I read a very disturbing report the first of this week. It was from the British Institute of Strategic Studies. Many of you probably read it, too. What made the headlines in this report was its appraisal of American strength in the world compared with that of the Soviet Union. It pointed out some facts that we found were accurate when we came into office. First, that over the past few years in terms of conventional weapons, the Soviet Union has been moving at a much faster pace than the United States; and that in terms of strategic weapons of the nuclear type, that in the year 1969 some estimates indicate that the Soviet Union might pass the United States. That compares with what the situation was in 1962 when there was at least a 4 to 1 advantage of the United States over the Soviet Union. I mention those statistics because they have been publicly printed, not to frighten anybody, because we need not be afraid. We still have major advantages in several areas. But I bring you those statistics simply to indicate that in the field of military strength we have the responsibility and we shall see to it that the United States, as we attempt to negotiate with other nations, as we are going to be willing to and desire to, as we negotiate to bring peace, we shall always negotiate from strength and never from weakness. That we pledge we will do.

The aggressor too should know that the preemptive use of nuclear weapons would not insure victory. With modern detection systems and the combat readiness of the Soviet Union's strategic nuclear forces, the United States would not be able to deal a crippling blow to the socialist countries. The aggressor will not be able to evade an all-crushing retaliatory strike.

As it is, we are living in too brittle a world. That is why responsible statesmen must evaluate the developments and adopt a rational decision. It is human reason alone that can and must save mankind from the grave danger. We call on those who are pushing the world along the road of the ever more dangerous arms race to give up their unrealizable hopes of thus achieving military superiority in order to dictate their will to other peoples and states. The Soviet Union is convinced that peace can be strengthened and the security of peoples guaranteed not by way of building up and inventing ever new types of armaments but, on the contrary, by way of reducing the existing armaments to immeasurably lower levels.

In case you haven't noticed, we live in a world that is for the first time in all of recorded human history unlikely to have a major war. There used to be this country called the Soviet Union; it's not there anymore. The reason is our technology was better than theirs. Probably what pushed the Russians over the edge was SDI. It was really a combination of SDI and CNN. They realized they couldn't beat us so they decided to change the ball game.

In this respect the differences between the USA and the USSR are those of evangelical dinosaurs competing for domination on one small planet: the first deifies Jesus Christ, the other Karl Marx. Neither has much practical interest in what those two sincere and hard-working fellows actually preached.

Above all, the search for peace requires a much more deliberate effort to contain the global arms race. Let me speak in this context, first, of the U.S.-Soviet Union relationship, and then of the wider need to contain the proliferation of arms throughout the global community. I intend to pursue the strategic arms limitation talks between the United States and the Soviet Union with determination and with energy. Our Secretary of State will visit Moscow in just a few days. SALT is extraordinarily complicated. But the basic fact is that while negotiations remain deadlocked, the arms race goes on; the security of both countries and the entire world is threatened. My preference would be for strict controls or even a freeze on new types and new generations of weaponry and with a deep reduction in the strategic arms of both sides. Such a major step towards not only arms limitation but arms reduction would be welcomed by mankind as a giant step towards peace. Alternatively, and perhaps much more easily, we could conclude a limited agreement based on those elements of the Vladivostok accord on which we can find complete consensus, and set aside for prompt consideration and subsequent negotiations the more contentious issues and also the deeper reductions in nuclear weapons which I favor. We will also explore the possibility of a total cessation of nuclear testing. While our ultimate goal is for all nuclear powers to end testing, we do not regard this as a prerequisite for the suspension of tests by the two principal nuclear powers, the Soviet Union and the United States. We should, however, also pursue a broad, permanent multilateral agreement on this issue. We will also seek to establish Soviet willingness to reach agreement with us on mutual military restraint in the Indian Ocean, as well as on such matters as arms exports to the troubled areas of the world. In proposing such accommodations I remain fully aware that American-Soviet relations will continue to be highly competitive--but I believe that our competition must be balanced by cooperation in preserving peace, and thus our mutual survival. I will seek such cooperation with the Soviet Union--earnestly, constantly, and sincerely. However, the effort to contain the arms race is not a matter just for the United States and Soviet Union alone. There must be a wider effort to reduce the flow of weapons to all the troubled spots of this globe. Accordingly, we will try to reach broader agreements among producer and consumer nations to limit the export of conventional arms, and we, ourselves, will take the initiative on our own because the United States has become one of the major arms suppliers of the world. We are deeply committed to halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And we will undertake a new effort to reach multilateral agreements designed to provide legitimate supplies of nuclear fuels for the production of energy, while controlling the poisonous and dangerous atomic wastes. Working with other nations represented here, we hope to advance the cause of peace. We will make a strong and a positive contribution at the upcoming Special Session on Disarmament which I understand will commence next year.

Lord yes, in a certain sense it was a preventive war, [motivated by] the constant threat of attack, the greater likelihood of its inevitability in the future, and by the military's claim: today war is still possible without defeat, but not in two years! Yes, the generals. It could only have been avoided by a rapprochement with England, that is still my conviction. But after we had decided for a [common] policy with Austria, we could not desert her in such danger.

...it [is] possible to suppose that, if Russia is allowed to have peace, an amazing industrial development may take place, making Russia a rival of the United States.

The problem of the danger of war depends on whether the USSR is inclined to fight against the United States in my region. I can assure you that that country does not want war either.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours — and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest. So, let us not be blind to our differences — but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

All of us have heard this term "preventive war" since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war — what is a preventive war? I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later. A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war. I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing. ... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further. There are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today's conditions that I thought it is no use to go any further.

It is not necessary to succeed in order to persevere. As long as there is a margin of hope, however narrow, we have no choice but to base all our actions on that margin. America and Russia have one interest in common which may override all their other interests: to be able to live with the bomb without getting into an all-out war that neither of them wants.

I would say to the leaders of the Soviet Union, and to their people, that if either of our countries is to be fully secure, we need a much better weapon than the H-bomb — a weapon better than ballistic missiles or nuclear submarines — and that better weapon is peaceful cooperation.

Confronted by the increase in the aggressive strivings on the part of American imperialism, directed against the socialist community and the peaceful life of the peoples of various continents, the Soviet Union and the other countries of socialism were forced to take steps to reinforce their defensive might, as the chief means of bridling the imperialistic forces of aggression. This finds the understanding and support of all the peace-loving forces. The Soviet Union and its Armed Forces have repeatedly proven their adherence to the cause of peace and their faithfulness to their pledges to serve as allies of their friends. We view the concern shown by the Soviet leadership for the Soviet Armed Forces to be noble efforts for preserving the peace and guaranteeing the peaceful life of the peoples of all the continents. Everyone who treasures peace and calm on the earth looks hopefully and trustingly toward the Soviet Union, justly seeing in the first state of workers and peasants a might defender and an invincible bulwark of peace on our planet. And so today, on the eve of the glorious anniversary of the Great October, it is especially gratifying for us to note that the Soviet Union, undeviatingly following the behests of the great Lenin, holds high the banner of peace and progress, under which newer and newer nations from various continents on the earth are consolidating themselves.