Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, APRIL 2, 1982
PAGE 12
moratorium in Soviet mid-range nuclear missiles in the European part of
Russia.
(However, few if any freeze advocates applauded Mr. Reagan's
"zero-option" proposal last November--no new NATO weapons in exchange for
the Soviets removing their SS-20's. Why?)
Of course, what the Kremlin really wants in this case is to force NATO
countries to scrap their 1983 plan to install new Pershing II and cruise
missiles in Europe--the first nuclear weapons in Europe (outside of some
French weapons) that can reach the Soviet heartland. Moscow is deathly
afraid that these new weapons which though initially under U.S. control
(the Soviets essentially trust America), could someday fall into the wrong
--meaning German--hands.
The U.S. freeze-firsters, however, appear blinded to the geopolitical
strategies of big-power politics. Essentially humanists, they see only the
horror of all-out nuclear war, however it would come about. For examole, a
leading freeze advocate Helen Caldicott, President of Physicians for Social
Responsibility, when asked about verification answered simply: "That can
be worked out. I'm not a politician." Moreover, freeze advocates see the
U.S. as the chief villain in the "arms race" now. The Soviets, they admit,
are strong, perhaps even stronger than the U.S. But for the U.S. to catch
up, they feel, would only provoke the Soviets further. Perhaps the best
expression of this mind-set, which contains an underlying "better Red than
dead" resignation, was contained in a recent letter to the editor of the LOS
ANGELES TIMES:
I am amazed at my country, more specifically at my government.
The people of this country are beginning to clamor for some kind
of worldwide freeze on nuclear weapons, and, when the Soviets
actually come forth on their own and make a positive first step
in the direction of nuclear arms reductions [the Eurooean freeze
offer], all the Reagan Administration can do is scoff and say,
"It's not enough." What more does it want?
The Soviets claim that if we don't accept their present proposal
they will retaliate by putting us and our allies in an "analogous
position." I don't believe that the United States is in a posi
tion at the present time to repel another Cuban missile crisis
situation. Twenty years ago we had nuclear superiority, but not
anymore. We are not in � oosition to reject Soviet proposals.
Arms reductions have to begin somewhere; the Reagan Administra
tion is just asking for trouble by rejecting this proposal...•The
present Administration persists in its attitude of making the
Soviets concede everything first, especially when they have just
made � perfectly reasonable first step. I am truly mystified.
Wrote another reader:
Peace..• is waged with trust, courage, understanding and compas
sion.
Russians, like Americans, are intelligent, aggressive,
competitive and fiercely patriotic people. If we are a great and
honorable nation, we will "wage peace" and find creative, con
structive ways to compete with the Soviet Union.
A nuclear
weapons freeze would be a giant first step on this road.•..
Economic, cultural and scientific ties must then be strengthened
if we are to work toward mutual understanding and trust.