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; , l. 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. Hep. Jonathan Bingham, DN.Y. cited a Washington Post artfcle by Jessica Matthews which claimed the U.S. effort to prevent spread of nuclear arms technology is being weakened under the Reagan regime. lt. Rep. Edward P. Boland. DMass. submitted a speech glven at Dartmouth College by George F. Kerman, 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 wamlng 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 civiliration. – Sooner or later, and the sooner the better, all governments on hom 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 he a complete denuclearization of Central and Northern Europe One could accept a ban on nuclear testing; at the verv least, a temporary freeze on the further buildup of these fantastic arsenals.” – Plainly. both the U.S. and the USSR (and eventually more than the two) would have to play the game. “I am not suggesting any unilateral disarmament.” Kennan stressed. – Two fundamental changes in outlook must include: Recognition that no issue or goal 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 disasler i Given those two views, it flows with iron logic that we must abandon the option of the first use of nuclear we pons in any encounter. “The insis ence on this option of first use ha cornipted and vltlated our entire licy on nuclear matters. ” The me obvlously would apply to the viet Union. e This ould involve restructuring within armed forces whose training. uipment and strategy have been tfected by the assumption that n lear weapons might be used. Finally. ennan urged a reversal of the “ver serious deterioration of Soviet-Am ican relations” and the “almost ex lusive militarization of thinking a discourse” about the relationshi . Both co ntries, he suggested, need to e distortions and misrepresentat ons and see each other realistic-all – their pride. their hipes. the oommonality 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: “Time is not waiting for us ” Peace-loving people everywhere, will be looking hopefully to resump- y tion in January by the U.S and the . USSR of negotiations on major cuts Q in strategic weapons.