Soviet Challenge
Startling new developments in recent weeks have revealed that our Minuteman strategic missile system may be obsolete. Apparently the Soviet Union has been pouring far more money into its civil defense programs than the United States — perhaps to the tune of twelve times as much. Also it has been reported that Russian scientists have recently come up with a brand new radar equipped with delicate missile-jamming systems which confuse the missile sensors that guide the war-heads to their targets. In other words, American missiles would never reach their targets!
A recent issue of Aviation and Space Technology magazine said something that ought to shock us all: "The Soviet Union is wresting nuclear weapons superiority from the United States and endangering the effectiveness of the U.S. ballistic missile deterrent."
Further, Aviation Week said the Soviets are operating a transportable missile defense radar system known as the X-3 system. If deployed around major population centers, the X-3 is capable, when used in conjunction with antiballistic missiles, "of rendering . . . ineffective" U.S. land-based Minuteman intercontinental missiles and Polaris/Poseidon submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
Soviet Civil Defense
Put this together with the fact that the Soviets are earmarking massive amounts of rubles for civil-defense. Aviation Week reported that "Soviet authorities believe that by proper civil defense preparations, losses will be as little as 10% of the population."
On the other hand, some estimates have indicated that about a third of the American population would disappear as a direct result of the first missile strike.
Civil defense has not been a part of the American mentality since the early sixties, when for a brief time fear of an imminent nuclear war swept the United States. Luridly frightening ads were written — displaying the latest and roomiest ready-made fallout shelters for one's own backyard. Striking newspaper articles talked in terms of "Project Noah" and survival colonies.
It all turned out to be just another money-making scheme which soon petered out. The shelters themselves were far from equal to the task of being practical survival units. But at least, then, the real possibility of nuclear warfare was at the forefront of the American mind. Today American citizens and British subjects think of anything but the possible danger of a nuclear holocaust. Our minds are calloused to the possibility — which is far greater now than it was then!
We take the nuclear age casually for granted. We've grown accustomed to it. We've learned to live with it. Few in Britain or America worry about an imminent atomic attack. Both Americans and Britons view civil defense as an essentially fruitless endeavor. Obviously, the Russians think otherwise.
In a Pincers Movement
The Western world is being caught in a modern-day, space-age "pincers movement." Not only has our land-based nuclear superiority apparently disappeared, but also our monopoly on sea power. Britannia ruled the waves for several centuries. And even after British military sea power began to wane, there was always the presence of the mighty U.S. Sixth Fleet.
The Plain Truth warned of the sharp escalation of Soviet sea power as early as 1968. However, at that time it could still be said that "the USSR is No. 2 in sea power when compared to U.S. strength" ("The Growing Specter of Soviet Sea Power in the Mediterranean," October 1968).
Even then the Russians were making heavy inroads into the overall maritime picture. The Plain Truth reported at that time: "Already [in 1968] the Soviet submarine fleet outnumbers that of the U.S. 'The Red navy now possesses a submarine fleet which can bring Europe and the United States under fire with 130 to 200 nuclear war-headed ballistic missiles. An increase . . . to 300 by 1972 is planned . . .' (At last July 1968)."
Remember, this was the grim situation back in 1968. Since then the U.S. position has steadily worsened. Jane's Fighting Ships, the authoritative reference for the world's navies, now reports that the Soviet Union has three times as many submarines as the U.S.
The Russians understand that a modern, highly mobile, missile-equipped navy roaming about in the seventy percent of the earth's surface that is water is one of the most effective ways to gain control of the thirty percent that is land.
A modern navy's mobility enables it to move to trouble spots far from home and close to enemy shores.
Admiral Gorshkov summed up the Soviet situation for Pravda back in February of 1968: "Today our war-time navy plays a universal role. It is able to fight under water, above the water, and in the air."
Since then Admiral Gorshkov has written a book called The Maritime Power of the State. In it he outlines total global supremacy at sea for the Soviet Union. But not as an end in itself — only the means to the greater overall purpose of world dominance.
Does anyone in his right mind actually believe that the Soviet leaders have given up their long term goal of total world domination? The truth is that the basic overall communist goal has not changed one little bit since the Russian Revolution of 1917.
Time Running Out
Time is running out on the Western world. Gradually we are being maneuvered into a "vulnerable and untenable global situation," as one author expressed it. Our leaders are surveying various options open to them. For instance, one option would be to make Red China an ally of the United States in order to offset Soviet military superiority. To effectively bring this about would undoubtedly be difficult, if not impossible.
The plain facts are, we are fast running out of practical options. To catch up and pass Soviet military strength would require a larger defense budget than either Congress or the public would ever allow. Yet to stand still militarily means a wider and wider strategic gap between the two superpowers — with America on the down side.
"Buying allies" is an expensive and dirty business these days. Unfailingly many such "allies" seem to vote against the United States in any critical United Nations General Assembly vote.
Really, the only workable option left open to Britain and America is to trust God! But to seriously suggest that we ought to turn to God in all our troubles sounds humorous to many. For a member of Congress (or an M.P) to stand up and with a straight face say that we ought to repent of our national sins and crimes and nationally go to God on our knees, asking forgiveness through Jesus Christ, might invite the following reaction from fellow parliamentarians:
An instant ripple of laughter would softly flow across the big hall, as legislators shifted positions, crossed and uncrossed legs, looked at one another incredulously, doodled on notepaper and silently wished the speaker would sit down and shut up.
To hear a leader of government propose such a "ridiculous" solution to Western world affairs is to wonder if the poor man is suffering from a serious brain disease. That someone would dare to actually inject religion into an august legislative session would be the very height of effrontery.
To seriously suggest that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is our only hope for true and lasting peace would place the legislator in the position of "religious fanatic" — instantly destroying his credibility — and would for all practical purposes ruin his political career.
To be sure, thousands have chuckled, chortled, sneered or laughed openly at loud Bible-thumping sermons warning of Jesus' impending return — and even at the more polished assertions of such a futuristic event in the more cultured tones of generally accepted evangelists.