A Crack in the Ice

The Reykjavik meeting between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev had such potential for a major step forward in the thawing of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviets, if only the wary advisors behind the scenes would let the principals pursue their ad hoc discourse. They were doing fine until their respective retinues got into the act.

The pundits and columnists quickly set in motion to dim its have had a field day in analyzing portent. what took place, and whether Reagan was right or wrong in not giving ground on his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI — popularly called "Star Wars") in return for a Soviet cutback in offensive nuclear missiles.

While I'm not sure who "won" at Reykjavik, I sure know who "lost" — the people of the world.

Nothing more dramatically demonstrated the shortcomings of Reykjavik than the ensuing chain of tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats by the U.S. and the Soviets. It was an exercise in puerility to shake the faith of the most stout-hearted among us. Could this infantile conduct really be the actions of the two super powers who hold our fate in their hands?

Yet a notable ray of sunshine seeped through. It appears that spontaneous fashion Reagan and Gorbachev did raise the hitherto verboten matter of total nuclear disarmament, and admittedly Reagan told Gorbachev that "elimination of all nuclear weapons" had always been his goal. I can't imagine that this topic was on any agenda proposed by the savants who advise the two leaders, and obfuscation was and will devote precious scientific manpower and scarce billions of dollars in resources for the foreseeable future to maintain this annihilatory standoff.

Under this approach it is an empty gesture to engage in disarmament talks or enter into arms control treaties when we do not trust Russia and our survival depends on maintaining nuclear parity or better. Strange as it may sound, our safety then depends on preserving a MAD posture — of "mutually assured destruction."

It should also be noted that, historically, a country which has the weapons inevitably ends up using them.

However, if the cause of peace would best be served by not living under the constant tension and dread generated by on-going nuclear build up, then it behooves us to explore alternatives.

Neither the U.S. nor the Soviets trusts the other in the slightest.

The missing ingredient so far has been "trust." Neither the U.S. nor the Soviets trusts the other in the slightest. There is no evidence from recent (or distant) events that this mistrust will vanish in the normal course of events.

But, if the preservation of peace is maintained only because of the ability of each of us to annihilate the other in any nuclear face off, why cannot that be the basis for the mutual destruction of all nuclear weaponry by recognizing the continuing stalemate as a fact of life?

Without any moral pretensions whatsoever, each side concedes that the existing confrontation between them is a stalemate, with all their respective nuclear armaments, and they can achieve the same deadlock without nuclear weapons (and all the fear and malaise that they evoke).

So let's hope that the probably unplanned but auspicious crack in the ice at Iceland is followed by a phased reciprocal reduction of all nuclear weapons and a buying of future ones.

If they seek substitute excitement, the Soviets and the United States can together coerce the other nuclear countries to likewise discard their arsenals, or square off in some less lethal form of competition.

This simple approach may be mind-boggling to the suspicious and mistrustful who have been weaned in a confrontational age, but it does have much to recommend it.

Billions of dollars would be freed annually to house the homeless, feed the hungry, bail out the mortgaged farmers and for other such humanitarian pursuits, to say nothing of really reducing our taxes while balancing the budget.

Our nuclear scientists could turn their energies towards saving lives rather than destroying them. With luck they might find a cure for cancer or AIDS, and at the least we would live more tranquil lives, removed from the overhanging cloud of extermination.

So why not call it a nuclear draw and start afresh?

They do it in chess all the time, don't they?

Before anyone out there jeers at this 'impractical, utopian' proposal, remember that our esteemed President Ronald Reagan espoused it first!