End the Arms Race

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I appreciated The Crimson's coverage on May 9 of my remarks at the Center for International Affairs seminar. The condensation and rearrangement of some of my comments, however, give rise to misunderstanding about my views.

Let me summarize my remarks on the matters reported.

I believe that it is in America's interest to obtain a mutually beneficial and verifiable agreement with the Soviet Union to limit strategic armaments. Many Americans, however, still unhappy over our withdrawal from Vietnam, are afraid that other nations will view us as weak. Accordingly, they seek unwarranted additions to the defense budget and long for a return to unchallengeable U.S. military superiority.

In fact, we are enormously powerful, with strength sufficient to deter any nuclear attack, and with a lead in many important measures of capability--such as in strategic nuclear warheads, where the U.S. leads 9000 to 4500. However, regaining dominant superiority in the strategic relationship over a determined adversary is impossible for either side. Instead, we have to adjust to the ambiguities of mutual deterrence and military equivalence, and have to restrain each side's weapons competition through balanced agreements which preserve our essential national security. --Sen. John C. Culver '54 [D-Iowa]