The emergence of hydrogen bombs cannot guarantee the realization of the wishes of Western countries for comprehensive and lasting security.It is not a magic weapon to eliminate the dangers these countries face.Although the hydrogen bomb has strengthened the strength of Western countries, it has also brought anxiety to people and increased their sense of insecurity. For the politicians in power in the West, the atomic bomb dropped in 1945 seemed to be a handy and simple tool to speed up complete victory and guarantee world peace.They assumed, as Churchill said, that this would be enough to end wars and bring peace to the world.As long as the cost of a few atomic bombs is spent, it can show amazing power.For those who suffer, it is a healing hand.After all the hardships and perils men have endured, it seems like a miracle.However, today, in the free world, people's anxiety is increasing day by day.This proves that the politicians in power have not thought through this issue, because such a victory does not guarantee peace.

Their vision has never gone beyond the immediate strategic goal in front of them, which is to win the war, and regardless of the lessons of history, they always believe that military victory is enough to ensure peace.From a large number of historical lessons, a decisive truth can be found: pure military strategy must be guided by grand strategy, because only grand strategy can have more far-reaching foresight and broader perspective. Under the conditions of the Second World War, the pursuit of victory would inevitably turn into tragedy, rendering efforts fruitless.Germany's total military defeat inevitably opened the way for Soviet Russia to take control of the European continent and allow communism to spread its influence on a massive scale throughout the world.At the same time, the astonishing performance of the atomic weapon, which ended the war soon after its use, inevitably prompted the Russians to develop this weapon after the war.

There has never been such a peace with so little security.After eight years of perpetually tense years, the victorious nations feel even more insecure because of the production of thermonuclear weapons.But this is not a consequence of the struggle. Even in its experimental stages, the hydrogen bomb has demonstrated more clearly than any other weapon that total war as a method is as banal as victory as its end. Those who have always advocated strategic bombing have now realized this point.Not long ago, Air Marshal Sir Sir Sri Sol expressed his opinion.He said: In the past forty years, the kind of general war as we understand it is now outdated. In our time, or in our century, if there is another world war, the result will be mass suicide, and the human race will be killed. Civilization will also end.Another air marshal, Lord Ted, has already emphasized this point, pointing out that it is necessary to accurately and calmly estimate combat capabilities.He said: A war using atomic weapons will not be a duel, but an exchange of suicide.However, he adds, rather illogically, that this tendency can make aggression less likely to be encouraged.It is illogical because there is a class of level-headed aggressors who, knowing their enemy's immediate response to a threat that is not clearly destined to bring disaster, can estimate the opponent's natural reluctance to commit suicide. Hesitation.

Can any government in power make up its mind to use the hydrogen bomb for that kind of non-direct aggression, or any other partial and limited aggression?Now, even the leaders of the Air Force Department call this behavior suicide, and how dare a certain government in power decide to take this step first?From this we can be sure that unless some kind of threat will cause a devastating disaster, and this disaster is more terrible than the hydrogen bomb itself, no one will use the hydrogen bomb rashly. The basis of the belief of politicians in using atomic weapons as a deterrent to aggression appears to be a wholly unrealistic fantasy.To be more precise, the threat to use atomic weapons is just a bluff.In fact, the Russians, especially the masters of the Kremlin, do not take this kind of intimidation seriously, and those countries that are close to the edge of the Iron Curtain will feel even more troubled because they are very close to Russia and are afraid of Soviet Russia. The Strategic Air Force will use them as guinea pigs.If it is said that atomic weapons are used to protect them, the result may be to weaken their determination to resist.The reaction to this threat, the destructive force of its breech blast, has long since proved to be very harmful.

For the application of the policy of containment, the hydrogen bomb is not only useless, but also harmful.While it reduces the chances of general war, it also increases the chances of limited war and encourages indirect and widespread local aggression.The aggressors can use various methods to achieve their goals, causing the other party to hesitate, making it difficult for them to decide whether to use hydrogen bombs or atomic bombs when taking retaliatory measures. In our modern age, our reliance on conventional weapons is even greater in order to contain this threat.Of course, drawing this conclusion does not mean that we must only use old-style weapons. On the contrary, we should continue to advance in the development of new-style weapons.

We have entered a new strategic era.Its essence is very different from the hypothesis of the atomic air force theory.And those who advocate atomic supremacy in the air are, in the old days, quite revolutionary.The strategies formulated by our modern adversaries basically include two purposes: first, to avoid being attacked by a superior air force; second, to paralyze the opponent with a powerful counterattack.It is not surprising that the more we recognize the necessity of mass assaults with bomber aviation, the more favorable it will be to promote the new guerrilla strategy. Our own strategy must be based on a clear understanding of this concept, and our military policy needs to be reformed accordingly.As long as it is based on the enemy's strategy, we can successfully formulate an effective counter-strategy; here is an additional statement: if we want to use hydrogen bombs to destroy the enemy's cities, our hidden fifth column of allies must also be suppressed. Destroy together.

