Statements of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Adm. Arthur Radford, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff: Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Eighty-third Congress, Second Session, on Foreign Policy and Its Relation to Military Programs. March 19, and April 14, 1954United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, John Foster Dulles, Arthur William Radford U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954 - 51 páginas |
Outras edições - Ver todos
Termos e frases comuns
action airpower ALEXANDER WILEY allies answer Armed Forces ARTHUR RADFORD atomic weapons basic believe bipartisan foreign policy bomb capacity to retaliate Caracas certainly CHAIRMAN Chiefs of Staff collective security Congress constitutional processes consultation debate decision declaration defense deterrent discussed economic Europe fact free nations free world going Government ground forces interpretation JOHN FOSTER DULLES Joint Chiefs Korea Korean war legislative long pull Manchuria manpower massive retaliation matter McCarthy McCarthyism means meet military mobile Monroe Doctrine National Security Council North Atlantic Treaty North Korea opinion perhaps plans political potential aggressor President prong question recall responsibility retaliate instantly Rio Pact Secretary DULLES security arrangements Senator CAPEHART Senator FERGUSON Senator FULBRIGHT Senator GEORGE Senator GILLETTE Senator Green Senator HICKENLOOPER Senator KNOWLAND Senator MANSFIELD Senator SMITH situation Soviet speech statement thing threat trying United Nations vital interests words York
Passagens mais conhecidas
Página 13 - Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Página 30 - The basic decision was to depend primarily upon a great capacity to retaliate, instantly, by means and at places of our choosing.
Página 37 - We live in a world where emergencies are always possible, and our survival may depend upon our capacity to meet emergencies. Let us pray that we shall always have that capacity. But, having said that, it is necessary also to say that emergency measures — however good for the emergency — do not necessarily make good permanent policies. Emergency measures are costly; they are superficial; and they imply that the enemy has the initiative. They cannot be depended on to serve our long-time interests....
Página 13 - ... world constitute an attack upon the entire Community comprising the parties to the treaty including the United States. Accordingly, the President and the Congress, each within their sphere of assigned constitutional...
Página 35 - There is going to be no involvement of America in war unless it is the result of the constitutional process that is placed upon Congress to declare it.
Página 16 - ... would the United States be obligated to react to an attack on Paris or Copenhagen in the same way it would react to an attack on New York City? In such an event does the treaty give the President the power to take any action, without specific congressional authorization, which he could not take in the absence of the treaty? The answer to both these questions is "No.
Página 3 - I believe, they are driven by fear of freedom. To them freedom is a threat to be stamped out wherever it approaches their world. 2. The Soviet bloc possesses what is in many ways the most formidable military establishment the world has ever known. Its great strength is manpower, but also it is strong in terms of planes, submarines, and atomic capabilities. This vast empire dominates the central Eurasian land mass extending from the River Elbe in Germany to the Pacific. From within an orbit of 20,000...
Página 51 - The Joint Chiefs of S*taff have no preconceived ideas as to what our Armed Forces will look like a decade from now. Our present plans are based upon what we see today as being in the best interest of the United States and the free world. They are based on a searching estimate of the world situation and a thorough analysis of the existing threat projected into the foreseeable future. Naturally any changes in the situation on which the present plans are based would necessitate reevaluation and reconsideration.
Página 13 - The committee does not believe it appropriate in this report to undertake to define the authority of the President to use the armed forces. Nothing in the treaty, however, including the provision that an attack against one shall be considered an attack against all, increases or decreases the constitutional powers of either the President or the Congress or changes the relationship between them.
Página 22 - He said: obviously, the possession of that capacity to retaliate on a massive basis comprehends within it the capacity to retaliate on a less than global or massive basis. He continued, explicitly: ... I believe that it is disastrous for us to believe that the danger can be met by our concentrating merely upon one form of defense or one type of deterrent.