On the Right

New York, Dec. 14—What would you do if you were the Secretary of the Navy, and found yourself visiting Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December? Why, you would strike a blow for liberty—by writing a letter to the New York Times. That is what the Honorable J. William Middendorf II did, anyway, en route to the Antarctic on his farewell tour of duty. That epistle to the heathens was published on the same day that Henry Kissinger, in his farewell tour of duty to Europe, cautioned against letting down our guard in NATO.

What prompted Mr. Middendorf to write was a strange editorial in the New York Times, hailing the “good news” that the Russians have successfully MIRVed their submarine ballistic missiles. Now this has to be stated plainly in order to be understood, because the New York Times editorial page is not, repeat not, written by Communists. Their reasoning is based on the so-called Disequilibrium Doctrine, which holds that superpowers are best off when approximately equal in strength. If it should happen (the doctrine goes on) that one superpower achieved, or threatened to achieve, decisive superiority, why then the underdog, or prospective underdog, might reason that this is his last chance—and go to war, undertaking a pre-emptive strike. By this analysis, so long as Moscow didn’t have MIRVed missiles in its submarines, but we had MIRVed missiles in our submarines, some people in Moscow would be whispering that the United States’ decisive advantage should be taken out in a first strike.

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review magazine in 1955.

Featured Tags

New York, Dec. 14—What would you do if you were the Secretary of the Navy, and found yourself visiting Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December? Why, you would strike a blow for liberty—by writing a letter to the New York Times. That is what the Honorable J. William Middendorf II did, anyway, en route to the Antarctic on his farewell tour of duty. That epistle to the heathens was published on the same day that Henry Kissinger, in his farewell tour of duty to Europe, cautioned against letting down our guard in NATO.

What prompted Mr. Middendorf to write was a strange editorial in the New York Times, hailing the “good news” that the Russians have successfully MIRVed their submarine ballistic missiles. Now this has to be stated plainly in order to be understood, because the New York Times editorial page is not, repeat not, written by Communists. Their reasoning is based on the so-called Disequilibrium Doctrine, which holds that superpowers are best off when approximately equal in strength. If it should happen (the doctrine goes on) that one superpower achieved, or threatened to achieve, decisive superiority, why then the underdog, or prospective underdog, might reason that this is his last chance—and go to war, undertaking a pre-emptive strike. By this analysis, so long as Moscow didn’t have MIRVed missiles in its submarines, but we had MIRVed missiles in our submarines, some people in Moscow would be whispering that the United States’ decisive advantage should be taken out in a first strike.