Yes, I would like to receive periodic updates and information via e-mail from Commentary.

Recipient Addresses:

Separate each address with a comma.

Your E-mail Address: Message:

To the Editor:

I am disappointed in your discussion on “Western Values and Total War” [October 1961]. [Sidney Hook, H. Stuart Hughes, Hans J. Morgenthau, and C. P. Snow] deliberate . . . whether it is better to be red than dead or . . . dead than red. What “red” means is left out of the discussion. . . . “Western values” are also left out . . . unless you reckon Professor Hook's momentary elaboration on political freedom, with the Jewish zealots of the year 70 C.E. as its noblest exemplars. . . .

(Rabbi) Samuel Volkman
Charleston, West Virginia

_____________

 

To the Editor:

I believe that there is a preferred possibility to being either red or dead. . . . As Mr. Morgenthau so aptly put it: in essence, civilization is MAN in the mass. Ergo: Save man, and Western civilization will at least have a chance. I believe that it is the government's responsibility to build shelters to save Americans in the mass. . . .

I believe that such an approach will give each of us a more positive way of living in this nuclear age, and at the same time improve the foreign policy position of the United States.

Eric O. Sonneman
Chicago, Illinois

_____________

 

To the Editor:

I share Mr. Hook's skepticism about Mr. Hughes's assumption that the Russians have been deterred from expansion in Western Europe by fears of indigestion. But Mr. Hook, in his debate with Mr. Hughes, argues as if he were dealing with Henry Wallace and oversimplifies the record. After the Acheson-Lilienthal proposal of 1946 and until the recent Geneva test-ban negotiations, the American government's position on disarmament issues was (like the Soviets') hard to accept as anything but propaganda. Clearly Mr. Dulles, with his massive retaliation policy, was thoroughly committed to a nuclear strategy. Mr. Hook also ignores the fact that for several years NATO strategy has been committed to using nuclear weapons first in any serious struggle with the Soviets, even if the latter rely entirely on conventional weapons. The fetish of bigger and better bombs and the downgrading of conventional forces has left the Kennedy administration in the position of an ultimate reliance on nuclear war to protect West Berlin, despite the vulnerability of American cities and the helplessness of the government to protect its citizens. The posture makes one nostalgic for life on the Old Frontier.

Meanwhile both the Soviets and the Europeans may find it increasingly incredible that an American government would resort to nuclear weapons, except in national self-defense. Until the Russians show more interest in a realistic inspection system for general disarmament, the West must develop a strategy less dependent upon either strategic or tactical use of nuclear weapons, or upon purely American decisions about the level of force to be used. The situation also calls for readiness, so far lacking, to negotiate political conflicts in order to change the status quo, instead of finding an illusory haven in “standing firm.” . . .

Cushing Strout
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California

_____________

 

To the Editor:

I read COMMENTARY'S symposium with morbid fascination. . . . May I offer this personal thought—in general support of Sir Charles Snow and Mr. Morgenthau?

Are we not, perhaps, passing out of the stage of mutual nuclear deterrence? Both sides possess the means of totally destroying the other, but neither at present dares do it. The U. S., however, is rapidly moving toward a massive shelter-building program. The original motive of this program may be “humanitarian”—if the word has any meaning in this macabre context—but its end result is certain to be strategic.

In effect, we are seeking to build a degree of invulnerability to the enemy's deterrent for at least a large enough portion of our population to insure that “our side” survives. As soon as we have done this, three consequences seem inevitable:

1. The “balance of terror” will be upset. One does not need to accept all the implications of the “balance of terror” thesis to agree that upsetting it is apt to be dangerous.
2. Our “classes dirigeants”—and these will be the first to be supplied with shelters—are more apt to regard war as a thinkable proposition once they are invulnerable. Appalling as it may be, a leader . . . forced . . . to contemplate war with 40—70 million dead, is apt to think that war with a mere 5 or 10 million dead is an acceptable risk.
3. Worst of all, the Soviet reaction to any effective U. S. shelter-building program is certain to be another and more diabolical round in the arms race. No Soviet leader can accept a situation in which America achieves a degree of national survival that Russia does not possess. Ergo, the Soviets, too, will start to build weapons against which our shelters will be ineffective—to wit, biological bombs.

Eldon Griffiths
Foreign Editor
Newsweek
New York City

_____________

 

To the Editor:

Surely, C. P. Snow is right: neither side, the U. S. or Russia, is all good and noble; neither is all wicked and wrong. (But are they equally right or wrong, Sir Charles?)

Surely, H. Stuart Hughes is right: a universal conflagration is distinct from a local or restricted one. (But is there such a thing as real force on a human scale, in which all men have a choice to live or die, Mr. Hughes?)

Surely, Sidney Hook is right: deterrents deter, and one ought never to sacrifice all values. (But is not life too a value, Mr. Hook?)

Surely Hans J. Morgenthau is right: war and surrender are both obnoxious, perhaps even absurd. (But is not war more absurd than surrender, Mr. Morgenthau?)

All the symposiasts agree: the issue is a moral one. What must we do to make the good life possible? I think there are only two courses open: one is to live the good life now, and the other is to prepare for it. Every society ought to encourage the pursuit of both courses, but each individual must choose one or the other.

Those who believe in living the good life now should continue to paint and worship, write, act, dance, inquire, speculate, enjoy the arts and the fruits of study. Those who are dedicated to a life of action or politics should devote their energies to seeing that the great powers (and eventually all) meet and meet, discuss and discuss, negotiate and negotiate until we achieve universal disarmament and eventual peace.

The good life is a full individual life; good politics is the production of a civilization by public agencies. Each pursues peace by means other than war. Each deserves full devotion. Some men now do justice to the former; it is time for the politically oriented to do justice to the latter.

Paul Weiss
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut

_____________

 

To the Editor:

I found the discussion, “Western Values and Total War,” completely absorbing, if somewhat unsatisfying. . . .

I was disappointed to find no one willing to take up Professor Hook's suggestion that the nature of Western values be discussed. . . . The participants seemed so concerned with the strategy of total war, and Hook so occupied with his private war against Communism, that values per se were left behind as an “also-ran.”

It would be interesting to know which Western values the discussants had in mind. Were they discussing the professed values or the real values of Western civilization? And indeed which parts of Western civilization? Would Professor Hook care to include the values underlying apartheid, white supremacy in Angola, Algeria, and the U. S., and Franco's fascism, as part of the value system of the West? Or perhaps the values inherent in such phenomena as machine guns in fallout shelters, guerilla bands to hunt down refugees fleeing from bombed cities, etc.?

Actually, the last item mentioned—-the widely reported news of persons prepared to kill their fellow-Americans to preserve their family tombs (i.e., fallout shelters) for themselves—should give an important clue as to what kind of values are likely to survive a nuclear holocaust. This should give cause for alarm, since this may well be a logical extension of the system of real values underlying our free enterprise society, rather than its mere distortion. . . .

Professor Hook suggested that Sir Charles Snow and Professor Hughes were more or less guilty of equating the record of aggressions of the U. S. and the Soviet Union. To this charge I am prepared to plead guilty. Speaking as a Canadian, I find an increasing tendency amongst thinking people to say “A plague on both your houses.” . . . We are frankly worried about the lack of an effective opposition in either country to the forces working for a showdown. As your “expendable” neighbors, we are concerned about Washington's crude pressure on our elected government to enroll us in the Nuclear Club. . . .

H. Rosenthal

---

---

© 2010 Commentary Inc.