Nuclear risk

To the editor:

“I dreamed the world/had all agreed/to put an end to war.” — Ed McCurdy.

A beautiful idea, but not a practical start to peace. It seems, however, that Earl Haehl (Public Forum, Nov. 13) would not have us do anything to lower the nuclear risk until every possible player has agreed. And a motley collection he has named.

China, for example, in its long history, has not traditionally gone out to attack foreign states. That’s a long way from a nuclear attack on the United States. What could even the wildest successor Chinese government hope to gain from such an attack?

Doubtless Russia is trying to bring its neighbors into its orbit. They could not keep control when they were far more powerful and had an ideology that attracted many people. Will they succeed now that all they can offer is hegemony?

But if they do have influence, they could use that influence for nuclear reduction. We would maintain plenty of weapons for some rogue Bulgarian etc. regime.

As to upgrading our weapons, should we pour badly needed money into creations that we plan never to use and cause damage in their very development?

If Mr. Haehl is not interested in the arguments of a known peacenik like myself, perhaps he will listen to the wisdom of President/General Eisenhower from his farewell address: “Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.”

Anne L. Haehl,

Lawrence