized place on Earth.
03:23Winston Churchill called it the Iron Curtain, but today's GIs call it the Trace.
03:291,300 kilometers long, the border dividing East and West Germany forms NATO's Central Front.
03:36Since the end of World War II, two vast armies have peered out across this barbed wire no-man's land.
03:44But the era of fear and mistrust may be coming to an end.
03:51Under the terms of an agreement signed in 1986, Warsaw Pact observers have been invited to watch the U.S. Army's 5th Corps on maneuvers.
03:59These officers serve in the armies of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, East Germany and Russia.
04:13And it's in CYC.
04:15He's Tarsi Cedar Jean.
04:17We escort them around and take very good care of them and make sure that they see all the important things that they need to see.
04:24We should know for our government, for our Ministry of National Defense, if this kind of activity is threatening us or not.
04:34Please feel free to ask the crew or myself any questions that you may have.
04:40Ironically, these Warsaw Pact officers probably know more about the American Army than most American taxpayers.
04:47They would never permit me the access to go talk to their soldiers that we permit them.
04:53They see a sergeant and ask a sergeant, where are you? What are you doing here?
04:56And he pulled out a map the other day and said, I'm right here.
04:59We're part of a company. Our mission is we're going up here to do that.
05:03And then one of them said to the other in a language that one of our translators could hear, the sergeant has a map.
05:12He said, sergeants aren't supposed to have maps. Only colonels are supposed to have maps.
05:17There are eight NATO armies in West Germany.
05:20One Dutch, one British, one Belgian, three German, and two American.
05:25The 5th Army Corps defends a strategic choke point known as the Fulda Gap.
05:30It would almost certainly be one of the Warsaw Pact's main lines of attack.
05:35The Fulda Gap is the shortest path from eastern Germany to major crossing sites over the Rhine River.
05:42It is a dangerous avenue of approach that we cannot, we cannot let be penetrated.
05:48Point man for the whole 5th Army Corps is the Black Horse Regiment, based in Fulda.
05:53Group attention.
05:55Come on, please.
05:56Colonel Thomas White.
05:58Good morning.
05:59Good morning, sir.
06:01Welcome to the Black Horse Regiment.
06:03The mission of the Black Horse out here is very simple.
06:06First, patrol the eastern border, all 368 kilometers of it, every day of the year, 24 hours a day.
06:15Very demanding mission.
06:1750 kilometers to the east of here, roughly 30 miles, is the motorized rifle regiment of the Soviet Union.
06:25So, when the alert siren blows, and it's time to suit up, school is out.
06:31Okay.
06:32All right, let's move out.
06:34If the siren ever does blow, first in line could be the crew of an M1 tank called Charlie 2-4, based here at Outpost Alpha.
06:42The M1 tank is crewed by four men, the commander, the gunner, the loader, and the driver.
06:54If a war really did break out, we knew it would be the first line of defense until the reinforcements come.
06:59It's hard to really say whether we'll survive or not.
07:02Most people predict that we won't.
07:04I think we would, because we have a lot of dedicated personnel who want to live.
07:09If we do die, we're dying for our country.
07:12I know that we're ready to go anytime, 24 hours a day.
07:18Outpost Alpha sits right on top of the East German border, some 50 kilometers northeast of Fulda.
07:24It is the Black Horse Regiment's most forward position.
07:28Within the perimeter of the outpost is an observation tower.
07:33Inside, American servicemen monitor the movements of their East German counterparts.
07:40With searchlight, two BTs.
07:45Both sides overlook the so-called Death Strip, a 10-meter-wide communist-built no-man's land that lies between them.
07:54These fences are all inside East German territory.
07:59But on the western side, these white poles are all there is to mark the limit of what is, legally speaking, the actual border.
08:07There are no restricted frontier zones, no wire fences.
08:12So this is the trace.
08:14And every day, it's the job of the Black Horse Regiment to patrol it.
08:18You tell someone at home that you're at the border, or patrolling the border, they might just get a blank image in their mind of a border.
08:27So what, big deal.
08:28But I don't really think that they know the importance of it.
08:32The first time I came out, it was kind of scary, because you look across the border and you see they're all fenced in, and we're allowed to be free and do what we want to do.
08:45I thought maybe they would be something different from us, but they're the same, like, you know, like human beings like us.
08:50It's kind of scary.
08:53I wonder what they be thinking about when they see us over here, and the things that we can do and they can't do.
09:00And I always get that fuzzy feeling that they kind of feel trapped.
09:05But the foot patrols are also gathering valuable intelligence, which they report back to headquarters.
09:25Roger, 1107.
09:30Intelligence Officer Major Thomas Beeson.
09:32As you can see from the antennas, we think it's some kind of an intelligence collection facility.
09:39If we see an increase in intelligence in reconnaissance patrols, an increase in flights along the border, that increased activity indicates something to us, and we would start ringing bells and lights would go off.
09:54If the Russian blitzkrieg ever rolled west, Outpost Alpha would be the first to know.
10:01If you hear the siren in the back of your mind, you hear, is this the real one? Are we going to really go out and do something?
10:15Go!
10:16Go!
10:18On our level, we really have no way of knowing if it's a drill or if it's the actual alert.
10:27Go!
10:28Go!
10:31Go!
10:32Go!
10:33Go!
10:35Go!
10:36Go!
10:37Go!
10:38Go!
10:40There are 226,000 American military personnel in Germany.
10:45But with them are another 225,000 wives, children, and dependents.
10:52Make sure you keep your eye out over to the right over there.
10:55As the first shots are fired, a massive evacuation would begin.
11:00Each time that horn goes off, I wonder, is this the real thing?
11:04Is my family going to get out here safely?
11:06Yes, I always wanted to be worried about that.
11:14As soon as the siren sounds in Outpost Alpha,
11:17the Black Horse Regiment's Cobra helicopters, based at Fulda, would scramble into the air.
11:23Cobra pilot Heath McLaughlin.
11:25First line of defense is to kill as many tanks as possible without being killed ourselves.
11:31By being close to the border, it sometimes makes you worry or wonder about the equation
11:36between our troops and their troops, our equipment and their equipment.
11:39Many times we'll be flying neck and neck with another aircraft.
11:44And he's just on that side of the fence, and we're just on this side of the fence,
11:46within stone throw away.
11:47And you're wondering, what's he thinking of us?
11:50We seem to be outnumbered in many ways.
11:53And, of course, that tends to make me worry a little bit.
11:56And I hope that our sophistication can keep us ahead of what they have.
12:01If war broke out, a huge battle would develop in the Fulda Gap.
12:06Though heavily outnumbered, the armies of the West would be allowed neither retreat nor tactical withdrawal,
12:12because this would guarantee the destruction of much of West Germany.
12:16So NATO is committed to a forward defense.
12:20Though the Soviets have many more tanks, geography could help the 5th Army Corps stop them dead in their tracks.
12:27If he could deploy all of his 19 divisions at one time online, he could probably overwhelm us.
12:35But he can't do that, because the terrain won't allow him to do that.
12:39It's like two football teams.
