August 6, 1945, was a fateful day.

As the bombardier on the Enola Gay released his cargo upon an unsuspecting and undefended Hiroshima, the ending of 70,000 lives ushered in the atomic age. Never before had the world seen such instruments of destruction in the hands of so few. A few decades later, we question the integrity and sanity of the leaders of both superpowers. Much has changed, but not the spectre of nuclear war which still hangs heavily in the air. Above all, fear prevails.

What little confidence we might have had in the Soviet leadership was blasted out of the sky on the shameful night of September 1, 1983, along with 269 innocent citizens of the free world. Most Americans no longer think of war as a means of settling global disputes. When there is conflict amongst nations which possess nuclear weapons, it is clearly possible that in a given half hour the world as we know it could cease to exist.

This time, when the rights of the citizens of 12 free countries were so shamelessly violated, we stood by and watched the denials, the lies, and finally the arrogant admission that, yes, the Soviets had shot down our 'spy' plane.

Some feared that a war would be startedover the incident. No one really knew what to expect in those tense moments after it was rumored that the airliner was missing and we began to piece together the awful truth. Certainly the Soviets deserved a swift and stern response. What to do? Any military response that we might have offered to avenge the deaths of our compatriots could have plunged us headlong into a holocaust.

At the start of World War I, it was just such an incident that provoked global hostilities. The Lusitania, a British luxury liner, was torpedoed by a German sub-marine. Among the 1,959 passengers and crew on board, there were fewer than 800 survivors. How was the Lusitania different from KAL Flight 007? Both were innocent, unarmed passenger liners, and both were victims of the aggression of political systems which valued their ideology over human life.

Who is going to take responsibility for this tragedy? As usual, within less than a week, the Soviet state-controlled press was blaming the United States. What's more, they asserted that they would not hesitate to fire their missiles again under similar circumstances.

Ironically, Soviet Bear bombers regularly violate U.S. airspace. Do we shoot them down? No way. Furthermore, KAL 007 was a passenger plane, not a bomber capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have changed the rules of the game. It is no longer possible to take vengeance without the threat of planetary extinction. Disputes between the major powers are settled at the bargaining table.

None dare cross the line between apparent peace and war. It is the paradox of today's existence. On one hand, we find ourselves in a technologically oriented society without equal in the history of the world. On the other hand, this same technology which has freed humanity from toil now has the ability to catapult him back into the dark ages over night.

The imminent possibility of a nuclear war has led nations—some reluctantly—to negotiation. It seems that a new type of diplomacy has been born, making it in the best interests of both superpowers to reach an agreement-- any agreement. Any agreement is better than none, for if there are differences, we edge ever closer to the brink of planetary self-annihilation.

Humankind has every right to fear itself. The distrust between nations has been with us as long as nations themselves. There has never been a period where the strong have not preyed upon the weak, where governments have not used military might for unfair advantage.

So what is different now? Our level of fear leads us to compromise. Whether it be America's reluctance to protect its vital interests in Central America or the Middle East, the inching of our once invincible Atlantic Alliance ever closer to the Soviet camp, or our failure to respond to the downing of KAL 007—we are paralyzed with fear. Fear that our society, upon which we have grown dependent, will be taken away from us. Fear that a nuclear holocaust will end it all.
Fear that is in certain respects wholly justified.

A nuclear war may leave survivors, but to do what? What does a software engineer from the Santa Clara Valley do when he comes home from his skiing vacation at Mammoth only to find a crater in the ground? He may be alive, but he has spent his entire life training for and participating in the New Class of high technologists. Now he is forced to learn overnight to till the soil and produce food for his family.

The government would be incapable of doing much of anything in the initial aftermath of a nuclear war. Even if the best-case scenario is examined, we come out losers. Suppose we win the war. Suppose we utterly destroy the Russians, their industry, their military, and their leadership (which is highly improbable). We would sustain immeasurable losses in all areas. Let us assume for the argument that there are 40 million survivors: people who live in the country, people on vacation in various remote locations, or 'lucky' ones in the suburbs of ruined cities.

Many of these stunned victims might wish they were dead, but, remaining alive, would have to forage for food on their own, care for the injured and diseased, and establish some type of temporary local leadership. The fragmented or perhaps nonexistent government would have no way to communicate to the population as a whole. There would be few, if any, surviving radio or television stations, much less TV sets or radios—or even power to operate them. Gasoline and spare parts would be scarce or unavailable. The only medium of exchange would be barter, and the law of the jungle would prevail. Truly the horror of "The Day After" would be upon us.

Even if the United States government were still a cohesive force, it could be 25 and possibly 50 years until things were even close to normal. This is, of course, assuming that we had won the war. 25 years! That is anywhere from a third to a half or more of the remaining lifespan of everyone alive today!

Given the state of today's politics, it may seem redundant to expound upon the danger to society of a global nuclear conflict. It bears repeating, because there are a number of steps each of us can take to prevent it. If we do not constantly remind ourselves of the fact that we can take an active role, it is easy to be complacent, confronting only the problems of day-to-day living. In fact, it is much more attractive psychologically to forget that nuclear weapons exist at all. "If a nuclear bomb hits our city, I won't know it anyway!" Sound familiar?

It is widely believed by many in the American and European peace movements that nuclear weapons have changed the way war is fought; and, as far as the perceptions of the West are concerned, they have. Basically, they are deployed so that both sides reach a stalemate in
which they are never used. This is deterrence. Our theoreticians generally accept that nuclear war is not winnable. Unlike our little scenario, both sides would sustain losses that would prevent them from ever recovering as a nation—Or would they?

Foreseeably, the only people to survive a holocaust would be those in remote areas. America has no appreciable civil defense program. A visit to an old building (possibly a government building) might yield a glimpse of a fading painted sign proclaiming: "Fallout Shelter in Basement, Capacity 165." An almost quaint reminder that 25 years ago people believed they might be protected by flocking to the basement when the air-raid siren went off.

Today, it is generally accepted as folly that the inhabitants of a city could do anything to protect themselves from a direct nuclear attack—at least in America. My hometown of Colorado Springs conducted air-raid drills on the fourth Friday of every month at noon. As a child I wondered if the Russians might not launch a strike on the city just when they knew we were having a drill.
The nearby NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense) facility in Cheyenne Mountain made a very attractive strategic target. Month after month the siren would wail, bringing both the fear of annihilation and the guilt that our nation had been the first to use the unspeakable weapons. I was never allowed to forget the legacy of Hiroshima.

Growing up with this guilt and fear, I had nothing but revulsion toward the weapons which held the populations of the world hostage. When I was old enough to understand the reasons why, I could see that the American view of weapons and war was very different from that of our adversary. If I had grown up in Moscow, perhaps there still would have been air-raid drills. But in Moscow, there are underground bunkers of reinforced concrete, capable of withstanding a nuclear near miss. By now, as an adult citizen of the Soviet Union, I might feel confident that my country could survive a nuclear war.

In fact, the idea of a winnable nuclear war as an instrument of foreign policy is an integral part of Soviet military planning. Although the very concept is repugnant to a citizen of either nation, the Soviet leadership energetically embrace nuclear war. Colonel D. Samorukov stated in 1973 (the height of the Nixon 'détente' era):


'The most important features, which up to a considerable degree will determine the composition of forces and material, and also the order of their use in intensification of troop efforts in an offensive, will be the constant readiness to use nuclear weapons. (emphasis mine) Even in the nuclear age, high-ranking Soviet officials continue in their belief that there are just and unjust wars. An unjust war is one which is fought in the name of "imperialism" or any war which opposes Soviet expansionism. A just war is one that furthers the goals of the Soviet state, be it conventional or nuclear.'

Marshal Andrei A. Grechko, Soviet Minister of Defense from 1967 to 1976, stated in 1974:


'Any war waged by the imperialists on the USSR or other Socialist states will be unjust and reactionary. When waged by the USSR or other Socialist states against imperialism, any war is just and progressive, for it would be the continuation of revolutionary policy.'

