Weinberger’s Call for Testing

Seldom does one find in one place the bankruptcy of thought and argument that is contained in the two letters from the Southern California Federation of Scientists regarding Caspar Weinberger’s article on nuclear testing. It is embarrassing to hear such arguments advanced from a purportedly scientific perspective.

Jack R. Jennings, corresponding secretary of the federation, finds it “inexcusably irresponsible for The Times to print the atrocious article by Weinberger . . . “ Imagine! Printing an opposing view. So much for a scientific attitude on examination of all points of view.

Then Jennings attacks The Times and Weinberger rather than Weinberger’s argument. He follows this up by citing Dr. Richard Garwin, a nationally known advocate of “peace” positions, which are indistinguishable from those of the Soviets, to bolster his position on what’s good for this country.

Jenning’s colleague Antonie K. Churg, argues that the claims that warheads need to be checked is “specious.” No tests are required, says Churg since fewer than 5% of U.S. tests are for reliability. Do we then need fewer tests or no tests?

With these arguments, with the use of Garwin as a scientific authority, with the attack on Lawrence Livermore Laboratories as a center for advocacy, I am suspicious of the other authorities quoted. I don’t know whether or not nuclear tests are required. But I hope that you will continue to print the views of Cabinet officials on matters of national policies. I also hope you’ll print opposing views by responsible competent spokespersons.

The Southern California Federation of Scientists may be composed of scientists, but the authors of those letters do not respect the scientific method. They are obviously not scholars, nor do their positions stand up under very much scientific or intellectual scrutiny.

JAMES ALEXIOU

Irvine