There has been a widely prevailing view that atomic weapons cancel strategy.Of course there is no basis for this, and it is just a strange theory that confuses the public. Although atomic weapons can bring destructive power to an extreme level enough to kill themselves, they also have a stimulating effect, prompting people to speed up their introspection and return to the use of indirect routes.And this indirect route is the essence of strategy, because in this case war must be used rationally and reckless use of troops must be avoided.As early as World War II, there were many signs of the value of using the indirect route.Moreover, the role played by strategy in World War II was much greater than in World War I.Still, the role of grand strategy at the time was disappointing.In the present age, since atomic weapons are not convenient for direct use, they will inevitably prompt the aggressors to formulate more flexible strategies.So, it is clear that when atomic weapons are advancing with each passing day, we must develop our art of strategy accordingly.Strictly speaking, the history of strategy is the record of the use and evolution of the indirect route.

My "Indirect Route", first published in 1929, was titled "Decisive Wars in History".The current version is the result of my 25 years of continuous research, especially the result of summarizing my experience in strategy and grand strategy during the Second World War. One of the first thoughts that arose in my study of numerous battles, past and present, was that the indirect route was far superior to the direct one.At that time, I was only arguing from the perspective of strategic science, and I just wanted to more fully expose the essence of strategy.However, after in-depth research, I began to realize that the indirect route method can also have a wider range of applications.In all spheres of life this indirect method is a law and a philosophical truth.It has been shown that all problems on the path of life can be solved by this method.Whenever conflicting interests collide, man is always the deciding factor.In any case, a direct attack with new ideas will inevitably invite stubborn resistance, which will make it more difficult to change opinions.It will be easier and quicker to change a certain point of view if unexpected means are used to infiltrate new ideas, or debates are adopted.This is because, in a debate, the subconscious resistance of the opponent is relatively easy to overcome by detours.The indirect approach is a fundamental principle both in the political sphere and in relations between men and women.In terms of business, as long as there is room for bargaining, there will be more opportunities for transactions.In every other case, it is well known that the surest way of persuading a man to accept some new idea is to try to convince him that it was he himself who proposed it.As in war, the enemy must first be weakened before he can subdue him, and the best way of doing this is to lure him out of his defensive position.

The idea of ​​the indirect route, which is intimately connected with all problems of intellectual interaction between men, is precisely one of the most important factors in human history.However, it is difficult to reconcile with another principle, that is: only by pursuing the truth regardless of all interests and fearing all consequences, can it be possible to obtain or come close to obtaining conclusions with truth value. History has shown what a part prophets have played in the progress of mankind, and has likewise shown the practical value of a man who thinks he has the truth, and speaks it openly and without reserve.But it is also evident that the subsequent fate of such truths often depends on another set of characters.Such a person is a leader.They are strategists in the field of philosophy, who will seek to reconcile truth with acceptable limits.Their success in this work depends on two factors: first, their own degree of grasp of the truth; second, their practical ability in propagating the truth.

The prophets will be blamed, it is their destiny.As for how far this accusation will go, it depends on how well they can fulfill their mission.A leader should not be blamed for it.If he is accused, it proves that he has failed in his task, either because of lack of wisdom, incapacity, or failure to see that his function should be different from that of a prophet.Only time, though, will pass the final verdict on the outcome of the censure.It may also appear to be a failure for a leader, but it may add to his glory as a human being.Or, at least, it may save him from the usual malady, which is to the detriment of the truth, at the expense of the cause.If a man is always at the expense of truth for the sake of immediate gain, then, from the womb of his mind, there must be deformed babies.

However, is there a practical way to combine the process of knowing the truth and promoting the truth?This needs to be neither contrary to the truth but also easy to accept.From the study of the principles of strategy, it appears that a solution to this problem can be found.Strategy tells us that the most important thing is to always maintain a fixed goal, and when pursuing this goal, you should adapt to the environment and change your route at any time.Truth is bound to be opposed, especially when it is a new idea.However, the degree of this opposition can be managed gradually by not only paying attention to the goal itself, but also taking into account the means of approaching it.Avoid frontal assaults on strong positions, and try to take detours from the flanks to hit the most vital points. This is to take the indirect route.But every time such an indirect course is chosen, one should never depart from the truth, but be careful, for nothing is more injurious to the truth than a lie. Everyone can find ample illustrations of the meaning of these ideas from his own practical experience.The best way for every new idea to gain acceptance is to try to express it as not a new idea, but an old idea that has only begun to be modernized.This isn't meant to be a hoax either, in fact, nothing is brand new under the sun.The question is whether they are willing to use their brains, and whether they can come up with the connection between the old and the new.Let me give you an example.When we proved that the fast motor vehicle, that is, the tank capable of passing quickly, was the successor of the ancient armored cavalry, the voices against mechanization immediately lowered their tone, because, as you know, in the past Here, the cavalry played a very important role, so it is natural to restore such an instrument that can play such a role. Lied Hart