NSC-68 and the Arms Race

1. Study Source 7. According to this source, how serious was the Soviet nuclear threat?     
According to source 7, the Soviet nuclear threat was a very large threat. this source is stating things such, that the Soviet Union could easily bomb the U.S. at any time, and their nuclear bomb cabability was growing. It was threatening that the Soviet Union could bomb nuclear bases in the U.S., causing a disasterous situation.
2. What measures is Source 7 calling for?    
The measures source 7 are calling for are "greatly increased air warning systems, air defences and vigorous dvelepoment and implementation of a civil defense program" Basically, source 7 is implying that greater defense mechanisms are necessary.
3. How would you describe the tone of Source 7? Use examples of words and phrases in the text to support your answer.    
I would describe the tone of source 7 as scared or threatened, perhaps worried. This can be seen through the quote "seriously damaging vital centres" and "and thus seriously hamper the ability of the United States to carry out an attack" These two quotes show concern and worry to what the Soviet Union is capable of.
4. Study Source 8. What criticisms are made of Source 7?   
The critisisms made of source 7 in source 8 are basically that source 7 was extremely exaggerated, that source 7 made the Soviet Union seem to be far mroe of an enemy than it really was at the time. Another critisism being that during the time the report came, the Korean War was going on, which made people, including president Truman,  believe that the report was "valid"
5. Do you think the author of Source 7 wanted to increase tension and the risk of war? If not, what were his motives?    
I do believe the author of source 7 wanted to increase the tension and risk of war, but not in a bad way. I believe the author just wanted to make the U.S. aware of the circumstances and perhaps just to have people on gaurd in case something really bad were to happen. i do also think another one of hi9s motives was to have the national defense increased in case something were to happen, even if the risk was less likely than he made it out to be.
6. Do the criticisms in Source 8 mean that Source 7 is not a useful historical source? Explain your answer.
I do not believe that just because source 8 has critisisms of source 7, that source 7 is not useful as a historical source. Source 7, although, exaggerated, is still useful as a historical source because it gives readers an idea of how every one felt, or what people were hearing during the time. Source 8 just proves that what they were hearing about, wasn't completely true, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the type of report people were encountering during the time.