CIVIL DEFENSE AND DISARMAMENT

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

None of us want an atomic war, although we may differ on the means of best avoiding one. Many, including this writer, feel that any attempt to ease existing world tensions must take into account the actual and quite basic differences that divide East and West. Such an attempt, therefore, faces a long and difficult journey, and its success depends, to a large extent, on the willingness of the Eastern leaders to cooperate. Others, including the leaders of SANE, perhaps seeking a shorter and easier road to peace, advocate the cure-all of disarmament, either by a unilateral effort by this country or, less naively, through increased American effort towards a bilateral agreement. The purpose of this letter is not to discuss the problem of whether arms reduction would truly solve world problems. In fact, I agree that it would, under an adequate controls system, be an excellent beginning. I do, however, strongly disagree with an idea held by many SANE adherents and vocalized clearly by Paul S. Cowan in the most recent CRIMSON Weekly Review.

Cowan argues that the real enemies of disarmament are the Rockefellers and Civil Defense Directors who ask for bigger and better bomb shelters and the "militarists" who ask for larger and larger sums for larger and larger weapons. But, leaving aside the problem of the relative guilt of Rockefeller or Khrushchev in promoting the arms race, it seems to me that Cowan and his supporters, in criticizing those who argue the inevitability of war, are just as wrong in assuming the inevitability of peace.

It seems to me that, realistically, if there is a war before any disarmament is agreed upon, a strong military and a good Civil Defense System will be quite handy things to have around.

In short, I fall to see the justification for the derisive and accusative finger pointed at Rockefeller, Civil Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There is nothing immoral or inconsistent in pressing for an adequately controlled disarmament as a first step towards peace and, pressing just as hard for a strong military force and an adequate Civil Defense System. --Robert A. Schnur 1L

Mr. Cowan Replies:

Mr. Schnur agrees that arms reduction, under an adequate controls system, would be an excellent beginning to solve world problems. Of course, negotiations are impossible unless both sides genuinely desire to reach an agreement. I would question an assumption that colors the rest of Mr. Schnur's letter--that America is, at present, prepared to accept arms reduction and will make certain compromises to reach that end.

There have been several incidents in the past year which suggest that America is not. For example, the Senate has strongly opposed allowing Russian scientists to examine a few of our obsolete nuclear weapons, a proposal that would damage neither our security nor our alliances and would very possibly speed up test ban negotiations. For example, the Pentagon has quite openly disapproved of the State Department's proposals at the Geneva test ban conference.

There is an obvious reciprocity between public opinion and the decisions of its leaders. Before an official decides, he attempts to discern what the public wants; once a decision has been made, the climate of public opinion undergoes a subtle change.

The atmosphere created by current Civil Defense measures has unquestionably instilled in the American public a certain complacency about nuclear war. If bomb shelters are to be built, they should very clearly symbolize the threat of ultimate destruction. But when every drug store in every town carries a large stock of "do-it-yourself" bomb shelter kits, when Civil Defense authorities publicly argue about the most attractive design for an underground city, Civil Defense measures come to symbolize the prospects for ultimate security. But to accept such artificial security is to hide from the clearest and most terrifying reality in the world today. To accept emotionally the prospect of the human race huddling underground indefinitely is tacitly to abandon everything man has accomplished on the earth.

Undoubtedly, America should prepare for atomic war. But each step of its preparation should suggest to the public and its leaders how catastrophic such a war would be.