The Projected European Union and American Military Responsibilities

At present, NATO is at an impasse. The problem is not so much differences between De Gaulle's and Kennedy's designs for projected unions as differences over military strategy and armaments. Europe, because of policies we are advocating and pursuing there, could turn inward militarily as well as economically. The United States, until recently, provided European security and also maintained world-wide commitments. Now, European countries have de veloped their own nuclear weapons, and we have not been able to design an operational strategic concept that will permit centralized control of their use. We should now enlist Euro pean co-operation not only to strengthen their own defensive ability but also to make greater contributions to the total security of the free world. American policy inconsistency, however, is perplexing to the Europeans. The Europeans do not believe that a primarily conventional strategy will provide deterrence in Europe. They do not believe American policy offers sufficient options between defeat and thermonuclear war so long as NATO conventional forces confront nuclear-armed Soviet forces. They suspect the United States of being more interested in detente with the Soviet Union that in maintaining Western security. The United States failure to share nuclear assets could, in time, divide the Atlantic. Nuclear-sharing could be the key to cross-Atlantic co-operation in the techno logical sphere, stimulating economic growth and political harmony, frustrating Soviet exploitation of their military power.—Ed.