Disarmament: A Realistic Goal?

The following comments from undergraduates were recorded verbatim in the convocation's aftermath.

1. Do you believe in Ronald Reagan's plans to build up nuclear forces and negotiate from a position of strength?

Rob Abedon '82-3: I don't agree with the policy of negotiating from building up strength because I think that the more strength in tactical and strategic weapons one has, the more likelihood that there will be some sort of accident, either mechnical or human, and that the chances of war breaking out between the two superpowers or between other countries that may acquire the weapons or already have them is greater. Preempting negotiations by acquiring what you would like to eradicate in the other side's arsenal simply doesn't make sense.

Patrick Toomey '84: I think we definitely have to negotiate from a position of strength or the negotiations will be impossible. I think that the Soviet leadership doesn't respect weakness or even parity; they respect strength.

Bharat Dube '83: No, definitely not, because I believe that the only way for people to combat Reagan's policies is to fight fire with fire. Specifically, people like Qadadafi (of Libya) and Zia al-Haq (of Pakistan) might possibly be prompted into using nuclear threats in order to bargain with the super-powers.

Andre Schleiffer '82: Yes, because I believe the Soviet Union is expanding, does have an interest in expanding, and the only way to stop this expansion is by giving some indication that if it continues conflict will be unavoidable. I think that there is a real possibility of the Soviet Union invading Western Europe, and ... that putting Pershing and cruise missles in West Germant might be a real deterrent, as well as the neutron bomb.

Chris Ivanoff '82: As someone who is not American-born and has relatives in Europe, I believe the "position of strength" Reagan wants to bargain from makes Europe the table on which the cards are being played. That carries the domain of American politics beyond its borders. Reagan's policies shouldn't threaten the security of others and the integrity of their political institutions by pressing them to act against their domestic interests. The American position makes leaders feel they don't have control over their internal affairs. These leaders lose their people's confidence and this threatens European security.

2. Is disarmament a realistic goal? If so, what steps should the United States take to achieve it?

Liane Rozzell '82: I think arms limitation is but I don't know how realistic disarmament is. I'm in Air Force ROTC and given the policies of the military and the way the military is oriented I don't see how total disarmament will happen anytime soon. There is a general belief that the stronger we are militarily, the more we deter Russia from stomping on us, and the better off we'll be. I think that is the position of the higher military leaders and of course Reagan and Alexander Haig. Those guys want more and more weapons and bigger and better ones. Therefore I don't think disarmament is a possibility...

Rob Abedon '82-31 think that disarmament is not a realistic goal because the countries that have nuclear weapons have grown accustomed to the political status that these nuclear weapons give them. They would be almost impossibly reluctant to give up the status and the leverage that having these weapons give the country in world diplomacy. For example Britain and France...have much greater diplomatic status in the world than their economic or political status would be without (nuclear weapons). Therefore, countries will not give up their weapons completely, although they may put a freeze on production or limit the growth of their armaments. I think that the best we could hope for would be to have freezes...and then negotiations to reduce to some particular level that would be more easily verified. Once one can verify the other side's arsenal there is a lot more safety. However, I think that should one go to a very low level of nuclear arms this would be counterproductive... It would act as an incentive to wipe out just the few remaining of the other country.

Bharat Dube

I think that total disarmament is not a realistic goal because the history of mankind has been full of warfare. But we must attempt to cut down on the arms race. The U.S. is in a strong position as one of the leading nations of the world to get together with the other nations and propose a cut back. I read something interesting in a book of predictions: people believe that between 1990 and 2030 a nuclear war will happen that will have such a catastrophic effect that following the war nations will resolve never to use them again...Human nature is not willing to change unless it experiences, and even if it experiences it is so forgetful...so people aren't so terribly keen on disarmament as they ought to be.

Andre Schleiffer

Short range, no. Long range, yes. The first thing that has to be done is to convince the Soviet Union that expansion is not feasible and probably the only way to do that is by upsetting one of their endeavors to organize a revolution in the Third World. That will give them the idea that expansionism is not as fruitful as they think it might be, and would create a real atmosphere for disarmament.

Randy Marshall '82: It's hard to say whether or not it's realistic but I know it needs to be tried. I think that because of the fear that must be present everywhere in the world that people are going to want to at least try to reach some sort of disarmament treaty.

Mark Sauter:

I don't feel that there will ever be a time when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. will be disarmed completely. No nation has ever negotiated a lasting peace with sovereignty with a hostile and better-armed neighbor. Peace only comes through equality.

3. How do you feel about the growing peace movement among students in Western Europe?

Liane Rozzell:

I think it's great. I don't believe that if people are preparing for a situation they will have the self-restraint to stop from entering situation. So I think that if people protest those preparations, it's a good first step.

Bharat Dube:

I think it's ironical that countries that have instigated violence in the past should be starting the peace movement. I think that this is a good lesson. They are promoting peace because, unlike the U.S., they know war...I feel very favorably about it in general. They might be able to put some sense into someone.

Ron Abedon:

I'm all for the uprisings. The Europeans because they have experienced international war directly, on their soil, feel directly affected by this bantering about theatre nuclear war and limited nuclear war that we Americans seem to feel isolated from, and I think that's scary.

Andre Schleiffer:

I disapprove of it. I think the reason for it is their patronizing attitude towards Americans. I think that it will be impossible to convince them that they are wrong... The U.S. should pursue a policy of active involvement in NATO regardless of the views of the German youth. They should not be given any weight. I find it ironic that Europe has enjoyed the longest period of peace this century since the formation of NATO and the involvement of the U.S. in Europe. One is struck by the similarity of this peace movement with those of the thirties in Europe and some of the attitudes prevalent before World War I. The Europeans have twice failed to secure their own freedom in this century, and I for one feel a growing impatience with what seems to be a reenactment of all of their traditional mistakes.