Post-Cold War World

After the revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe [and] the changes we're now seeing in the Soviet Union, is the Cold War over?

No.

Why not?

In the first place, you've got to look at both Europe and the Western Pacific, where I see no particular moves on the part of the Soviets, other than they have committed to move certain troops from the Chinese border. But, conversely, they have increased the size of their fleet in the Pacific. The largest fleet they have is now in the western Pacific. I think that before people start talking about the Cold War [being] over, don't forget that at the same time the Soviets have made major improvements in their strategic nuclear forces. They still have every ICBM they had when this all started. I am very leery about jumping to conclusions as to what things are going to be in the future until we have a chance to see how successful Gorbachev is going to be in carrying out his commitments, very few of which have taken place yet.

Most of the impact is, of course, in the Warsaw Pact area. But when you look at it worldwide, he still gives Cuba $6 billion a year, and the Cubans are always mucking around in Central America and trying to make problems for us. I'd like to see more action, more stability, before we jump to conclusions. Of course, the Congress just loves a situation like this because they immediately coin the phrase "peace dividend" and they are just delighted over having all this extra money. You even have the absolute stupid and ridiculous comment by Congressman Gebhardt that he says, "We'll take the peace dividend and give it to the Russians." It's too early to set that kind of course. Let's just sit awhile and wait until these things consolidate and become reality instead of rhetoric.

I want you to think now as a military planner, and let's assume that maybe the Russian threat, in the next decade or two, will be gone. Will there still be an important role for the Navy as we manage our security in an new world?

More than ever.

Why?

Because the United States is a maritime power. The United States obviously is the power center that has devoted to maintaining stability worldwide. We have a situation where the access to bases have been significantly reduced. As a matter of fact, at the end of World War II, we had access to some 130 bases. I did a study on this at CSIS, and now we are fortunate to even get access to some 30 bases. During the Yom Kippur War, not one NATO nation would let us land an airplane in Europe en route to Israel. Secondly, when we attacked Libya, neither Spain nor France would let us overfly their territory. So this business of access to bases and overflight rights, and things of that kind, are being reduced.

The Navy can go anyplace we want to on the oceans, which cover three-fourths of the world. If you accept the fact that the United States is destined to provide stability worldwide, which I think is our obligation, then the Navy is going to be the prime force. You'll find that anyone who thinks about this problem will agree with that. Many people talk about, "well, we're going to fly the troops over, so we don't need a Navy," and so on. The facts are that, getting back to the Yom Kippur War, for every ton of supplies we landed in Tel Aviv, it took seven tons of jet fuel to send the airplane over there and back. So, unless you have a big supply of jet fuel at your destination, all you'll do is take the planes over there and they'll land and stay there. And how does the jet fuel get to the objective? On the ocean, because you're dealing in such tremendous weights, you can't simply fly them. Airlift is wonderful for critical material, it's wonderful for personnel. But when you start looking at the logistics side of the picture, delivering all the food they're going to eat, all the uniforms they're going to wear, all the medicine they need, all the spare parts and ammunition they need, there's only one way to get them there: by the ocean.

If you were a military planner and your boss, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, asked you to think about the new world we might be entering, would you worry any about German or Japanese military power?

Well, I told you, I don't worry much about anything. But I would be watching it very closely. Of course, I have predicted for years that Germany was going to reunify. The Germans are going to be the most powerful nation in Europe, both militarily and economically as time goes on. I'm confident of that. I told some of my French friends one time that they could rest easier if they could get the Germans to sleep one hour later. What I'm really talking about there is the work ethic that they have, which has propelled them along. The same thing for the Japanese. The Japanese have everything in their favor in terms of high technology and production capability, and educated people.

