No Alternative to Deterrence?

Geyelin asserts that the goal of dismantling nuclear weapons is unrealistic. His rhetoric, couched in cliches, must be discredited.

An agenda of total disarmament is not based on “soft-headed” beliefs; it is based on the observation that if weapons are available, they are ultimately used. Nuclear weapons are unimaginably terrible. Neither the firestorms and fatalities of previous “conventional” wars, nor the future destructive potential of chemical and biological warfare and precision-guided munitions, justify stockpiling 6,000-times the firepower of World War II, and constantly upgrading the means to deliver chunks of ammunition that kill half a million people in a shot.

Since nuclear weapons cannot be “disinvented,” an agenda of total disarmament does not “cheapen” the arms control debate; there is plenty of work to be done.

Nuclear disarmament entails the use of currently available high technology to monitor compliance; it does not require that we “submit all of Soviet society” to scrutiny in order to verify compliance.

Geyelin credits deterrence with defending Europe in the face of an invasion by a “hostile Soviet empire.” When the United States had an unequivocal lead in nuclear weaponry that argument may have been valid. However, the United States can no longer use nuclear weapons to defend Europe, because the inevitable Soviet retaliation would obliterate the United States. Deterrence is an obsolete paradigm.

It is even realistic to believe that war has become obsolete. In forming local and national governments, people gave up the right to take the law into their own hands, and in return, they increased their individual security. International social contracts are an extension of this principle. Nuclear disarmament and a strong United Nations are in the interest of national security!

ANTONIE K. CHURG

Los Angeles