First Published: Unity, Vol. 5, No. 10, June 4-17, 1982.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Some one-half million people are expected to march in the streets of New York City on June 12, demanding an end to nuclear weapons. The occasion is the opening of the United Nations second special session on disarmament. The demonstration will be the largest of its kind in history, with people coming from throughout the country and overseas. The marchers represent the sentiments of tens of millions of Americans and people around the globe concerned about peace and the horrible prospects of a nuclear war, especially between the two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Today the arms race is on the verge of getting totally out of hand. Already it is estimated that:
• either superpower can destroy the greater part of the earth several times over;
• in an all-out nuclear exchange between the U.S. and U.S.S.R, 250 million people would be killed;
• the superpowers have the equivalent of ten tons of TNT for every man, woman and child on earth;
• a nuclear conflict could very well end ail life on earth, through radioactive pollution and a radical alteration of the atmosphere.
We must live with this insanity because of one basic reason: the conflict between the two superpowers in trying to achieve world supremacy. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. together have some 50,000 nuclear weapons, more than 95% of the entire number on earth.
The people of the United States and the world must demand: Superpowers: control, reduce and eliminate your superweapons!
From the very beginning, nuclear weapons have been developed and used primarily to advance imperial ambitions in the world. The U.S. dropped the atomic, bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not so much to end World War II, but to demonstrate its new weapon to the world. Over 160,000 people died almost instantly, and some 600,000 have died over the years as a result of these two atomic bomb blasts.
From the late 1940’s through the 1960’s, the U.S. held an overwhelming dominance in nuclear weaponry and used this to intimidate others around the world. Washington directly threatened or considered actually using nuclear weapons at least eight times since 1945, including twice during the Korean War, the Cuban missile crisis and the war in Indochina. Significantly, seven out of these eight potential targets for U.S. nuclear bombs were third world countries.
The Soviet Union has developed into a nuclear superpower more recently. The Soviets first developed some nuclear weapons in the early 1950’s. By the late 1950’s, its socialist system had degenerated and increasingly it challenged the U.S. as a rival for world power. The U.S.S.R. rapidly began to build its military from an originally defensive orientation into a huge offensive machine. The Soviet nuclear arsenal is not defensive in character, but exists to challenge the U.S. and threaten others. The Soviet Union has missiles aimed at Europe and China. It has submarines prowling the oceans armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons.
The nuclear weapons that the two superpowers possess today are far more destructive than the A-bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. Most U.S. and Soviet missiles carry one-megaton hydrogen bombs – equal to 67 Hiroshima bombs.
By most accounts, the U.S. and Soviets have achieved parity in their nuclear arsenals. Each side has certain advantages over the other, but overall there is no major gap. The Soviets are said to have an advantage in the number of missiles and the explosive power of their weapons, while the U.S. has an advantage in accuracy, number of warheads and in the diversity of its delivery systems.
Ominously, the superpowers are poised on the brink of a mammoth new buildup – cruise missiles, neutron bombs, B-l bombers, new submarines, killer satellites, and on and on.
The power, sophistication and accuracy of these new weapons threaten to take the arms race into a new era. The military strategists in Moscow and Washington are already discussing how they can use these new weapons to launch and “win” a nuclear war!
Something must be done about this deadly arms race now! The rulers of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. may be interested in ruling an incinerated earth, but we certainly are not!
The superpowers have negotiated arms agreements in the past, such as SALT I (Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty) in 1972 and SALT II in 1979 (which the U.S. never ratified). But these agreements did not really limit their nuclear stockpiles. The superpowers put limits on weapons that are outdated or irrelevant, in order to channel their resources into a new generation of weapons.
Since SALT I a decade ago, the two superpowers have doubled their number of nuclear warheads. The Soviet Union has, since SALT I, come out with three new ICBM’s (all of which carry multiple warheads), two new submarine-launched missiles and the Backfire bomber. The U.S. has come out with the new Trident I submarine, and has the MX and cruise missiles, Trident II submarine and B-l bomber all on the drawing board.
The lesson of SALT is that the people cannot leave the question of arms control to the superpowers. The arms race itself is part of the overall competition between the superpowers everywhere in the world. From Afghanistan and Poland to El Salvador and the Philippines, they are seeking to maintain or expand their empires. They want sources of raw materials, markets and military outposts. This is why the arms race will only be checked if the people of the U.S. and the entire world take up the issue and force the superpowers to really do something to end the arms race.