We are clearly shown the intent of the Soviet military planners. They feel nuclear war is not only plausible and just, but winnable. Under conditions where nuclear rockets are used


'. . . that side which manages during the first days of the war to penetrate more deeply into enemy territory naturally acquires the capability for more effectively using the results of its nuclear attacks and disrupting the mobilization of the enemy. This is especially important with respect to European theatres of operations with their relatively small operative depth.' ( Marshal Vasily D. Sokolovsky, Soviet Military Strategy, a major military text, 1968 edition)

The greatest concern of the European people has been over the possibility of Europe being the battleground for a U.S.-Soviet nuclear exchange. Examining the words of Sokolovsky, it is clear that their concern is well-founded. After all, in 1968, the batteries of SS-20, SS-21, SS-22, and SS-23 missiles now aimed at Europe were not even in existence.

It seems that the Soviets have been whistling a different tune of late. They paint themselves as genuine peace-lovers while pointing the finger at the crazed, trigger-happy Americans. As recently as 1982, Marshal Nikolai V. Ogarkov, Chief of the Soviet General Staff, stated:

'The absence of the fatal inevitability of war does not in the slightest exclude its occurrence in the contemporary era.'

When we examine our alternatives of action to prevent nuclear war, the first and foremost consideration should be how to deal with the Soviet Union. Since it is Soviet weapons which would devastate our cities, and Soviet generals who would carry out the attack, we should consider carefully the attitudes of these individuals. (Note carefully my distinction between the Soviet military leaders and the Russian people. The Russian people are victims of their political system who desire peace every bit as much as American citizens.)

Judging from the recent actions of the Soviet military, we can infer that it is possible for a local commander of an air base to order the destruction of an unarmed civilian jetliner. It was insinuated that the pilot who shot down that 747 was acting on orders from his local base commander. In the aftermath of the incident, many opinions were formulated by the Western media.

Above all the furor, the point was made that since Soviet radar and aircraft tracked the Korean plane for two and one-half hours before the Su-15 actually launched its missiles, authorization could have come straight from Moscow. The Soviets insist that Andropov was on vacation at the time of the attack, but it is well known that the leaders of both superpowers are in constant communication with their respective military establishments.

The implications are frightening either way. If it is possible for a local air base commander to have ordered the attack, how can we know for sure that it would not be possible for that same impulsive commander to commit further atrocities which, if on a larger scale, might escalate to
a holocaust? On the other hand, if Andropov was behind the incident, who knows what kind of inhuman—and perhaps nuclear—barbarism we can expect from Soviet leadership in the future.

Frankly, reading quotes from these Soviet leaders scares me. The same planners who would be the ones to carry out the orders to attack Los Angeles or New York have the philosophy that it is in the order of their 'revolutionary policy'. They are willing to face the reprisals. In fact, not attacking the enemy is more likely to get them demoted or penalized than attacking in error. To them it is just more strategy, more calculation. That is the real nature of the Soviet system. To us, it is unthinkable.

Whether or not the Soviets might attempt a first strike is inconsequential. The capability to do so is what is important. Soviet ideology has been one of constant expansionism. They have annexed and subjugated more territory than any other nation in recorded history. They are continually at war. "The peace of the world," in the eyes of Soviet Defense Minister Dmitri Ustinov, "depends on the military readiness and the military capabilities of the Soviet armed forces."

A peace under the umbrella of the Soviet Union means peace on their terms. It is believed by many in this country that life in Russia is really not a whole lot different from what they are used to in America—at any rate better than the prospect of nuclear holocaust. (Better Red than dead!) How much they take for granted! The dirty little secret that has come out over the years is that life is infinitely better for the common man under our system than in the 'worker's paradise'. Peace without freedom is no peace at all. Witness Poland.

The Poles have been under Soviet domination since 1947. To this day, there is no peace in their land. The government forces the people to work in unfavorable conditions without recourse. Their one attempt at organized labor—Solidarity—was at first recognized and then banned with the institution of martial law. It was replaced by a mockery.

The official state-sponsored trade union, PRON (the Patriotic Front for National Rebirth), is just one more government office whose only function is to disseminate the party line and try to convince the angry and frustrated Poles that it is what they really want. The basic right to assemble has been denied them along with every other right guaranteed by our Constitution, which we in this country view as fundamental to our existence.

The Poles face constant shortages of food and supplies. Prices are outrageously high. Confronted with such conditions, the people demonstrate in the streets, pleading for help.
Does their government listen? No, and it is made clear that if things get too out of hand, the Russian army will roll its tanks into Warsaw.

The recent release of political prisoners by the Jaruzelski government was only done to defuse growing dissatisfaction and unrest. It is all but transparent that the regime is simply posturing to convince the U.S. to lift trade embargoes imposed in the wake of the Solidarity crackdown in 1981.

Peace? Freedom?

The Soviet Union is the world's second largest prison (after China, their political enemy but ideological brother). Along with their totalitarian satellites, they enslave more people than any other nation on earth in conditions as bad as or worse than those in Poland. Private property
and enterprise are strictly controlled, if allowed at all. Citizens are made to carry passports even within the Russian borders. No internal movement of three days or more is permitted without government approval and, worst of all, few are allowed to leave. The application process for emigration is tedious and intimidating, and merely applying can cost you your job, your social status, and your friends.

In addition, the government of the U.S.S.R., during the Bolshevik Revolution and in the purges that followed has slaughtered over 32 million of its own citizens. According to British historian Robert Conquest, this includes 5 million who died in the Soviet-inspired famine of 1932 and 12 million murdered in Stalin's labor camps.

Why do the Soviets and their satellites have to build walls and guard towers to keep their people from leaving if their country is a worker's paradise? Why is it that East German soldiers shoot their own countrymen who try to go to the West? All of this at the same time that our immigration offices are jam-packed with people who love America and want to make their home here—some of whom are forced to wait as long as two years.

The fact is that there are immeasurable differences between the government of the Soviet Union and our own. America has always been a free nation. Soviet citizens cannot even imagine what
it would be like to be free. The financial pressures of our free society challenge and disillusion some defectors initially, as they are accustomed to having the necessities provided for them. Likewise, few in this country really realize the dramatic difference between our lifestyle and theirs. This cannot be overstated.

A recent film, Moscow On The Hudson, illustrates this point graphically. Although depicted in comedy, it provides a serious insight into the inadequacy of the Soviet system. Opening while the main character is still within the Russian borders, the film follows him through his defection and subsequent realization that the U.S. is quite different than he was led to believe. Upon entering a supermarket for the first time, he discovers that there is no line and collapses with a nervous breakdown after seeing the abundance of coffee.

We are talking about defending a principle. Weapons do not create wars. People create weapons because they fear attack from an enemy which threatens them. In the words of Salvador de Madariaga, chairman of the League of Nations Disarmament Commission, disarmament is a "mirage" because it tackles the problem of war "upside down and at the wrong end...Nations don't distrust each other because they are armed; they are armed because they distrust each other."

If it were the United States and Great Britain who were the superpowers of the day, the question of disarmament would be quite simple. Both nations share a common interest in true freedom and peace, and both have a democratic, representative form of government. With this common understanding, dialogue could quickly begin to eliminate an excess of weapons. Eventually, the only necessity for nuclear weapons would be to combat renegade nations and terrorists who could otherwise use them for a reckless power grab.

The example of Great Britain may seem a bit absurd, but consider what might have happened if they had possessed nuclear weapons during the American Revolution or in 1812. I don't think anyone would have argued that we should have disarmed. There was a clear ideological conflict, which has since been resolved to the benefit of all parties concerned. This resolution took two wars. It is my hope, and the hope of all sensible people, that it should not take two wars or even one to settle our ideological differences with the Soviet Union. But if it does, we should be as willing to fight for our principles today as we were 200 years ago. Otherwise, the meaning of the lives of those who died for the American Revolution will have been lost on today's world.

It is clear that what we must attempt to accomplish is the elimination of the prospect of nuclear war—in conjunction with the preservation of human rights throughout the world as well as our national sovereignty and freedom. Thus, the answer is neither pacifism nor isolationism. We cannot kid ourselves. The Russian leaders embrace nuclear war, and their population has no choice in (or knowledge of) the matter. They do not believe that ICBMs have changed the nature of fighting. Hence, it is extremely naïve for Americans to act as if "everything is different now"
and ignore the vital historical lesson that an aggressor will not be appeased by concessions. He will only be encouraged to further acts of aggression until he has reached his objective.

