A: Right down the road to another Pearl Harbor.

Q: What is the answer, then?

A: The alternative to war or surrender? Well, the term I'm currently fond of is finite accommodation. Don't ask me what it means, please.

Q: Very well. Let me ask you a few more specific questions. Why are you opposed to bomb shelters?

A: Because they won't work and even if they did, the survivors will envy the dead. Shelters divert our attention from the real issue, which is preventing nuclear conflict. I think civil defense is no defense.

Q: Is there any defense?

A: The only defense is peace. We must find a way of safeguarding our vital interests that will not lead to nuclear conflagration. There must be concessions on both sides.

Q: Then you think it's a simple choice between war and peace?

A: Of course not. Missile diplomacy is as complicated as a chess match. We have a choice of many kinds of war, including accidental war, war by escalation, preventive and pre-emptive war, counter-insurgency, guerrilla war, police actions, invasions, limited wars, conventional, nuclear limited, nuclear-preferred... Some wars are out of style, like Holy wars and splendid little wars. Others we don't recognize, such as wars of national liberation. And some we call fiascos or abortive attempts.

Q: Do you then view disarmament as a moral issue?

A: No only people with beards or buttons do. Or dirty people. You can tell by my proper attire that I see it as a political issue.

Q: Then let me ask you again about the Geneva talks. If they fail to bring about an agreement...

A: Excuse me, sir, you mean fail to break the nuclear stalemate, bring us back from the brink, signal a turn toward peace.

Q: Uh yes, I suppose that's what I mean. What are their chances for success?

A: Before any on-site detection measures come out of Geneva, the negotiators must replace the atmosphere of mutual suspicion with an atmosphere of mutual trust. It all goes to show how far ahead science is of diplomacy.