SU BL

Rae By STAN LYNN

i There is a belief preva-
€nt in the Western world
that the leaders of the

States in the first place,
i } and honestly
Nast World disarmament,

mee with the Soviet
Mon, that would adequate-
A ‘Suarantee Western se-
curity,
se is the view hammered
k daily in the Western
Hi Millions believe it.
a P Pressure salesmanship
| b€en used by the U.S.
thee bartment to convince
s at disarmament is the
nea at Geneva, even
see to this date, only one
tty, the Soviet Union,
a forward a comprehen-
and an—a draft treaty—for
“a disarmament.

i a bluntly, it would be
oe pone: First, the Un-
ae ates, since the end of
cond World War to
: ad has been preparing
= massive military blow
ang 4% out the Soviet Union
paid socialism. Sec-
, present leaders of
es have no intention of
World Ri agreement on
Sarmament with or
* eat controls.
. €re any real basis for
ne = Proposition?
bi ntly, a British Nobel
e

0:

‘winning physicist, Pro-
Oui: M. S. Blackett, put
Position peely such a pro-

,, 110. a series of articles

Donson Statesman of

oe military and arms.
States, Of both the United
Blackett the Soviet Union,
to the ‘ Was forced to come

The Ollowing conclusions.
° first was that the

ay strike first’
nnedy warns

Redy ae by President Ken-
&t the U.S. would be

etna

The:
Sain Remedy threat appear-
at a Interview with Stew-

Si -
. -°P in the Saturday

Veniy
pee oot Alsop wrote:
Sertai, nchey must not be

: t
tetests hat, where its vital
4S, wal. threatened, the
Sie never sirike first.
rUnstance Y Says: ‘In some cir-
take ®S we might have to
White Mitiative,’ ”
Gees s House spokesman
that the anger commented
s a “war threat was no
PS. auteurs: Policy. Other
i eines denied that
, nt had made the

West, those of the United

Soviet Union, judged by the
statements of its leaders and
also by estimates of American
intelligence, bases its military
policy only on retaliation in

‘answer to an enemy attack.

Blackett points out that the
Soviet Union, in spite of a
much greater productive po-
tential, had produce d and
stockpiled in the past few
years only the smallest num-
ber of Intercontinental Ballis-
tic Missiles, short-range mis-
siles and aircraft necessary to
retaliate in case of an enemy
attack.

A nation intending aggres-
sion would have to stockpile
a tremendous amount of nu-
clear rockets. The thinking
behind this is that a massive
nuclear blow would wipe out
cities and military bases, re-
ducing to a minimum the pos-
sibility of retaliation.

Thus, for purely defensive
purposes, a minimum. of nu-
clear and rocket deterrent is
needed. For aggression, it is
necessary to undertake mas-
sive stockpiling of nuclear
rockeiry- :

But this is precisely what
the United States has done.

Blackett is forced to point out_

that “In view of the very
great nuclear superiority of
the U.S. over the USSR dur-
ing all these years, it is clear
that if there was any truth in
the doctrine of the over-

whelming advantage of the

nuclear aggressor, it was to
the U.S. and not to the USSR
that. this advantage would
accrue.”

FIRST STRIKE THEORY

An even more lucid picture
of U.S. military strategy was
supplied in a recent television
interview on NBC’s Today,
with American physicist, Dr.
Ralph Lapp.

This scientist defined the
problem most clearly, stating
that “. . . We must analyze.
whether or not we are build-
ing a missile force which is:
capable of retaliation in res-
ponse to a Soviet attack on us,
or whether we are building
a force which is capable of
carrying out a first strike on
the Soviet Union.”

Which is it? Dr. Lapp refer-
red to what he considered of-
ficial government policy by
quoting from congressional
report, defense — department
of defence appropriations,
1961:

“In the final analysis, to
effectively deter a world be
aggressor, we should main-
tain our armed forces in such
a way and with such an un-
derstanding that, should it
ever become obvious that an
attack upon us or our allies
is imminent, we can launch

-an attack before the aggres-,

sor has hit either us or our
allies. This is an element of
deterrence which the U.S.
should not deny itself.”

The docrine of “preventa-
tive war’ is not new in the
U.S. It was widely espoused
in the early fifties, when TS:
military strength was concen-
trated in its strategic air
command — a fantastically
huge fleet of long-range A-
bombers.y) congas

_ however, ..

VIEW OF AMERICAN NUCLEAR POLICY
Does U.S. really
ant disarmament?

was knocked for a loop when
the Soviet Union demonstrat-
ed its rocket superiority with

its satellites and space.
vehicles. Nuclear rockets

would make it possible of the
Soviet Union to retaliate,
even after a ‘preventative
blow”’.

The preventative war theo-
rists cooled their heels for a
while. Now, however, certain
American military leaders
are once again coming around
to the idea of a first strike,
basing it this time on their
typically overconfident esti-
mate of the superiority of the
U.S. nuclear knockout.

Last January, the U.S. ad-
opted a military budget
which clearly reflects the doc-
trine of a preventative blow.
In 1962 also, the U.S. launch-
ed.a massive, five-year plan
of armaments.

Defense spending for 1962-
63 was earmarked at $55.1
billion, roughly two-thirds of
the total U.S. budget — the
highest peace-time military
budget of any nation in his-
tory.

