Thursday, September 26, 2013
The Pros and Cons of Eisenhower's New Look
Eisenhower and Dulles did not want to turn dramatically away from Truman's anti-communist stance, but they did want to change the direction of foreign policy to make it less expensive. What, according to Dulles, were ways in which massive retaliation could reduce American military spending? Why do you think the Soviets were reluctant to accept Eisenhower's plan for "Open Skies" after Stalin's death?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to Dulles, the foreign policy of the past has relied too much on "emergency measures". As good as that capability to get out of an emergency may be, Dulles raises the point that they "are costly, they are superficial, and they imply that the enemy has the initiative." This opposing method of "massive retaliation" calls for more planned military spending so that these "emergency" actions don't keep happening. As for Eisenhower's plan, I completely see how the Soviets were reluctant to accept. First of all, Eisenhower's plan is not very realistic. I don not think that any country would openly share their military blueprints in the first place. Second, after Stalin's death, I would assume that the Soviets felt a little unstable, they would never have agreed to something so preposterous so soon.
ReplyDeleteDulles lists his ideas to improve military spending by sort of endorsing negotiations rather than war, providing Korea as an example where they chose to pull out "on honorable terms." and continues to discuss their continuing (though not entirely hopeful) efforts to reunify Korea. He then talks a bit about meeting with the soviet leaders in Berlin to discuss matters of Austria and reunification of Germany, etc etc. The passage doesnt really go into the soviet's reaction to Eisenhower's plan of "open skies" though its sort of easy to imagine why a government wouldnt want to share their entire blueprint with another country, particularly America. Especially when they know that they had already sort of broken America's trust making it more likely that America might not be as morally hesitant to do the same in return.
ReplyDeleteDulles said "The basic decision was to retaliate, instantly, by means and places at our choosing". This new establishment was to 'play or own game" meaning doing what's best to fit out own policy, not being obligated to meet the enemy's choices. He wanted the US and Soviet Union to give each other military blueprints and provide pictures of facilities in their countries; this was supposed to lessen danger and relax tension. Dulles wanted an "effective system of inspection and disarmament". I think the Soviets were reluctant because giving another country blueprints is very risky and can back fire. However, they do say keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
ReplyDeleteDulles plan was to invest more into nuclear weapons instead of "conventional military". I think that maintaining a mobilized army in order to threaten the soviet union is a lot more expensive and not as effective as stocking up on bombs that can erase a country just like that.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, Dullan says explicitly in his essay that he is not completely rejecting the former foreign policies. This shows that he isn't in it for a truly radical change. A lot of things stay, for example the financial support of western European countries that may be sabotaged by the communist countries. But, as it has been mentioned before, he thinks that Truman's politics were too often based on emergency situations, and weren't elaborate enough.
I think that the approach that Eisenhower and Dulles make when spending less on emergency situations and more on our nuclear stockpile was a good idea at the time because it is better to be better prepared then the enemy is in firepower. I think that the way they used Truman's blueprint,but revised it so it fit their goals and the goals of national security were pretty good. I think that the open skies act was a little much due to the fact that missiles could come from space and that the death of stalin left russia in a bit of a power struggle and in an unstable state. It can be seen as Eisenhower hitting the USSR where it hurts when it hurts the most.
ReplyDeleteThe main goal dukes and Eisenhower had on spending was less of direct military situations and more on developing and enhancing nuclear their nuclear weapons. This way technically they will be spending less on the military but will still be spending money on the nuclear power so is it really worth it? I agree with Mikey when he says that idea of using Truman's blue prints revised were pretty smart. Eventhough our reading didn't spend much time behind the open skies act, one can imagine how the soviets thought.
ReplyDeleteDulles believed strongly in the nuclear bomb as an alternative to the formal definition of 'militarization.' As in the US wouldn't directly be spending money on the military(as in troops, equipment and supplies) just on a few bombs and planes. Supposedly 'a fraction of the cost' of what we were spending, with the extreme devastation and wide spread radius of the Nuclear weapons making up for lack of manpower. The Societ's reluctancy stemmed from the fact that the US would still hold the advantage even if the "Open Skies" truly meant anyone could spy on anyone. But Since the US had better spy planes at the time (like the now infamous U-2's and now famous F-71's, i could rant about these forever) the air-intelligence-superiority gave the US a clear advantage over the Soviets and they obviously dont want to help the enemy in a time of "war."
ReplyDelete