Talk:NSC 162/2

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / Russian & Soviet / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	United States military history task force

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Removed information[edit]

This information has been removed:

Lorem ipsum

His statement was generally interpreted to mean that,^{[clarification needed]} if the Soviet Union or Communist China were to attack any country of the 'Free World', the United States would strike back with nuclear weapons - not necessarily in the theatre of war, but possibly in the Russian or Chinese heartlands. Such interpretations were subsequently strengthened, for example in an article by Vice President Richard Nixon in The New York Times on March 14, 1954: "Rather than let the Communists nibble us to death all over the world in little wars, we would rely in the future primarily on our massive mobile retaliatory power which we could use in our discretion against the major source of aggression at times and places that we choose."

Only in April, Dulles made an effort to weaken the rhetoric in a Foreign Affairs article: "It should not be stated in advance precisely what would be the scope of military action if new aggression occurred.... That is a matter to which the aggressor had best remain ignorant. But he can know and does know, in the light of present policies, that the choice in this respect is ours and not his."

It lacks context, sources, and it may be original research. Uglemat (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]