This country has an urgent need for a unified, renewed, and determined anti-war movement which understands the links between nuclear weapons, intervention, the draft, and a permanently militarized economy. It can only be built if we challenge ourselves and others to see the inter-connection of the issues. In the real world of U.S. military strategy, the link between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons is direct, dramatic, and frightening. Let’s consider some facts.

There are forces within the nuclear disarmament movement, including many former and present generals and even Senator Kennedy, who argue it is important to reduce nuclear weapons expenditures precisely to enable the U.S. to build up its conventional forces. Nuclear death is horrifying, but death by cluster bombs, sophisticated tanks, chemical warfare, or laser guns is also terrible. While we in the U.S. contemplate possible massive destruction on our soil through nuclear weapons, tens of thousands of people are killed by U.S.-supplied weapons each year in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Lebanon. The most likely scenario for nuclear war flows from a clash of conventional forces.

Nuclear superiority has been the backdrop since 1945 for an aggressive and hostile U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. has repeatedly opposed popular movements for reform and social justice in the world and has actually intervened to crush such movements numerous times since 1950. Until recently the U.S. position of number one nuclear power was unchallenged and facilitated its various military and political actions around the world.

Nuclear weapons and conventional weapons are part of an over-all U.S. military strategy which must be confronted. Contrary to popular belief, the aim of U.S. foreign policy has not been peace, but rather providing a climate in each country whereby transnational corporations are protected from the righteous demands of the people for economic and political justice.

Pam Costain