Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1563080
label
National Security Speech
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1563080
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
National Security Speech
citationUrl
collections
John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)
John Marsh's General Subject Files
subjects
National security
Speeches, addresses, etc.
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1563080
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-03-31
month
3
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-03-01
month
3
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
6042e7fdae9edd8b
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 22, folder "National Security Speech" of the
John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 22 of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
March 27, 1976
Draft of National Security Speech
My Fellow Americans:
In recent weeks, as the state of our Nation's economy
has sharply improved, the focus of this year's political
campaigns has begun to shift away from economic concerns.
Suddenly the airwaves have been jammed with cries of alarm
over the position of the United States in the world and the
readiness of our defenses. Much of this, of course, is
political talk that will last only to the election, but
some of it is SO misleading and harmful that it can weaken
the United States.
I cannot -- as your President and Commander-in-Chief --
allow this process to continue unchallenged.
Today two conflicting notions are confusing and deceiving
many people.
One is that we are spending far too much money for defense --
2
that social needs should be paid for first, then any money
left over should be used for defense.
The second notion is the other way around. It holds
that we are spending far too little for defense. It also
asserts that the United States has slipped into military
inferiority SO that our international outlook is either terribly
dangerous or hopeless. Apparently the solution is to launch
huge, crash programs and then challenge the Soviet Union to a
shoot-out at high noon.
Now, these two views cannot both be right. In fact,
neither one is -- and both hurt our country. If we accept still
more defense cuts, we will indeed become second rate militarily
and we will become vulnerable to international blackmail. And
yet, if the addicts of confrontations are allowed to shape
our policies, we will wreck the stability SO carefully achieved
and plunge ourselves once again into the perils and tensions
3
of Cold War. Both of these notions would thus point us in
the same direction: toward a disruption of peace and a
world distraught with fear of war.
If we lived in a world free of danger, we could smile
at such notions and let them go. But not in today's environment.
Our policies must be solidly grounded in well-informed public
opinion. This places a heavy duty on people who are seeking
public office to contribute responsibily to public understanding.
Slogans, half-truths and political exaggeration must not become
a substitute for sound policies.
4
As a nation, we have to see the world as it actually is,
not as we wish it were or as it might look through a political
lens. Foreign policy must evolve from hard realities, not
political fiction.
What, then, are those realities around us?
*
One stands out above all others -- the United States
is still today
the most powerful nation on earth.
Our economy is by far the largest and most productive,
accounting for some
% of the world's wealth.
Our living standards are the most advanced in all of man's
history.
Our technology is still unmatched; even today it continues
to run at least five years ahead of the Soviet Union's.
5
At a time when the number of democracies in the world
has dwindled to less than two dozen, we remain the best
hope and inspiration for all of mankind.
And contrary to those who poormouth the national defense,
the military strength of this country remains unsurpassed by
any other nation.
Of course it's true, and has long been true, as I have
continually reminded the Congress, that the Soviets are
numerically strong in some categories, equal in others, and
behind us in others.
Because of such differences, critics play the numbers
game to prove American weakness.
But it is dangerous and misleading to focus on one particular
weapon, on numbers of soldiers, or on any other isolated index of
strength, when measuring power among nations.
It is always true that the Soviets lead us in some areas, break
even in others, and trail in others. For example:
6
The Soviets are Number One in the size and number of
intercontinental ballistic missiles. That's been so for years.
On the other hand, the United States is Number One in the
quality and sophistication of these missiles -- in their accuracy, for
example -- and this too has long been true.
They lead us in the number of soldiers, and they always have.
We lead in the quality and equipment of soldiers -- and, fortunately,
we need far fewer soldiers than the Soviets do.
They are ahead in numbers of ships. But we are far ahead in
the power and size of ships and in professionalism at sea.
They lead in certain types of aircraft. We lead in others.
So it goes all across the board. What matters is over-all balance,
not this or that item. What matters too is what our top military
leaders think about it. They are agreed that, fitting the pieces all
together, we have a "rough equivalency" today with the Soviet Union.
7
This means that those who shout we're behind either don't know what
they are talking about -- which, let's face it, is not too unlikely -- - -
or else they're not too concerned about what they say.
Most important of all is not where we are, right here, right now.
The absolutely critical thing is where we are headed. It is the trend
in the balance of power that outweighs everything.
That trend, fellow Americans, is unquestionably bad -- - and it
has been bad for a considerable time. Last year and again this year I have
emphatically asked Congress to join with me in redressing that trend.
8
In the past 10 years, the Soviets have expanded their
defense program by about a third. Ours is 14% smaller than
in the early 1960's.
The number of Soviet military personnel are up by about
a third over the last decade; ours are at the lowest
level in a quarter of a century.
Since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the Soviets
have built more than 1,300 new ships. We have built 300,
and our active fleet today is half its size 10 years ago.
Since 1968 the Soviets have sharply increased their
tactical aircraft force and have built a production base half
again as large as ours. In the meantime, our own number of
active tactical aircraft has dropped by 40%.
This trend tells only part of the story. Another part
has been written by a series of disturbing events in recent
years, including:
9
-- The Middle East War of October, 1973 and the oil
embargo of that fall and winter;
-- The Greek-Cypriot coup and Turkish invasion of the
summer of 1974;
-- The military overrun of South Vietnam and the capture
of Saigon in April of 1975;
-- The Communist effort to capture and control the revolution
in Portugal during 1974 and 1975;
-- And weeks ago, the Soviet and Cuban-backed military
take over in Angola, thousands of miles from their border.
10
These events give no support at all to the notion that Soviet
intentions are benign and that we can let our defenses down. Instead,
they suggest that the dictum of Lenin of years still prevails. "Push
out like a bayonet, 11 he told his comrades. "If you strike fat, push
harder. If you strike steel, pull back and await a better time. "
So we just can't go on bleeding our defenses for other purposes.
I am as determined as I know the vast majority of Americans are that we
not let ourselves sink to an inferior status.
That is exactly why, for two years running, I have given Congress
the largest defense budgets in all our peacetime history. It is why I
flatly oppose any cut at all in the budget submitted last January, because
we just have to have that budget to turn the corner on the sliding power
ratio. It is why I have personally put many Members of Congress on notice
that I intend to veto the defense appropriation -- unprecedented though
that would be -- and go straight and hard to the country if Congress
hands me a budget too low for the future safety of the American people.
10 A
I make this added point, and I say this very seriously: I greatly
welcome the sudden preoccupation of various candidates with defense
and foreign policy, even though one wonders if it is brought on by
the collapsing of other issues rather than by celestial inspiration.
I welcome it because I do know these programs very intimately,
having worked with them for many years; and I know that, if only they
are fairly presented out across the country, they will help you give
some of our chronic Congressional backsliders the spine to stand up
at last for enough dollars for defense.
So if our professional worriers -- who, it seems, tripped over
the Pentagon along the campaign trail -- will only join me in fighting
for the defense money we need from Congress, we'll get along just fine.
Let's hope all these political hopefuls won't chase off too soon after more
seductive targets. Right now, more than they realize, they're about
to do something right for America.
11
One other reality may be a saving grace for us all in this
troubled time.
From my trips to the Soviet Union, to Europe, to Asia
and elsewhere, it is abundantly clear to me that even as
national governments sometimes glare at one another across
huge arsenals, there is also an enormous yearning of
their peoples for peace.
The people of Leningrad and Moscow are as sick of
war as those of London, Paris, and Berlin. They all know
the sorrows of losing their loved ones. They know the
sufferings of those maimed in battle. Many have known the
horrors of military siege. Millions of us, in all nations,
have tasted the bitter fruits of war. None of us wants any
of it again.
Thus, there is an enormous human yearning and drive
impelling us all to deal with world problems in a rational
way.
12
After reducing the complicated details of weapons and diplomacy,
the essential fact emerges that our nation's policy toward the Soviet Union
must proceed on two tracks simultaneously -- we must be tough but also
conciliatory, we must spend enough to maintain a balance of power but
not tip the balance toward war, and we must be willing to apply our
strength where our real interests lie but reduce tensions whenever we
can. In short, we must tirelessly pursue peace through strength.
