Ifwe saywe can fight
a limited warwith nuclearweapons...

we let everyone offthe hook.
It's what theywant to hear.
We canjust keep doing what we're doing,
and nobody really gets hurt.

Butyou can't fight a limited war,
and you know it.

I'm not so sure.
There's no such thing
as a limited war anymore.

Not with hydrogen bombs.
Once those bombs start to drop,
you won't be able to limit a thing.

Areyou advocating disarmament?
I don't know.
It's the logic ofyour position.
Peculiar reversal.
The press would be interested.

The military man who is the dove,
and the civilian who is the hawk.

We're going too fast.
Things are getting out ofhand.
Can you be more specific, General?
We're all trying
to make war more efficient.

- That's ourjob.
- And we're succeeding.

We now have the capacity to blow up
the whole world several times over.

Which does not mean
we must do it.

We won't be able to stop from doing it.
That's the logic ofyour position.

We're setting up a war machine
that acts faster...

than the ability ofmen
to control it.

We're putting men into situations
that are too tough for men to handle.

Then we must toughen the men.
Suppose they launch
a first strike against us?

Then we retaliate,
and we're all finished.

Would you prefer
that onlywe were finished?

We have to prepare.
We're preparing.
We've got to slow down.

I disagree.
We have got to speed up.

that means taking risks...

but our intention is always
to minimize those risks.

Ofcourse, we can only control
our own actions.

Our concept oflimited war is based
on an equal rationality by the Russians.

It also presupposes there will be
no accidents on either side.