12:40One team can have a tremendously strong bench, but they can only field 11 players at the same time, both teams.
12:49And that's really what we face here.
12:50The terrain restricts their movement, so we can only face a limited amount of them at one time.
13:02As the Alliance tries to fight the first line of invaders to a standstill,
13:06it knows that wave after wave of attackers are on their way.
13:10As they get closer to the border, then some of our long-range artillery can come into effect
13:22and help out on that follow-on forces attack.
13:26So while we are combating the first close battle forces,
13:31we have to hold the other forces back off the battlefield.
13:34That is predominantly a job that we depend on our air forces to do.
13:45Pilots of the 10th Tactical Fighter Wing would have to dogfight their way past Russian MiGs
13:50in order to strafe enemy reinforcements.
13:52It's Warsaw Pact military doctrine to advance in echelons.
13:59NATO aims to attack these follow-on forces before they join the main battle,
14:04preferably in choke points like the Fulda Gap, where they're most vulnerable.
14:07I don't think it will be easy if hostilities break out.
14:14We're far outnumbered.
14:15So we're going to have to depend on those things that make us better
14:18to carry that conflict to the enemy.
14:20We feel that our skills outnumber their numbers.
14:25However, that does not take away the impact that we know that there's going to be
14:30a horde of Warsaw Pact-type forces coming at us.
14:36We're going to have to achieve a kill ratio of 4, 5, 6 to 1 in order to stay even.
14:42So we've got to do better than that to get ahead.
14:44If the fighter planes, helicopters, tanks, and howitzers cannot stop the Warsaw Pact's advance,
15:00other, more terrible weapons are waiting in the wings.
15:06O.V.
15:07O.V.
15:07The crew of this Lance missile launcher plays a kind of deadly hide-and-seek
15:15in the forests of West Germany.
15:18The platoon commander is Lieutenant Joan Fontaine.
15:22We fire conventional weapons and nuclear weapons.
15:25We have to shoot and scoot, so to speak.
15:28Our march order time is less than 5 minutes,
15:31so after we fire, we have to get out of the area immediately.
15:34If defeat seemed inevitable, it is NATO policy to use nuclear weapons,
15:40and use them first.
15:46On behalf of the 85th Maintenance Battalion,
15:49I would like to present to each one of you our battalion coin.
15:56On the eve of summit talks about peace and disarmament,
16:00the Warsaw Pact observers say their goodbyes.
16:02My country, my soldiers, my officers want peace in Europe, first of all,
16:10and this is the most important thing,
16:12that we can meet American soldiers and can talk about it.
16:23Meanwhile, almost 5 million soldiers on both sides of the Iron Curtain are ready for war.
16:28My pleasure.
16:30I'm just going to move just this into another.
16:32Very good.
16:33Thank you, sir.
16:3512, 11, 10, 9...
16:38Even after the INF agreement,
16:40NATO alone has 4,000 battle-ready nuclear warheads.
16:444,000, 9, 9, 9, 9, 108
16:56The possibility of a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union
17:02is a shattering prospect for American troops and the American people.
17:07But for the people of Western Europe, any conflict with the Warsaw Pact,
17:12even a conventional war, would be fought in their own backyard.
17:16In this next segment, we examine European fears
17:20and their impact on the politics of NATO in the life of one West German village.
17:28The pretty little village of Bell lies in the West German district of Hunsruk,
17:33about an hour's drive northwest of Frankfurt.
17:37Reinhan Sesch lives with his wife in this 500-year-old home.
17:44He works as a computer engineer for IBM and is an unlikely political activist.
17:50But every day as he drives to work through this peaceful place,
17:55he is forcibly reminded that one day Bell could find itself in the very eye of the nuclear storm.
18:01His neighbors know it too and are protesting.
18:04One farmer has painted his barn.
18:09Another has planted a field with 96 crucifixes.
18:12Each cross represents an American cruise missile with a nuclear warhead on German soil.
18:20We are a very small country with over 4,000 military installations.
18:29And we have military arometer here.
18:33On the street, you see tanks on the street.
18:35And I think Germany has a very big burden for NATO military.
18:40Like most Germans of his age, Reinhan had grown up with the American military presence and had grown used to it.
18:54But when cruise missiles with nuclear warheads were deployed in his district,
18:58he decided that enough was enough.
19:00Like hundreds of thousands of other Germans, he became active in the peace movement.
19:04We know that there are nuclear weapons here because you only have to look in the emblem of the official 50th tactical fighter wing.
19:18And there you will see the nuclear weapon in this emblem.
19:22How will you defend Europe with 4,000 or 5,000 nuclear warheads?
19:27Everything is destroyed.
19:28These fears came to a head in the early 1980s.
19:34The decision to deploy Pershing-2 and ground-launched cruise missiles
19:38led to enormous anti-nuclear demonstrations throughout Europe.
19:44And nowhere more so than in Germany.
19:50Even in Bell, local residents were joined by 200,000 protesters
19:55in a march on the Wushheim Air Station,
19:57an American cruise missile base outside the village.
20:04Jutta Dahl and her husband August, a Lutheran pastor,
20:07led that large peaceful protest in 1986.
20:11We realized that with those weapons which are being stationed here in this village,
20:17you could easily kill about 80 million people.
20:20And I think American people, they don't feel as threatened by the weapons as we do
20:26because the density here is so enormous.
20:29And we are living so close to the Iron Curtain
20:33that we really know when there will be an error
20:36and when there will be a war, we will be destroyed at once.
20:39Ironically, the protesters find sympathy from the man who first invited America
20:44to deploy the missiles in Germany, Helmut Schmidt.
20:48Quite a few of the people became nervous.
20:51It's understandable.
20:52It's very easy for a nuclear power like the United States or like Britain or like France
20:59to install a few more missiles.
21:01It's quite a different thing if somebody else puts nuclear missiles onto your soil
21:07and reserves to himself the right to unleash these missiles
21:11because people nowadays do understand that missile sites are target sites as well for the other side.
21:18While Americans complain that they bear too much of the cost of European defense,
21:24Germans say they bear too much of the risk.
21:27Beate Klarsfeld, who lives near Bell, maintains her watch on a U.S. cruise missile base.
21:34As she sees it, the American military has made Germans second-class citizens in their own land.
21:44In recent months, the peace movement has obtained this document.
21:48It is the Non-Combatant Evacuation Order,
21:51a confidential document issued to all American military personnel based in Germany and their dependents.
21:57For Beate, it makes alarming reading.
22:00This plan says that when there is a day where the atomic strike will start,
22:07then the Americans will be evacuated and we have to stay at our homes and we should die here.
22:13So German police and German organizations will stop us to flee, but the Americans can flee.
22:23What upsets the Germans about the document is that with the American families,
22:27their furniture and even their pets will also be evacuated.
22:31Though the days of the great peace demonstrations have passed,
22:36politicians in Bonn are well aware that anti-nuclear sentiment runs right across the political spectrum,
22:42and it runs deep.