Let us take a trip into the past and study the lessons of both ancient and recent history. Though the examples may seem obscure, the basic issues are exactly those which confront us today:


HISTORICAL PACIFISM

416 b.c., Athens denies the neutrality of the island of Melos. When the inhabitants offer to surrender and become subjects of Greece, they are attacked and defeated. The men are slaughtered and the women and children are sold as slaves.

149 b.c., Carthage, Third Punic War. Presiding over the Roman senate is Porcius Cato, advocate of total destruction of the city of Carthage. Carthage, once a rival, now an ally, is too prosperous for the tastes of the Roman Empire. They fear and envy this city of 750,000. It is therefore decreed that Carthage should be razed. The Carthaginians disarm and try every peaceful means to avert this tragedy, including unconditional surrender. The result? They are sieged for three years.

146 b.c., following a valiant attempt at resistance, the city of Carthage is burned to the ground and the fields sown with salt. A mere 50,000 survive, only to be sold into slavery.

a.d. 1532, the Incan emperor Atahualpa is seized by Spanish explorer Pizarro. He pays Pizarro handsomely in gold and silver to release him. Instead, Pizarro has him strangled and makes off with the gold.

At no time in history has there ever been a case where disarming in the face of a threat has obviated the threat. Peace has been maintained only by a policy of superiority over potential aggressors. It is futile to allow any bellicose nation the benefit of the doubt when they possess superior forces.

1922, the Naval Armaments Limitation Treaty is signed, limiting the number of American, British, Japanese, French, and Italian warships.

1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact (also known as the Pact of Paris) is signed by 15 nations, including the U.S., condemning "recourse to war for the solution of international controversies." Later, 47 other nations join in the pact.

Mocking our attempts to legislate peace, the Kellogg-Briand Pact nations engaged in several small wars during the next decade. In retrospect, former director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) Eugene V. Rostow commented, "The post-World War I arms limitation agreements . . . helped to bring on World War II, by reinforcing the blind and willful optimism of the West, thus inhibiting the possibility of military preparedness and diplomatic actions through which Britain and France could have easily deterred the war."

Furthermore, parallels can be drawn between the conducting of those arms negotiations and present-day negotiations on nuclear arms control. It seems that the more we attempt to come up with intellectual answers to our military and strategic problems, the more evident it is that we are ignoring the lessons of history in pursuit of our idealism.

(It was rumored that conflicts were entered into by some of the Kellogg-Briand nations because they knew that there was imminent world war and they wished to test their weapons on the battlefield.)

1931, Japan attacks Manchuria.

1935, Italy invades Ethiopia.

1938, Germany annexes Austria.

1938, Czechoslovakia is divided at the Munich Conference by Édouard Daladier and Neville

Chamberlain in a futile attempt to appease Hitler. Chamberlain "did not believe that Germany wanted to destroy Czechoslovakia."

1939, Hitler occupies Czechoslovakia in direct defiance of the Munich agreement and seizes the seaport of Memel from Lithuania.

In each and every case where peace has been sought without the accompanying strong military resolve, war has been the result. The victor has always been the wise nation which never let down its guard. A nation with pacifist sentiments, whether generated by fear or moralism, can never prevail.

1948, the Soviets initiate a land and water blockade of West Berlin in an attempt to force the Allies to relinquish this hard-won territory. Only the resolve and determination of the West in the famous Berlin airlift keeps them from achieving their goal. More than 2 million tons of supplies are flown in over a 16-month period.

1962, the Soviet Union attempts to place nuclear missiles in Cuba and is forced to back down by President John F. Kennedy.

1967, the United States, under the direction of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, unilaterally freezes its launchers for land-based missiles at 1,054 and sub-launched missiles at 656.

1969-70, the Soviet Union reaches nuclear parity with the United States.

It can be seen from the actions of the Soviets up to this point that the achievement of nuclear parity was a big step. They will begin to act with far more arrogance and overt aggression.
They continue to build both nuclear and conventional weapons at a tremendous rate.

1973, the Soviet Union threatens to intervene in the war in the Middle East. President Nixon and Henry Kissinger play verbal hardball with Soviet negotiators. The Soviets again back down.

1979, the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan with no provocation. Much speculation is possible as to why they invaded. It could have been because they desired a corridor to the Persian Gulf for shipping and/or military maneuvers. Perhaps they wanted to test their new chemical weaponry against the helpless Afghan villagers. Or it could have been plain old expansionism —one of their most typical activities.

1981, pacifist sentiments worldwide gain sudden renewal and strength.

1982, the Soviet Union begins clandestinely shipping arms and munitions to El Salvador via Cuba and Nicaragua. At the same time they are furiously trying to battle the Afghan freedom fighters in what has now become a messy confrontation. In the third week of June, just one week following massive freeze demonstrations in New York City, the Soviets stage a "dress rehearsal" of a full-scale nuclear attack on the United States. This is accomplished by firing their unarmed missiles into remote ocean areas simulating the exact trajectories needed to destroy American cities. Little notice or response is given to this act of aggressive intimidation.

1983, the peace movements gain ground on all fronts, especially in Europe. Backed by Moscow's opposition to the imminent deployment, massive demonstrations loudly object to the cruise and Pershing II missiles. The Eastern Bloc missiles are conveniently ignored. The Soviets continue their overt aggression in Afghanistan and their covert arms shipments to Nicaragua (which by this time has become a full-fledged Soviet satellite, exceeded in its sphere of influence only by Cuba).

SEPTEMBER 1, 1983, a Soviet Sukhoi-15 fighter fires two missiles, one heat seeking and one radar homing, at a Korean Air Lines 747 jumbo jet, killing all 269 men, women, and children aboard. The United States offers little or no response to the incident even though 61 of its citizens, including a congressman, were counted among the dead.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1983, President Reagan declines to cancel a grain deal in which the Soviets are sold 350,000 metric tons of U.S. corn. Included in the deal are U.S. guarantees to allocate an additional 9 million tons of corn and wheat annually for 5 years.

OCTOBER 1983, in response to a Cuban-backed takeover attempt on the island of Grenada, the United States sends in its armed forces for a surgical military operation to secure the island. The Soviet Union loudly protests and Western European leaders (supposedly our staunch allies) also grumble.

DECEMBER 1983, NATO goes ahead with deployment of cruise and Pershing II missiles . . . Soviets walk out of Geneva and INF (Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces, specifically those in Europe) talks.

APRIL 8, 1984, Soviet Air Force Colonel I. Zhukov, the pilot who shot down KAL Flight 007 is given the "Hero of the Soviet Union" award as part of the Soviet Air Defense Forces Day celebration. Sources quoted in The Review of the News say "Zhukov was not given the top medal for having shot down the civilian airliner, but because he killed Congressman Larry McDonald, one of the U.S.S.R.'s most effective enemies."

JUNE-JULY 1984, the Soviet Armed Forces conduct massive war maneuvers in Europe and the North Sea.


PACIFISM AS AN INSTRUMENT OF FOREIGN POLICY

. . . If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then it is also true that peace, that is, politics, is the continuation of war by other means.( Marshal Boris M. Shaposhnikov, The Brain of the Army, a 1927 military text)

The peace movements in the United States and Europe have basically the same goal: that is, to freeze nuclear weapons and then begin the process of disarmament. This, they hope, will then eliminate the danger of nuclear conflict.

While many among their membership are sincere, the manner in which the several peace movements have conducted their demonstrations and information campaigns has been universally beneficial to the continuation of Soviet policy. The Soviets consider it vital to be able to forestall or reverse the deployment of new NATO weapons systems in Europe. "The single highest priority of Soviet foreign policy" in the months preceding deployment, said Time magazine, was "to stop most if not all of the new American weapons from crossing the Atlantic." With deployment proceeding on schedule, the Soviets will still try to pressure us in the coming months into halving our deployment or withdrawing our missiles.

Let us indulge momentarily in the fantasy that the Russian negotiators are sincere in their desire for peace. Let us assume that for all of their bluster and statements to the contrary, they never plan to use their nuclear weapons. The fact remains that they are being benefitted immensely by the peace movement.

Our cruise and Pershing II missiles are a great threat to them strategically. They can reach many parts of densely populated western Russia in less than 10 minutes. Yet the very citizens who are protected by them are their most vocal detractors. Do you ever hear protests over deployment of new Soviet weaponry? Did the peace movements cry foul when they heard of the "dress rehearsal" conducted by the Soviets in June 1982? Not a chance.