That is my policy today.
This policy has many parts -- most critically, we must not simply
have the power, but also be willing to act when adversaries move to
ravage other lands. Recent Soviet and Cuban intrusions into Angola
were flagrant and unconscionable. The United States would have
forestalled this effort had the Congress not turned away. We must not
let so shameful an experience be repeated elsewheare in the world.
13
Let us further recognize that an effective foreign policy,
like effective military action, is impossible without a strong intelligence
capability. I have recently proposed the most massive overhaul of our
intelligence establishment in a quarter of a century. I intend to see
that our intelligence forces keep us better informed about the world
environment while at the same time they are strictly prevented from
abusing the rights of American citizens.
Finally, a consistent and effective foreign policy requires that
our Executive and Legislative branches work cooperatively. As a
veteran of Congress, I appreciate the significant role of the legislative
branch in the shaping of foreign and defense policies. But this function
must not be carried to the point of crippling the nation's ability to act
swiftly and decisively on the world stage. The Congress has neither the
constitutional duty nor historically has it shown the capability to conduct
American foreign policy. It is for the President to do that, and as long
14
as I am in this office, I intend to do all I can to see that the President
remains effectively in charge of American policy.
Even as we are unyielding in defense of our national
interests, we must be unyielding in our search for just and
lasting peace. Untiring diplomacy can open many arenas
for progress in strengthening the peace.
Trade, energy, aviation -- all offer fruitful areas
for cooperation. But at the core of our negotiations is
our concern over nuclear war.
The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks initiated in 1969
clearly offer the best hope for sanity in world relations.
Since the beginning of this process, those responsible for
negotiations have faced pressures from all quarters -- both
to speed up and to slow the negotiations. Instead, we have
chosen to steer a steady, middle course based on a realistic
perception of our strategic interests. Those interests do
not lie in an uncontrolled arms race but in regulating the
competition and in maintaining a balance at the lowest possible
level. And as we stabilize the strategic balance, our resources
15
can be used in other areas such as regional defense and
in sea power where imbalances can have serious consequences.
People who argue that the SALT talks penalize the
United States are just dead wrong. Had it not been for
the SALT I negotiations, we would have been forced to
massive expenditures for the deployment of anti-ballistic
missile systems. In addition, those talks halted the momentum
of the Soviet missile buildup for five years without
sacrificing our own programs. Finally, in Vladivostok we
began the negotiation of an agreement which -- if successfully
completed -- will require equal ceilings on missiles, heavy
bombers and multiwarhead missiles and would for the first
time in history require the Soviets to dismantle many
weapons -- again without sacrifices on our side.
There are still important issues to be resolved in the
current SALT talks, but if we approach them in the same
16
steady manner that led to the previous agreements, we
will succeed. Under no circumstances will we be stampeded
by arbitrary deadlines, and as in the past, we will be
guided solely by our own national interests.
I believe in the ability of the American people to
guage the national security issues which face our nation.
I trust their judgment.
The election year is still young. There is time to
return reason and perspective to our national debate on
foreign policy. Those who seek our nation's highest office
have an obligation to spell out the alternative directions
they propose in foreign policy and National defense.
17
This is a great country. Whoever holds this office
next year must work day and night to keep it SO. We are
blessed with abundant resources. We are the strongest
military and economic power in the world's history. But
our greatness comes from the spirit and creativity of our
people.
We are a nation of immigrants joined in forging a great
nation through exceptional unity of purpose. Our unity has
stood the challenge of time and adversity. Despite a
decade of more of severe testing -- despite assassination,
war, domestic unrest and institutional crisis -- we still
remain a united people.
I am convinced that the American people still accept the
challenge of world leadership. If we summon the American spirit
18
and restore our dedication, we will have a decisive and
positive impact on the millions of people in distant lands
who continue to look to us for moral leadership.
