Halting the arms race may entail the use of arms race policy models and psychology, a disarmament expert suggested at a Tocsin meeting last night.

Charles E. Osgood, professor of Psychology and Communications at the University of Illinois, explained that the patterns established for reciprocal arms build-up offer hope for a reduction of terror, because the great power systems are geared toward response.

"Every move in the cold war induces a corresponding military reaction and a psychological mirror image," said Osgood, who has pioneered the concept of 'unilateral initiatives.' Each belligerent step calls forth a belligerent step from the other side; thus each camp simultaneously reinforces the bogeyman image of the other. "In this atmosphere," Osgood agreed, "disarmament negotiations seem futile."

Optimistically, though, he pointed to the very sensitivity and alacrity with which each side emulated the other's moves. The Soviet return of an American RB-47 early this year, and Kennedy's ensuing reiteration that U-2 flights had been discontinued, evoked a marked change in the "editorial images" of both countries.

"Military, cultural, economic, or diplomatic activity that is in itself peaceful and offers a template for equivalent activities on the other side" was suggested as a working definition of unilateral initiative.

A series of steps designated as part of a plan to create new images and prove peaceful intentions might include, for example, transforming our early warning system into a bi-directional mechanism, thus demonstrating an intention not to strike first.

The initiatives under discussion deal with peripheral disarmament activity. Another example of an initiative inviting reciprocation would be withdrawal of some foreign bases.

Osgood carefully formulated criteria for constructing unilateral initiatives, because "novel times produce the need for novel solutions." He insisted that words will be misunderstood until clarified by deeds, and added ironically that our government spends far less on thinking up initiatives than on paying 'experts' to hypothesize their failure.