By JACK MOORE IWA Regional President The nuclear weapons pro- posed for Canada will endan- ger rather than strengthen the defence of our country. This fact stands out clearly in the present controversy and completely vindicates the view expressed on behalf of organized labour by the Can- adian Labour Congress. The question which most deeply concerns the average worker is how this country may provide the maximum security against enemy action in the event of a nuclear war. The worker who applies this test to propaganda favouring nuclear arms for Canada will find no assurance of national defence. He will find that billions have been spent to create a shocking illusion. Canadians stand in danger of arming against themselves. Billions have been spent in Canada on three warning sys- tems, Bomarc missile installa- tions in Ontario and Quebec, and various types of intercep- tor planes. This expenditure was undertaken upon the in- sistence of the United States in complete control of the world’s superior nuclear de- THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER terrent. It was originally con- sidered by the United States that this nuclear deterrent required defence in depth. Canadian installations were built because of the earlier expectation that fleets of bombers carrying H-bombs would pass over the Cana- dian Arctic to reach Ameri- can industrial centres. The defence of bases for the Stra- tegic Air Command of the U.S. was then considered im- portant. Outspoken critics, quickly silenced, denounced this as “murderous arithmetic” or as a callous military preference for war on another country’s real estate. However, this criticism is now recognized as valid by independent Cana- dian experts. This view is up- held by any objective exam- ination of the defence possi- bilities to be found in nuclear arms for Bomarc missiles in Canada or for our Voodoo or Starfighter jets. The development of the in- tercontinental ballistic missile has revolutionized all con- cepts of defence. Such a mis- sile launched from any point in Europe can within fifteen minutes incinerate any city on this continent. These mis- siles reach a speed of 15,000 miles an hour and on the downward arc from a height of 150,000 feet reach a velo- city twenty times the speed of sound. Missiles in descent travel 30 per cent faster than missiles in ascent. Nuclear - powered subma- rines operating under water at some distance from our shores can within minutes discharge nuclear missiles capable of obliterating sev- enty per cent of our popula- tion. When nuclear devastation ean be accomplished with such speed, it is imconceiv- able that the enemy would employ planes which require five to six hours for the same purpose and which could be detected by radar. Even if planes were em- ployed, and only one in ten reached the target, recent de- fence exercises proved that fifteen cities would be oblit- erated, 2.6 million would be dead, and one million injured. This would not include the millions killed by the deadly fall-out. An intercepted plane, car- rying an armed 50-megaton VOODOO INTERCEPTOR bomb triggered by a nuclear rocket at 40,000 feet, over Bellingham, would create a. fireball capable of destroying both Vancouver and Seattle. If mtercepted by a conven- tional rocket, such as the Fal- con, the chances of a nuclear explosion in mid-air over Canada would be substantial- ly less. Major - General W. H. S. Macklin has proved ‘his point that the Bomarc missiles as a means of defence was still- born. Even if armed with a nuclear warhead it is helpless against missiles. Certainly, interceptor planes are even more helpless against the modern missile. The mourn- ful truth is that the Bomarc for defence purposes is use- less, with its limited range of 250 miles. The Americans have abandoned further in- stallations of Bomares for their purposes. Canada has sunk billions and the United States tens of billions into NORAD on the theory that the U.S. nuclear deterrent can be given de- fence. The resulting system will never be able to protect nuclear bases on this contin- ent from attack, whether by manned bombers or by mis- siles. Still less can it, with nu- clear weapons, defend our cities. Canadian air squadrons equipped with nuclear war- heads are equally useless. It is proposed that they be so equipped on the theory that “tactical” nuclear weapons may replace deficiencies in manpower. No_ responsible statesman is now heard to ad- vance the theory that the use of nuclear arms can be lim- ited. Any nuclear exchange will quickly “escalate” into a full-scale exchange of nuclear bombs with near total de- struction of both sides. It is well to remember that the pressure on Canada to store nuclear weapons is bas- - ed on the concept that the huge nuclear power of the United States should be used to destroy Russia by first de- stroying the Russian deter- rent. It is-hoped that this business would end with Rus- sia destroyed and the U.S. surviving the staggering dam- age of life and property that would ensue. They think that a nuclear - armed Canada would aid in this survival, and ignore the fearful results to us. It is military nonsense. President Dwight Eisen- hower issued a solemn warn- ing when he left the White House. He spoke of the dan- ger that defence policy would be determined by the huge American military - industrial complex that now supplies nuclear arms. The defence of profits from a $52 million annual expendi- ture on armaments on this continent is a powerful mo- tive for distortion of true de- fence requirements. Canada should refuse all nuclear weapons. Our de- fence measures should con- centrate on a build-up and modernization of useful con- ventionally armed forces to fullfil national commitments. We gain nothing in the way of defence by joining the nu- clear club. Nuclear power as a deterrent is not within our grasp and nuclear power is nothing but a deterrent. It offers no defence. Nuclear arms in Canada makes Can- ada a defenceless target for nuclear attack. The only shield for Cana- dian security is to be found in world nuclear disarma- Ings, "Keep deterrents out at sea Where the real estate is free, And they can’t get at me.”