nuclear

Recent statements by well-known scientists regarding the destructive power of the newest nuclear bombs and the deadly fall-outs should be sufficient to still the voices of those who advocate nuclear warfare instead of negotiations.

It is quite evident that the people of Western Europe are overwhelmingly opposed to participation in a nuclear war.

The fact is that the Italians, French and British know that they have no defense against nuclear bombs.

We have no right to criticize them, as they realize they would be sitting ducks in a nuclear war.

If the Communists are sincere in wanting a united, neutral and disarmed Germany, it might well be advantageous for the German people in this nuclear age.

Why not make a beginning with a united and disarmed Germany whose neutrality and immunity from nuclear bombing would be guaranteed by the Big Four powers and the United States??

I am referring to this country conducting atmosphere tests of nuclear bombs just because Russia is.

As I see it, if war starts and we survive the initial attack enough to be able to fight back, the nuclear weapons we now have -- at least the bombs -- can inflict all the demage that is necessary.

To our everlasting shame, we led the world in this nuclear arms race sixteen years ago when we dropped the first bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The nuclear war is already being fought, except that the bombs are not being dropped on enemy targets -- not yet.

The biggest nuclear device the United States has exploded measured some 15 megatons, although our B-52s are said to be carrying two 20-megaton bombs apiece.

Khrushchev himself is reported to be concerned by the surge of animosity he has aroused, yet our own nuclear statesmen seem intent on following compulsively in his footsteps.

The official military establishment can only threaten to use its nuclear arms ; ;

Until Moscow resumed nuclear testing last September 1, the US and UK had released more than twice as much radiation into the atmosphere as the Russians, and the fallout from the earlier blasts is still coming down.

On October 19, after the Soviets had detonated at least 20 nuclear devices, Ambassador Stevenson warned the UN General Assembly that this country, in `` self protection '', might have to resume above-ground tests.

Now, of course, that the Russians are the nuclear villains, radiation is a nastier word than it was in the mid, when the US was testing in the atmosphere.

After a nuclear blast, one bureaucrat suggested in those halcyon days, about all you had to do was haul out the broom and sweep off your sidewalks and roof.

The first dilemma was the morality of nuclear warfare itself.

The second great dilemma has been the morality of nuclear testing, a dilemma which has suddenly become acute because of the present series of Soviet tests.

Speaking recently in Miami, Governor Rockefeller said that `` to assure the sufficiency of our own weapons in the face of the recent Soviet tests, we are now clearly compelled to conduct our own nuclear tests ''.

The possibility, as he asserted, that the Russians may get ahead of us or come closer to us because of their tests does not supply the needed ethical premise -- unless, of course, we have unwittingly become so brutalized that nuclear superiority is now taken as a moral demand.

Besides the lack of an adequate ethical dimension to the Governor's case, one can ask seriously whether our lead over the Russians in quality and quantity of nuclear weapons is so slight as to make the tests absolutely necessary.

at the peaks of the nuclear test and the Berlin cycles ; ;

Let's throw a little nuclear hardware at them and show them who's boss ''.

`` Throw a little nuclear hardware at them!!