Yet one wonders why citizens of the United States and Western Europe, sincere in their desire for peace, clamor over every new tank, missile or plane that is deployed in their own defense. It has been said that a democracy is at a disadvantage when it comes to fighting a war. A totalitarian state such as the U.S.S.R. does not have to get permission from its citizens to build armaments. Save for a government-sponsored and controlled propaganda machine—which arranges for demonstrations protesting American weapons to be photographed by Western reporters and invents slogans such as "Make peace against U.S. weapons"—there is no independent peace movement within its borders. The Kremlin simply plans and implements policy to suit its ends.

Citizens in Russia can have no conceivable influence on military policy outcome. In Moscow, a peace coalition called the Group for Establishing Trust Between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. has been continually harassed since its inception in June 1982. In March of this year, member Olga Medvedkova was tried and given a suspended 24-year sentence for 'resisting arrest' outside of the courthouse where a fellow member was being tried last fall (in spite of the fact that three witnesses testified that she cooperated with police). Medvedkova, 34, has an eight-year-old son and was five months pregnant. This was cited as the only reason she was not required to serve out her sentence in full.

It is clear that the Russians are very sensitive to this type of incident—an ABC news crew was detained at the scene and prevented from filming the arrival at court. On the other hand, the Western political systems allow for the constant demonstrations and even congressional veto of military spending if our people do not want it.

Considering this inherent weakness of democracies and seeing the tremendous power over Western public opinion that the peace movements can exercise, it is common sense that the Soviet leadership would try to exploit it. The best way to manipulate public opinion is to increase the level of fear in the Western populace. What better way to create fear than to walk out of the negotiations in Geneva? These talks had been seen by many as the only hope for peaceful dialogue between the superpowers. Now that this has been cut off, there are those who suggest that we should offer anything to get them to come back to the table.

What a ploy! This is just what the Soviets want. By succumbing to fear, we would play right into their hands. In fact, the exploitation of the fear stirred up by the peace movements, if successful, would give the Soviets strategic advantages that they could not hope to gain at the bargaining table.

So why bargain? What difference does it make whether we halt deployment of missiles in Western Europe because of peace demonstrations or because of a direct Soviet threat? It is better for the Soviet image if it appears to the world that we have been undermined by the populations of our own allies than if they are forced to threaten us.

The Democratic primaries were fraught with promises and calls for disarmament. Although ostensibly for economic reasons, the level of disarmament advocated by Walter Mondale, Gary Hart, and Jesse Jackson would leave us totally vulnerable. All three planned to kill both the B-1 bomber and the MX missile—vital systems which have already survived a previous round of Democratic slashing in 1977. Geraldine Ferraro has promised to not only kill these systems, but to back a complete nuclear freeze. Gary Hart would have eliminated supercarriers, supersubmarines, and heavy tanks, according to U.S. News & World Report. One wonders why the Soviet press has praised Gary Hart as "the best thing to happen to American politics since President Kennedy."


SOVIET ACTIVE MEASURES

Propaganda is the name of the Soviet game. A Communist Party department and an entire KGB directorate exist solely to spread "disinformation" throughout the free world. Disinformation is the deliberate twisting of facts for public consumption. It is an old trick as far as the Soviets are concerned. They have been using it for years within their own borders. Such publications as Pravda (Russian for "truth") and Isvestia (meaning "news") are the prime instruments of the manipulation of the Soviet population. They are told what the government wants them to hear. Thus, they are given a slanted and heavily censored vision of world events. Some Russian citizens quip wryly that there is "no truth in the News" and "no news in the Truth."

Pravda's 'journalism' is a standing joke. Consider the fact that the publication never admitted that 269 civilians were killed or even that civilians were aboard Flight 007. Western journalists asked Soviet Chief of the General Staff Nikolai Ogarkov why the Russian populace had not been given the details of the incident. He replied that he did not know that 269 civilians were aboard the plane and that if one wanted to know who was aboard the plane, "this is a piece of information known to those who staged the flight. Let them figure it out on their own."

More interestingly, the population is also kept in the dark about Soviet deployments while being given constantly exaggerated accounts of American activity. State-controlled media daily bombard the populace with ominous predictions of Western aggression.

According to Nicholas Daniloff, Moscow bureau chief of U.S. News & World Report, most Soviet citizens and even ranking officials have little doubt that the White House, not the Kremlin, is the villain in superpower tensions. In fact, one of Daniloff's Russian acquaintances, a prominent nuclear engineer in charge of constructing a major facility, was completely unaware of the Soviet military buildup in general and knew nothing at all of the SS-20!

Thus it can be seen that the Soviet Union has a very efficient way of lying to its own people and keeping them in the dark. This is fairly easy, as there is no direct source of internal information save that which is controlled by the government. Externally, it is much more difficult for them to control information. Because it is so difficult, they try all the harder.

Boris Ponomarev is the head of the International Department, a bureau under the direction of the CPSU's (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) Politburo and Secretariat. Soviet "active measures" are implemented by the International Department in conjunction with the KGB (Committee for State Security) and the International Information Department. Together these departments are in charge of external disinformation—in other words, the dissemination of the Soviet point of view worldwide.

Dr. Wynfred Joshua, member of the Defense Intelligence Agency and adjunct professor of national security studies at Georgetown University, sees the Soviet active-measures campaign this way: "Based on deception, they include the use of agents of influence, local communist parties and local and international communist front organizations; the spreading of disinformation, false letters and forgeries; the manipulation of the media; and the funding of anti-INF [Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces] and anti-NATO efforts."

It is apparent that they consider this function extremely important. Policy decisions regarding active measures are approved and formulated by the Defense Council, a top-secret and highly powerful committee once chaired by none other than Yuri Andropov. He was succeeded by current chairman, Konstantin Chernenko.

Much of Soviet policy and disinformation spread by the International Department is channeled through various front organizations. Among the most prominent is the World Peace Council. Founded as the WPC in 1950, it was expelled from Paris in 1951 and outlawed in Austria in 1957, only to reemerge in Helsinki in 1968. Under the direction of current president Romesh Chandra, an Indian Communist who, according to author John Barron, "long has been a controlled and witting Soviet agent," the WPC is entirely funded and controlled by Moscow.

According to CIA hearings conducted before the 96th Congress on February 6 and 19, 1980,
the Soviets spend about $63 million per year financing the World Peace Council and several related movements. What a bargain! This is less money than it costs them to build one missile. If they can prevent deployment of NATO weaponry through political means, they will not be forced to endure another far costlier round of the arms race. More importantly, it psychologically furthers their self-proclaimed goals of world domination and control.

Soviet control is not limited to the various front organizations. Their goal is to orchestrate the activities of the peace movements worldwide. They do not care what the ideological or political views of a particular group are, as long as in the pursuit of their individual goals they benefit the collective cause of Soviet world "peace."

Lenin, the great manipulator, foresaw the drafting of millions of peace lovers, those he termed the 'useful idiots', into the service of the Soviet empire. Therefore, in following organizations in which they sincerely believe, millions of honorable, patriotic, anti-Communist and peace-loving people are unwittingly furthering the cause of Soviet world domination.

These tactics are called "united front tactics." This, in the words of Dr. Joshua, "is to rally to the anti-INF banner a vast variety of religious groups, anti-nuclear movements, leftist factions, pacifists, environmentalists, draft resisters and other single-interest groups."

The Soviets value in particular groups with religious affiliation. J.A.E. Vermaat, a Dutch journalist who has written extensively about the European peace movement, states that a priority in KGB strategy has been the exploitation of religious movements and their ready-made following to spread their propaganda. Special indoctrination centers and groups are formed, ostensibly with no ties to Moscow, to tie the desire for peace in with the existing goals of the church.

Thus, they play upon one of man's strongest instincts—that longing for a Deity to worship, that sense of right and wrong. It is outrageous that the Soviet Union, which is the single worst perpetrator of falsehood, injustice, aggression, death and atheism, should play upon the Judaeo-Christian ethics of the Western people as a justification for accepting 'peace' on their terms.

We have discussed the horrors of a nuclear holocaust and resolved that we should do all in our power to prevent one. It is only human to fear this eventuality. The key word here is fear. When a large portion of the world's population is living in fear of global annihilation, it needs to be offered a way out. Generations have grown up with this threat, and it has been largely internalized.