22:44Even conservative politicians,
22:46who believe that German security depends on the nuclear deterrent,
22:50admit that while they may have a majority,
22:52they do not have a consensus.
22:54The member of parliament who speaks for the government on defense issues is Volker Rua.
23:00We will have something like 4,000 nuclear warheads still left after the INF agreement,
23:09and I think we could do with fewer systems.
23:13Though the INF agreement will remove the hated crews and Pershing-2s,
23:18short-range weapons remain.
23:19NATO has decided to modernize and upgrade tactical nuclear weapons like this Lance missile.
23:25If it was ever fired in anger, it could only land in East or West Germany.
23:30Volker Rua must explain to his constituents
23:32why it's a good thing to get rid of intermediate nuclear weapons that can hit other countries,
23:38but modernize systems that can only kill Germans.
23:41But we're in a unique situation.
23:44We're the only country in the West that has nuclear weapons on its soil
23:48that are planned to be used on German soil.
23:51And there's no doubt the shorter the range of these missiles,
23:55the deader the Germans.
24:02Meanwhile, the peace protesters from Bell
24:05hold their weekly prayer vigil outside a U.S. missile base.
24:09The peace activists are small in number,
24:16but they have had a tremendous impact on public opinion.
24:20A recent poll found that while 68% of Germans want to stay in NATO,
24:2579% don't want nuclear missiles on German soil.
24:30And that is a political problem,
24:32not just in Germany,
24:33but for the whole of NATO.
24:35Here in Washington, far from the nuclear battlefield,
24:45the Senate is embroiled in its own political battle
24:48over ratifying the INF Treaty.
24:51But in the think tanks of Washington,
24:53and over at the Pentagon,
24:55there is another debate brewing
24:57over non-nuclear or conventional weapons.
25:00Today, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact
25:03hold an enormous numerical advantage
25:06over NATO's conventional forces.
25:09Six times as many mechanized infantry combat vehicles,
25:13three times as many artillery pieces,
25:16and most significantly,
25:18two and a half times as many tanks.
25:21And so, many people fear
25:23that if all nuclear weapons were ever banned,
25:26the Soviet Union would be able to dominate Western Europe.
25:30But do the numbers tell the whole story?
25:33Some people say they don't,
25:35and that NATO and the Warsaw Pact
25:38are more evenly matched than most of us realize.
25:42To find out why,
25:43we set out to investigate
25:45what the Pentagon calls the tank gap.
25:49This pontoon bridge
25:50is one of the few pieces of Soviet technology
25:53that the West is copying.
25:54It tells us a lot
26:05about Soviet military doctrine.
26:08The Soviets may not want to start a war,
26:11but if hostilities do break out,
26:13they believe that the best form of defense
26:15is attack.
26:16So a bridge like this
26:18is built for an army on the advance.
26:20To carry out their offensive strategy,
26:26the Soviets have built
26:27an enormous conventional army.
26:29An army that on almost every count
26:31is two or three times bigger than NATO's.
26:35The main weapon in this army
26:37is the tank.
26:39One of the first Westerners
26:41to have observed the armored columns
26:43of the Warsaw Pact on maneuvers
26:45is General Mallory.
26:47And it was all over in 59 minutes,
26:50and they had upwards of four tank regiments
26:54across that river.
26:57Very, very impressive.
27:00Great speed at putting a lot of combat power
27:03across a pretty significant river obstacle.
27:06General Glenn Mallory
27:08was not equally impressed
27:09by everything he saw
27:11at the Druzba 86 exercise
27:13in Czechoslovakia.
27:14On a real battlefield,
27:15it seems numbers aren't everything.
27:18When I was standing there
27:20on the observation platform
27:21thinking to myself,
27:23wow, wouldn't I love
27:24to be a tank battalion commander
27:26out there as I watch this come at me?
27:29Because they're so close,
27:31they can't shoot from the second row
27:33without shooting themselves.
27:34And we just have
27:36a turkey chute out there.
27:39On the face of it,
27:41the Soviet numerical superiority
27:43is overwhelming.
27:47Its fleet of 52,000 main battle tanks
27:50outnumbers NATO's 20,000
27:53by two and a half to one.
27:59But in Washington,
28:01so-called bean counting,
28:02the idea that weight of numbers
28:04is all that matters
28:05when assessing military strength
28:07has been challenged
28:09in a Senate Armed Services Committee report
28:11called Beyond the Bean Count.
28:14One of those who gave evidence
28:16to the committee
28:16was Josh Epstein
28:18of the Brookings Institution.
28:20Historically,
28:21bean countings proved
28:22to be terrible predictors
28:24of military outcomes.
28:25If you bet on the side
28:27with the numerically larger force,
28:29you'd have been wrong
28:30at Antietam,
28:31Chancellorsville,
28:33Austerlitz,
28:33Fredericksburg,
28:34Battle of Frontiers
28:35in World War I,
28:36the fall of France
28:37in 1940,
28:38Barbarossa in 1941,
28:41the invasion of Korea,
28:42the Sinai and Golan
28:43in 67 and 73,
28:45and more recently
28:46in the Fawkes.
28:47Bean counting
28:48is a pseudo-empirical bunk.
28:50It just doesn't tell you much
28:52about the actual dynamics
28:53of combat.
28:54Perhaps the best place
28:57to observe
28:58the actual dynamics
28:59of combat
28:59is at the National Training Center
29:01of Fort Irwin, California.
29:04Here,
29:04a thousand square miles
29:06of the Mojave Desert
29:07have been turned over
29:08to the Army
29:09for full-scale
29:10mock tank battles.
29:14Every time
29:15a weapon is fired,
29:16a laser beam
29:17is discharged.
29:18A flashing yellow light
29:20tells the crew
29:20when their tank
29:21has been destroyed.
29:24The laser gun
29:26is linked
29:26to a gigantic computer
29:28which records
29:29if a hit
29:29was scored or not.
29:34What makes
29:35these extraordinarily
29:35realistic exercises
29:37unique
29:38is the presence
29:39of the so-called
29:40Op-4,
29:41the opposing force
29:42or red team.
29:44Not only
29:45does the Op-4
29:46use equipment
29:46modified
29:47and camouflaged
29:48to look like
29:49Warsaw-packed armor,
29:51but their tactics
29:52are based entirely
29:53on Soviet military
29:54practice.
29:56So they piece
29:57mail through here.
29:58The Op-4 soldiers
30:00in their mock
30:00Soviet uniforms
30:01have the advantage
30:02in numbers.
30:04And at the tactical level,
30:06this gives them
30:06tremendous operational
30:08flexibility,
30:09according to their
30:09commanding officer,
30:10Lieutenant Colonel
30:11Doug McFarlane.
30:13Tactics for the Soviet
30:14in the offense,
30:15obviously,
30:15is to try and attempt
30:16to find the weakest
30:17point in the U.S. defenses.
30:19When he finds
30:19that weak point,
30:20he wants to attack
30:21that with a favorable
30:22force ratio.
