News
Progressive Labor Party Organizes Solidarity March With Harvard Yard Encampment
News
Encampment Protesters Briefly Raise 3 Palestinian Flags Over Harvard Yard
News
Mayor Wu Cancels Harvard Event After Affinity Groups Withdraw Over Emerson Encampment Police Response
News
Harvard Yard To Remain Indefinitely Closed Amid Encampment
News
HUPD Chief Says Harvard Yard Encampment is Peaceful, Defends Students’ Right to Protest
In the middle of a Harvard-Radcliffe World Federalists discussion last night, Major Robert G. Gard plaintively told his listeners: "All you people are supposed to be saying that we ought to lay down our arms and have world government. You're being much more militaristic than I am."
Gard, a former West Point instructor who is currently studying problems of arms control at the Graduate School of Public Administration, had defined earlier in the evening his thesis that systems to control the use of arms are likely to be more effective and practical than complete disarmament programs.
Calls for U.S.-Soviet Military Equation
Speaking "as a student rather than a soldier," he discussed the first part of a three-phase policy for coming closer to international order: stabilization of the U.S.-Soviet military equation.
Gard called specifically for an "attempt to stabilize the long-range striking "World Safe for Limited War" If a plan like his is adopted, Gard said, "people will have to face the consequences of it. In a way, you're making the world safe for limited war." A de facto agreement on stabilization may mean more "brush-fire" warfare, and guerillas must be trained "to cope with the people who farm by day and fight by night." This implication of Gard's argument drew sharp comment from HRWF members, some of whom wondered "exactly how limited a limited war is." (Federalists usually maintain that no stablization is immediately possible in the arms race, and that an international force to regulate controls must be set up while the individual members gradually disarm.)
"World Safe for Limited War"
If a plan like his is adopted, Gard said, "people will have to face the consequences of it. In a way, you're making the world safe for limited war." A de facto agreement on stabilization may mean more "brush-fire" warfare, and guerillas must be trained "to cope with the people who farm by day and fight by night."
This implication of Gard's argument drew sharp comment from HRWF members, some of whom wondered "exactly how limited a limited war is." (Federalists usually maintain that no stablization is immediately possible in the arms race, and that an international force to regulate controls must be set up while the individual members gradually disarm.)
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.