Until recently, it was just one more unmeasurable item that seethed below the surface of the conscious mind, increasing overall tension and anxiety as we went about the business of living. When presented with an opportunity to lay this tension aside permanently, the people of the free world were elated. Freeze nuclear weapons. Disarm. Rid ourselves of this terrible madness.
Use our hard-earned dollars for feeding the poor, not for more expensive and dangerous nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, it is not so simple. To attempt to lay aside the anxiety about nuclear war without getting to the cause of the problem is like cutting a weed without pulling its root. It will always grow back, usually bigger and stronger than before. As history has shown, disarming in the face of an aggressor not only leads to domination by the aggressor but usually annihilation.

The Soviets have as their stated goal the domination of the world. Since they consider any war which leads to the furtherance of that goal to be just, we have every reason to suspect that they will not deviate from this philosophy. They will pursue every avenue to the obliteration of every obstacle to their goal. When they believe their position to be sufficiently secure, they will make their move.

Will they attack us with nuclear weapons? Will they "annex" the United States as Hitler annexed Austria? Will they intimidate us with their military might so as to make our future presidents puppets of their foreign policy aims? I, for one, hope we never have to find out. One thing is sure. If the West continues to wear its blinders and pretend that everything is OK, the Kremlin will continue in its barbaric but all-too-familiar tradition of killing innocent citizens of the nations of the world, not the least of which being their own.


THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PACIFISM

The superpower conflict is emerging more and more as a battle for the minds of the Western populace. Salvos of rhetoric have been fired from both governments. What is different from the days of the Cold War? Today, public opinion is far more likely to drift with the tide of propaganda. Once, not so many years ago, there were beliefs and principles, firmly held, that ruled public thought in the Atlantic Alliance. Increasingly, free men and women are more skeptical of their own governments than of the totalitarian council of the Kremlin. Indeed, the actions of the peace movements in both the United States and Western Europe can be tied to this skepticism.

In the face of a perceived threat, why this ambivalence? Why this skepticism? It would stand to reason that the common instincts of self-preservation would cause a rally around the strongest point of defense—in our society, the government. The failure of our people to rally as well as Western Europe's lack of resolve can be explained in terms of a psychological paradigm—that of a very young child versus a psychotic mother. The archetypal child represents the collective Western peace movements while the Soviets are the domineering mother.

Dr. Ralph Yaney, a Los Angeles psychoanalyst who has studied the nuclear arms debate, elaborates further: "Western Europe, according to these dynamics, is like the little child caught in the middle of the parents, i.e., the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. For various reasons those who join peace movements feel they have to do something to defend themselves against their sense of helplessness. So their inner anger, which they have taken on as their own from the Soviet Union by the process referred to as 'identification with the aggressor', is projected upon weaker targets —namely their own governments, which are essentially their collective identity—or against the U.S.A., who is viewed as the father figure.

The governments are perceived as siblings; and the U.S., as the father, threatens, by deploying missiles on European soil, their symbiotic relationship with the Soviet Union (the psychotic dangerous mother)."

In his book The Great Mother, Erich Neumann, a German psychologist, author, and student of Carl Jung, has labeled the mother role in this type of conflict the "devouring mother." According to Dr. Yaney, the Devouring Mother is an ancient archetype, characterized as cannibalistic toward her children. Although she provides for their material needs, she has a great deal of anger and swallows up their identity in the process. She has no feeling in even destroying her own if this be her fickle whim.

In the face of such unequal psychological odds, appeasement is the only answer. To stand up for principles is to be swallowed up. "The child is operating on the security level. He must protect his sense of mother as good in order to protect himself and his identity. He has only one mother,
and she must at all costs be seen as good.

The childlike, uncontrolled demonstrations—i.e., the painting of faces, the continual live-in demonstrations in England—are due to the helpless quality of the symbiotic child. In the state of nuclear fear, the child acts out his anxiety on a target not so formidable—the governments of Western Europe or the U.S. This is termed a reaction formation. The ego is threatened by this emotional overload. So instead of confronting the adversary directly, it attacks even the friendly parent in an equal and opposite reaction," affirms Yaney.

Mixed in with the reaction formation are a sprinkling of other defensive motives. Denial, projection, submission, to name a few. The main result has been a refusal to confront the knowledge of the real danger present in the Kremlin and the atrocities committed by Soviet leadership since Day One of their revolution.

Continues Dr. Yaney, "Due to their denial system, the nuclear activists cannot believe the inhumanity of the Soviet system, especially their gulags. Despite Solzhenitsyn's three books on the subject,( Alexander Solzhenitsyn, born in 1918, was exiled from the Soviet Union in 1974 for his beliefs and writings. Having spent time in concentration camps, he merely chronicled his experiences. For his works he received the Nobel Prize in 1970) and fairly extensive media exposure of the Soviet prison system, the activists cannot accept the concept of a bad mother. If they did, they would be forced to change.

Consequently, this information is suppressed and repressed. The easiest thing for the mass consciousness is to rebel in order to defend itself against the rising collective sense of nihilistic helplessness. This is done through various forms of escapism, including protest marches—all an act to look good to the big mother."

Many insist that the United States is at least as guilty as the Soviets, pointing to right-wing dictatorships we support. The reality is that while the United States is not perfect, we are simply not in the same league of human rights violators as the Soviets and communists worldwide who have murdered millions. Even so, we are making an effort to curb abuses present in our sphere of influence. Note the recent trial of five former Salvadoran national guardsmen responsible for the December 1980 deaths of four American churchwomen. This trial was insisted upon by our government as a precondition for further military aid.

We would all like to see an end to the terror and political violence that has marred El Salvador since 1971. Yet the solutions to human hatred deeply imbedded in the psyche are not a matter
of right or left. The problem is far more complex than the apparent East/West conflict. Many of our client states who appear to be taking repressive measures are functioning in a state of pre-war crisis as they deal with subversive groups funded by the Soviet Union, whose objective is complete takeover through the destruction of the existing order—the "evil capitalist system."

At least the people of Central America are willing to identify the enemy, both within and without, and to make an attempt to slash the tentacles of the Devouring Mother. As a result, these rightist regimes are perceived as brutal dictatorships by the pacifists who—still unable to see the cause of the conflict originating in the murderous intent of the U.S.S.R. to destroy nation upon nation —displace, or pr oject onto them, the image of the Devouring Mother resident in their own subconscious.

The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States asked the U.S. to intervene in Grenada. In addition, hundreds of American students lived there. The neighboring Caribbean nations of El Salvador and Nicaragua are less than a thousand miles from southern Texas. Can we afford not to act? The Philippines hold major U.S. military bases as does Turkey. There are many such countries where vital security interests force us to back corrupt governments. If we are to confront the world Soviet threat, we must sometimes value expediency over blind insistence on immediate universal civil liberty.

Our world is not an ideal one. When there is no longer a Soviet threat, then we can go about the business of encouraging the formation of representative governments where dictatorships rule today. Until then, we must defend our Third World interests.

To Americans, the Soviet threat is not real. While sheer proximity frightens Europeans, many Americans have to be convinced that the Soviet Union is aggressive. Reasons cited for Russian military activity range from "fear of encirclement" (Really! Encirclement in Central America?) to response to American 'aggression'.

Dr. Yaney comments, "The childlike American mind doesn't believe the Devouring Mother is real. The Americans in the peace movement believe that all we need to do is lay down our arms and she won't do anything." As a consequence of the scars left by the Vietnam War, the American pacifist distrusts both parents. "Lingering memories of the no-win war add to the sense of helplessness and hopelessness. The rationale is that 'she (the U.S.S.R.) has swallowed up her children in Vietnam and in Central America, and if we aren't good children, if we don't behave ourselves, if we stand up and confront her and refuse to disarm, she'll destroy us, too.'"

The constant media barrage questioning and condemning U.S. foreign policy further contributes to the defensive denial of Soviet aggression. The image of the Devouring Mother is also projected onto the persona of the president who, in his anti-Communist rhetoric, is seen as
the cause of nuclear danger because he is angering the Devouring Mother. Thus the pacifists, already tending to suppress damning information about the Soviet Union, have further reason to pursue their national introspection and ignore the aggressor without.

