l A growing concern over the potential horrors of nuclear warfare is evidenced by frequent statements United States lawmakers enter into the Congressional Record. On a single day recently: g 1. Rep. James Weaver. D-Ore. introduced a resolution signed by a dozen church officials in Oregon, whose message, in brief, was: “Stop the insanity of nuclear arms buildup here and abroad and divert badlyneeded moneys away from arms and toward real human needs.” Z. Rep. Jonathan Bingham, DN.Y. cited a Washington Post article by Jessica Matthews which claimed the U.S. effort to prevent spread of nuclear arms technology is being weakened under the Reagan regime Cl. Rep. Edward P. Boland, DMass. submitted a speech given at Dartmouth College by George F. Kennan. former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, calling for revision of our nuclear policy. Boland also called attention to a column in The Boston Globe by Tom Wicker which cited the “frightening growth of nuclear arsenals on both sides” and quoted Winston Churchill as warning that use of these doomsday weapons would be so cataclysmic “that the living would envy the dead.” Kennan made his speech about the same time as President Reagan proposed that the Soviet Union join the U.S. in a mutual reduction of theater nuclear weapons in Europe. Because of his background in U.S. – Soviet relations. his thoughtful remarks might well be pondered by leaders of both countries. These are some of his key points: – Recent growth of the antinuclear war movement here and in Europe has achieved dimensions impossible for governments to ignore. Such a movement has its ragged edges, attracts freaks and extremists. and needs leadership. But at the heart of it lie reasonable and powerful motivations, among them recognition of the horrors of nuclear war and concern for the future of civilization. – Sooner or later. and the sooner the better. all governments on both sides of’ the East-West division will find themselves compelled to undertake the search for positive alternatives to the dilemma which any suicidal weaponry presents. – A start could be mutual cuts in the long-range strategic arsenals. said Kennan. “There could be a complete denuolearization of Central and Northern Europe. One could accept a ban on nuclear testing; at the very least, a temporary freeze on the further buildup of these fantastic arsenals.” – Plainly. both the U.S. and the USSR land eventually more than the twol would have to play the game. “l am not suggesting any unilateral disarmament.” Kennan stressed. – Two fundamental changes in outlook must include: Recognition that no issue or rgoal conceivably can be worth a nuclear war; and there is no way nuclear weapons can be employed in combat without escalation into a general nuclear disaster. . – Given those two views. it flows with iron logic that we must abandon the option of the first use of nuclear weapons in any encounter. “The insistence on this option of first use has corrupted and vltiated our entire policy on nuclear matters.” The same obviously would apply to the Soviet Union. l – This would involve restructuring within the armed forces whose training, equipment and strategy have been affected by the assumption that nuclear weapons might be used. Finally. Kennan urged a reversal of the “very serious deterioration of Soviet-American relations” and the “almost exclusive militarization of thinking and discourse” about the relationship. Both countries. he suggested. need tu end distortions and misrepresentations and see each other realistically – their pride, their hipes. the commonality of many of their problems. As the Oregon churchmen suggested, a nuclear arms race isn’t consistent with the higher purposes and instincts of mankind. And as Kennan said: “Tirne is not waiting for us.” Peace-loving people everywhere will be looking hopefully to resumption in January by the U.S. and the USSR of negotiations on major cuts in strategic weapons. V