‘Missiles: the Right Choice’

Choosing one missile over another obscures a more fundamental decision that must be made: Are we to add weapons for deterrence as the best method of gaining security in the nuclear age?

In the 1980s, Americans have reached a public judgment about nuclear war. We are now convinced that nuclear war “cannot be won and must never be fought.” Moreover, we know a nuclear war is likely to be so destructive that civilization--even the human species--is in jeopardy. At the moment, prevention has taken the historically validated form of deterrence. Unfortunately, past history does not prepare us to deal with deterrence in the nuclear age. Deterrence demands credibility. You must believe I can and will deal you an unacceptable blow if provoked or attacked first. Moreover, high-technology deterrence demands constant upgrading so your opponent cannot suddenly produce an unexpected weapon or system that gives him the advantage over you.

In short, nuclear-age deterrence requires a perpetual arms race, a permanent commitment to new weapons and techniques, a continued diversion of wealth and creativity away from the solutions for social needs. It produces a debilitating futurelessness, particularly among our youth, thus weakening our society from within.

Instead of choosing between missiles, we must choose between continuing a now-obsolete reliance on the threat of violence in this age of mass destruction, and embarking instead on a process of conflict resolution through nonviolence--recognizing the reality of our unprecedented destructive capability.

We can’t do this alone. The U.S. and the Soviet Union, despite deep and persistent conflicts, must move together with great care. But we must first decide that this, indeed, is our central task. We must not be swayed by the temptation to deal with simpler but incomplete and diversionary issues. And, we must persist.

DONALD E. MUELLER

Long Beach