30:23That's three to one,
30:24four to one,
30:25five to one,
30:25whatever it thinks
30:26it takes to be able
30:27to mass,
30:28make a penetration,
30:30exploit that penetration
30:31by getting deep
30:32within the U.S. sector
30:33and get into the,
30:35through the main crust
30:36and then into perhaps
30:38the softer part
30:38of the sector itself.
30:40Life is more complicated
30:42for the blue commander,
30:43but as in real life,
30:44he has some real advantages
30:46over the reds.
30:49Defenders know
30:50their terrain better
30:51and can fight
30:52from well-prepared positions.
30:55They can pre-position
30:56a considerable number
30:57of anti-tank weapons.
31:02Minefields can be laid
31:03across the main avenues
31:05of attack.
31:07All this gives
31:09the defense
31:09such an edge
31:10that military textbooks
31:11assume an attacker
31:13would need a three to one
31:14advantage to win.
31:16The reds can maneuver
31:18their superior numbers
31:19to concentrate
31:20their forces
31:20and achieve odds
31:22of three to one
31:22and better at key points.
31:24Once they have punched
31:25a hole in the enemy's
31:26front line,
31:27the second and third
31:28echelons pour
31:29through the gap.
31:31These tactics are simple
31:32and very effective.
31:33Well, obviously,
31:36with these tremendous
31:36numbers,
31:37he can afford
31:38to take great losses.
31:40He's not the least
31:41bit hesitant
31:42to run a battalion
31:44or two battalions
31:45in and make the hole
31:46so that the third
31:47battalion can make
31:47that penetration.
31:49He will oftentimes
31:50develop a main attack
31:51and several supporting
31:53attacks that may
31:54obviously not have
31:55much chance of success,
31:57but will be able to fix
31:58the U.S. forces in place
31:59while he makes
32:00the penetration
32:01where he wants
32:01that to occur.
32:07The Soviets need
32:09big numbers
32:10for these tactics,
32:11but Lutz Unterzier,
32:12a West German
32:13who lectures
32:14at the British Army
32:15Staff College,
32:16has co-written a study
32:17called
32:18Is There a Tank Gap?
32:21This numerical comparison
32:23as such
32:24does not take into account
32:26that there are many
32:27warfare-packed,
32:28particularly Soviet,
32:29Soviet tanks,
32:31that are not available
32:32for a confrontation
32:33in Central Europe.
32:35Of the 52,000
32:37Soviet tanks,
32:3917,000 must be deployed
32:40along the Chinese border.
32:43Another 5,000
32:44are based in Central Asia
32:46to cope with areas
32:47of instability
32:48like Iran
32:49and Afghanistan.
32:51That leaves
32:5230,000 Soviet tanks
32:54on the Central European front.
32:56These 30,000 Soviet tanks
32:59are confronted
33:00by 20,000 NATO tanks.
33:02So the ratio
33:03goes down
33:04from 2.5 to 1
33:05in favor of the Soviets
33:07to 1.5 to 1.
33:09Add 1,500 tanks
33:11from France,
33:12which is not fully
33:13integrated into NATO,
33:14and the odds
33:15grow shorter still.
33:17But according
33:17to Phil Peterson,
33:19a Pentagon analyst
33:20who has made
33:21Soviet military doctrine
33:22his special subject,
33:24the Russians believe
33:25they can win
33:25with odds
33:26of only 1.5 to 1.
33:28We have some
33:30Soviet calculations
33:32here that are used
33:33to teach
33:33their programs
33:34at the
33:35Vushilov General Staff
33:36Academy in Moscow.
33:37And as you can see
33:38from these figures
33:39on the right side,
33:41with as low
33:42as a 1.5
33:44to 1 correlation
33:45of forces,
33:45you can get as high
33:47as a 5 to 1
33:49correlation
33:50at the main
33:51point of attack.
33:51It is the ability
33:53to concentrate
33:54their forces
33:55and obtain
33:56a massive
33:56local advantage
33:57that the Soviet
33:58high command
33:59prizes most highly.
34:01And they don't need
34:02an overwhelming
34:02numerical advantage
34:04across the whole front
34:05to achieve this.
34:06The example
34:08the Soviets
34:09still cite
34:09to their students,
34:11their general officers,
34:12that in the Battle
34:15of Stalingrad,
34:16they surrounded
34:17and destroyed
34:18von Paulus'
34:196th German Army
34:20with a correlation
34:21of forces
34:22that was only
34:221.1 to 1.
34:26But the Soviet Army
34:28has numerous disadvantages.
34:30Many of their tanks
34:31will have difficulty
34:32reaching the front.
34:33While NATO
34:34has invested heavily
34:35in logistical support,
34:37Russian Army divisions
34:38only have one
34:39transporter
34:40for every three tanks.
34:42And this is just
34:43one of a number
34:44of technical handicaps
34:45that Unterzir
34:46lists in his study.
34:48The modern guns
34:50of the two sides
34:51are equally powerful.
34:54So Soviet guns
34:56to a certain degree
34:57have closed the gap.
35:01However,
35:02they have not reached
35:04the high degree
35:04of precision
35:05Western tank guns
35:06have.
35:10MIT professor
35:12Barry Pozen
35:13explains why.
35:15The systems
35:16that you use
35:17to sort of aim
35:18the gun
35:18and achieve
35:20first-round hit
35:20in Soviet tanks
35:23are not in the same class
35:25as those
35:25in Western tanks.
35:26Period.
35:28Here we're talking
35:29about night sights,
35:30laser rangefinders,
35:31ballistic computers
35:33and stabilizers
35:34that stabilize the gun
35:35so you can shoot
35:36off the moon.
35:38If you combine
35:39the built-in precision
35:42of Western tank guns,
35:44then you would end up
35:47in the result
35:49that Western tanks
35:51on the average
35:52are far superior
35:53in firepower
35:54to Soviet tanks.
35:55We have various
36:02kinds of special
36:03armors in the West
36:03today going into
36:04the newest tank
36:05and these armors
36:07are very difficult
36:08to penetrate.
36:09Tests show
36:10that the West
36:10composite armors
36:11can take far more
36:12punishment than the Soviets.
36:17They're hard to drill
36:18through and they're hard
36:18in effect
36:19to cut through.
36:20The evidence so far
36:27is that the Soviets
36:27are behind NATO
36:28in this technology.
36:35Technologically backward,
36:36the Soviets have opted
36:37for quantity
36:38over quality
36:39and as in World War II
36:41have built large numbers
36:42of simple tanks.
36:43They are simply
36:47not able to build
36:48as highly sophisticated
36:49tanks,
36:50highly complex tanks
36:51as the West has.
36:55Until the 60s,
36:57the Soviets
36:58built into their tanks
36:59a tank engine
37:00which was designed
37:00in the mid-30s.
37:03And then when they
37:03tried to introduce
37:04new engines
37:05by the end of the 60s
37:07and the 70s,
37:08they had quite a series
37:08of disasters
37:09with the T-64
37:10and T-72,
37:12particularly with
37:13the T-64.
37:14Engines simply
37:14didn't work
37:15at a very high
37:17breakdown rate.
37:18The poor performance
37:19of Soviet engines
37:20has affected
37:21the design
37:22of their tanks.