Those with faith in America must speak the truth to the
American people:
-- The truth that we are strong and at peace;
-- The truth that the answers to the problems we face
are neither easy nor final;
-- The truth that we must conduct a long-term, responsible
foreign policy, without escape or respite;
-- The truth that what is attainable at any one moment
will inevitably fall short of the ideal;
-- The truth that the reach of our power has its limits;
--- The truth that we have the strength and determination
to defend our interests and the conviction to uphold our values;
and finally,
-- The truth that we have the opportunity to leave our children
a more just and more peaceful world than we have known.
19
My friends, if the people of this country deserve anything
at all from their government, it is that their leaders will not
spare their efforts to preserve the secure peace which we now
enjoy.
Our memories should not be so short as to forget the
great damage of confrontation and war. It is such a rarity for
us to experience a stable peace that some candidates fail to
recognize the new opportunities for progress and growth.
The unprecedented challenge of maintaining this peace
in which human potentials can flourish now faces us all.
Meeting this challenge is my overriding objectice as your
President.
Our task is not to build an isolated fortress, America.
It is to remind ourselves and the world that
20
we remain the last hope for human freedom and dignity
everywhere.
I pledge to keep America strong -- militarily,
economically, and otherwise --- not just so that we can
survive in a world increasingly hostile to individual
freedom, but so that this great experiment in human dignity
conceived 200 years ago can be strengthened for the benefit
of our fellowman, This wonderful legacy of freedom and
progress which has been bestowed on each of us requires that
we do no less.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Jach-
Now we are as the
right track.
GO least the TT and
D/R are an the same
frequency. Till near
saying "rough equivalency
and citing economic
power as part of the
equation that results
in our designation as
the strongest power on
earth." the hard right
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
critics will, however,
shoot through the
definition and, in search
of a direct response
to the #1, equal, or
# 2 argument, will
want to restrict the
argument to the question,
"are we or are we not
#1 melitarily?"
In any event, some
of the stabborness is
moving in right direction. Run
subsiding and we are
MAR 29 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK CHENEY
FROM:
BRYCE HARLOW
DAVE GERGEN
SUBJECT:
National Security Speech
Here is a first cut at the speech that was requested. Don
Rumsfeld and Larry Eagleburger have both reviewed and many
of their comments are incorporated here, but both want to
be sure that they have further cuts at it. (There are
still some differences to resolve.) Brent Scowcroft had
some very good changes which, unfortunately, came in just
after this draft was completed; they can be incorporated
in the next round.
We are providing copies of this draft to Rumsfeld, Eagleburger,
Scowcroft and Marsh.
CC: Bob Hartmann
" TOPO NEWARK
March 28, 1976
REVISED DRAFT: NATIONAL SECURITY SPEECH
My Fellow Americans:
In recent weeks, as the impressive gains in our
economy have become more apparent, the focus of this year's
political campaign has begun to shift away from economic
concerns. Suddenly the airwaves have been jammed with
cries of alarm over the position of the United States in
the world and the readiness of our defenses. Much of this,
of course, is political talk that will last only to the
election, but some of it is so misleading and harmful that
it can weaken the United States.
I cannot -- as your President and Commander-in-Chief --
allow this confusion to continue unchallenged.
Today two conflicting notions are deceiving many
people.
2
One is that we are spending far too much money for
defense -- that we have an excess of military power so
that social programs should be paid for first, and then
any money left over should be used for national security.
The second notion is the other way around. It holds
that we are spending far too little for defense, and that
the United States has slipped into military inferiority so
that our international outlook is either terribly dangerous
or hopeless.
Now, these two opposite views cannot both be right.
In fact, neither one is --- and both can be harmful to our
country. It is clear to me that if we continue to reduce
our investments in national defense, we will indeed become
second rate militarily, and we will become vulnerable to
3
international blackmail. And yet, if the apostles of
confrontation are allowed to shape our policies, we will
wreck the stability we have -- imperfect though it is --
and plunge ourselves into perils far worse than the Cold
War. Thus, both of these extreme notions would point us
in the same direction: toward a disruption of peace and
a world distraught with fear of war.
If we lived in a world free of danger, we could smile
at such notions and let them go. But not in today's en-
vironment. Our policies must be solidly grounded in well-
informed public opinion. This places a heavy duty on people
who are in high public office or seeking that office to
contribute responsibly to public understanding. Slogans,
half-truths and political exaggeration must not become a
substitute for wisdom and sound policies.