The point is [that] in the old days, when you only had a spear or maybe a one-shot rifle or something like that, you didn't have to go to school to learn how to work it. Today, we have tried in the United States to use technology to reduce manpower requirements. But what that does is impose on you the need for very intelligent people that can understand and maintain and operate these complex machines that we have today. So that's what you're up against. Every time the politicians have drawn a line and split a nation that was originally formed by a common culture and by geography and so on, it always results in a war. We had East and West Pakistan and North and South Vietnam, North and South Korea, East and West Germany. Invariably, they're going to come back together sooner or later.

So when we're dealing with our allies, the Japanese and Germany, and we're trying to push them toward modernization of weapons or toward increasing defense expenditures. At a certain point we have to worry about that policy. Is that a fair assessment?

We don't have to push them toward modernization, because they're fully capable of modernizing. They do. But it depends on the size of the force. I have always been in favor of the Japanese building anti-submarine forces because they depend so heavily on the import of raw materials, as was proven in World War II. There's a limit to what the United States can do. All the problems in the Middle East are imposed on the Pacific Fleet, the requirement to also send forces into the Indian Ocean. So the Japanese should take over some of the burden of defense that we have funded for so long. When I'd get nervous about the Japanese is when they begin to build what we call power projecting forces, invasion forces. Then I would give that very close attention. For that matter, that would antagonize tremendously the smaller nations that have already been victim of Japanese imperialism in World War II. So as long as the Japanese stick to air defense and anti-submarine defense, it's to our advantage for them to build up their forces. If they go from there to invasion-type forces, then you've got to watch it.

Looking back at your long career, and I regret that in an hour we can only touch the high points, let's look back in a different way and ask, what kernel of truth, what essence might we draw that, students watching this and so on, [can benefit from]? What are Thomas Moorer's reflections, looking back at his distinguished career? What have you learned?

I tell young people [that] they are, in effect, the leaders in the future. Young people don't realize that they're not going to be young forever. Time marches on, and pretty soon they're going to have the mantle of responsibility. So the first thing they've got to recognize is that in order to be a leader, you must have knowledge. Education is the key to success, and it's becoming more and more so. Secondly, you've got to learn about human nature and how to deal with people. You've got to work at it; it doesn't just happen.

So, in the first place, surely they know that they have an opportunity, just by virtue of living in the United States, that's not enjoyed by billions of others. Why is it that the pressure for immigration is so heavy in the United States? We don't have any boat people leaving the United States, everybody's coming this way. And why? Because of our freedom and our way of life, and the fact that the Lord has given us an area that's bordered on one hand by the Pacific Ocean, on the other side by the Atlantic Ocean. We have a marvelous climate. We only use less than 5 percent of the population to grow food. If there are no oranges in Florida, there are plenty of oranges in California. If there is no wheat in Montana, there's plenty of rice in Louisiana. In other words, the idea of having a famine never crosses our mind. So the opportunity is here, and the freedom is here, and these young people should realize how fortunate they are.

But you've got to work. What bothers me is we've gotten to the point where the people in this country believe that any time they have a problem, the federal government in Washington will take care of it. It's got to educate them, it's got to train them, it's got to take care of their children. I think that's all nonsense. The concern I have is the breakdown of the family, which is a basic beginning of a strong nation.

The government is not going to be able to solve everything, but the politicians, of course, use that to get votes. I'm concerned about the ethics of the country and the focus on material things by the young people. And they want it overnight. You can't just start out as being a chief executive officer at General Motors, and you won't take any job less than that. That's nonsense. You've got to be fifty, sixty, even seventy years old before you've acquired enough knowledge and experience to handle those kind of jobs.

So, you've got to have patience, you've go to work, and you've got to remember, as I said a while ago, that it's not the people that you work for that are going to guarantee your success, it's the people that work for you. That's where you've got to put your attention, and take care of them first.

Admiral Moorer, thank you very much for this very interesting conversation reflecting on your life and your experiences. Thank you for being with us today. And thank you very much for joining us for this Conversation on International Affairs.

To the Conversations page

To the Globetrotter Research Gallery: The Nimitz Lectures