The final chapter of Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” articulates the underlying question some fifty-odd New Hampshire communities addressed in debates calling for a nuclear weapons freeze during their recent town meetings.
Proponents contend that if enough public pressure is exerted, our government, and perhaps that of the Soviet Union, will halt their production of nuclear weapons. Their logical next step is to employ similar tactics to then bring about a large scale reduction in the existing stockpiles of these instruments of mass destruction.
Their opponents argue that the Russians will pay no heed to any town meeting results, except to further question the resolve of the American people to maintain a strong military posture. It is their belief that the Soviets will only have respect for the sovereignty of nations operating from a position of strategic strength. They fear such a course of action on the part of our government would be tantamount to the posture taken by Neville Chamberlain during his fateful 1938 meeting with Adolph Hitler, with equally tragic consequences.
However, a question for the proponents is why stop there?
Why not also push for a freeze, and subsequent dismantling of the biological and chemical arsenals? Unquestionably, their effects on human beings are equally as ugly as those of nuclear weapons. In fact, why not go for the jugular and insist on a major reduction in the staggering $2,000,000,000 spend daily by our species to produce and purchase ever more efficient means of permanently dispatching our fellow man?
Further, it must be recognized that the United States and the Soviet Union are no longer the sole members of the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) warfare club. Nearly a dozen nations currently possess limited stockpiles of these weapons, and that number can be expected to increase several-fold during the remainder of the twentieth century. And, that doesn’t include the terrifying prospect of NBC weapons falling into the hands of major terrorist
organizations who seem to have a total disregard for human life.
Then, there is always the subject of arms-control integrity by the signatory nations. In American history, only one such agreement was ever truly successful, the Rush-Bagot Agreement of 1817 between the United States and Great Britain, limiting the use of naval power on the Great Lakes.
Certainly, questions can be raised about the willingness of the Soviet Union to honor any arms agreement. Evidence has become overwhelming that the Russians have been, and continue to be directly involved in the utilization of both Chemical and Biological weapons in Laos, Cambodia and Afghanistan. This, despite the fact the Soviets are signatories to the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of Chemical Agents as well as the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention banning the use of Biological weapons. And, finally, there’s the near total disregard by the Russians of the human rights provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Agreement.
The humanistic efforts of the proponents remain beyond reproach, while the concerns of their philosophical counterparts are certainly well-grounded.
Unfortunately, mankind is racing blindly toward the crossroads of Survival and Extinction. In order that the wrong path not be taken, the emotionalism, intransigence and parochial rhetoric of the past must yield to rational creativity, flexibility and greatly enhanced tolerance to blend the idealistic and pragmatic needs of all peoples … time is fast running out!
“Our obligation to survive is owed not just to ourselves butt also to that Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring.”
