Ivy Students, Faculty Split on Nukes

A new book by six Harvard specialists on nuclear weapons policy supports a partial nuclear freeze, backs deployment of new NATO missiles in Europe and opposes the B-1 bomber, but reaches no conclusions on the proposed construction of the MX missile.

The study, "Living with Nuclear Weapons," will be released simultaneously in hardcover by Harvard University Press and in paperback by Bantam Books on June 1. Its publication culminates a year-long project that began last June when President Bok announced in his commencement address that the University should help to educate the public by providing an objective report on nuclear issues.

In the book's foreword, however, Bok writes. "The final product is not what I had envisaged at the outset. At an early stage, the authors concluded that they could not retrain entirely from expressing their own opinions without making it too bland and undiscriminating."

"We told Bok that you can't leave the reader dangling on the issues," Stanley Hoffmann, Dillon Professor of the Civilization of France, one of the five professors who accepted Bok's invitation to form a "Harvard Nuclear Study Group" and write the book, said this week. "You have to make some suggestions for policy," he added, noting that Bok supported the group's decision.

Nevertheless, the book presents "a balanced range of opinions," said Scott D. Sagan, a Ph.D. candidate in the Government Department who directed a four-member research staff and prepared drafts based on the professors outlines.

Deterrence Works

Despite their wide range of political views, the authors agreed on their basic conclusion--that nuclear deterrence can maintain peace, if it is linked to arms control negotiations and "detente without illusions" between superpowers.

"We had overall agreement on the central thrust, but there were sharp disagreements over the MX and deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe," said co-author Samuel P. Huntington, Dillon Professor of International Affairs.

The study group cites practical difficulties facing both the nuclear freeze proposal and President Reagan's START negotiations. But the authors do suggest that "serious efforts to achieve various partial freezes may offer a route to less dangerous future."

On two controversial issues concerning nuclear weapons in Europe, the scholars come down on Reagan's side. They favor placing Pershing II missiles in Western Europe to maintain credibility for America's commitment to its NATO allies. And they say they are "not yet persuaded" by proponents of a "no first use" policy for NATO's nuclear forces.

B-1 Bombed

They call the B-1 bomber, which Reagan has placed at the top of his defense budget request list, "an unnecessary expenditure," arguing that existing B-52 planes can be updated to meet U.S. defense needs.

The scholars make no recommendations on Reagan's plan to build the MX missile, but they conclude that whatever the final decision on the MX, the U.S. should maintain a land-based missile force, even if its is "theoretically vulnerable" to Soviet attack.

On other issues, the study group favors development of both air and sea-launched cruise missiles, but opposes developing anti-ballistic weapons that might violate the 1972 $ALT I treaty.

members of the study group noted that their final draft includes changes suggested by scholars they added to review the draft manuscripts in January. But the authors declined to comment on specific changes and suggestions.

Most of these consultants, contacted this week, reacted favorably to the text.

Richard E. Pipes Baird Professor of History and a former staff member of Reagan's National Security Council, praised the report as "a major charge from what you could have expected five or seven years ago. Back then it would have been more idealistic and hortatory."

Called Lucid and Fair

Abram Chayes, Frankfurter Professor of Law and an authority on international law, called "Living with Nuclear Weapons" a "lucid and fair statement. I think it will be a standard book on these issues." He added that he had criticized early drafts as "over-Hobbesian," but the authors later assured him that "that had been toned down."

Everett I. Mendelsohn. Professor of the History of Science, a leading disarmament advocate, said that the book was "thoughtfully made," has criticized it "for giving the are one language of nuclear strategy the Harvard imprimatur."

" I think it was a waste of some of the good intellectual resources of people in the study group," Mendelsohn added. "I think Harvard could have performed a real service by giving us a book outlining what steps must be taken to get rid of the bomb."

The authors agreed that writing a book on the complex topic of nuclear weapons by committee posed special difficulties.

"We faced an inherent problem in trying to clarify and simplify a complex subject for the general public, yet still produce something that was collectively authored," Huntington said.

"It was a hectic process," said co-author Joseph S. Nye Jr., professor of Government. "We had some marathon sessions where we met for 13 hours at a stretch. It's remarkable that we were to successful."

Authors emphasized that Sagan played a key rule in the book's preparation. Hoffmann praised the graduate student for his "extraordinary effort" in writing tough drafts and serving as the group's recording secretary.

But the scholars denied that any one person had sole claim to any part of the book.

"We all contributed equally," Huntington said. "Each chapter is the work of several hands."

Hoffmann also noted that despite extended debate within the group, "miraculously we ended up with our personal relations intact We even came to appreciate others views better, and in that sense it was a great project."

Neither the group for the University but settled on plans to promote the luck through public appearances by the authors, Sagan said. But he added that the group will appear together at an abnormal symposiums on nuclear issues June 11.

The professors and Sagan will all receive royalties from the book, Nye said. Hoffmann added that the authors had already received an advance payment from the publishers, but he noted, "It's not exactly enough to buy a country house, even if we all put out shares together."