Download The

SPECIAL ANALYSIS NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE TOPIC 1964-65 WHAT POLICY FOR CONTROL Of \WEAPONS SYSTEMS WOULD BEST INSURE THE PROSPECTS FOR WORLD PEACE? PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE g_g;-J��,�� 1012 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005 EXECUTIVE 3·8205 THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH, established in 1943, is o nonpartisan research and educational organization which studies notional policy problems. Institute publications toke two major forms: 1. LEGISLATIVE AND SPECIAL ANALYSES - factual analyses of current legislative proposals and other public policy issues before the Congress prepared with the help of recognized experts in the academic world and in the fields of low and government. A typical analysis features: (1) pertinent background, (2) o digest of significant elements, and (3) o discussion, pro and con, of the issues. The reports reflect no policy position in favor of or against specific proposals. 2. LONG-RANGE STUDIES - basic studies of major notional problems of significance for public policy. The Institute, with the counsel of its Advisory Boord, utilizes the services of competent scholars, but the opinions expressed ore those of the authors and represent no policy position on the port of the Institute. ADVISORY BOARD Poul W. McCracken, Chairman Professor, School of Business Administration, University of Mi chi gon Kori Brandt Stanley Parry Director Professor, Deportment Food Research Institute of Politicol Science Stanford University University of Notre Dome Milton Friedman Roscoe Pound Poul S. Russell Distinguished Professor Emeritus Service Professor of Economics Harvard University University of Chicago E. Blythe Stoson Gottfried Hoberler Deon Emeritus, Low School Golen L. Stone Professor University of Michigan of International Trade Ha rvard University George E. Taylor Director, For Eastern & Felix Morley Russian lnstitutJ! Editor and Author University of Woshi ngton OFFICERS Chairman Corl N. Jacobs Vice Chairmen Wolter C. Beckjord Henry T. Bodman H. C. Lumb President Treasurer William J·: Baroody Henry T. Bodman Thomas F. Johnson Joseph G. Butts Director of Research Di rector of Legi sl otive Analysis Earl H. Voss Director of International Studies WHAT POLICY FOR alNTROL OF WEAPONS SYSTEMS WOUJ..D BEST INSURE THE PROSPECTS FOR WORLD PEACE? INTRODUCTION In the nuclear age, when the problems of controlling weapons systems have become more acute than ever before, the leaders of the world are seeking the answer to this question: "What policy for control of weapons systems would best insure the prospects for world peace?" Many answers are offered, but basically the responses break down into two categories: there are those who believe that the arms race has become so dangerous that it must be stopped before "something goes off" -- as they are certain it inevitably will -- and the Northern Hemisphere as we know it disappears in mushroom clouds. On the other hand, others fear that the greater risk would come if the United States were to stop racing or slow down, thus allowing the Soviet Union to overtake us and eventually conquer us as barbarians conquered lazy civilizations in the past. Disarmers say that war has become so dangerous the arms race must be stopped. Armers say that the only way to prevent war is to race, to maintain United States superiority over the nation which has shown time and again its capacity for treachery and its fundamental intention to subjugate all free nations to communism. In many ways the problem boils down to a question of how much the Soviet Union can be trusted. Those who take greater comfort in arming than in disarming are less willing to trust the Soviet Union than the disarmers, who are willing to take more risks and trust the Soviet Union, to a certain extent at least, if this will mean a slowing of the arms race, or even its reversal. If this were a baseball game between the Soviet Union and the United States played in a stadium for all to see, we could know definitely where we stand. With an opponent whose techniques of secrecy are highly developed, however, we neither know the score nor how many men the Soviet Union has on base, nor the strength of the pinch hitters on the bench. This problem of finding out what the Soviet Union's strengths and weaknesses are in weapons and military power complicates the debate of any problem like arms control. It would be bad enough if men who differ about the meaning of facts were at least able to start with a set of agreed facts. In this case, however, so much is obscure, so much conjecture, that participants in the argument seldom speak from the same premises. - 1 - Even judgments of history differ. There are those who believe history shows that an imbalance of armed strength leads to war (by tempting the more powerful to devour the weak); others believe that an imbalance prolongs the peace; sti11 others believe a balance of power is.more conducive to war because it tempts ambitious leaders to over estimate their prospects for victory at acceptable cost. Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, presidential science adviser, commented in 1960: ...most people do not quite believe in disarmament. In fact, some people view with suspicion any attempt to impose restrictions on military activities, and many more are skeptical of the possibility of actually achieving a mean ingful agreement on arms control. Such cynicism is strongly supported by historical precedents. On the other hand, history also indicates that until now wars have occurred with distressing regularity, and that in recent times each successive major war has been larger and more destructive than the previous one. There is every historical reason to conclude that if we drift along as we are now doing, another major war will certainly occur. We can only avoid that disaster if the nations of the world regard war itself as a cononon enemy and make a truly consunonate effort to work together in resolving the important issues that are involved. 1/ It is not new that scientists and philosophers are searching for peace and have perceived the need to concentrate the disciplines of science in an effort to prevent the destruction of the world. William James, the philosopher, wrote in 1910, for instance: When whole nations are the armies, and the science of destruction lies in intellectual refinement with the sciences of production, I see that war becomes absurd and impossible from its own monstrosity. Extravagant ambitions will have to be replaced by reasonable claims, and nations must make common cause against them. :?J At the same time, Mr. James looked on earlier wars as some thing of a necessity: "History is a bath of blood," he said, and war is "the gory nurse that trains society to cohesiveness" and gives the "moral spur" toward such virtues as "intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interests, obedience to command ... the rocks upon which states are built." ll Daedalus, Fall 1960, p. 679. :?J William James, "The Moral Equivalent of War," first published in 1910, then reprinted in "Essays on Faith and Morals," (Longmans, Green & Company, 1953), pp. 322-23. - 2 - Max Born, the German physicist, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1954, believes the advent of nuclear weapons has made it im perative that mankind renounce the use of force in settling disputes: What is there left to hope for? Can one hope that the insight of mankind into the atomic danger will bring salvation? The only thing that can save us is an old dream of the human race: world peace and world organization. These were regarded as unattainable, as Utopian.· It was believed that human nature is unchangeable and since there had always been war there would always be war. Today one cannot accept this any longer. World peace in a world that has become smaller is no longer Utopian, but a necessity, a condition for the survival of the human race. The opinion that this is so spreads farther and farther. The immediate result is a paraly sis of politics, because a convincing method of achiev ing political goals without a threat of force, with war as a last resort, has not yet been discovered.. .. But for the one question, the most important by far: "Can political, economical, ideological disputes only be decided through force and war?" the theorem of the un changeability of human nature is to be accepted, "since it has always been like this, it will always be like this.·• To me, this seems absurd even when it is preached by great politicians and philosopers. Without giving up this axiom the human race is condemned to destruc tion. Our hope is based on the union of two spiritual powers: the moral awareness of the unacceptability of a war degenerated to mass murder of the defenseless and the rational knowledge of the incompatibility of techno logical warfare with the survival of the human race. The only question is whether we have enough time to let these realizations become effective. Dr. Born quotes another Nobel Prize winner, Gerhard Domagk, who asks: What is really important in this world? That we individuals get along with each other, try to under stand and help each other as best we can. For us physicians that is natural. Why shouldn't it be possible for all other people? Don't tell me this be Utopia! Every discovery was considered Utopian. Why should we first wait for another measuring of powers -- - 3 - we really did suffer enough to have become wise. But it is comfortable to cling to old customs; more comfortable to follow violent rulers, cholerics, paranoiacs, and other mentally disturbed individuals instead of thinking for oneself and looking for new ways of reconciliation instead of mutual destruction.

Load more