Peace movement

Press, 14 April 1984, Page 18

Peace movement

Sir,—ln his strong attack on the peace movement (“The Press,” April 13) Dr Jim Sprott uses the meaningless term “free world.” He obviously means non-communist. There are 170 nations in the world, but only 19 are communistcontrolled. Amnesty International has conclusive evidence that 121 of these countries violate many human rights and that 65 practise systematic torture. Only 33 are commended as true democracies. Even if we include all 19 commun-

ist States among the guilty, that still leaves 46 countries which use torture, and 102 which violate human rights — some “free” world. While it may seem a hopeless ideal to many, if just some of the human effort and money wasted on nuclear “deterrents” was used to lift living standards, improve health and guarantee human rights, peace would be possible, and lasting.—Yours, etc., M. T. MOORE. April 13, 1984.

Sir,—Lloyd George said: “A peace based on fear is only a suppressed war.” That is the state of the world against which peace groups work. T. J. Sprott’s flawed reasoning is just that which heightens the danger and the fear. Why should an enlightened and peaceloving people maintain nuclear weaponry equivalent to 3000 World War Ils. One Trident submarine carries the destructive power of eight World War Ils. Where does deterrence begin and end? The “awesome” weapons existing before World War I were deemed to deter war for ever. If the streets are dangerous and you carry a hand grenade, primed, strapped to your forehead as a visible “deterrence” against attackers, is that evidence of your will to fight and capacity to win? The “true nature of the human animal” used to be to eat people. We must change, Dr Sprott, before your tautologies come home to roost—Yours, etc., DAVID GREGORY. April 13, 1984.

Sir,—On the evidence of his own statement on April 13 Dr T. J. Sprott is ill-fitted to conduct a logical examination of “those who are attempting to oppose and eliminate nuclear war.” He states that the issue facing the world “is not elimination of nuclear war, but of war itself.” Nowhere in his statement does Dr Sprott advocate the. elimination of war. The logic of nuclear weapons makes war unthinkable, the logical consequence of which is that all armaments, nuclear and conventional, must be eliminated from national arsenals, but Dr Sprott is not advocating such a policy. Further, his transparently pro-United States stance precludes his supporting the abandoning of both nuclear and conventional armaments. Dr Sprott cannot be unaware of President Reagan’s proclaiming the United States military doctrine of “limited nuclear war” which can be won and survived, completely shatter-

ing the credibility of the deterrent power of nuclear weapons.—Yours, etc., M. CREEL. April 13, 1984. Sir,—T. J. Sprott appeals to history and human nature as witnesses that the anti-nuclear movement is a threat to peace (April 13). T. J. Sprott contradicts his own argument by his contention that nuclear arsenals, and so the alleged deterrent, would always remain in spite of any arms control efforts. He laments the “true nature of the human animal,” but conveniently forgets this premise when considering the West. His view of a peace and freedomloving West as opposed to the forces of aggression is simplistic and naive to say the least. American military repression of the poor and hungry in the Third World is aimed at maintaining an iniquitous status quo. And it is President Reagan who has said: “Man has used every weapon he has ever devised... it takes no crystal ball to perceive that a nuclear war is likely sooner or later.”—Yours, etc. D. K. SMALL. April 13, 1984.

Sir,—T. J. Sprott’s article (April 13) has a basic fault in that it puts anti-nuclear war activists in a pacifist-visionary category to which few of them belong. Most of them will be able to see Dr Sprott’s article as an attempt to patch the holes in the “deterrence” theory, holes through which the Reagan first-strike plans have been glaring for some time. Both the “deterrence” and the “domino” theories have never had any real validity, being part of United States attempts by both cold and hot war methods to succeed where the Axis powers failed. Peaceful co-exist-

ence of countries with differing economic and social systems is a human necessity. The removal of the threat of nuclear war is an urgent and positive step in that direction.—Yours, etc., R. TATE. April 13, 1984.