37:24They may be,
37:25roughly speaking,
37:26two-thirds
37:26or three-quarters
37:27of Western tank size.
37:30Crew quarters
37:30are quite cramped
37:31which results
37:32in crew fatigue
37:32and maybe bad
37:35tactical performance
37:36in the end.
37:39Also,
37:40you cannot store
37:41all your fuel
37:43inside the tank
37:44if you have
37:44sort of a Soviet
37:45design philosophy.
37:47So you store
37:48parts of the fuel
37:50on the fenders.
37:54Some Soviet tanks
37:55also carry fuel
37:56in drums
37:57on their rear section.
38:00This is, of course,
38:01not under armor protection.
38:02If they add more armor,
38:07given their weak
38:08engine technology,
38:09the tanks would become
38:10even slower
38:11than they are today
38:12and their capability
38:14to cross rugged terrain
38:15would even
38:16be further reduced.
38:18So this is why
38:19they don't do it.
38:19They simply can't do it.
38:22Western tanks
38:23weigh more
38:23but have relatively
38:25much stronger engines
38:27so they can take on
38:28more,
38:29more armor.
38:30All these factors
38:36help slim down
38:37the Warsaw Pact's
38:381.5 to 1 advantage
38:40in main battle tanks.
38:42And this, in turn,
38:44leads Lutz Unterzier
38:45to a conclusion
38:46that might surprise
38:47the bean counters.
38:49NATO might be
38:50even superior
38:51in tank power
38:52in Central Europe,
38:55maybe by 1.2 to 1.
38:58At least,
38:59you could say,
38:59the two sides
39:02are in rough,
39:03they enjoy rough parity.
39:05So this is our contribution
39:07to destroying
39:09the myth
39:09of Soviet superiority
39:11in tanks.
39:13Josh Epstein
39:14has fed
39:14the Defense Department
39:15assumptions
39:16into a computer model
39:17and reached
39:18a similar conclusion.
39:19Even the Army's methods
39:21give a U.S. division
39:23about one and a half
39:24times the lethality
39:26of its Soviet counterpart.
39:28I'm taking all of that
39:29into account
39:30when I run these runs.
39:31And what you see
39:32in this simulation
39:33is NATO coming
39:34from behind,
39:35although initially
39:36outnumbered,
39:37to win in the end
39:38in a very specific sense.
39:40of course,
39:43in a real battle,
39:44it wouldn't be
39:45a simple case
39:45of tank versus tank.
39:48The West
39:49would almost certainly
39:50enjoy air superiority.
39:52The A-10 plane
39:56is just one
39:57of a number
39:57of ways
39:58to kill tanks.
40:01Its cannon
40:01can penetrate
40:03the newest,
40:04most advanced
40:05Soviet armors,
40:07including reactive armor.
40:10The A-10
40:11is a good example
40:12of the return
40:13the West gets
40:14for its investment
40:15in high tech,
40:16an investment
40:17in quality
40:17rather than quantity.
40:22So we've made
40:23certain decisions
40:24about what matters
40:25most in modern warfare
40:27and we haven't decided
40:28that the bean count
40:29is what matters most
40:30and I think
40:30that's correct.
40:31But then it's inconsistent
40:32to turn around
40:33and pretend
40:34that the bean count
40:34were a revealing measure
40:35of the military balance
40:36when we spend our money
40:38as though it weren't.
40:40There are force multipliers
40:41in which we've invested heavily.
40:43Theater reconnaissance,
40:44command and control,
40:45logistics in the field,
40:46the training of our soldiers.
40:48In all these areas,
40:49I think we're superior
40:50to the Warsaw Pact,
40:51including combat
40:52technology itself.
40:54So I think
40:54when you do
40:55more serious analyses
40:56of the balance,
40:57analyses that take account
40:58of these
40:59non-bean count factors,
41:01you find that
41:02the military balance
41:03isn't nearly as bad
41:04as most people say.
41:14But on Capitol Hill,
41:15the bean count
41:16will always be around.
41:18After all,
41:19it's a good political tool,
41:20especially when it comes
41:22to budget time.
41:24Politics is the subject
41:25of our next segment
41:26on the defense of Europe,
41:28politics here
41:29and across the Atlantic.
41:31We've already seen
41:32how the political impact
41:34of the German peace movement
41:35could affect the future
41:37of the alliance.
41:38But other issues
41:39divide the allies too.
41:41For if Europeans feel
41:43they bear too much
41:44of the risk,
41:45many Americans say
41:46that we bear
41:47too much
41:48of the cost.
41:57300 kilometers
41:58north of the Arctic Circle,
42:00where the temperature
42:00rarely rises
42:01above 20 below,
42:03Canadian ski troops
42:04take part
42:05in Operation Arrowhead Express.
42:07This NATO exercise
42:14is meant to simulate
42:15the reinforcement
42:16of Norway's
42:17120-mile border
42:18with the Soviet Union.
42:20It's a combined operation
42:22that involves
42:23every kind of armament.
42:27The North Atlantic Treaty
42:29organization
42:30defends a line
42:31that stretches
42:31from North Norway
42:32to East Turkey
42:33and includes
42:3516 nations.
42:39For the past 40 years,
42:41the defense of Europe
42:41has been inextricably linked
42:43to the strategic interests
42:44of the USA,
42:46the leading power
42:47in the alliance.
42:49American troops
42:50will remain in Europe
42:51under any administration
42:53so long as the need
42:55for a forward defense
42:56of our common values
42:58remains.
42:59We cannot
43:00and will not
43:01put our peace
43:02and freedom
43:03and that of our children
43:04and their children
43:04at risk.
43:06The security of Europe
43:07is linked,
43:09is coupled with
43:10the security
43:11of the United States.
43:12And the principal ways
43:13that we've provided coupling
43:14is through
43:16the deployment
43:16in Europe
43:17of a substantial number
43:18of combat-ready troops
43:20and secondly,
43:21through the extension
43:24of an American
43:25nuclear guarantee
43:26to Europe.
43:26In other words,
43:28any Soviet leader
43:29must take into account
43:30the possibility
43:31that the use
43:31of military force
43:32in Europe
43:33could lead
43:34to the use
43:34of American nuclear weapons.
43:37When President Reagan
43:39and Mr. Gorbachev
43:40agreed to withdraw
43:41intermediate nuclear weapons,
43:43some Europeans
43:44feared it might have
43:45a decoupling effect.
43:46They foresaw the beginning
43:51of the end
43:51of America's
43:52nuclear guarantee
43:53to Europe.
43:55Others feared
43:56that the INF agreement
43:57might enable
43:58the superpowers
43:59to limit nuclear war
44:00to Europe
44:01while leaving
44:01their own countries
44:02unscathed.
44:04This is part of the concern
44:05of risk sharing.
44:07Charles de Gaulle
44:08in the 1960s
44:09argued that the United States
44:11would not trade
44:13New York
44:13or Chicago
44:14for Paris.
44:16But that is,
44:17I think,
44:17a built-in concern
44:18that the Europeans
44:19will have.
