ogy, human beings will have developed weapons really accurate), we tend to divide into two camp* so well that they become useless. Perhaps, by the One sees the issue as a question of life or death; end of the century, society will bring down die the other, as a question of freedom or repression. curtain on the final act of a half century of nuclear It is in fact, both-, and we must begin to see it thai ballistic missiles. way. The Quality of Nuclear Peace The present policy of the U. S. government is a policy of "Both Red and Dead." That is, it tends? Our expectations for nuclear peace cannot and will to increase both Soviet repression of Jews and not share the expectations of conventional peace—a other people, and the danger of a world-wide nu- tranquility that arrives after the cessation of fire. clear holocaust. , Nuclear peace will always be a time of tension since all sides have the ability to totally destroy the If the present policy is that self-destructive why it enemy and the ability to produce the bomb will be the American public allowing the U. S. govern- easily available. ment to pursue it? The main reason is that most at us are addicted to an incorrect belief: that having Jews are very much at home with a tension-filled more nuclear "weapons" than the Soviet Union 1 peace. True Isaiah and Micah speak of beating makes us stronger than the Soviet Union, and thsfl swords into ploughshares, of the wolf living with the more we have, the more "stronger" we are,»' the lamb. But another Prophet who .dreams of the future is Joel. He writes: "Proclaim ye this among We are addicted to this incorrect belief because w» the nations, prepare war;/ Stir up the mighty men;/ remember that through most of human history, Let all the men of war draw near,/ Let them come having more and more powerful weapons than up./ Beat your ploughshares into swords/ And your your adversaries made you more likely to win a pruning-hooks into spears;/ Let the weak say: 7 war against them—and therefore politically more am strong'." (Joel 4:9-10) powerful even without war. If you were stronger enough, it might even make war less likely, and The peace prophecy of Isaiah is not contradicted peace easier to keep. So you were more likely to by the war prophecy of Joel. According to the get what you wanted in the world and more likely Amora Samuel (Shab. 63a), Isaiah speaks of the to stay safe and at peace if you had weapon su- future in Olam Haba, the Next World, posited by periority. the tradition as totally and qualitatively different from anything we know in Olam Hazeh, This The crucial flaw in this belief is that nuclear World. Joel, however, speaks of the "days of "weapons" are not in fact weapons. Why do we . Messiah," a historical vision, a preliminary stage think they are? Pardy because they entered human of the glorious future. Joel addresses himself to the history in the guise of weapons, at Hiroshima. BuJ first step of the future, and speaks to the Jewish we are now far beyond the Hiroshima bomb—nott people. Isaiah addresses himself to the final step in only in numbers, not only in fury of each the redemption, and speaks to the whole world. "weapon," but in the elaborate systems to delivetf them—more and more fully automated and orchesi- In our unredeemed world we will have to setde for trated. So now, if they are used they will create | the Joel prophecy, a world of tension, Auschwitzes (not victories or defeats), and if not j miraculously still capable of being a Messianic era. used they do not overawe the adversary as real I pray that the God of the Noahide covenant will weapons used to do, and in fact still do. shine through His rainbow that hangs in the sky, and may that be the only thing in the sky until the The way the incorrect belief in weapon superiority Mashiach comes. • is carried into U. S. strategy and military budget* is through various theories of "counterforce nu- clear war," now usually combined with Star Wafl Transarmament: a jewish nuclear strategy (Strategic Defense Initiative). Arthur Waskow These counterforce strategies have a lucky by- When Jews address what to do about nuclear product: they require the constant multiplication co "weapons"(each one is potentially an instant port- amounts of money to buy more and more, newer' able Auschwitz, so the word "weapon" is not and newer, weapons systems. These strategic the* ories are thus very helpful to those interests- ARTHUR WASKOW heads The Shalom Center, governmental, military, industrial, or scientific— which works to prevent a nuclear holocaust, and he that are already involved in making, planning, teaches at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, building, justifying, buying or deploying such both in Philadelphia. weapons. 