"Consequently," adds Dr. Yaney, "when confronted with the fact that the Soviets have murdered millions of their own citizens or that they have subjugated the people of Afghanistan and put down Solidarity in Poland, pacifists tend to maintain a superficial stance and avoid making an in-depth study or comparison. To do so would require that they give up their role as children and accept adult responsibility. Instead, they deny or rationalize the historical facts (even revising history to satisfy their psychology) and then angrily retort that the U.S. doesn't have clean hands either. 'You've mined the harbors of Nicaragua,' they accuse."

The real key in this shaping of our perception was that while the Soviets were busy attaining superiority during the 1970s, we thought there was détente. Now when we are forced to play catch-up, they walk away from the table and we appear to be the aggressors. This is nothing but a variation on the old sleight-of-hand routine. "Look, over here, comrade!" and the missiles continue to roll off the assembly line.


SIX FATAL FLAWS IN THE NUCLEAR FREEZE

A popular solution to the problem of nuclear war has been to negotiate a bilateral freeze with the Soviets on the development, testing, and deployment of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The sincerity of Soviet leadership can be strongly questioned in light of the active-measures program, with their lying and political jockeying over the Korean airliner incident, and even further with their walkout from the Geneva and INF talks. Even the most die-hard apologists ought to see them for what they are.

It seems to me that for a nation to clamor for peace while building up its own war machine, rewarding trigger-happy pilots and refusing to negotiate, is at least a conflict of interest if not downright hypocritical. Not to mention trying to undermine the defense efforts of its adversary with propaganda and disinformation.

For those who still remain unconvinced, let me analyze the proposed freeze from a purely strategic viewpoint. Assuming Moscow is sincere about wanting parity and therefore peace, let us examine the structure of the arguments of those in favor of the freeze.


Argument #1: Nuclear Deterrence Is Immoral.

From time to time, various Catholic bishops and bishops from other religious denominations have come out against the philosophy of nuclear deterrence on strictly moral grounds. They believe that for the United States to threaten to use or to even possess nuclear weapons is wrong.

John Cardinal Krol, official spokesman for the U.S. Catholic Conference in 1979, put it this way:

The moral judgement of this statement is that not only the use of strategic nuclear weapons, but also the declared intent to use them involved in our deterrence policy is wrong. This explains the Catholic dissatisfaction with nuclear deterrence and the urgency of the Catholic demand that the nuclear arms race be reversed.

How 'morally right' would it be to allow oneself or one's congregation to be annihilated by a nuclear blast?

The United Presbyterian church has taken a vote and is overwhelmingly 'against' nuclear weapons. Well, nuclear weapons exist and, whether the congregation of the United Presbyterian church likes it or not, there are several thousand of them pointed in our direction. I wonder if the Russian government, with its philosophy of "just wars," would consult the United Presbyterian church for their opinion on nuclear arms if they were about to launch a nuclear attack.(These 6 assumptions are based on an article published in the Backgrounder by The Heritage Foundation on November 3, 1982 entitled "The Hard Facts the Nuclear Freeze Ignores.")

Perhaps the worst naïveté of all is that of those who believe that if we disarm, the Soviets will follow suit. It has never happened in history and the Soviets are positively the most unlikely to set a new historical precedent.

Not all of the clergy are this foolish. The late Terence Cardinal Cooke, former military vicar for the Catholic church in America, wrote in a letter to Catholic chaplains on December 7, 1981:

The Church has traditionally taught and continues to teach that a government has both the right and the duty to protect its people against unjust aggression. This means that it is legitimate to develop and maintain weapons systems to try to prevent war by "deterring" another nation from attacking . . . The Church does not require, nor have the Popes of the nuclear age or the Second Vatican Council recommended, unilateral disarmament.

This is a far more realistic attitude. Deterrence relies upon the construction of equal numbers of equivalent weapons. As it stands, we are behind both in numbers and in types of systems. In the days of MAD (the now-dated theory of Mutual Assured Destruction), American strategic doctrine was based upon the capability of both sides to "destroy an aggressor as a viable society even after a well-planned and executed surprise attack" on their strategic forces.

It is now recognized that the targeting of military installations changes all this. It would be possible for one side to launch debilitating nuclear strikes against the other's land-based missiles and air bases. The other side would be in a position to choose between capitulation and the destruction of its still-intact cities.

We will see that a freeze would lock the United States into a clear position of inferiority. We are currently inferior and a freeze would prevent deployment of the MX and other systems under development. This is hardly the protection of the people from unjust aggression. If we allow the Soviets to maintain a position of superiority, it would and has encouraged them to take more risks on the international scene. This has tremendously increased the danger of war. If the current trend continues, they will be able to exact from us any concession they please. And we will have started down a long and fruitless road of appeasement.


Argument #2: A Nuclear Arms Race Endangers World Survival

Many advocates of the freeze, not the least of whom are Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.), coauthors of the bipartisan nuclear freeze resolution, imply that by agreeing to a nuclear freeze today, we will eliminate the possibility of nuclear war for all future generations. Indeed, if we froze, there would no longer be a need for nuclear war. The Kremlin would wait until it had enough of an advantage to simply inform our government what it would like us to do. If this is what Kennedy and Hatfield want, I ask them what type of nation they think their grandchildren will inherit?

With mankind's obvious and ongoing propensity to war, this approach is far too simplistic. There is a terrible urgency to the pleas of the freeze proponents. Soviet political and ideological motives are completely discounted. It is as if we had just recently been faced with the possibility of mutual annihilation for the first time. Or as if some new weapons system had just been created that made nuclear war a great deal more likely. Neither has happened. We have lived with nuclear weapons for 40 years, and the only factor that has escalated of late is the hysteria.

Many groups have come out with slogans proclaiming that we should "end the arms race." While many refer to the military buildup on both sides as an 'arms race', this term is far from accurate. If it ever had any relevance, it was before the U.S. unilaterally froze its nuclear missile launchers in 1967. Since 1971, the Soviet Union has deployed 19 new or upgraded strategic missile systems. In the same time period, the United States has deployed just 3.

It would seem that if the Soviets were in any way serious about arms control, they would have seen our attempts to show good faith and ceased weapons production in the early 1970s when they reached parity with the United States. The reverse happened. Soviet weapons production reached an all time high in the middle to late 1970s as they determined to clinch their lead.

The Russians began misbehaving even more extensively throughout the world once they had a clear strategic advantage. In a most infamous episode of their deplorable 'foreign policy', they sent 269 to a fiery death over the Sea of Japan. Would they have been as apt to commit such an atrocity if they had been strategically inferior? Who knows? History shows that they were much better neighbors when they were in a weaker military position. (If they weren't, we were at least able to intimidate them into behaving themselves.)

Technological advances in nuclear weapons systems do not bring us closer to war or make it more likely, but rather help to safeguard against any accidental launch. In addition, as the accuracy of missiles increases, their yields decrease (at least on the American side). Thirty-two of the 52 most powerful Titan missiles with warheads of 9 megatons each have been deactivated at the rate of one per week since the end of 1983. This deactivation is proceeding even though their replacements will not be ready for at least two years.

The most powerful remaining American missile is the Minuteman II with a warhead yielding 1.2 megatons. In contrast, the less accurate Soviet missiles have warheads ranging from 3.6 to 24 he most powerful remaining American missile is the Minuteman II with a warhead yielding 1.2 megatons. In contrast, the less accurate Soviet missiles have warheads ranging from 3.6 to 24 megatons. With this reduction on our side, and until (or if) the MX is deployed, the United States is at its lowest level of armament since 1967.


Argument #3: Overkill

The term "overkill" is an emotional label that the freeze proponents have applied to the nuclear [im]balance of the superpowers. It deals strictly in numerical terms with a situation that must be considered in the light of qualitative, geopolitical, as well as quantitative strategic circumstances.

What has been done is that the job of huge numbers of military planners and endless studies and computer models has been simplified into a numbers game. A common argument is that "both sides have enough weapons to destroy each other 10 (or 100) times over, so what difference does it all make?"

The arsenal of the United States must be powerful enough to deter the Soviet Union from attacking. Likewise, if deterrence should fail, we must retain sufficient firepower to knock out Soviet military targets before they can cause further damage. This must be in the form of land-based missiles, as the sub-launched versions are neither powerful nor accurate enough to destroy their hardened military targets. (Hardening is the process of reinforcing a structure with concrete and steel so that it can withstand a nuclear near miss.) It is far more than a question of destroying cities.