44:20We are
44:21and always have been
44:24prepared to commit
44:24our strategic forces
44:26to the defense
44:27of the alliance.
44:28And there's absolutely
44:29nothing
44:30that we have done
44:32in the past year,
44:33year and a half,
44:34to signal any change
44:35in that doctrine.
44:37So I don't know
44:38why the concern
44:39arises
44:40at this particular
44:40point in time.
44:41The concern
44:44first arose
44:44at Reykjavik
44:45when Mr. Gorbachev
44:47and President Reagan
44:47actually talked
44:48of scrapping
44:49their nuclear arsenals.
44:52Europe's leaders
44:52saw the nuclear umbrella
44:53being folded up
44:54without so much
44:55as a word
44:56of prior consultation.
44:59But it wasn't just
45:00a matter of
45:00lack of consultation.
45:02This is a radical
45:02departure
45:03from the basic
45:05doctrine
45:05of the Western alliance
45:06that nuclear weapons
45:08are essential
45:09for our security
45:10and that American
45:11nuclear weapons
45:12are essential
45:13for European security.
45:15And if you do that
45:16in a little town
45:17in Iceland
45:17on a weekend
45:18in October,
45:20my God,
45:20that must frighten
45:21politicians
45:21around the alliance.
45:24That small one.
45:25And in Europe,
45:26that's not all
45:27that frightens
45:27the political leaders
45:28of the alliance.
45:30They fear
45:31that as the Soviets
45:31seem less threatening,
45:33the Americans
45:34will grow less willing
45:35to help foot the bill
45:36for defense.
45:37They're already used
45:38to American complaints
45:39that Europe's economies
45:40have recovered
45:41from World War II.
45:43They know that
45:43massive deficits
45:44and a plunging dollar
45:45make many Americans
45:47wonder why the rich allies
45:49won't pay more
45:50for their own defense.
45:51It's an important
45:52political phenomenon here
45:54and our European friends
45:55need to understand
45:57that burden sharing
45:58has become a big issue
45:59in the United States.
46:02And while I think
46:04most Americans
46:05do not appreciate
46:06all the things
46:08that our European allies
46:09are doing,
46:11it is equally fair
46:12to say
46:12that our allies
46:16should do more.
46:17In Washington today,
46:19the cost of defending Europe
46:20is becoming
46:20a hot political issue.
46:22And a recent poll
46:23showed that 53%
46:24of Americans
46:25feel they bear
46:26an unfair share
46:27of the burden.
46:28In fact,
46:29America spends
46:30$300 billion a year
46:31on defense,
46:32or 6.9%
46:33of its gross
46:34national product.
46:36It's a huge amount
46:37of money.
46:37We have over
46:37300,000 troops
46:39in Europe
46:4040 years
46:41after the war
46:42is over.
46:44Nobody
46:45that I know
46:46of in Europe
46:46is arguing
46:47that they spend
46:48as much
46:48on their military
46:49as we do
46:49on the average.
46:50They don't.
46:51The Germans
46:51are spending
46:52half of what
46:52we're spending
46:53on defense.
46:55The Japanese
46:56won sixth
46:57of what we're
46:57spending on defense.
46:58and that
46:59is not
47:00a fair
47:00or equitable
47:01sharing of burden.
47:02We're competing
47:03with them
47:03in a world
47:04marketplace.
47:05We're at
47:05a severe
47:06disadvantage
47:06when we're
47:07laying out
47:08such a
47:09disproportionate
47:10large share
47:10of our
47:11gross
47:11national product
47:12to defend
47:12ourselves
47:14and the
47:14Europeans
47:15and the
47:15Japanese
47:16and the
47:16Koreans
47:17and everybody
47:17else.
47:18But Europeans
47:19argue that
47:20they do do
47:20their fair share
47:21for the alliance.
47:22They provide
47:2385% of
47:24NATO aircraft,
47:2570% of
47:26its tanks
47:27and 90%
47:28of its
47:28manpower.
47:30If NATO
47:31has to
47:32mobilize
47:32its forces
47:33tomorrow,
47:35Chancellor
47:35Kohl will
47:36within less
47:37than seven
47:38days be
47:39able to
47:40field 1.2
47:41million
47:41German soldiers,
47:43all of them
47:43equipped,
47:45all of them
47:45trained.
47:47The Americans
47:48have much
47:49less than
47:50have the
47:50French or
47:51the Dutch
47:52or the
47:52Germans.
47:54None of
47:54us has
47:55ever
47:55done away
47:57with
47:57conflict
47:58or with
47:58the draft.
47:59Kohlmann-Schmidt
48:00and other
48:01German leaders
48:01always point
48:02to the draft
48:02as one of
48:03the reasons
48:03why they
48:04are bearing
48:06a fair share
48:07of the burden
48:07and it's
48:07worth about
48:08one-half
48:08of 1%
48:09of GNP
48:11and so
48:11that would
48:11bring them
48:123.2
48:13to 3.7%
48:14of GNP
48:15which is
48:15still half
48:15what the
48:16United States
48:17is.
