In the middle of a Harvard-Radcliffe World Federalists discussion last night, Major Robert G. Gard plaintively told his listeners: "All you people are supposed to be saying that we ought to lay down our arms and have world government. You're being much more militaristic than I am."

Gard, a former West Point instructor who is currently studying problems of arms control at the Graduate School of Public Administration, had defined earlier in the evening his thesis that systems to control the use of arms are likely to be more effective and practical than complete disarmament programs.

Calls for U.S.-Soviet Military Equation

Speaking "as a student rather than a soldier," he discussed the first part of a three-phase policy for coming closer to international order: stabilization of the U.S.-Soviet military equation.

Gard called specifically for an "attempt to stabilize the long-range striking but warned that if stabilization is achieved at too low a level, one side might too easily obtain an advantage over the other. Still, he said, the U.S. can maintain a balance of arms with "obsolescent weapons" or with "a mix of weapons," for the Pentagon has little hope of developing an effective anti-ICBM. "It would be like hitting a needle with a needle."

"World Safe for Limited War"

If a plan like his is adopted, Gard said, "people will have to face the consequences of it. In a way, you're making the world safe for limited war." A de facto agreement on stabilization may mean more "brush-fire" warfare, and guerillas must be trained "to cope with the people who farm by day and fight by night."

This implication of Gard's argument drew sharp comment from HRWF members, some of whom wondered "exactly how limited a limited war is." (Federalists usually maintain that no stablization is immediately possible in the arms race, and that an international force to regulate controls must be set up while the individual members gradually disarm.)