Department of State Disarmament Files
Memorandum by the Executive Committee
on Regulation of Armaments to the United States
Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
confidential
RAC D–5a (Final)
[Washington,] April 3, 1947.
Attached for appropriate information and guidance is a memorandum entitled
“Basis for United States Position on a Possible Proposal to Distinguish
between ‘Offensive’ and ‘Defensive’ Weapons”. This memorandum was prepared
in the Department and was approved by the Executive Committee on the
Regulation of Armaments on March 31 for transmission to the United States
Representative to the United Nations.
A proposal to distinguish between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons as a
basis for armament regulation could assume one of the following forms: (1)
abolition of “offensive” weapons, (2) severe limitation of “offensive”
weapons, or (3) “internationalization” of “offensive” weapons. The attached
paper is based primarily on the assumption that the proposal will assume
form (1). If the proposal assumed either of the other forms, a change in
emphasis in the memorandum would be required.
It should also be noted that the position stated in the attached memorandum
differs from the position which the United States took during the
Disarmament Conference of 1932.1 During that Conference
the United States Delegation advocated the abolition of “offensive” weapons,
particularly certain weapons of land warfare. In the event the question of
“offensive” weapons arises in the course of the current discussions, it may
be anticipated that references will be made to the earlier position of the
United States on the matter.
John C. Elliott
Executive Secretary
[Page 458]
[Annex]
Basis for United States Position on a Possible
Proposal to Distinguish Between “Offensive” and “Defensive”
Weapons
It has been proposed that the problem of armament regulation and
reduction be approached by drawing a distinction between “defensive” and
“offensive” armaments with a view to abolishing or limiting the latter.
At first glance there is an attractive simplicity in the idea that the
identification of “offensive” weapons and their elimination from
national armaments would automatically render attack impossible, prevent
aggression and thus establish international peace and security. If it
were true that certain weapons could be used only for aggression, while
other weapons exist solely for defense, the United States would be the
first to support the proposal to establish a distinction between them,
since the United States obviously does not intend to engage in
aggression. But reflection must lead inevitably to the conviction that
it would be fruitless and impracticable in the highest degree to attempt
to decide whether some weapons are “offensive” and others “defensive” as
the basis for the regulation and reduction of armaments.
As a practical matter, it is impossible in a military sense to
distinguish between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons. Armaments are
simply an effective means for the concentration of force, which is
indispensable for both defense and offense. It is obvious that nearly
all armaments have to some extent both an offensive and a defensive
character, and that virtually every weapon can be employed offensively
or defensively in turn. Offense and defense are subjective terms
dependent on circumstances, applicable to the way in which weapons are
used but not to the weapons themselves. The fact is that a weapon is
defensive when used for the purpose of resisting aggression and
offensive when used for the purpose of promoting aggression. A pistol in
the hand of a man bent on murder is offensive but that same weapon in
the hand of a man defending his life against murderous attack is
defensive. As an international body of military experts reported in
1926: “The principal test whether a force is designed for purely
defensive purposes or built up in a spirit of aggression remains in any
case the intentions of the country concerned”.*
The idea of basing armament regulation on a distinction between
“offensive” and “defensive” weapons is not new. The Disarmament
Conference which began in 1932 adopted this approach and sought to
implement it by subjecting the whole range of land, sea and air
armaments to a searching technical examination. The result is well
known: The Conference was unable to draw a distinction between
“offensive”
[Page 459]
and “defensive”
weapons. Those who insisted that such a distinction was feasible could
do no better than stigmatize the most powerful modern weapons as
“offensive”, although it was pointed out that wars of aggression had
taken place from the dawn of history, long before the development of
these modern armaments. After months of intensive study, debate and
negotiation the discussion of this subject ended in confusion and
futility. Surely the present discussions will not be condemned to the
same fate.
In this connection one more point must be emphasized. The Charter is
based on the principle that Members of the United Nations will make
available to the Security Council armed forces for the maintenance of
international peace and security. If an attempt is now made to
distinguish between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons, if (following a
certain trend in the Disarmament Conference of 1932) it is decided that
the most powerful modern weapons are “offensive” and should be
abolished, the result would be to deprive the United Nations security
forces of the most effective weapons for the repression of aggression.
The authority of the United Nations would be undermined and the way
smoothed for an aggressor who might install himself in the territory of
a weaker state through his quantitative superiority in older-type
armaments. The United States has repeatedly indicated that arrangements
for providing military force under Article 43 of the Charter constitute
an important element of security on which sucessful armament regulation
depends. The national contingents of these forces must not be deprived
of weapons adequate to their task; they must not be hamstrung at the
outset by a fictitious distinction between “offensive” and “defensive”
weapons.
