Malenkov's announcement Aug. 8 that "the United States does not have a monopoly of the hydrogen bomb" raises once again the question of Wall Street's projected time table for World War III. This question is of intense interest to the generals, capitalist politicians and their billionaire backers. In the opposing class camp, the politically conscious vanguard is even more concerned about the question. It happens to be one of the most momentous that has ever faced mankind.
Brian McMahon, chairman of the Joint Congressional Commission on Atomic Energy, observed before his death that a few H-Bombs carried to Soviet cities would incinerate about 16 million people; but the same number dropped on American cities would mean about 50 million casualties.
In addition to 50 million struck down, the inventory of the catastrophe to America would have to list the smashing of the world's mightiest industrial complex.
To think that America can somehow escape such fearful consequences in the projected war between continents is fatuous. The well-known columnist Joseph Alsop revealed July 26 that "evidence is now available" indicating the Soviet Union "has started series production of a six-engine turbo-prop bomber with a round-trip range of approximately 5,000 miles." The bomber is more modern than the B-36. This means that every "American target will be within round-trip range of the Soviet advanced bases in Kamchatka and on the Arctic fringe." He adds that American defenses against such long-range bombers loaded with atom or hydrogen bombs are not as effective as Soviet defenses.
If nothing worse happened, it is clear that the opening day of World War III might well go down in history as the opening day of a new barbarism for America.
But even worse might happen. Leading atomic scientists warned us some years ago that if the H-Bomb were developed, it would then be technically feasible to include certain materials, which, on dissipating in the atmosphere after the explosion and diffusing from pole to pole, would destroy all life — at least life in its higher forms.
I am not among those who hopefully believe that such horrors are beyond the capacity of human nature and that not even a capitalist ruler could bring himself to push the button that would entail such results. A class facing loss of its ruling position is capable of anything. That is the lesson of history.
Nothing in Hitler's course, for example, gives us much cause to consider that the lesson has been outmoded. The McCarthy type and the billionaire rulers that foster the McCarthy type are not essentially different in outlook from Hitler and his sponsors. Faced with the continued rise of revolutionary forces intent on replacing capitalism by a better economic system, these paranoiacs may decide that no matter what the risks, the war they have blueprinted offers them the only out.
How can they be stopped? How can their will be paralyzed? How can the power of deciding America's fate be taken from them? The answers to these questions hinge upon the capacity of the American working class to take the road of political action without much delay and build a mass revolutionary socialist party. It hinges upon what each one of us, particularly the political vanguard, does toward furthering this development. Truly, the American workers might say that never before have such terrible problems and fateful decisions rested with an oppressed class in the hour when they were called on to carry society forward to a higher stage.
[p. 112]
Is it still possible for the American working class to stay the suicidal plunge into another world conflict? I think so. First of all, no automatic process is at work that will push the American capitalists into war, no matter what the forces arrayed against them, at a pre-determined date.
It has been clear since shortly after the close of World War II that the tempo of preparations for another holocaust is far swifter than was the case after World War I. In 1945-46 Washington set its first bracket for possible war as early as 1949-50. But the world war did not break out in that period although at times it was perilously close, especially with the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. Before the deadline was reached, the time table was changed, first to around 1952, then as 1952 neared, to 1954. Now it has been postponed again, this time indefinitely, if we are to believe Eisenhower.
The several postponements demonstrate in themselves that Wall Street's date for the fatal plunge is not rigidly fixed. A certain flexibility has been maintained. The reasons for this are clear enough. The Wall Street masters of destiny would prefer to win their desperate gamble. Consequently, they estimate world political forces, calculate the probable consequences of policies, take into account new developments —many of them surprising and unforeseen to them — and have shown that they are capable of making considerable tactical adjustments.
They continue to view war as inevitable, of course; and this determines their strategic course. But they also consider that the initiative and therefore the timing rests in their hands. This, they feel, gives them a measure of control. Through that control they hope to lower the risks and strengthen the possibilities of coming out on top.
However, from another point of view, this flexibility amounts to hesitation, indecisiveness and even procrastination. Tactical adaptation at a certain point affects the strategic aim, can even undermine it and prove to be the Achilles heel of the war plotters. With each postponement the question arises—has not the strategic moment been missed? Have not the odds risen so high that war means a more swift and certain doom than temporization?