Basic HTML Version
WHY THE WORLD WILL
NOTDISARM
WHY THERE WILL BE
PEACE ANYWAY
by
Jeff Calkins
If
our only hope is disarmament, humanity is
doomed. Fortunately, it isn't.
D
OES PEACE- your sur–
vival- depend on the
outcome of negotia–
tions between the United
States and the U.S.S.R. in
Geneva?
Does the fate of the world
rest on what a few dozen a rms
experts from the Un ited States
and Soviet Union do around a
conference table?
A whole school of "peace"
experts would certainly say so.
One Vlew
A considerable body of opinion says
the
only
hope for human survival
líes in disarmament. This school of
thought is best represented by
Frank Barnaby of the Stockholm
1
nternational Peace Research
1
nsti–
tute (S IPRI), wben he says:
"lf our civilization is to survive
there really is
no feasible alrerna–
tive
to nuclear disarmament." (Em–
phasis added.)
The view is also represented by
British opposition leader Michael
Foot, when he tells a disarmament
rally, "Only by d isarmament can
we properly protect our people."
Now look at the facts as they
are.
Neithe r Trust nor Good lntentions
Disarmament absolutely requires
10
mu t ual trust. While, of course,
there are those- particularly in the
European Peace Movement- who
would not object if the Soviet Union
had the only nuclear weapons on the
continent, a política! majority in
most countries in Westcrn Europe
st ill favor havi ng enough power to
remain independent of the Soviet
Union. Thus disarmament cannot
be, as they say, unilateral. One side
cannot do it alone.
In his speech on disarmament
President R eagan said, "We cannot
reduce arms unilaterally. Success
can only come if the Soviet Union
will share our commitment." And
during Soviet President Leonid
Brez hnev 's trip to Bo nn last
November, hi s spokesman de–
clared, "We have no weapon we do
nbt wish to part with, if this were
mutual."
Yet eacb superpower clearly
does not trust the other not to take
advantage of weakness. Thus, in
February, 1981, the Soviet Union's
defense minister Dmitry Ustinov
charged that the United States had
"plans" to launch a "preemptive
nuclear" attack against the USSR
and East bloc nations to gain global
superiority.
On the American side, U.S. Dep–
uty Secretary of State Lawrence
Eagleburger character ized Russian
goals in Europeas menacing:
"The Soviets have
~o
higher goal
than undoing the December 1979
decision [of the U.S. to deploy mid–
range missiles in Europe], leaving
themselves with an undeterred capa–
bility to wage or threaten nuclear
war in Europe."
Because of such mistrust, disar–
mament negot iations often bccome
perverse games of numbers jug–
gling.
A MAD Doctrine
What is it that prevents the Soviet
Union from launching an attack on
the Uni ted States?
Even to ask the question subverts
the idea of disarmament. The ques–
tion itself implies that the Soviets
just might do it if they could
get
away with
it.
I t assurnes that there
is a component to human nature
that not many in the peace move–
ment even care to acknowledge: the
desire on the part of the Soviet
leaders to bring all the world under
tbeir domination.
So what does prevent such an
attack? In a word-fear; fear that
enough U.S. forces would survive to
be used to devastate the attacker.
But what happens if the first
attack
successfully
destroyed
America's
own
nuclear weapons–
before
they could ever be used?
.The principie of attacking the
other side's weapons is not new. In
1914, before bombers carne into
widespread use in military arsenals,
The
PLAIN
TRUTH