Two Views on Arms Control

For pessimism versus optimism, your Sept. 16 Op-Ed Page is a classic. Here, in “A False God Called Arms Control,” the pessimist, Dimitri Simes of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, says, “Any agreement . . . that would make a real difference appears completely beyond reach.”

The realist, Adm. Eugene Carroll (USN, ret.), deputy director of the Center for Defense Information, says the opposite: “Is a mutual, verifiable test-ban treaty achievable?” he asks. “Yes--and easily, if the United States wants one.”

Carroll, deals in facts. These show (1) that arms control is not only within reach but (2) that when prefaced by a test ban it could make all the difference in the world.

Carroll shows that to talk arms control and at the same time keep on testing and building new missiles only steps up the threat. “Eliminate ‘test’ from the talk-test-build arms-control process,” Carroll says. “Stop nuclear testing now. Untested weapons cannot be safely produced or deployed (so) it would eliminate the technological push that fuels the arms race.”

Pessimist Simes says, “There is no escape from the nasty rules of power politics. Bet on it.” (Come, sweet death.)

On that I’ll go with Carroll, the can-do admiral. Carroll cites “the Soviets’ recent 19-month moratorium on nuclear testing” and the fact that “on June 19 they proposed positive on-site inspection plus an international agency to verify test ban compliance.” He says, “We alone can decide when and if nuclear testing stops.”

Is Simes saying we lack the political will to survive? I, for one, am writing my congressman and senators and the President on the need for a test ban--to prove Simes wrong.

HAROLD WATERHOUSE

Pacific Palisades