132 The "Both Red and Dead" policy of the present might really try to win military superiority—and 'U. S. government is also vigorously supported by use it to threaten the Soviet Union. When the ja few specific American Jewish leaders and organi- U. S. acts more parity/deterrence oriented, swing ' cations because it feels to them like a strong anti- people pursue more accommodative/commercial in- Soviet stance. It is vaguely opposed by most terests, because these are more likely to benefit is a i lews—about 80% of whom (along with most of their own institutions and Soviet interests in the teufo, their major organizations) support a bilateral nu- world. clear freeze and say that any nuclear "war" would be horrendously destructive; but few have a clear Of course these vicious and virtuous cycles work kinderstanding that present U. S. policy is built on in the other direction, too—a Soviet occupation of counterforce strategy; and few oppose it with vigor Afghanistan strengthens American hard-liners. And and consistency. outside factors—like rising and falling Soviet fears of China—have their own effect. If American Jews were to act on their values, ex- Counterforce Strategy Self-destructs periences, and interests, they would be vigorously mon pushing for "big carrot; adequate stick" policies Now let us look at my assertion that counterforce id aimed at shifting Soviet policy away from repres- strategy is more likely to kill us than minimum- are sion of Jews and others, away from militarization, deterrence strategy. How can this be so? Counter- toward a strategy of "adequate deterrent" leading force strategists claim three things: that American luse *if Co mutual nuclear disarmament. The American counterforce superiority will keep the peace be- ly. strategy most likely to push the Soviets in this cause the Soviets will be afraid to attack us; that if lan direction is one that on our side moves toward an they did attack us, a nuclear war could be carried fin a "adequate deterrent," takes the enormous amount on between the military forces of both sides- lof money and brain power now put into the coun- leaving most civilians, both societies, and life on terforce weapon superiority strategy and instead earth relatively safe; and that American counter- ^ directs it toward the much more clever use of po- force superiority could be used to threaten a first :lyto ;Utical, economic, and cultural weapons—which are strike against the Soviets to make them back down IiH|j now die most effective weapons for actually chang- if, say, they helped Syria in a war with Israel or su-1 ing the world. sent arms to Nicaragua or invaded Iran. At its most extreme, counterforce strategy suggests that r ! The Practicality of Negotiation such threats might be used to paralyze the Soviets from even non-nuclear responses if the U. S. took lo wet True, we know that what we feel toward Soviet aggressive action—e. g. invaded Cuba, or sent Mipolicy is disgust, rage and frustration. So we seek troops to aid an East German rebellion. If these iB. fyjt o express those feelings in national policy the way counterforce arguments are true, aren't we all safer Hflf we often express them in interpersonal affairs—by with counterforce? tiventing our emotions and—if we are bigger— W1 forcing our opponent to back down. In interna- All of this is based on the notion that a counter- irchfl tional affairs it used to do this; smaller powers force nuclear war can be started in a coolheaded reate; once backed down when bigger ones exploded, way and then can be fought in a controlled way. if not The fact that now it is not working just feeds our But counterforce strategy forces both sides toward real rage and frustration the more. a first strike, even if each side knows that a first strike will leave retaliatory forces untouched on the Evidence that this national strategy doesn't work? other side. For the whole point of a counterforce :rioiit When the U. S. exploded more and ran the attack is to weaken the other side's forces. Waiting "weapons" race harder, the Soviets clamped down to be struck makes no sense, especially now that nil- on emigration of Soviet Jews. When the U. S. (un- missiles have MIRVs (multiple warheads). der Nixon, Ford, and Carter) negotiated more and more nearly accepted rough nuclear-weapons par- Listen to the conversation of the Ministers of De- ity, the Soviets eased up. fense and Trade in the Kremlin... or is it the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce in the Penta- itioM Why did this happen? Sheer perversity? One gon?. .. lewtf" reasonable hypothesis is that within the Soviet 1 government, there is constant pushing and pulling "One of our missiles can take out ten of their lC thr ' ^ between military/repressive institutions and rela- warheads, if we fire now. If we wait—those ten tively detentish/liberalizing/civilianizing institu- warheads might just take out ten of our missiles— tions. When the U. S. guns the arms race, it is the one hundred of our warheads. And you, Mr. military/repressive camp that gets stronger, because Secretary/Minister of Trade, say that I should ;h Ihe swing people get frightened that the U. S. wait?" "Yes, I know