As a nation, we have to see the world as it actually
is, not as we wish it were or as it might look through the
4
lens of politics. Foreign policy must evolve from hard
realities, not from political fictions.
What, then, are those realities around us?
One stands out above all others -- the United States
in the broadest sense is still today the most powerful
nation on earth.
Our economy is by far the largest and most productive,
accounting for some
% of the world's wealth.
Our living standards are the most advanced in all of
man's history.
Our technology and its application are still unmatched;
even today our technology continues to run at least five
years ahead of the Soviet Union's.
At a time when the number of democracies in the world
has dwindled to less than two dozen, we remain the best
hope and inspiration for all of mankind.
5
And contrary to those who poormouth our capabilities,
the military strength of this country remains unsurpassed
by any other nation.
Of course it's true, and has long been true -- as I
have continually reminded the Congress --- that the Soviets
have surpassed us in some categories, are equal in others,
and trail us in others.
Because of such differences, some critics play the
numbers game to prove American weakness.
But in measuring power among nations it is misleading
to focus on any single weapon, on numbers of soldiers, or
on any other isolated index of strength.
For example, the Soviets have a clear lead in the size
and number of intercontinental ballistic missiles. That's
been so for years.
On the other hand, the United States excels in the
quality and sophistication of these missiles -- in their
6
accuracy, for example -- and this, too, has long been
true.
They lead us in the number of soldiers, and they
always have.
But we lead in the quality and training of our soldiers
and, because of the NATO alliance, we require fewer soldiers.
They are ahead in numbers of war ships. But we are
ahead in the striking power of ships.
They lead in certain types of aircraft. We lead in
others.
So it goes all across the board. What matters is the
over-all balance, not this or that item. What matters, too,
is what our top national security and military leaders think
about it. They are agreed that, fitting the pieces all
together, we have a "rough equivalency" today with the Soviet
Union. This means that those who shout we're behind either
don't know what they are talking about or else they're
7
more concerned with making political points than with
addressing the true facts.
The fact is that the power of the United States today
is unmatched by any other nation in the world. No amount
of political rhetoric can alter that fundamental truth.
But the critics do make a valid pointy and it is one
that should be of concern to all Americans. It is a point
that I have been making emphatically since becoming President,
and I appreciate the help of others in drawing greater at-
tention to it.
The point is that even though the United States is still
first among the world's powers, the trend of military strength
is pointing ominously in the wrong direction and has been
doing so for a considerable time.
Over the past 10 years, the Soviets have expanded their
defense efforts by about a third. Ours is smaller than it
was in the early 1960's.
8
The number of Soviet military personnel are up by
about a third over the last decade; ours are at the
lowest level in a quarter of a century.
Since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the Soviets
have built more than 1,300 new ships. We have built some
300 during the same period; our active fleet today is
half the size of 10 years ago.
Since 1968 the Soviets have sharply increased their
tactical aircraft force and have built a production base
half again as large as ours. In the meantime, our own
number of active tactical aircraft has dropped by 40%.
This trend tells only part of the story, for over
these same years we have also seen clear examples of Soviet
adventurism in Asia, in the Middle East, in Europe, and
most recently in Southern Africa.
9
These events give no support at all to the notion
that Soviet intentions are benign and that we can let
our defenses down. Instead, they suggest that the dictum
of Lenin of years still prevails. "Push out like a
bayonet," he told his comrades. "If you strike fat, push
harder. If you strike steel, pull back and await a better
time. "
So we just can't go on bleeding our country's defenses
without paying the price in a reduced ability to withstand
aggression. Our freedom and independence is very precious.
I am determined -- as I know the vast majority of Americans
are -- that we not let ourselves sink to an inferior status.
That is exactly why, for two years running, I have
asked the Congress for the largest defense budgets in all
our peacetime history. That is why I flatly oppose any
cut at all in the budget submitted last January, because
10
we must have that budget if we are to reverse the trend
and thereby remain the strongest nation in the world.
