As noted in the editor' introduction, this bracketed section does not appear in the revised statement of August 1, 1960, but is taken from an analogous section of the original working paper:

"The rejection of deterrence makes possible new specific policies. Prominent among these would be:

A. Independent American initiatives, by acts and not proposals: Today, any threat to the security of one major powthreatens the security of all. Action we can take which reduces these threats is in the best interests of all, and vigorous efforts must be made to seize upon opportunities for such action. Destruction of thrmonuclear weapons and conversion to constructive work of laboratories engaged in developing biological and chemical poisons are two immediate opportunities.

B. A new focus in our efforts to achieve universal disarmament: Until the inadequacy of the military response to existing world conflict is fully and openly realized and we flatly reject reliance on mass destruction, disarmament negotiations cannot be expected to meet the urgency of our existing situation. To take nuclear test ban negotiations as an example only as our perspective changes will we reverse our assessment of the risks in the Geneva negotiations. With a commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons, the possibility of undetected small yield explosions becomes acceptable. We achieve in exchange the acceptance, in principle and in fact, of supra-national authority functioning in the crucial area of arms control.

C. Political settlements: The logic of deterrence has blocked the demilitarization and neutralization of many areas and has been an important factor in keeping their populations from achieving independent and constructive lives. In Europe, in the Middle East, In North Africa, and in Asia, military requirements have superseded our concern for the growth of enduring Independent socities.

D. A systematic search for non-military methods of resistance which constitute effective alternatives to violence. Unequivocal rejection of deterrence will make possible fresh insights and experiments."

Aims of Society

Any large society will contain fanatics who are willing to kill people in pursuit of absolutist aims or our of sheer, if well-rationalized, destructiveness. But most of the men who are involved in the policy of deterrence are neither fanatics nor personally destructive. We must therefore ask why so many of them are either blind to where their actions lead or cynical about it--even despairing--or lacking in the imagination to contemplate consequences and possibilities. In our judgment, the continued acceptance of deterrence as the basis of defense reflects a deep malaise from which, in varying forms and degrees, both the Western and Communist blocs suffer, Men who do not value their own or others' worth as individuals, who find life boring and sterile, may also lack the zest, inventiveness, and sense of solidarity that might unite them in a search for new approaches to the problem of survival.

Instead of using our abundance to develop our humanity, many of us have let the values of production and consumption dominate us. Means which should serve our material and spiritual needs and help us more fully to realize our human potentialities have instead become ends in themselves. Deprived of control over circumstances, we often sink into apathy and irresponsibility. Or driven by insecurity and fear, we strike out violently against others and ourselves, detsroying the fabric of community which might support our self-realization.

If we are to meet our present crisis, we must reorganize radically our approach toward life. We must replace blind response to political and economic pressures with an effort to shape our political and economic environment. We must create the means for the decentralized control by citizens over the essential parts of our society.

Call to Action

We ask people consciously to reject the idea that democratic values can now be defended or international problems any longer solved by military means. We ask people with knowledge, insight, and skill to turn away from developing military technology, from providing rationalizations for nuclear deterrence, and from planning for organized violence. We ask instead that they join with us in constructing alternatives.

We ask you to join with us in a concerted effort to press these considerations on the attention of our government and of our fellow citizens. We invite all with similar convictions to unite with us in establishing Committees of Correspondence for the development and dissemination of our ideas and for an unremitting struggle for life.  Committees of Correspondence  130 Brattle Street  Cambridge 38, Mass.