The United States has adopted a second-strike strategic doctrine.* This has been the case for over 20 years. It means that we will not launch our missiles and bombers until we have sustained a first strike. Thus, we could expect that most of our ICBMs, half of our ballistic missile submarines, and almost all of our bombers would be destroyed before they could be used. This "margin of debilitation" only increases as the Soviets continue their buildup. There may come a day when the Soviet Union is capable of knocking out our entire strategic nuclear capability without destroying more than the minimum of our population centers. This is a day to be feared.

We can see that overkill is far from reality. If it were merely a question of destroying cities, and both sides' arsenals were immune to attack, then and only then would overkill be more than a myth.


Argument #4: A Rough Balance in Strategic Weapons Exists

This is simply a presentation of numbers. There are no politics involved.

FACT: The Soviets have an advantage in strategic missile launchers of 1.63 to 1.

FACT: The missile throwweight capability of the Soviet Union (the combined weight carried by all of their strategic missiles) exceeds ours by a margin of 3.68 to 1.

FACT: The only area in which we lead is in numbers of strategic warheads. The reason for this
is that most of our warheads are smaller than theirs, so they need less to destroy our hardened military targets. Our slight advantage is 1.2 to 1.

FACT: More than compensating for our lead in nuclear warheads is the Soviet advantage of 4 to 1 in megatonnage. They possess 8,440 megatons and the United States has only 2,107. (A megaton is roughly equivalent to 67 Hiroshima-sized warheads.)

Even if one were to rationalize these Soviet advantages into 'rough parity' as the proponents of a nuclear freeze are prone to do, this still does not take into account conventional weapons.

Conventional weapons are especially important on the European scene. The Soviet Union has a geographical advantage over the U.S. in Western Europe. It is this, coupled with the tremendous cost of maintaining conventional forces there, that has caused NATO to rely on a nuclear defense. Conventional weapons are several orders of magnitude more expensive than their nuclear counterparts—not to mention the impracticality of maintaining them a hemisphere away. Negotiating a freeze would force NATO to spend incredible amounts of money and draft millions of men to catch up with the at least 2-to-1 advantage the Soviets hold in machinery and manpower.

Contrary to popular opinion, the deployment of cruise and Pershing II missiles in Western Europe is not for the purpose of attacking Soviet cities. The missiles, with their 1,000-mile range, have the capability to be used in this fashion, but it would be a futile and suicidal gesture on the part of NATO. Attacking a Soviet city would bring certain retaliation against the American military and cities. If we were to use the Pershings as battlefield nuclear weapons to attack Soviet conventional forces or command and control centers, the conflict would be far less likely to escalate into an all-out war. Thus, the NATO nuclear weapons in Europe are a credible deterrent to Soviet conventional forces.


Argument #5: A Freeze Would Be Verifiable

Verifying compliance with a nuclear arms treaty would be impossible even with on-site inspection. Of course, the Soviets have never allowed on-site inspection, because it would undoubtedly turn up many violations of the existing treaties. They will never allow on-site inspection because they wish to preserve their option to cheat. Basing any future treaty on satellite verification is folly. No one can tell whether or not there is a missile inside of a light-manufacturing building, if a missile contains 10 or 30 warheads, or if a silo contains 1 or 10 missiles.

Furthermore, committees which have been set up in the past for the purpose of verification have been a farce. These committees, such as the Standing Consultative Commission appointed to adjudicate problems of noncompliance with SALT I, have equal numbers of members from both sides and quickly reach a stalemate. Each time a representative of the United States has voiced a complaint to the commission about a Soviet violation, it has been denied by the Soviet representative.

Again, we are faced with a country which we implicitly distrust. The Soviet Union is not, has never been, and never will be trustworthy among nations under its present leadership. It has not kept the trust of its own citizens, so what makes us think it will treat the United States, its avowed ideological adversary, differently?

In any event, whether we trust them or not, it is folly to trust that a gun is unloaded and fire it at oneself, even when a friend hands one the gun. Nuclear missiles are larger than guns, and the Soviets are not our friends.


Argument #6: A Freeze Will Facilitate Nuclear Arms Reductions

Freeze proponents love to bandy about the ever-worshiped Nuclear Freeze as a much-needed first step toward the banishment of nuclear weapons from the planet. Soviet advantages in almost every category range from 2-to-1 to 4-to-1 and more. If you assume 'rough parity', then you have bought yourself an argument.

Rough parity is just not a reality. The Soviets have real, tangible, countable advantages. The only arms-control agreements that have meant anything in the past 25 years have been those that the Soviets signed to forestall a superior United States deployment. In 1972, the now-famous ABM (anti-ballistic missile) Treaty was signed only because we had a superior system on the way to being built. The now discontinued INF talks were only conducted following our firm 1979 commitment to deploy the Pershing II and cruise missiles in response to the Soviet deployment of the SS-20.

Prior to the SS-20, we had none of the new-generation missiles in Europe. The Soviets were the first to place them there. President Reagan's zero option* was realistic. He was just trying to roll back the clock by a few years. (Coincidentally, he would have fulfilled the professed goal of the freeze movement.)

This very unwillingness to accept removal of the SS-4s, SS-5s and SS-20s (which were indeed the opening shot in the current Western European buildup) shows us that if we did freeze, we could expect more of the same. As mentioned in the study of historical pacifism, during the 1960s the U.S. unilaterally, and I say this with emphasis, froze its missile launchers at 1,054 land-based and 656 sub-launched under the assumption that we had more than enough for a credible deterrence.

Further, it was assumed by the then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and others that when the Soviets reached our level of armament, they would be content to live under MAD, stop making bombs, and the world would live happily ever after.

Given the historical record and the current Soviet buildup after we unilaterally froze, it seems all but ludicrous that people are still clamoring, "Stop the arms race!" It does take two to run a race...or am I just being old-fashioned?


IN PURSUIT OF THE FIRST-STRIKE OPTION

The question we must ask ourselves is this: Why is the Soviet Union continuing to build new missiles at a rate of three per week? It already has, and has had for some years, the capability to target at least two warheads on each of our silos and still destroy all of our major cities. The only plausible reason for this incredible buildup is that they wish to pursue a first-strike option. In both of the previous world wars, the winning strategy has been to defeat the enemy's war-making ability. If the missiles can be destroyed before they are used, the submarines sunk, the bombers eliminated on the runway, there is no longer a credible deterrence. The population is then a hostage.

In Arthur Katz' Life After Nuclear War the scenario of a counterforce attack is examined. A counterforce attack is an attack directed specifically at the war-making capability of a nation. Katz looks at all aspects of the impact of such an attack. Not only would silos and air bases be targeted, but certain key industrial production centers would be affected. There is no way of being completely surgical in such an operation. Estimates of civilian casualties range from 2 to 22 million and, according to Katz, the effects of even such a limited attack would be devastating.

Looking at the worst-case scenario for a counterforce attack by the Soviets, our nation, although plunged into an economic, psychological, and radioactive nightmare, would survive. With all of our land-based nuclear weapons and hence our ability to destroy Soviet military targets gone, the Soviets would still retain over half of their land-based missile force (2,660 land-based warheads). With our sub-launched missiles capable of destroying only their cities, would our nation, numb and weak with fear, choose to retaliate, dooming our remaining population centers? In such a situation, it is far more probable that we would beg for mercy and agree to whatever the Soviets wanted.

The United States could also launch such a counterforce attack, but the Soviet land-based missile silos are hardened to a much greater degree than American silos. Additionally, there are 10,000 SAM (surface-to-air missile) launchers at 900 defensive sites in the U.S.S.R. ostensibly for defense against bombers. What one is not told is that at least a portion of these have been successfully tested in an ABM mode. Is this not a clear violation of the 1972 treaty? Officials of the Reagan administration have reported to Congress that by 1987 the Soviet SAM network will be capable of destroying 20 percent of the entire incoming U.S. missile force.

Why is it that no one ever brings up this "limited nuclear war" scenario? Why is it laughed at by the freeze proponents? The fact is that the concept of limited nuclear war has overshadowed and replaced MAD in United States strategic doctrine since 1974 when U.S. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger made the formal acknowledgement at that time. Yet today it is thought of by the peace movement and the media as irrelevant and it is almost never brought up in any debate or forum.