it is crazy to strike first; but it is topple Castro. And all this when the U. S. had an even more crazy not to strike first. Especially enormous nuclear superiority—so big that some since I know that in the Pentagon/Kremlin they are strategists told President Kennedy that a U. S. first having this same crazy argument. How can I be strike might wipe out all Soviet nuclear forces and sure that the Minister/Secretary of Trade over at worst would result only in ten million or so there is winning it?" dead Americans, with Soviet power totally and permanently shattered. ' When "What if?" becomes Realism Or take the 1973 Sinai nuclear alert, again when No matter how strongly both sides ahead of time there was U. S. superiority. Some strategists cite say they would strike only second—if the doctrine, this as evidence that the Soviets backed off their . I numbers, accuracy, and targeting of their weapons threat to land troops to protect the Egyptian Third 1 indicate that they are aimed at forces, then the Army in the Sinai, because the U. S. by calling a } pressure to strike first will be very high. nuclear alert threatened to use its superiority. But And suppose that one side (or both) does initiate a the Soviets had demanded that the U. S. restrain counterforce nuclear war? We have never had such Israel from destroying that Egyptian Army—and ISH| a war. All military strategy and tactics of the past rael did refrain. Who "backed down?" Any- have been built on study of the previous most one?—or did all concerned strike a bargain? I similar war. But no one knows how to deal with Today the U. S. is still "superior," if one counts : the electromagnetic pulse that knocks out all elec- accuracy, numbers, and invulnerability of its war- i tronic communication for 3,000 miles—or whether heads and if one treats all three elements of the the earth's magnetic field over the North Pole "triad" as belonging to one country rather than j (where no missile has been tested) is enough to de- three different super-powers. But the U. S. does i flect a "counterforce" missile from annihilating not, and never again will have, the degree of su- | New York. periority that it had in 1962 and 1973. So the Assuming that either a Soviet or American govern- counterforce threat—which was not very credible ment survived after the first attack, it would have in 1962—will never be credible again. to try to give orders without knowing its own sur- The point is that so long as both superpowers have.' viving defenses, the power left to its striking arm, the physical capability of absorbing a first strike f or the enemy targets still requiring destruction. No and then destroying die other's society, then no { matter how strongly both sides in advance say that previous deployment, or declaration of intention, t they are aiming only at forces, the chances are or ultra "rational" calculation will convince the high that in fact they will lose control, will destroy other that the enemy might not go crazy, deliber- many cities, and possibly bring on nuclear ately or by collapse of communications, and wipe J winter—the death of life. everything out in the aftermath of a "counter- The third reason for weapon superiority/ force" attack. So no one will willingly mount a counterforce strategy—the desire to threaten counterforce attack, unless forced into it by the nuclear attack in order to make the other side back fear that the other side will. And that fear is down from a non-nuclear threat—is the crucial heightened, not lessened, by pursuing counterforce: one. Absent that, why pursue counterforce? A strategy. minimum deterrent would be much safer in a crisis period. So there are two questions to ask: (1) Is Turning Bombs into Plowshares there any evidence that weapon superiority can be used in this way? (2) Is there any other, less risky, Where does that leave us? With the responsibility ! way for the U. S. to deal with such threats from to say that as long as there are nuclear weapons the Soviet Union? there is a high probability that if they are used at ! all the result will be a world-wide holocaust. • How much "Muscle" does Superiority Grant? Suppose either one of the super-powers accepted On question (1), did the Cuban missile crisis show that truth and limited its own stock of "portable j that weapon superiority can make the Soviets back Auschwitzes" to what would inexorably bring that i down? What the Soviets did then was a minimal about? Suppose at the same time it put all the back-down. They agreed not to put missiles in money, brains, and emotion now invested in the i Cuba, for which they were assured U. S. missiles nuclear arms race into producing for export as would be removed from Turkey. They accepted no sales, loans, gifts, and bribes, the food, the change in Cuba's social system or international energy, the housing, the propaganda, the access to posture; indeed, the U. S. reduced its efforts to fame and power, the guerillas, the "peace" corps.

