This resurgence of militarism and the proliferation of nuclear technology harms us all, for there is no real division between foreign and domestic policy. In an era of "the closing circle," of limited resources and increasing competition for those resources, resources used for weapons are unavailable for human needs. It is a question of priorities. One United Nations statistic should suffice: between July 1974 and June 1975, ten million people on this planet starved to death. At the same time, the world governments collectively spent more than $300 billion on armaments. The U.S. and the Soviet Union alone accounted for 70 percent of all arms spending.

The damaging impact of militarism in the domestic sector is compounded by the fact that military spending industries are capital-intensive; military spending therefore creates fewer jobs than an equal amount of spending in the civilian sector. Additionally, armaments production is disproportionately high-skilled. Consequently, while a defense contract can in the short run boost a sagging local economy, in the long run it exacerbates both inflation and unemployment.

There are other results. High unemployment rates set one group of workers against other groups of workers against other groups trying to get into the job market. Established union see "affirmative actions" by women and ethnic minorities as intolerable competition for already scarce jobs. Further, social action groups are forced to compete with each other for the little that any of them receive, for to the degree that military expenditures consume public resources, needed social programs are reduced. The biggest losers are of course the poor, and those either already unemployed or on fixed incomes.

At the international level, one can observe similar distortions. The resources exploited from the Third World by the wealthy nations to build up their own industrial and military establishments leave few resources for the underdeveloped countries themselves to use. When the industrial countries, in turn, sell back to the undeveloped countries weapons systems and defense technologies instead of the technology of peace, the spiral of continued militarism amidst crushing poverty continues.

All struggles for resources to meet human needs, therefore, must confront the new militarism of the United States nuclear industry and a military which sells more arms to developing nations than the rest of the world combined. The U.S. can no longer afford both guns and butter; we must choose between them. Foreign policy has become domestic policy. Those who propose real changes in our society, therefore, must bring these issues into every possible political arena--from the electoral campaigns and the unions to the churches and the streets. Such a movement was successful when organized against the Vietnam War. It can be done again.

Indeed much is being done. For the past three decades, the Japanese movement against the atom and hydrogen bombs has warned against the nuclear danger. In Britain and Europe the International Confederation for Peace and Disarmament has consistently worked on this issue. The World Peace Council, too, continues to push for detente and disarmament. These international movements are working closely with non-governmental organizations all over the globe to create maximum impact on the U.N. Special Assembly on Disarmament in May, 1978. There is clearly a growing international sentiment expressing the demand for zero nuclear weapons and a stop in the arms trade.

In the U.S., the Continental Walk for Disarmament and Social Justice, which culminated in Washington, D.C. in October, 1976, raised the consciousness of thousands of movement people to the need to act again in confronting the military establishment and to renew their efforts in working for human welfare.

The nuclear ecology movement has also coalesced into an active political force. The Clamshell Alliance, in particular, in its last occupation at Seabrook, N.H. demonstrated to the entire world community a powerful display of non-violent action.

Given these developments, it is not surprising to note that we are on the threshold of a new mass movement seeking to abolish nuclear weapons, ban nuclear power, stop the arms race, and use the money saved to address human needs. These are the challenges which speak directly to the issues of human survival in our time.

FACT: World military expenditure averages $12,330 per soldier. Public expenditure for education averages $219 per school-age child.

FACT: The cost of the existing stockpile of weapons in the world is estimated at more than twice the value of the capital stock in all manufacturing industry in the United States.

FACT: By reducing world military expenditures by 2.5 percent, 200 million malnourished children could receive supplementary protein feeding and primary schools could accomodate 100 million new students.

FACT: One ounce of plutonium is potentially equivalent to 200 million lung cancer doses. Four tons of plutonium are already missing in the U.S. alone.

This article was written collectively by the following members of Mobilization for Survival: Jim Garrison, a Ph.D. candidate at the Divinity School; Geoff Bernstein '80; Sybil Highes '81; Geoff Wisner '80; Paige Tolbert '79; Joan Lancourt; and Kathi Matthews.

The Mobilization for Survival will sponsor a "teach-in" this weekend at the Cambridge High and Latin School. Daniel Ellsberg and others will speak in the school auditorium on Friday, October 21 at 7:30 p.m. On Saturday from 10 a.m. to noon, workshops will be held on nuclear power; military spending vs. jobs, unmet human needs, campus organizing, nuclear weapons and transnational corporations, and nuclear technology from a feminist perspective.