INF Treaty

Yoder’s opinion piece was chilling. He argues that eliminating intermediate nuclear missiles in Europe “would knock several rungs from the ladder of possible responses to aggression, weakening deterrence correspondingly.” Implicit in this critique of an INF agreement is the conviction that intermediate nuclear weapons could be used to stop Soviet aggression without triggering a global holocaust.

He goes on to call intermediate-range missiles, such as the Pershing 2 “less catastrophic” than intercontinental weapons. Referring to weapons that are designed to kill millions of human beings at a time as “less catastrophic,” and therefore more acceptable, than some more grisly alternative demonstrates severe moral retardation.

The fact is that the millions of dead would not be able to tell the difference between an intermediate or strategic warhead. Also, please do not try to revive the idea that a nuclear war in Europe or anywhere else could be limited. It is precisely because nuclear war cannot be controlled that the use of nuclear weapons can no longer be considered by a sane person. That is why we must begin now to dismantle the tools of our self-destruction. An INF treaty would be a small step in the right direction.

JAMES SALLIS

San Diego