Suchergebnisse

AbstractI must describe J. Patrick Dobel as a "fanatic." I do not mean all the offensive overtones that word has in ordinary speech. By "fanatic" I mean only a person who is not open to any revision of former opinions he held, and held sincerely, and at that point held for what he believed were good reasons. It can then come to pass that such a person defensively protects the righteousness of his view by now allowing no forgiveness to anyone who at that earlier time judged and acted differently. In other words, to forgive—no longer to exclude Robert McNamara from our ongoing political community—would be to admit that the author in some measure was wrong, or might have been. Or it is to admit that he too contributed unknowingly to the tragic outcomes for which McNamara and others were also responsible.

The trial balloons recently sent up about protecting our population in the event of nuclear war focus on the staged evacuation of cities— not, as in the early Sixties, on bomb shelters. The aim today is more on countering nuclear threats, less on protecting people or defending the nation. A capability to maneuver people (like troops) is needed to give the president an option to yielding to nuclear blackmail.This is what is called crisis management, and it has a "logic" of its own. For example, the U.S. would have to be able to move people out of cities, or protect them there, in vastly greater numbers than Russia needs to do simply to make things even. We have far more of our population in far more and far more populous metropolitan areas than has Russia. The president, if he is sensible, is more likely to yield to power-moves under cover of nuclear threats than is Russia. He must blink first. Under such conditions, who now has the more credible deterrent?