That is why I have personally put many Members of Congress
on notice that I intend to veto the defense appropriation --
unprecedented though that would be -- and go straight and
hard to the country, if the Congress hands me a budget too
low for the future safety of the American people.
I make this added point, and I say this very seriously:
I greatly welcome the sudden preoccupation of various can-
didates with defense and foreign policy, even though one
wonders if it is brought on by the collapsing of other
issues rather than by celestial inspiration. I welcome
it because I do know our defense programs very intimately,
having worked with them for many years. I know that, if
only the issues are fairly presented across the country,
you will give some of our chronic Congressional backsliders
the spine to stand up at last for enough dollars for defense.
11
So if some of our professional worriers --- who, it
seems, tripped over the Pentagon along the campaign trail --
will only join me in fighting for the defense money we
need from Congress, we'll get along just fine. Let's
hope all these political hopefuls won't chase off too
soon after more seductive targets. Right now, more than
they realize, they're about to do : something right for
America.
One other reality may be a saving grace for us all.
From my trips to the Soviet Union, to Europe, to
Asia and elsewhere, it is abundantly clear to me that
even as national governments sometimes glare at one another
across huge arsenals, there is also an enormous yearning
of their peoples for peace.
The people of Leningrad and Moscow are as sick of
war as those of London, Paris, Berlin and Chicago. They
12
all know the sorrows of losing loved ones. They know the
horrors of military siege. Millions in all nations have
tasted the bitter fruits of war. None of us wants any of
it again.
Thus, there is an enormous human yearning and drive
impelling us to deal with world problems in a rational
way.
After weighing the complicated details of weapons
and diplomacy, what emerges is this:
-- We must be tough-minded, vigilant and cautious
toward the Soviet Union but we must also seek opportunities
to reduce tensions;
-- We must be purposeful and spend enough to maintain
our strength but we must not tip the balance toward war
through either belligerance or a weakness of will;
-- And we must be willing to apply our strength where
our real interests lie but cooperate where we can.
13
In short, we must tirelessly pursue peace through
strength.
That is my policy.
This policy has many parts. Most critically, we
must not simply have the power, but we must also be willing
to act when adversaries move to ravage other lands. Re-
cent Soviet and Cuban intrusions into Angola were flagrant
and unconscionable. The United States would have fore-
stalled this effort had the Congress not turned away.
Freedom and independence will suffer badly if such shameful
experiences are repeated elsewhere in the world.
Let us further recognize that an effective foreign
policy, like effective military action, is impossible with-
out a strong intelligence capability. I have recently
proposed the most thorough overhaul of our intelligence
establishment in a quarter of a century. I intend to see
14
that our intelligence forces keep us better informed about
the world environment while at the same time they are
strictly prevented from abusing the rights of American
citizens.
Finally, a consistent and effective foreign policy
requires that our Executive and Legislative branches work
cooperatively. As a veteran of Congress, I appreciate the
role of the legislative branch in foreign policy and national
security matters. It is a crucial role, but it must not be
carried to the point of crippling the nation's ability to
act swiftly and decisively on the world stage. The Congress
has neither the constitutional duty nor the capability to
manage the day-to-day conduct of American foreign policy.
DAily decisions about our national security cannot be
effectively made by a committee of hundreds. It is for
the President to do that, and as long as I am in this office,
15
I intend to do SO.
Even as we are unyielding in defense of our national
interests, we must be unyielding in our search for just
and lasting peace. Effective diplomacy can open many arenas
for progress in strengthening the peace.
Trade, energy, technology, aviation -- all offer
fruitful areas for cooperation. But at the core of our
negotiations is our desire for peace and stability in the
world.
The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks clearly offer
the best hope for sanity in world relations. Since the
beginning of this process eight years ago, those responsible
for negotiations have faced pressures from all quarters --
both to speed up and to slow the negotiations. Instead,
we have chosen to steer a steady, middle course based on
a realistic appreciation of our vital strategic interests.
