Evening star., 1946-04-03
Letters to The Star
Disagrees With DR.. Hutchins
On Atomic Bomb Rafting


On Atomic Bomb Rafting
To the Editor Of The Star:
The remarks attributed to Or. Robert
M. Hutchins, Chancellor of the Uni
versity OF Chicago in an AP dispatch
in The Star for March 26, are so out Of
line with hard reality, that I feel i'm
PEELED to cry out against them.
DR.. Hutchins' generalized statements
that we are laundering into war be-
cause of prejudice or ineptness and our
inability to cope with atomic age prob
lens is thought-provoking. That we
may be laundering is probable; certain
ly we are prejudiced, and to certain
degree, perhaps. inept and inherently
unable to appreciate the far-reaching
implications of the atomic age. But DR..
Hutchins' further comment that the
current talk about maintaining peace
by force is senile approach toward
ending war brings inescapably to mind
the chain of events which followed the
last war.
Then, as now, optimistic and Utopian
dreamers such as DR.. Hutchins, in the
guise of peace leaders, demanded that
armaments be restricted, navies de-
stroyed, and all nations rendered i'm
potent. This action effectively pre-
vented those nations which remained
lot mo IF
aggression. But if one has any clear
concept whatever of the interrelation-
ships between armed might, national
productivity, and the human quest for
power, there can be no other conclu-
sion than that disarmament Cor fail
ure to maintain adequate arms is the
premise from which a casual relation
ship may be drawn directly to war;
launched by powers bent on conquest
Other Lethal Agents Listed.
The dispatch indicates that Dr. Hut
chins has no doubt that our mainte-
nance of the atomic bomb secret will
force other nations to develop more
deadly methods of warfare He shows
no valid reason which would warrant
indulgence in the pleasant dream that
If we shelve the atomic bomb, all other
nations Immediately will cease develop
ment of other bombs, more deadly
gases, biological warfare agents, and
other insidious means for the destruc-
ton of mankind.
Certainly DR.. Hutchins cannot sub
scribe to such an erroneous conclusion,
although by closing his eyes to the
awful consequences of future ma jor
war. he has brought himself to imply
that If we forego all warlike means all
other nations will do likewise. Inter-
national relations throughout all re-
| corded time clearly indicate that a hu-
man being, if given power within the
framework of state, will strive for
more power. The law of averages die
tates that on occasion this individual
will not be amenable to moral restric-
| tions which we like to think are pos
sessed by all individuals. Without these
restrictions, the person or group of
persons in power have but step to
take to place an entire people on the
| path OF aggression. Such was the case
| in the times of Alexander and Napoleon
as well as in the time of Hitler.
Sees Democracy Not Aggressive.
Judicial notice may be taken of the
fact that so long as we have democ-
racy In this country as we now know
it, there will be no aggressive action
| taken by the United States against
other nations of the world. This may
be implied from the fact that we have
| just completed a reign" by a President
who violated the limitations on tenurs
in the Presidency and who by his ac-
ton came as close to becoming a one
man authority as any man conceivably
can do so long as our present form of
| Government is retained. Under this
unusual circumstance of concentration
| OF authority, our basic national struc-
ture remained intact. So long as our
country is not subject to tremendous
! population preSsures and militant
| groups Within 1t is not conceivable that
our form of Government appreciablv
Will be altered for many years. 1t can
be concluded then that the only war
IN which this Nation could become an
aggreSSor in the foreseeable future would
be under the circumstance in which q
militant group, such as the Commu-
nists, might gain control of the Govern
| ment. Similar circumstances exist in
most of the nations of the world, par
ticularly the British Commonwealth.
Brazil, and the little nations. The out
standing exceptions to this attitude to-
ward aggression are, of course, Russia,
potentially Germany and conceivably
even France, Italy, and Spain. With
the exception of Russia and Germany
however, none of these "have-not" ma
tions has the economic potentiality
to embark upon campaigns of aggres-
sion. 1t only can be concluded that
there will be preparation for war by
aggressively minded nations withou,
regard to whether unaggressive nations
intensively develop more deadly meth
ods OF war as protective measures.
Fear Of America Unjustified.
In an international arms race, wha,
Is the factor which motivates the sec
ond party to keep up with the first?
The fear of the first, of course. Does
our history indicate a national policy
OF aggression? Even our Latin-Ameri-
can neighbors (and who else should
fear us more if we were aggressive?) p
candidly agree that no danger of ag-
gressive action by the United States
exists. If we deem it prudent to keer
the atom bomb secret, and God heir