Looking at the current Reagan 'military buildup', what is being attempted is to obviate the Soviet first-strike option. If we can protect our land-based missile force by hardening our silos or deploying an ABM system (one system is allowed under the provisions of the 1972 treaty; the Soviets have one, we do not), we will eliminate the possibility of a counterforce attack. The Soviets will not take the chance of launching such an attack if they have more to lose than to gain.

On June 10, 1984, the U.S. conducted a successful test of a new anti-ballistic missile. One hundred miles in space, the interceptor knocked a Minuteman warhead out of the sky. It was the fourth in a series of previously unsuccessful tests conducted since February 1983. Not surprisingly, the story was picked up by all three major weekly news magazines. The difference in their reporting of the test shows how controversial the subject really is. All three expressed ambivalence, Newsweek downright skepticism (Headline: "A Shield—Or a Sieve?").

With the knowledge that the Soviets have deployed an ABM system, how can intelligent people maintain that we should not do the same? At least Washington should have one, or maybe just one over a major missile field. The question is this: If it makes our country safer, or even one city safer, why not deploy it with haste? If an ABM is successful in knocking down a warhead, then many ABMs will be successful in knocking down many warheads. It is cheaper for us to build ABMs than for the Russians to build missiles and vice versa. If both countries had comprehensive ABM systems, both would see that it would be pointless to continue building offensive missiles.

Opponents of ABM systems have also universally opposed the development of a 'High Frontier' or 'Star Wars' type system to defend against incoming missiles. Reasons cited have ranged all the way from cost to practicality to the ever-familiar 'destabilization' premise. The fact is that there is probably nothing we could do that would go further toward creating a lasting peace than to develop such a system. The space arms race has already started. Just as we cannot now remove nuclear weapons from the international arena, we cannot ignore existing space weaponry.

Current space weapons technology consists primarily of ASAT (anti-satellite) systems. These are of two types: one currently deployed by the Soviets, consisting of satellites that explode in proximity to enemy (U.S.) satellites, disabling them; the other, being tested by the United States, works much like an air-to-air missile, launched from an F-15 fighter and hitting its target in space.

In any type of war, satellites are vital to the conflict. They are increasingly relied on for communications and they are our only source of reconnaissance data. Thus, we can be sure
that the first step in a superpower conflict would be for one to 'blind' the other by knocking out its satellite capability. To maintain nuclear deterrence in the space age, we have no choice but to defend our space outposts.

Beyond protecting our satellites, why not construct a total system resistant to nuclear attack composed of ground-based and space-based ABMs? Even if, as the critics claim, the system would not be impervious, it would severely limit our exposure to Soviet missiles. Further, it would be a safety net against nuclear terrorism--a fast-growing threat. (Jane's Defence Weekly stated on April 24 of this year that Iran is likely to have a nuclear weapon ready within two years.)

If such a system is impossible, impractical, or fiscally unfeasible, we must find that out through extensive study and research. The sad fact is that if we do nothing, and the concept turns out to be a workable one after all, we will only know when the Russians deploy theirs. Given the Soviet lead in space technology, I believe the question is not if but when.


CIVIL DEFENSE

In addition to pursuing research and development of space weaponry, we must concentrate on civil and industrial defense. One of the most misguided allegations of the freeze proponents is that, like High Frontier, civil defense is destabilizing. Why? Why is it destabilizing to prepare to minimize one's own losses? Why is it not destabilizing when the Soviets do it?

Our military intelligence has known for years that there has been a massive civil defense effort within the Soviet Union. Not only that, but a large portion of the Soviet industrial capacity has been hardened to be able to withstand a near miss from the less accurate sub-launched missile attack. According to Dr. Katz, up to 50 percent of Soviet industry could be protected from a Poseidon attack, and up to 25 percent could withstand even our new Trident sub-launched missiles.

We see that the Soviets plan for nuclear war. They are prepared for it. They intend to win it, and their population is, if not perfectly protected, at least better off than our own.

Not everyone in the world believes the fantasy that civil defense is useless. Prophets of doom such as Carl Sagan and Jonathan Schell continue to ramble about such things as 'Nuclear Winter' (a theory that maintains that if a certain number of nuclear weapons were exploded, the temperature of the entire earth would drop to the point of killing everyone on the planet) and the 'Doomsday Clock'—a philosophical representation of a clock that measures the status of humanity. If the hands ever reach midnight, this represents total annihilation by nuclear war. Currently, the hands are at five minutes before midnight, according to Schell. Despite the popularization of these notions as a component of contemporary thought, preparation is still the better part of valor.

To put it in perspective, imagine if our nation had a total program for civil defense. Imagine if for the past 20 years, all of the energy and money that has been dedicated to worrying about and demonstrating against nuclear war had been spent preparing for it. If every home had a blast shelter, every factory was hardened to resist attack, and we had a comprehensive program for emergency resource management, damage to our society would be limited and far less would be at stake. And the Soviets would think long and hard before provoking us.

Sound farfetched? Reminiscent of the 1950s? Sweden doesn't think so. A nation of 8.3 million people situated only 180 miles from the huge Soviet naval base at Murmansk, the Swedes have shown great resolve to ready themselves for conflict. According to Will Brownell in an article for Survive magazine, Sweden has a five-point plan, linking "The Armed Forces, The Civil Defense Network, Economic Defense, Psychological Defense and Emergency Planning of the Society." They believe that the next war will be a total war and that they must have a total defense, utilizing all of the resources of their peacetime society.

To start with, the Swedes have blast shelters for two out of three of their citizens. How did it get that way? It wasn't through some kind of government program to suddenly and massively construct a civil defense. It was slowly and surely over a period of 40 years. Any time a new structure is built, it must meet a national standard for civil defense preparedness. Upon completion, the government then reimburses the builder for the civil defense-related costs.

The logic of this program is superb. The blast shelters are incorporated everywhere and have multiple uses as classrooms, libraries, and storage facilities. Additionally, the research and development is carried out on an ongoing basis. Such topics as blast doors, psychological effects of confinement, and heat effects on basement shelters are studied in depth. Sweden is now the only nation besides the Soviet Union to mass-produce masks and air filters for children.

There are also Swedish firms that specialize in the protection of all communication and electronic gear from the EMP (electromagnetic pulse) effect as well as companies which offer full lines of blast doors for shelter construction.

The final result, when the best equipment is assembled carefully under a sober long-term survival plan, is downright staggering. Just take the example of the control center located at Rock Cavern near Stockholm, as built over a five-year period by Svenska Vag Ab. To service the vital Stockholm area, this control center has been designed with these in mind: shock waves, electromagnetic pulse, electric power, water, air filters, air conditioning, diesel engines, fire alarms, public address systems, telephone exchange network, lighting, external communications, air-raid alarm systems and more. (Survive, October 1983)

Reading this makes one wonder if this country hasn't completely lost its innovative genius! Here we are, a major contestant in this unfortunate game of nuclear poker, and we ignore our most valuable ace in the hole—the ability to create a civil defense to further enhance the credibility of our deterrence.

The Swedish government looks at the private firms most vital to its economy and infrastructure.
It requires the top 20,000 companies to follow certain emergency planning measures. There is more still to the Swedish total defense, but we have seen enough to recognize that the majority
of Western nations have some serious strategic and military shortcomings.

I only hope that the people of America will begin to see the reality of the nuclear dilemma. That they will put aside the hysteria and half-truths played upon by the peace movement and the media. It is only by (1) seeing the Soviets for what they are, (2) acting accordingly on the international scene, (3) accepting nuclear weapons as an unfortunate reality, and (4) preparing ourselves for any eventuality that we can face the future with confidence.

*The U.S. and NATO deterrent policy governing Europe states that we do intend to use nuclear weapons first if defense against a Warsaw Pact invasion cannot be limited to conventional weapons.

*The zero option was a proposal advanced by the Reagan administration that called for removal of Soviet SS-4s, SS-5s and SS-20s deployed since 1977 in exchange for cancellation of NATO Pershing II and cruise deployments scheduled from 1983 forward. This was one of Reagan's first overtures to the Kremlin and was rejected out of hand.