STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305 © (415) 321-1200

STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

Department of Genetics

Mr. eobert Hotz

Editor

Aviation week

c/o McGraw Hill Book Co. "32g,wuy2

St7t Redwood Hiehway- ' .
x Nelifercia OL9L7 WY (00 3¢

3
Dear Sir:

Your editorial "The coming crunch in defense" (Oct. 12) refers
to the “overwhelming superiority of U.S. strategic forces" in 1962.
This is regarded as having compelled Khrushchev to retreat from
his Cuban gambit, in a way that contemporary "parity" presumably
cannot,

I have long been puzzled by the meaning of "strategic superiority"
within the framework of mutual deterrence. If that superiority can
have compelled the Soviet withdrawal, does it not imply that "superiority"
means first-strike capability? If not, what does it mean in terms of
the utility of a large excess of nuclear arms?

But let us then consider whether the threat of U.S. first strike
capability did not force the Soviets into 1) the desperate Cuban gam-
bit, as a way to balance the deterrent with InBils, and 2) their sub-
sequent investment in major new systems like the Ss-Y¥s. Can we say
that these developments, in their totality, have enhanced the security
of the U.5.?

I would by no means advocate a posture of U.S. inferiority that
would unbalance the deterrent the other way. But it is time we reached
the maturity to understand that we share the planet with suspicious
competitors. Our security therefore depends as much on the reactions
of the other side, as on our own primary actions.

In the same editorial you made a number of other comments on the
deterioration of naval tactical forces with which it is impossible to
disagree.

Yours sincerely,

LT. J. P. KENNEDY, JR. LABORATORIES FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE, DEDICATED TO RESEARCH IN MENTAL RETARDATION
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY HEREDITY NEUROBIOLOGY DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE