558
PARTISAN REVIEW
coffee, and they are cranky, and they don't know what the other guy
is up to in this most profound crisis. And a hotshot colonel comes in
there and he is a very clever briefer. Is he going to be able to offer a
plan to a desperate leadership to resolve the crisis? The concern is
that in a situation in which both sides have leaky defenses deployed,
the clever briefer could walk through the mathematics of how many
missiles get through the defense in a first strike versus how many get
through if there are two defensive interceptors per incoming missile,
versus how many missiles get through if there are ten interceptor
missiles - and so forth and so on. The concern is that with leaky de–
fenses a clever briefer would be able to walk through the mathematics
and demonstrate that if we strike first, the other guy is only going to
be able to get a hundred warheads to land on our territory. Whereas
if we strike second, we're only going to be able to get a hundred war–
heads to land. But the guy who strikes first is going to be able to put
five thousand warheads on the targets. And the difference between
striking first and striking second is the difference between 20 million
dead and 150 million dead.
If
I can play out a little scenario here, as
General Turgidson said in
Doctor Strange/ove,
the clever briefer would
say, "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I am say–
ing ten to twenty million tops, depending on the breaks."
LIONEL ABEL: He sounds more like a Russian than an American.
BERNARD GROSSMAN: The President appealed to what I think
virtually everyone desires, that is, to find some scheme that would
motivate us and make it possible for both sides to reduce nuclear
arms. Right now, it doesn't seem as if there is sufficient motivation
for us to get to the bargaining table and reduce significantly the
number of nuclear arms. Policy is essentially based upon mutual as–
sured destruction. And although I have heard discussion on limited
nuclear strikes, I think most people would say it's based on mutual
assured destruction. With a leaky defense, it seems that this would
create the motivation for a reduction in arms. Just using Mr. Pike's
argument that there is an advantage in a first strike is additional mo–
tivation for each side to go ahead and reduce the arms. I admit that
it is possible that the creation of such a system would be more desta–
bilizing. But once the system were present, in operation for both sides,
then I think the motivation would be toward reduction on both sides.
There would be a defense to protect against the "clever briefer."
DENNIS WRONG: I was worried about the same point that Lionel
Abel brought up. I just wanted to make sure that I understand what
Mr. Pike said, that the second strike, after a first strike that had
