Confrontations of the Third Kind

Conversations I have had in recent weeks with some of President Reagan’s top World War III strategists lead me to suspect that the President in fact has a clear understanding of the current nature of international terrorism, even though (perhaps because he believes he cannot expect a sympathetic hearing from the media) he has not discussed the matter in detail in any of his public statements. There are two points that are basic to this understanding: first, that international terrorism is now just that, an international complex of terrorist campaigns which, although perhaps not directed or even instigated by the Soviets, could not exist without their “orchestration” and support. Second, that international terrorism is not simply laying the groundwork for World War III, nor is it the Soviets’ substitute for it. International terrorism is their World War III.

In our protracted conflict with the Soviets, there are three scenarios, three possible types of confrontation. Of these, the chances of a nuclear war— a “Confrontation of the First Kind”— have been reduced to an irreducible minimum. They cannot be reduced to zero, because what has been invented cannot be uninvested. But the fact is, deterrence has worked, and it will no doubt continue to work. Our side certainly isn’t going to start a nuclear war, and the Soviets want the kind of war they can win.

MC

About the Author

Miles Copeland

Featured Tags

Conversations I have had in recent weeks with some of President Reagan’s top World War III strategists lead me to suspect that the President in fact has a clear understanding of the current nature of international terrorism, even though (perhaps because he believes he cannot expect a sympathetic hearing from the media) he has not discussed the matter in detail in any of his public statements. There are two points that are basic to this understanding: first, that international terrorism is now just that, an international complex of terrorist campaigns which, although perhaps not directed or even instigated by the Soviets, could not exist without their “orchestration” and support. Second, that international terrorism is not simply laying the groundwork for World War III, nor is it the Soviets’ substitute for it. International terrorism is their World War III.

In our protracted conflict with the Soviets, there are three scenarios, three possible types of confrontation. Of these, the chances of a nuclear war— a “Confrontation of the First Kind”— have been reduced to an irreducible minimum. They cannot be reduced to zero, because what has been invented cannot be uninvested. But the fact is, deterrence has worked, and it will no doubt continue to work. Our side certainly isn’t going to start a nuclear war, and the Soviets want the kind of war they can win.