942 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 76 PART 6 NOVEMBER 2018
The problem was France. Devastated by the First World War, she feared
Germany. Equality in armament with Germany was not good enough. Germany
could easily rearm. These fears would soon prove well-founded. But
France was not militaristic; she only sought for herself the security that the
U.K. and the U.S. had by the fortunes of geography. She was willing to
accept an international military force to enforce security. She was also willing
to accept border guarantees by America and England. The two Englishspeaking
The arms control process stalled. The injustice of the Treaty of Versailles
festered. Finally, Hitler was produced.
The lesson is that peace does not exist in isolation. It is supported on one
side by security and on the other side by justice. It is not enough for a nation
to seek security and justice for itself, for another major power’s insecurity
and injustice are a threat to all. England and America learned this too late
and have forgotten it already.
That brings us to today. In the whole discussion of nuclear disarmament
there is no discussion of the root causes of the political differences between
the superpowers. Do you really believe an arms control agreement between
the superpowers will last, if it is not supported by political accommodation?
It will surely collapse for lack of support. If there is one thing worse than
not having a nuclear arms control agreement, it is having a nuclear arms
control agreement break down. The threat of the demise of SALT II is an
Nothing shows the futility of pure arms control better than looking at the
result of total nuclear disarmament. Suppose you could ban all nuclear
weapons: what sort of world would it be? The missiles and bombers would
be nuclear-headless monsters. The military could easily re-arm them with
conventional weapons and retarget them to attack nuclear power stations.
How does the prospect of hundreds of Chernobyls appeal to you? In addition,
scientists can easily develop new terror weapons. Historically, scientists
have been ahead of diplomats and peace marchers. The ’30s and ’40s
are prime examples. In the ’20s the diplomats banned the use of chemical
weapons. The result was not peace; rather, scientists in the ’40s developed
The threat of annihilation lies over our heads and will continue to do so
whether it comes from nuclear bombs or some new terror weapon. The
only way to remove it is to deal with root causes: the political differences.
There are some historical precedents. All arms control agreements are
not failures. Some regional bilateral ones have been quite successful. In
these cases, the countries were similar in nature and had reached a degree