A growing concern wu- the potential horrors uf nuclear warfare in evidenced hy treqwun statamum United States lawmakers enter Ima the Cauxudmd Record. On a single day recently: l. Rep. James Weaver, D-Orc. Introduced a resolutlun signed by 1 damn church officials In Oregon, whose mw-age. In brief, wu: “Swp the insanity of nuclear arms huildup here and ahrnad and divert badly-needed moneys away Irumarms and lourdrul human needs.” 2. Rep. Jonathan Bingham, D-N.Y., cited a Washington Past article by Jessica Matthews which claimed me U.S. effort to prevent gnad of nuclear sms technology ls being weakened under the Reagan regime. 3. Rep. Edvard P. Boland, D-Mass., suhmiued a spree-view at Dammuth College by George F. Knuuan, former US. ambnsadur to the Soviet Union. calling for revision of our nuclear policy. Boland also called attention Lo 1 cnlxunn in the Bomn Globe by Tom Wicker which cited the “frightzning growth of nuclear arsenals on both sides” and quoted Winsum Churchill as warning that use of these boomsdny weapons would be sn cataclysmic “mat the living would envy Lbs dead.” Kennun made his speech about the same time as President Reagan pronosed that the Sovgt Union join the U.S. in a mutual reduction oi theater nuclear weapons in Europe. Because of his huckgrmmd in U.S.Soviel relallons, his Lhoughdul remarks might well be yondered hy lenders of both countries. These are some of his key poinm: – Recent growth 01 the anti-nuclear war movement here and in Europe has achieved dimensions impuwble iur guvernments lu ignore. Such a movnnent has iu ragged edges, atlrads freaks and extremists, and needs leadership. But at the hum ul it lin reasonable and powerful mpuvatiuns, among them recognition nl the horrors ul nuclear war and concern for the luturc of civilization. – Sooner or later. and the sooner the better, ull governments on both sides of the Ease-West divislun will find themselves compelled In undertake the search for positive alternatives w the dilemma which any suicidal weaponry presents – A start could be mutual cuts in the long-range strategic arsenals, said Kcnnun, “‘lhere could he a complete denuclenrizaljon ul Central and Northern Europe. One could accept a ban nn nuclear testing; at the very least, u temporary freeze un Lb: further buildup uf these fantastic arsenals.” – Plainly, both me U.S and the USSR tam! eventually more than lhe Iwo) would have to play-the game. “I am not suggesting any unilateral disarmament,” Kerman stressed. w – Two rm In-menu! changes In outlmkust include: Recognition that no issue nr goal conceivably can be worth a nuclear war; and than Is nn way nucl:.-ar weapuns can he empiuyed in combat without escalation into a general nuclear disaster. -Given those two view;. at flmrs with imn logic that we must abandon the option of the first me of nuclear weapons if any encounter. “fhe lnsistence uf this option nf tim use has corrupted and vitinted our entire policy on nuclear mattars.” The same olr viously ve nuld apply Lu the Soviet Union. l This would involve rzstnmturlng within the armed forces whose training, equipment and strategy have been attested by the assumption that nuclear ueilinns might be used. Finally, Kennan urged a reversal uf the ” ery serious delerinmtian uf Sovicn-American relations” and the “alnwst exclusive rnilitarizaliun of thinking and discourse” about the relationship. num countries, he suggested. need ta vnd distortions and mixrzpresemations and see each other rwlistically – their pride, Lheir hopes, the commonality of many uf their problems. As the Oregon churchmen suggested. a nuclear arms race Lm’t cnnsimnnl with the higher pnrpuses and instincts of mankind. And as Kennan said: “Time is not nailing for us.” Peace-loving people everywhere will he looking hopefully Lo resumption In Januar) by the U.S. and the USSR nepwliatiuns nn major cuLs in strategic weapons,