Disarmament

If the arms race goes on as it has, we are left to ponder not if, but when, a nuclear war will occur. Our choice is between great change and great ruin. In order to survive we have either to avert an attack or to shield ourselves from its effects. Since anti-missile defense does not exist, protection means going underground in shelters. Secret reports to the President have urged this sort of "passive defense;" a well-known atomic scientist recommends it on television; and Herman Kahn has recently dedicated a book to the idea.

Building shelters, however, would greatly increase the likelihood of war, because the Soviets would inevitably view it as preparation for a preventive war. And U.S. citizens, watching the construction, would further accept the notion that nuclear war, after all, is sure to come.

Unless we resign ourselves to crawling underground and re-emerging into a world of ruin, we must work to avert an attack. Threats of retailiation are not sufficient, because fear does not prevent mistakes and accidents, and may, in fact, make them more likely. Fear builds more weapons, and weapons more fear. The fools are those who assume we can go on as we are. Fast-moving technology, from which we can not escape, calls for radical politics, and presents Kennedy's greatest challenge.

After years of nuclear deterrence, people have come to expect another war, though grasping, at times, its horror. The apocalyptic nature of this next war grows ironically reassuring. Until it comes, life is normal or nearly so; and when it comes, life ends. Meanwhile, the response to threats is simply to build "strength" and act "tough."

In this situation, the press, though free from censorship, is captive to the outlook of its readers. News of a radar mistake and a bomber alert is reported, if at all, in a note on the sports page. When the ingenious Mr. Kahn writes a book listing death figures for the next war and urging us to build shelters, there is little public stir.

As it is, people are afraid to admit the danger because no "posture" but the arms race seems possible, and fear without hope serves no purpose, can not be sustained. So frozen is our thinking that people can find only one alternative to the arms race: namely, surrender to the Soviets. A false and dangerously misleading debate between the "militarists" and those who call for unilateral disarmament, leaves the vast middle ground unexplored.

In order to let people admit their fears and think about meaningful alternatives, Kennedy should take steps to replace the psycho-logic of the arms race.

1. Give full support to John J. McCloy, new head of the U.S. Disarmament Administration.

2. Ask Congress to create a National Peace Agency to back up the U.S.D.A. with research on various aspects of peace, including the technical aspects of arms control, the economics of disarmament, international law, public opinion, and decision-making in governments. Congressman Bennett has introduced a bill (H.R. 18) "for research and development relating to over-all problems of disarmament, arms limitations and inspection and control systems...."

3. Pursue the test-ban negotiations in Geneva with determination, not an equivocal policy alternating between the State Department and the AEC. If the U.S. and Russia agree, they can exert pressure on the younger members of the nuclear club and, even more importantly, on the People's Republic of China.

4. As President, do more as a leader of world opinion than praise peace in justice for freedom. Peace is not a matter of cheering crowds or lofty proclamations. It is a difficult and sensitive diplomatic task. If we are to find a system less dangerous than the arms race, Kennedy will have to prepare the U.S. for the radical politics of disarmament.