16
Those interests do not lie in an uncontrolled arms race
but in maintaining an equitable balance at the lowest pos-
sible level. And as we seek to stabilize the strategic
balance, our resources can be used in other areas such as
regional defense and in sea power where imbalances can
also have serious consequences.
People who argue that the SALT talks penalize the
United States are just dead wrong. Had it not been for
the SALT I negotiations, we would have been forced to
massive expenditures for the deployment of an anti-ballistic
missile system. In adition, those talks halted the momentum
of the Soviet missile buildup for five years without sac-
rificing our own programs. Finally, in Vladivostok we
began the negotiation of an agreement which -- if successfully
completed will place equal ceilings on missiles, heavy
bombers and multiwarhead missiles and would require the
17
Soviets to dismantle many weapons.
There are still important issues to be resolved in
the current SALT talks, but if we approach them in the
same steady manner, we may succeed. Under no circumstances
will we be stampeded by arbitrary deadlines. We will be
guided solely by our own national interests.
I believe in the ability of the American people to
guage the national security issues which face our nation.
I trust in their judgment.
This election year is still young. There is time to
restore reason and perspective to our national debate on
these matters. Those who seek our nation's highest office
have an obligation to spell out the alternative directions
they propose in foreign policy and our national security.
This is a great country. It is well worth our best
efforts to keep it SO. We are blessed with abundant re-
sources. We are the strongest power in the world's history.
18
But our true greatness comes from the spirit and creativity
of our people living together in freedom.
We are a nation of immigrants joined in forging a
great nation through exceptional unity of purpose. Our
unity has stood the challenge of time and adversity.
Despite a decade and more of severe testing -- despite
assassination, war, domestic unrest and institutional
crisis -- we still remain a united people.
I am convinced that the American people still accept
the challenge of world leadership. If we summon the American
spirit and restore our dedication, we will have a decisive
and positive impact on the millions of people in distant
lands who continue to look to us for moral leadership.
Those with faith in America must speak the truth to
the American people:
-- The truth that we are strong and at peace;
19
-- The truth that the answers to the problems we
face are neither easy nor final;
-- The truth that we must be actively engaged in
maintaining world peace, without escape or respite;
-- The truth that we have the strength and determination
to defend our interests and the conviction to uphold our
values;
-- The truth that even though we are the strongest
nation on earth, we must not allow our national defense to
be further weakened and cut; and finally,
-- The truth that we have the opportunity to leave
our children a more just and more peaceful world than we
have known.
My friends, if the people of this country deserve
anything at all from their government, it is that their
leaders will not spare their efforts to preserve the secure
peace which we now enjoy.
20
Our memories should not be so short as to forget the
great damage of confrontation and war. It is such a rarity
for us to experience a stable peace that some fail to recog-
nize the new opportunities for progress and growth.
The unprecedented challenge of maintaining this peace
so that the human race can flourish now faces us all.
Meeting this challenge is my overriding objective as your
President.
Our task is not to build an isolated fortress,
America. It is to remind ourselves and the world that we
remain the last hope for human freedom and dignity everywhere.
I pledge to keep America strong -- militarily and
economically -- not just so that we can survive in a world
increasingly hostile to individual freedom, but so that this
great experiment in human dignity conceived 200 years ago
can be strengthened for the benefit of our fellowman. This
21
wonderful legacy of freedom and progress which has been
bestowed on each of us requires that we do no less.
*
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
MAR 31 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1976
/
NOTE TO JACK MARSH
SUBJECT: National Security
This is worth reading.
&
Dave Gergen S/m
The
55TH YEAR
Reader's Digest
APRIL 1976
in article a day of enduring significance, in condensed permanent booklet form
Can our democracy now face the harsh truth
about the decline of U.S. power and prestige? asks the
former Secretary of Defense. Or will the public listen only
to the soothing voices of politicians?.
The Continuing Challenge
to America
By JAMES R. SCHLESINGER
HIS Bicentennial Year is an centuries to pre-eminence as the first
appropriate time not only to powerof the world-while maintain-
review the remarkable ac-
ing national cohesion and purpose
ommplishments of the American Re- under free and democratic insti-
pub: but also for a stock-taking as turions-is an historical triumoh.