Since early this year, the U.S. and Soviet Union have each advanced proposals for limiting medium-range nuclear arms with regard to Europe. However, these proposals have not gone anywhere because each side still seeks to maintain an advantage over the other.
Last month, Reagan announced a new plan to reduce the number of land-based missiles and warheads. (See UNITY May 21, 1982.) Brezhnev countered with an offer for a mutual freeze on the deployment of new weapons systems. This proposal is aimed at stopping the U.S. plans to deploy the new MX, B-l bomber, cruise missile, etc. The proposal would not significantly halt the testing and production of nuclear weapons or prohibit modernization.
The fact is that none of these proposals have been genuine or go far enough. They are part of a propaganda war the superpowers are waging against one another to sway public opinion and portray the adversary as the obstacle to world peace. Both Moscow and Washington are deeply worried about the growing international disarmament movement and want to subdue it or derail it. Meanwhile, both continue to stockpile weapons.
The disarmament movement can play a critical role in checking the arms race. Here in the U.S., the anti-nuclear weapons movement is already massive in scale, but it is still only in its beginning stages. Much more must be done to broaden and deepen this movement. Along with the peace forces in Europe, Japan and other areas of the world, the disarmament movement has the potential of forcing some breakthroughs on arms limitation. Many are discussing the path of the disarmament movement in the U.S.
• Disarmament must begin with the two superpowers. Bilateral arms reductions by the superpowers is the first necessary step in world disarmament. The U.S. and Soviet Union are far and away the greatest threat to world peace and have the biggest nuclear arsenals. Other smaller countries, such as in Europe, have legitimate concerns of national defense in the face of the two superpowers’ aggression and nuclear threats. A multilateral process of disarmament, before the two superpowers at least reduce their stockpiles, is like telling the victim to trust an armed mugger.
Proposals for unilateral U.S. disarmament also obscure the main source of nuclear threats to the world. Calling on only the U.S. to disarm lets the Soviet Union off the hook. The unilateral disarmament of the U.S. would encourage Soviet expansion and aggression, including nuclear threats.
The overwhelming sentiment of the disarmament movement in the U.S. and of the American people is already for bilateral disarmament. Millions of people know that the nuclear arms of both the U.S. and Soviet Union must be destroyed if there is to be a genuine reduction in the threat of nuclear war.
• Oppose aggression and intervention. The danger of nuclear war has drastically escalated not only because of the growth of nuclear stockpiles, but because of the atmosphere of heightened world tension. The superpowers are involved in every crisis spot in the world, including the Middle East, Southeast Asia, southern Africa and Central America.
The disarmament movement must be for peace and nonaggression in the world, as superpower aggression and intervention bring much closer the actual use of nuclear weapons. World tension caused by aggression, such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or U.S. intervention in Central America, is the spark that could ignite a nuclear war.
For us in the U.S., we must oppose Washington’s adventures overseas while supporting the efforts of people fighting for sovereignty and democracy, be they in El Salvador or Poland. We must try to frustrate the aggressive activities of the superpowers. We cannot side with one against the other, or target one and not the other. To do so simply ignores the reality of the shared superpower responsibility for the nuclear nightmare.
• Build & united force of people against nuclear weapons; redirect military spending to meet human needs. Many are already active in the disarmament movement in America, but millions more must be brought into action to make it a force to be reckoned with. The movement must reach out to working people, the people of minority nationalities, women, students, professionals, business people and political figures.
Alongside the horror of nuclear war is the glaring absurdity of the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction while the most basic human needs of millions are not even met. Here in the U.S., over ten million people are unemployed, racism and KKK-type violence are on the rise, communities are crumbling and young people find fewer and fewer educational opportunities. While Reagan wants to spend $221 billion in next year’s military budget, growing numbers of people can barely afford a single meal a day.
The anti-nuclear arms movement must reach out and make itself relevant to the people at the grassroots by addressing their concerns. The movement can broaden out by pointing to the arms race as the ultimate example of irrationality in a system full of irrationality – poverty amidst plenty, injustice and racism amidst declarations of equality and democracy.
The disarmament movement should not be limited to a middle-class suburban focus, but should become rooted in the daily lives of the everyday people of America – in the cities, small towns, farms, and social movements of women, young people, labor and minority nationalities.
The task before us today is to build the peace movement into a militant force that can keep pressure on the superpowers. Education, publicity, political action, mass protest – all are necessary if there will be any restraint on the arms race and any possibility of forcing the two superpowers to take real steps towards disarmament.