No Alternative to Deterrence?

In his article (Editorial Pages, Jan. 21), “There is Simply No Alternative to Nuclear Deterrence,” Philip Geyelin labels as “soft-headed” the hope of peace-loving citizens that nuclear disarmament can be achieved. He argues that there is no alternative to maintaining nuclear deterrence as a means of preventing war, and therefore it is foolish to even talk about disarmament, because “it is irresponsible to talk about something that isn’t going to happen.”

Not everyone is as cynical about the human potential as is Geyelin, who chooses to turn a blind eye to the risks of an ever-continuing arms race. The superpowers are in possession of nuclear arsenals that will soon have first-strike capabilities. The promise of President Reagan’s much-touted “Star Wars” shield is but expensive “pie in the sky” at this point, and much criticized by leading scientists everywhere.

As the arsenals become more and more computerized and automated, the superpowers move closer to a “hair-trigger” posture in which a mistake in human judgment or a computer error could present but one alternative: use the nuclear weapons, or lose them in a preemptive first-strike.

In such a world, nuclear war and the threat of such a war have become irrational, immoral and conceivably suicidal means for resolving international disputes. Far from being “soft-headed,” as Geyelin believes, the search for an alternative to an ever-escalating arms race is therefore a pragmatic response to the very real risk that all that we hold dear could be annihilated in an atomic exchange.

Nuclear disarmament is possible in this century, despite Geyelin’s pessimism. It is true that nuclear weapons cannot be “disinvented.” However, the nations of the world are capable of controlling this deadly technology, which, after all, is but inert matter in the hands of living, thinking human beings. We should be mindful of the fact that disarmament is as much in the self-interest of the Soviets as it is in our own.

Finally, urging the superpowers to dismantle their nuclear arsenals is a highly responsible act of world citizenship, for the fate of each nation on earth has become inextricably linked with that of all others. Geyelin tells us it is irresponsible to demand that which seems impossible to attain. Granted, nothing appears to be so unattainable as nuclear disarmament.

However, there was a time when the abolition of slavery in this country seemed like an utter impossibility. Yet, this did not deter people like Frederick Douglass from speaking out against the abomination of human bondage. There was a time when the dismantling of racial segregation was perceived as foolish wishful thinking. But would Geyelin dare to call the life work of Martin Luther King Jr. “irresponsible?” I think not.

WILLIAM BOTHAMLEY

San Diego