The bulk of the money will
go into the further develop-
ment of an already inflated
nuclear rocket stockpile, with
special emphasis on tactical
nuclear weapons.

“Byen a cursory analysis,””
commented the Soviet press,
« shows budget plans .. -
This is a dangerous course
and can lead the U.S.A. into
an abyss.”

TACTICAL H-WEAPONS

Besides resurrecting the de-
bunked theory of preventa-
tive war, U.S. military think-
ing has embraced also the
doctrine of the tactical use of
nuclear weapons.

This simply means the U.S.
military wants the right to
use nuclear weapons univer-
sally — anywhere, at any
time, in any kind of military
involvement, whenever it
sees fit. This is a threat of
nuclear blackmail to be used
against all movements for na-
tional liberation anywhere in
the world.

“One of the most vocal ex-
ponents of this doctrine is
the U.S. scientist, Dr. Edward
Teller, “father of the H-
bomb.”

In a recent book, The Leg-
acy of Hiroshima, Teller in-
forms Americans they are
losing the Cold War. He at-
tributes this to their futile
chase after “the mirage of
disarmament” and their re-
fusal to accept the military
usefulness of H-bombs as the
best means of dealing with
the “Communist challenge”.

Teller suggests that the
U.S. must develop nuclear
weapons for use in “guerrilla
warfare’ and declares that
efforts to achieve a test ban
treaty must be scrapped.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
SPREAD

The build-up of U.S. nu-
clear striking power includes
the distribution of nuclear
weapons on the territory of
other countries.

Canadians are well aware
of constant American pres-
sure to get agreement on bas-
ing nuclear weapons on our
soil.

The Bomarc ‘is already

3,640,000,000 DEAD !

I" the last 5% thousand

years, there have been
14,513 wars in which 3,640,-'
- 000,000 people died —- more
than the entire population of
the earth today.

With the growth of technol-
ogy, wars became more deva-
stating. War casualties in
Europe in the 17th century
were 3,300,000 killed; in the
18th century, 5,200,000 killed;
in the 19th century, 5,500,000
and in the 20th century, over
40 million killed.

Wars in the epoch of im-
perialism have been most
devastating. In the first world
war (1914-18), 28 countries
with a population of 1% bil-
lion were involved; 74 mil-
lion were mobilized into arm-
ies; 10 million were killed and
20 million maimed and crip-
pled.

Germany, the initiator of
the war, lost two million men}
Russia 1,811,000; France 1,
327,000. The cost of this war
was sufficient to build every
mobilized ‘soldier in the world

a cottage and orchard. :
Much more devastating was
the second world war (1939-

45) in which 72 countries par-.

ticipated, with a total popula-

tion of two billion. Mobilized :

into armies were 110 million
men and women; nearly 50
million died, not counting the

‘millions maimed and crippled.

The costs of this war would
be sufficient to build every
family on earth a five-room
bungalow, pay for the cost of
a high school for all children
on earth and build hospitals
for every 5,000 people on
earth.

For monopolists, war meant
a rate of profit twice as high
in war industry as in peace
industry. In 1960. NATO
countries spent $62 billion

‘on arms — 314 times as much

as in 1949.
According to the American
scientist, Linus Pauling, one

~ large H-bomb has five times

the explosive power of all the
explosives of the second world
war,

here—it only lacks the nu-
clear warheads.

Even more disturbing is the
frantic striving of West Ger-
man revanchists to get nu-
clear warheads for their own
use. The Bonn’s rocket crews
are already undergoing inten-
sive training in anticipation
of the day. :

_ It is likely that at the forth-
coming May session of the
NATO council there will be

steps by certain NATO part-.

ners to make that organiza-
tion a four nuclear power.

This would simply mean
putting nuclear weapons into
the hands of the West Ger-
man militarists who play a
leading role in NATO.

It seems hardly necessary
_to stress what a gamble it
would be for humanity to
place nuclear weapons into
‘the hands of the Bonn re-
vanchists.

What then are the inten-

tions of the United States — ~

continued preparation for
war, or disarmament and
peace?

As in the story of Cinder-
ella and the magic slipper, if
the shoe fits so well, it can
hardly belong on any other
foot. The continued, aggres-
sive aims of U.S. imperialism
are revealed even more clear-
ly by the reluctance of the

U.S. to present any concrete

-proposals at Geneva for

world disarmament.

Those military leaders who
still place their faith in an
arms build-up and hope for a

‘military victory over social-

ism must be made to realize
that at the end of this path
there lies a terrible tragedy
not only for U.S. capitalism,
but for millidns of innocent
people as well.

There is only one way out
of this blind alley.

The peoples must force
their leaders to recognize the
necessity for the peaceful co-
existence of the two social
systems, capitalism and soc-
jalism. =.

There is no other path out
of the present nuclear
impasse.

SELLOUT ARTIST
TORY CANDIDATE
Donald Gillis, leader in the
attempted sellout of Mine-
Mill in Sudbury to the Steel
Workers Union, in which he
had the backing of CLC and
CCF-NDP leadership, was
nominated by acclamation as
Tory candidate for the Nickel
Belt in the coming federal
elections. Mine-Mill workers
picketed the nomination
mecting — ie '

~.

sr caren entiation maaan et emi etre