LETTERS
Misreading Sakharov
To the Editor:
You read Sakharov's letter
as an Aesopean warning against
exaggerating the dangers of
nuclear weapons and as predi–
cating disarmament negotiations
on achieving a prior "strategic
parity" in them . But you ignore
the context of his reference to
nuclear power and erroneously
omit a qualifying phrase m
quoting him on parity .
He speaks of exaggerating
the danger of nuclear power in a
paragraph about nonmilitary
applications of science and tech–
nology, and in another para–
graph, speaking about disarm–
ament , he specifically defines
parity in reference to "con–
ventional arms," referring to
"additional
agreements"
for
weapons of mass destruction .
These distinctions are cru–
cia1. It is quite possible to be a
proponent of nuclear power for
peaceful energy and an oppo–
nent of the nuclear arms race , as
my colleague Hans Bethe is.
Moreover,
to
postpone
negotiation until "parity" in
nuclear weapons is reached is to
put negotiation off indefin itely ,
because the argument about the
various advantages and dis–
advantages of sophisticated nu–
clear devices is interminable .
Meanwhile there is a rising level
of international insecurity as a
consequence of nuclear com–
petition . I see nothing in
Sakharov's letter to justify our
administration's reckless pursuit
of this competition in "overkil1."
Surely , making Aesop sound like
our current Secretary of Defense
would dismay Sakharov .
Cushing Strout
Ithaca, New York
Editor's note:
Cushing Strout's letter is an
example of the misreading of
Sakharov's statement - and of
the questions it addresses - that
I spoke of in my comment on the
conference honoring Sakharov .
Strout's letter is also an example
of my remark that "part of the
liberal mind has been paralyzed
by 'progressive' myths ."
I did not, as Strout implies,
confuse nuclear power with
nuclear armament . I said simply
that it was significant that every–
one at the conference ignored
Sakharov's remark that "the
dangers of nuclear power have
been exaggerated in the West,
and that such distortion
IS
harmful ."
The omission of the phrase
"in conventional arms" was a
typographical error, not a calcu–
lated misstatement , as Strout
suggests . But it does not affect
my argument. For my point was