134 j that could really change the world in accordance cerns. We know they are not. Hence we could' < i; with its own world-vision? press for an integrated foreign policy committed to a world that is "Alive and Free." Suppose either one of the super-powers did this not all at once, but one step at a time—running the The path in that direction begins by walking, one arms race in reverse by not building the next cautious step at a time, down the arms pyramid we system—MX, SS20, or Trident—and challenged the have raced up—preserving an adequate nuclear de- other side to follow suit? Would it become subject terrent while shifting our enormous arms-race to nuclear blackmail—or if blackmail were tried, resources to non-military foreign-policy actions that i would it just shrug, knowing its deterrent was in- can actually change the Soviet Union. It is time for vulnerable, and keep on changing the world under the organized American Jewish community to take its opponent's very feet? Until the opponent also the whole intertwined life-and-freedom package as changed? its highest priority, and to pursue a strategy of transarmament. • !J This is not unilateral disarmament. No nation that . has enough weapons to blow up the world has been disarmed. It is aggressive .. .but others say about converts... t "transarmament"—choosing weapons that will i really work. Can we ever Honor a Convert from Judaism? U Some Jews may think that this scenario is ridicu- I remain troubled by Joseph Schachter's suggestion v | lous because they identify the Soviet Union with last spring (Sh'ma, 15/291) that Yad Veshem : | Hider. If Hider had had H-bombs, nothing would honor Brother Daniel Rufeisen. I ask the reader's i < have worked. Nothing. The planet would have brief indulgence for what may seem, at first, ir- s | , been Auschwitz already. relevant. However, it will help throw light on the over-looked dimension in the otherwise nobly in- 1; ) The Soviet Union is not Hitler, or we would be tended article by Rabbi Schacter. I, dead already. It has been 30 years since Stalin 11 died. His successors act like disgusting Great In a recent issue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi I Powers—internally repressive, externally imperi- Theodore Friedman of Israel, reports on and dis- IR alist, and in both spheres anti-Semitic. But not cusses the unjust grip of the establishment of the Hider. Orthodox rabbinate in the holy land. One of his proofs in effect is, the following: Imagine the im- This time, the holocaust is much more likely to mitigated gall—and perverse power of the Chief I, I, come not from solitary demonic arrogance but : i Rabbis! They forced El A1 to stop flying on the from two great powers that are mortally afraid of Sabbath when the company is running a deficit of each other, who act out of fear in ways that to the $40,000,000. Well, in the view of Jews deeply K ! other seem dangerous and then panic in some deep committed to the holiness of the Sabbath, it is a crisis. cheap price to pay. What is 40 million in compari- I i The demonic arrogance appears in each side's be- son to the millions of lives, throughout Jewish his- lief that it can manage and control every detail of tory, who suffered and, indeed were martyred to nich extremely dangerous systems. When a mis- protect and preserve the Sabbath day? take will destroy the world, certainty of one's own However, the significance of citing this matter is (and the other's) perfect self-control is demonic ar- to underscore a reality: Certain things are, at rogance. Idolatry. times, very unpleasant, indeed, most distasteful- such as a 40 million dollar deficit. But they pale in | A new Strategy for a Unique Threat 1 significance when compared to what the real price What then should be the stance of American Jews would be—in this case the desecration of the i , toward the nuclear arms race? Here we do not Sabbath—if the unpleasant reality were prevented i! have to choose between Jewish self-interest and or corrected. And now its application to Rabbi > traditional Jewish ethical values. We could take on Schacter's passionate call for honoring Brother . • special role in the American debate over these