To the Editors of the CRIMSON:
In a recent editorial on the Geneva test-ban negotiations, you suggested both the Soviet Union and the United States were stalling on an unimportant question. Scientific detection skills were great enough that the difference between seven inspections a year or three was minimal. The two sides, you said, should agree on the number and move to other questions.
This really misses the deeper divisions that control what happens in Geneva. On paper, both nations profess policies of seeking general and complete disarmament. In fact, neither nation yet gives undivided support to such policies.
Why? Because still unsettled is the crucial debate. Can controlled nuclear wars be fought, and won? Is limited nuclear war a feasible extension of foreign policy by other means? Many today answer that nuclear wars cannot be controlled, cannot be limited, cannot be won Therefore they argue one must never be fought.
The debates today in Congress show that many public officials do not reject the possibility of fighting and winning a limited nuclear war. They do not foresee an unchecked arms race leading to reciprocal homicide. And they call for continued testing, opposing any agreement at Geneva.
This is more the meaning of the Geneva stall--that the United States hasn't really decided yet whether it needs disarmament, contradicting Kennedy's stated desire. And then some fine day men like Dodd and Goldwater will learn whether limited nuclear was was a possibility, or not. Steven H. Johnson '64 Chairman of Tocsin
NEWSPEAK"Many expert people are working on this." --Secretary of State Warren Christopher, arriving in Geneva on Sunday declaring that a
The Price of PeaceThe question of nuclear disarmament is essentially a strategic and technical issue. Those who consider it solely an ethical problem
Three on Faculty Indicate Dangers Of AEC Control in National AffairsThree members of the University staff yesterday warned against the influence that the Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Department
Ad Hominem AttacksT HE MAJORITY CONDEMNS the Reagan administration's belligerent stand on nuclear arms, and correctly so. But it also falls into
Gerard Piel: 'The Fork in the Road'In his 1961-2 annual report, Edwin N. Griswold, dean of the Harvard Law School, quoted from the Phi Beta Kappa