COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00009 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
∂AIL Dr. Ed Zebroski↓Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hillview Ave.↓P.O. Box 10412↓Palo Alto, CA 94304∞
Dear Ed:

	I liked your article %2Turning around ...%1, and have
the following comments:

	1. There are still many misprints, though I didn't see any
that leave the meaning doubtful.  You need a computer editing system.

	2. The argument that  unilaterally restricting export of
nuclear technology won't prevent proliferation is much stronger
than the argument that the present policy encourages proliferation.
It seems to me that the present policy is rather neutral in that
respect.

	3. It seems to me that there are two reasons why a country
might develop nuclear weapons.  The first is ego or technical inertia.
It can be much influenced by externals such as public opinion in
the country and in the world generally, by the self-image of
the country's military men and their relation to the political leaders,
and can be influenced by external bribes and threats.  It seems to
me that most of the thinking about non-proliferation has been
directed toward countries that might have that kind of motivation.
The considerations in your article are also so directed.

	The second motivation is that the country's leaders have
a goal that requires the posession of nuclear weapons.
This goal may be defensive, and the known probable cases are
defensive.  Thus Israel, South Africa, Taiwan and South Korea
may all feel that their survival may depend on their ability to
deter potential enemies with nuclear weapons.  As your article
makes clear, any of these countries can acquire the weapons
in a quantity sufficient to worry their potential enemies regardless
of what we do short of military occupation of the country.  The
only chance of preventing them from acquiring the weapons
is to change their security situation.  (There is also the possibility
that in one or more of these countries, there is no-one in power
capable of pushing such a project past the other claimants for
resources).
In my opinion, the posession of nuclear weapons by a country whose
purposes are clearly defensive and which has a mechanism for
orderly transfer of internal power is not especially dangerous to
the world, especially if they keep the fact secret.  Even the
not very credible Israeli denials of having nuclear weapons
are useful in preventing others from acquiring the weapons for
egotistical reasons.  The world psychological situation would be
rather different if they openly admitted having the weappons.
(If the Israelis felt they needed a test, it would be worth our
while to let them carry out the test in Nevada rather than let
it be public that they had them).

	The really dangerous possibility is that some country
acquire nuclear weapons for offensive purposes.  It seems to
me that this is a real danger.  World War II left nations fearful
of major war, but as the people with experience of war get old,
this fear is wearing thin.  There is also a spread of victory-or-death
ideologies.  For example, world liberal public opinion would
support an offensive war to wipe out white rule in South Africa,
and many American liberals are actively promoting such a war.
The black Africans still feel rather tentative about it, but
the possibility of a victory-or-death movement that would counter
South African posession of nuclear weapons with its own and would
even start a war knowing that it would be nuclear cannot be
excluded in the next twenty years.

	Liberal public opinion in the U.S. is simply blind
to this possibility at present.  It is supporting objectives
that may not be achievable without nuclear war and helping
arouse expectations and passions that may make such a war
likely.  The most important contribution to world peace is
to make this movement realize that the presence of nuclear
weapons in the world means thay they too must exclude war
as a means of achieving their objectives.

	I doubt that many of these considerations are appropriate
for your paper, but perhaps it should at least mention
that countries that have reason to believe their survival
may depend on a nuclear deterrent can be prevented from
acquiring the weapons only by credible guarantees of their
security.

.sgn