Daniel, a meshumad (convert from Judaism to 1 questions. For American Jews are on average more Christianity), for his sacrificial service to Jews in ) committed to arms-control measures like the many trying circumstances during the depth of the Freeze than the general American public, and are Holocaust. more alert to Soviet repressiveness, because of our He praises Yad Veshem for its program to honor i direct involvement with Soviet Jews. the "Righteous of All Nations," those non-jews To most Americans, these seem antithetical con- (emphasis added) who put their lives on the line to 135 save the lives of Jews during the Nazi Regime." and professor at Cardozo Law School, author of Con- temporary Halakhic Problems I and II... BALFOUR Rabbi Schacter seems to forget his own language: BRICKNER, rabbi of Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, Brother Daniel is not simply a "non-jew." He's a Manhattan... MITCHELL COHEN, Assistant former Jew who rejected the key principle to us as Professor of Political Science, Baruch College, editor committed Jews—loyalty to our faith, as well as to of Class Struggle and The Jewish Nation... DANIEL our people. Can you imagine the delight Jews for J. ELAZAR, who directs Temple University's Center Jesus would have in featuring and exploiting a on Federalism as well as the Center for Jewish Com- ceremony and or a citation of the Jewish commu- munity Studies in Jerusalem.. BLU GREENBERG, nity or Yad Veshem, in praise of Brother Daniel? author of On Women and Judaism and How to Run a What better proof that you can convert to Traditional Jewish Household.. .SUSAN HANDEL- Christianity—even become a Christian lay MAN, Professor of English and Jewish Studies at the brother—and still be honored by the Jewish Com- University of Maryland, author of The Slayers of munity? Moses.. .PAULA HYMAN, Dean of the Seminary Several decades ago, I was asked to participate in College, Jewish Theological Seminary of America and an inter-religious dialogue in Chicago with a Cath- author of From Dreyfus to Vichy.. .NORA LEVIN, olic and Protestant. I protested violently when the Professor of Jewish History at Gratz College, author "Catholic" in the dialogue, was a meshumad, a o/The Holocaust.. .DAVID NOVAK, Rabbi, Jew who rejected me and all I stand for. I did not Bayswater Jewish Center, Far Rockaway, N. Y. author consider him an appropriate person to participate of The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism... STEVEN in an event intended to promote mutual respect for SCHWARZSCHILD, Professor of Philosophy, the basic differences between each of the three re- Washington U., Editor, Judaism, 1960-69... ligious groups. HAROLD SCHULWEIS, rabbi of Valley Beth Shalom, Encino, Ca., and author of Evil and the Of course, it would be most pleasant to be able to Morality of God.. SEYMOUR SIEGEL, recently avoid kejuyah tovah (ingrates) and honor Brother Director, United States Holocaust Memorial Commis- Daniel just as it would be most pleasant to avoid a sion, now again Professor of Theology and Ethics at 40 million dollar deficit. But at what price? Indeed Jewish Theological Seminary.. .SHARON STRASS- the comparison is unfair since even a 40 million FELD, co-editor o/The Jewish Catalog, I, II, and ID deficit isn't nearly as bad as the horrendous conse- and The Jewish Family Book.. .ELIE WIESEL, Mel- quences that could result from honoring a lon Professor, Boston University, whose latest book is meshumad, even a "'righteous" one. The Fifth Son ... ARNOLD JACOB WOLF, rabbi Bernard Mandelbaum K.A.M. Isaiah Israel Congregation, Chicago, Editor, New York, N. Y. What is Man?.. .MICHAEL WYSCHOGROD, Professor of Philosophy, Baruch College, author of The Body of Faith. OUR CONTRIBUTING EDITORS, returning for an- other year are: MICHAEL BERENBAUM, who OUR EDITOR, EUGENE B. BOROWITZ, is Profes- teaches theology at Georgetown University and edits sor of Education and Jewish Religious Thought at He- the opinion page of Washington's Jewish Week.. .J. brew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion and, DAVID BLEICH, Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University most recently, author of Liberal Judaism.

136