Show 2 Arguments Left LeftOn LeftOn On By RICHARD FRYKLUND The following article was printed in the Washington Evening Star in its March edition There are two wo arguments that an opponent can try to tomake tomake tomake make against an expanded fall fall- shelter out-shelter program Either he can can offer a flat guarantee that nuclear war is impossible and that shelters therefore will never be need need- ed Or he can insist that the unnecessary killing of millions of men women and children is of no great consequence These two arguments may not be too convincing but they are about all that Is left after years of dispute and study of nuclear war radioactive radioactive tive fallout and shelters The other arguments have been overtaken by events Take for instance the old argument that if the United States gets a good shelter program program program pro pro- gram it will provoke the Russians into attacking us The reasoning was that the Russians Russians Russians Rus Rus- would think we were preparing to strike and would beat us to the button This might have been an argument argument argument ar ar- worth listening to Ito Inthe in inthe inthe the old missile gap days when it was believed that the Soviet Union might get so far ahead that the Kremlin could be tempted into striking But how could anything short of a direct attack on the Soviet Union lure the Kremlin into striking now The United States has such sucha a vast margin of power that if only the Polaris missiles now hidden at sea survive a Russian attack they could destroy destroy destroy de de- de- de stroy Russian cities if there were that many Another argument is that shelters would force the Soviet Soviet Soviet So So- viet Union to o build more weapons weapons weapons ons to overcome the shelters We now know enough about Russian strategic forces policies policies policies poli poli- cies and economic problems however to see that the Kremlin Kremlin Kremlin Krem Krem- lin is settling for a modest but adequate only deterrence-only force But if the Soviet Union does decide to disrupt its economy by building a larger force It will be hurt more than the U me t d St cu a tes b th h e s I. I me a e u UJ y 0 p 6 g contest without a hope of wiping out the value of shel shel- ers A more knowledgeable argument argument argument ment heard in the Senate Armed Services subcommittee that pigeonholed the shelter bill last year is that shelters are good but that a combination combination combination tion of shelters and an antimissile antimissile antimissile anti anti- missile missile would be bet bett ter The subcommittee wants to wait walt for the combination A new Pentagon study reveals reveals reveals re re- however that the wait waitis is unwise unwise- unless sub subcommittee subcommittee committee com com- members are indifferent ent to the possible deaths of ofa a large number of their con con- The study backed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff shows that shelters alone will save many millions of lives The number would vary with the kind of attack but in the worst strike conceivable the postponed program would save at least 25 million lives Another argument against shelters is that almost everybody everybody everybody every every- body is going to be dead after a nuclear war no matter what The worst possible and considered considered considered con con- least likely kind of war would be a successful massive Russian surprise attack attack attack at at- tack deliberately designed to kill a maximum number of persons Without shelters upward of million persons out of a future population of million would die With shelters and other weapons 40 to 80 million would die In the most likely kind of war one started by accIdent accident accident acci acci- dent in which both sides would try to back off fast deaths would still be several million with shelters but several times this without There would be unprecedented unprecedented dented dente overnight slaughter no matter how the war went But there would be many millions of survivors under the worst circumstances and many more survivors with shelters than without But wouldn't the survivors have bave a ghastly time Cant Can't we decide right now that they willbe will willbe willbe be better off dead If we do shel shel- we will save 5 billion on Actually for persons who will admit that a war is not noti t impossible this is the final argument Let the people die By the millions |