48:18They are
48:18spending
48:19much of
48:19that money
48:20for purposes
48:21which their
48:22allies
48:23nations
48:25their
48:25allies
48:26have
48:26never
48:26asked
48:27for
48:27nobody
48:28in
48:28Europe
48:28ever
48:28has
48:29asked
48:29them
48:29to
48:29develop
48:30as
48:30the
48:30IP
48:30it's
48:32clear
48:32page
48:33not
48:33our
48:34descent
48:34the
48:35president can
48:38raise the
48:39issue of
48:39burden sharing
48:40at NATO
48:40meetings
48:41but he
48:41has a
48:42problem
48:42with
48:43massive
48:44US
48:44investments
48:45at stake
48:45and annual
48:46trade
48:46worth
48:47150
48:47billion
48:48dollars
48:48America
48:49needs
48:49the
48:50alliance
48:50almost
48:51as much
48:51as Europe
48:52needs
48:52America
48:52the US
48:54might save
48:55money by
48:55pulling out
48:56troops
48:56but it
48:57could pay
48:57a high
48:58price
48:58in terms
48:58of its
48:59own
48:59economy
48:59and its
49:00own
49:00security
49:01and the
49:02Europeans
49:02know it
49:03do you think
49:04it would be
49:05a very
49:05comfortable
49:05situation
49:06for the
49:07defense
49:08of the
49:08United
49:08States
49:08to have
49:09the
49:10Soviet
49:10Union
49:10all the
49:11borders
49:12of the
49:12North
49:13Atlantic
49:13do you
49:13think
49:13it would
49:14be a
49:14good
49:14thing
49:14for
49:14the
49:15United
49:15States
49:15to lose
49:16the
49:16markets
49:16of
49:16Europe
49:17do you
49:17think
49:17it
49:18would
49:18be
49:18a good
49:18thing
49:18for
49:18the
49:18United
49:19States
49:19lose
49:19all
49:19its
49:20investments
49:20in
49:20Europe
49:21don't you
49:21think
49:22the United
49:22States
49:22might feel
49:23a little
49:23more isolated
49:24than they
49:25do now
49:25and find
49:26life
49:26a good
49:27deal
49:27more
49:28difficult
49:28if
49:30European
49:30politicians
49:31know how
49:31to play
49:32on American
49:32fears
49:33and keep
49:34so many
49:34troops
49:34committed
49:35there
49:35American
49:36politicians
49:37know
49:37that
49:37reducing
49:38their
49:38commitment
49:39would
49:39mean
49:39reducing
49:40American
49:41influence
49:41I think
49:42it's
49:43important
49:43to recognize
49:43that no
49:44serious
49:45American
49:47politician
49:48is calling
49:48for a
49:49substantial
49:49withdrawal
49:50of American
49:50troops
49:50in Europe
49:51there is a
49:51debate
49:51about our
49:52presence
49:52but none
49:53of the
49:53presidential
49:54candidates
49:54for example
49:55are calling
49:55for a
49:56reduction
49:57of 100,000
49:58troops
49:58along this
49:59line
49:59if only
50:00they did
50:01is my
50:01answer
50:02it would
50:04very quickly
50:05within two
50:06or three
50:06years
50:06lead to
50:08a setting
50:08up of a
50:09West European
50:11defensive
50:11system
50:12an integrated
50:12including
50:14France
50:14and would
50:15America
50:15lose out
50:16by that
50:16and America
50:17in fear
50:18of losing
50:19out
50:19of losing
50:21its thumb
50:21in the
50:22pie
50:22would very
50:24quickly
50:24redress
50:25that
50:26former
50:27solution
50:28that
50:29former
50:30resolution
50:30pulling
50:31up
50:31the
50:32defense
50:33of
50:33Europe
50:33costs
50:34the
50:34US
50:34dearly
50:35but
50:35to
50:35bring
50:36home
50:36troops
50:36or
50:37weaken
50:37the
50:37nuclear
50:37guarantee
50:38would
50:39diminish
50:39American
50:39influence
50:40in an
50:40important
50:41part
50:41of the
50:41world
50:42it
50:42would
50:42give
50:43away
50:43something
50:43the
50:44Soviets
50:44would
50:44have
50:44to
50:45bargain
50:45for
50:45at
50:46the
50:46NATO
50:46summit
50:47last
50:47March
50:48President
50:48Reagan
50:48probably
50:49had
50:49the
50:49Moscow
50:50summit
50:50in
50:50mind
50:51when
50:51he
50:51reaffirmed
50:52America's
50:53commitment
50:53to
50:53NATO
50:54and
50:54to
50:54nuclear
50:55deterrence
50:55all of
50:57us
50:57understand
50:58the
50:58absolute
50:58necessity
50:59of
50:59maintaining
51:00the
51:00credibility
51:01of
51:01our
51:01deterrent
51:02we
51:03will
51:03never
51:03trade
51:04that
51:04credibility
51:04away
51:05at the
51:05negotiating
51:06table
51:06and
51:07we
51:08won't
51:08give
51:08it
51:08away
51:08through
51:09neglect
51:09President
51:11Reagan's
51:11commitment
51:12to
51:12maintain
51:13nuclear
51:13deterrence
51:14as the
51:14key
51:15to
51:15the
51:15defense
51:15of
51:16Western
51:16Europe
51:16depends
51:17not
51:18only
51:18on
51:18achieving
51:19a
51:19balance
51:19of
51:19nuclear
51:20weapons
51:20with
51:21the
51:21Soviet
51:21Union
51:21the
51:22U.S.
51:23must
51:23also
51:24continue
51:24to
51:24convince
51:25its
51:25allies
51:26and
51:26the
51:26Russians
51:27that
51:28in
51:28the
51:28end
51:28it
51:29is
51:29willing
51:29to
51:29actually
51:30use
51:30those
51:30weapons
51:31in
51:32the
51:32final
51:32segment
51:33of
51:33this
51:33program
51:34time
51:34Washington
51:35Bureau
51:35Chief
51:36Strobe
51:36Talbot
51:37who
51:37has
51:38written
51:38extensively
51:38on
51:39arms
51:39control
51:40brings
51:40us
51:41back
51:41home
51:41from
51:42Europe
51:42to
51:43explore
51:43the
51:43dark
51:44dilemma
51:44at
51:45the
51:45heart
51:45of
51:45nuclear
51:46strategy
52:05the
52:08ultimate
52:08instruments
52:09of
52:09war
52:09are
52:10intercontinental
52:10ballistic
52:11missiles
52:11like
52:12the
52:12Minuteman
52:133
52:13ICBMs
52:14here
52:15at
52:15Minot
52:15Air Force
52:16Base
52:16in
52:17North
52:17Dakota
52:17they
52:19are
52:19part
52:20of
52:20a
52:20very
52:20peculiar
52:21spectacle
52:21an
52:22awesome
52:23display
52:23of
52:24warriors
52:24and
52:24weapons
52:25whose
52:25real
52:26mission
52:26is
52:27not
52:27to
52:27fight
52:27at
52:27all
52:28but
52:28to
52:29prevent
52:29their
52:29enemy
52:30from
52:30fighting
52:30their
52:32mission
52:32in
52:32short
52:33is
52:33not
52:33war
52:34but
52:35the
52:35deterrence
52:35of
52:36war
52:36throughout
52:38history
52:38sooner
52:39or
52:39later
52:39if
52:40political
52:40hostilities
52:41were
52:41sufficiently
52:41intense
52:42deterrence
52:43failed
52:44and
52:44war
52:45began
52:45the
52:4819th
52:49century
52:49Prussian
52:49strategist
52:50Karl
52:50von
52:51Clausewitz
52:51put it
52:52this
52:52way
52:53war
52:54he
52:54said
52:54is
52:55the
52:55continuation
52:55of
52:56politics
52:56or
52:57policy
52:57by
52:58other
52:58means
52:59then
53:01suddenly
53:02in
53:021945
53:03literally
53:04in a
53:04flash
53:05of
53:05light
53:05everything
53:06changed
53:07the
53:08United
53:08States
53:08dropped
53:09two
53:09atomic
53:10bombs
53:10on
53:10Japan
53:11within
53:12months
53:13a
53:13number
53:13of
53:13thinkers
53:14came
53:14to
53:14the
53:15revelation
53:15of
53:15a
53:16great
53:16paradox
53:16the
53:18American
53:18scholar
53:19Bernard
53:19Brody
53:20said
53:20it
53:20first
53:21and
53:21said
53:21it
53:21best
53:22thus
53:23far
53:23he
53:24wrote
53:24referring
53:25to
53:25the
53:25previous
53:2592,000
53:26years
53:27the
53:28chief
53:28purpose
53:28of
53:29our
53:29military
53:29establishment
53:30has been
53:30to
53:30win
53:31wars
53:31from
53:32now
53:32on
53:33its
53:33chief
53:33purpose
53:34must
53:34be
53:35to
53:35avert
53:35them
53:35it
53:36can
53:36have
53:37almost
53:37no
53:38other
53:38useful
53:39purpose
53:39so
53:40in
53:41that
53:41sense
53:41deterrence
53:42has
53:42become
53:42an
53:43end
53:43in
53:43itself
53:44but
53:44it
53:45has
53:45also
53:45remained
53:45a
53:46paradox
53:46even
53:47in
53:48the
53:48nuclear
53:48age
53:48the
53:49essence
53:49of
53:49deterrence
53:50is
53:51persuading
53:51your
53:51potential
53:52enemy
53:52that
53:52you
53:52mean
53:53business
53:53if
53:54your
53:54enemy
53:54believes
53:55that
53:55you
53:55take
53:56Bernard
53:56Brody's
53:56wisdom
53:57too
53:57literally
53:57and
53:58won't
53:58use
53:59your
53:59nuclear
53:59weapons
54:00under
54:00any
54:00circumstances
54:01he
54:02may
54:02attack
54:02you
54:02or
54:03your
54:03allies
54:03you
54:04will
54:04be
54:04the
54:04one
54:05who's
54:05deterred
54:05not
54:05him
54:06so
54:09the
54:09paradox
54:09in
54:10its
54:10starkest
54:11and
54:11most
54:11perplexing
54:12form
54:12is
54:12this
54:13the
54:14alliance
54:14of
54:15industrialized
54:15democracies
54:16must
54:17have
54:17a
54:17plausible
54:18answer
54:18to
54:19the
54:19question
54:19what
54:20if
54:20deterrence
54:21fails
54:21in order
54:22to be
54:22sure
54:23that
54:23deterrence
54:23does
54:24not
54:24fail
54:24Brody
54:27realized
54:27that
54:28with
54:28nuclear
54:28weapons
54:29lurking
54:29in the
54:30background
54:30of the
54:30superpower
54:31competition
54:32the
54:32day
54:33might
54:33come
54:33when
54:33the
54:34initiation
54:34of
54:34hostilities
54:35on any
54:36scale
54:36with
54:37any
54:37weapons
54:37would
54:38risk
54:39mimicking
54:39the
54:39phenomenon
54:40of
54:40nuclear
54:41fission
54:41that
54:41takes
54:42place
54:42inside
54:43the
54:43bomb
54:43itself
54:44a
54:45single
54:45bullet
54:46fired
54:46in
54:47anger
54:47by a
54:48Soviet
54:48sentry
54:49at a
54:49GI
54:49on the
54:50other
54:50side
54:51of a
54:51barbed
54:51wire
54:52fence
54:52might
54:53be
54:53like
54:53a
54:53lone
54:54particle
54:54entering
54:55the
54:55unstable
54:56nucleus
54:56of a
54:57plutonium
54:57atom
54:58setting
54:59off
54:59a
54:59chain
54:59reaction
55:00in
55:01which
55:01the
55:01two
55:01combatants
55:02would
55:02have
55:02obliterated
55:03each
55:03other
55:04and much
55:04else
55:05besides
55:05such
55:07an
55:07outcome
55:07would
55:08not
55:08qualify
55:08as
55:09victory
55:09for
55:09either
55:10side
55:10nor
55:11would
55:11it
55:11qualify
55:12as
55:12defeat
55:12it
55:13would
55:13qualify
55:14only
55:14as
55:15the
55:15end
55:15of
55:16days
55:16no
55:18matter
55:18how
55:18successful
55:19Mr.
55:19Reagan
55:20and
55:20Mr.
55:20Gorbachev
55:21are
55:21at
55:21their
55:21summit
55:22in
55:22advancing
55:22the
55:23cause
55:23of
55:23reducing
55:23nuclear
55:24weapons
55:24our
55:25safety
55:26and
55:26survival
55:27will
55:27continue
55:28to
55:28depend
55:28on
55:29the
55:29Soviets
55:30fearing
55:30that
55:30we
55:30might
55:31in
55:31some
55:31extreme
55:32circumstance
55:33use
55:33them
55:33that we
55:34might
55:35think
55:35that
55:35our
55:36best
55:36brains
55:36and
55:36highest
55:37leaders
55:37have
55:38said
55:38many
55:38times
55:39for
55:39many
55:39years
55:40would
55:40probably
55:41be
55:41suicidal
55:42if
55:45that
55:45sounds
55:45less
55:45than
55:46entirely
55:46logical
55:47be
55:47patient
55:48and
55:48be
55:48charitable
55:48one
55:49can
55:50say
55:50about
55:50deterrence
55:51what
55:51Winston
55:51Churchill
55:52once
55:52said
55:52about
55:52democracy
55:53it's
55:54the
55:54worst
55:54possible
55:55system
55:55except
55:56for
55:56any
55:56conceivable
55:57alternative
55:58and
55:59consider
55:59also
55:59the
56:00illogic
56:00of
56:00the
56:00situation
56:01with
56:02which
56:02deterrence
56:02helps
56:03us
56:03to
56:03cope
56:03remember
56:04that
56:04if
56:05Alice
56:05were
56:05to
56:06tumble
56:06down
56:06the
56:06rabbit
56:07hole
56:07into
56:07the
56:07wonderland
56:08of
56:08nuclear
56:08strategy
56:09there
56:10would
56:10be
56:10Bernard
56:11Brody
56:11huffing
56:12a
56:12hookah
56:13sitting
56:13on
56:13a
56:13toadstool
56:14and
56:14nearby
56:15Clausewitz
56:16standing
56:17on his
56:17head
56:17peace
56:19between
56:20the
56:20superpowers
56:21has
56:21become
56:21the
56:22conduct
56:22of
56:22war
56:23by
56:23other
56:24means
56:24so
56:26it
56:26has
56:27been
56:27for
56:27more
56:27than
56:2740
56:28years
56:28and
56:29if
56:30the
56:30soldiers
56:30statesmen
56:31and
56:31diplomats
56:32we
56:32have
56:33been
56:33listening
56:33to
56:33on
56:34this
56:34program
56:34are
56:34right
56:35so
56:36it
56:36will
56:36be
56:36for
56:36another
56:3740
56:37for
56:38as
56:38long
56:38as
56:39it
56:39takes
56:39to
56:40come
56:40up
56:40with
56:41something
56:41better
56:42thank
56:46you
56:46for
56:46joining
56:46us
56:47for
56:47Frontline
56:48and
56:48for
56:48Time
56:49Magazine
56:49I'm
56:50Judy
56:50Woodruff
56:51good
56:51night
57:09for
57:10and
57:10for
57:10and
57:10for
57:11to
57:11go
57:11for
57:11to
57:11to
58:12And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
58:19Educational organizations may inquire about videocassettes by calling 1-800-424-7963.
58:26For a transcript of this program, please send $4 to Frontline, Box 322, Boston, Massachusetts.
58:4202134.
Recommended
1:58:14
|
Up next
56:50
55:47
57:53
57:52
56:23
57:52
57:59
1:56:43
56:46
1:19
8:00
10:00
1:52
57:53
58:05
1:56:45
45:23
46:04
50:45
50:51
Be the first to comment