STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305 © (415) 321-1200

 

 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Department of Genetics

dugust 19, 1397)

Year Jr. Scoville

fhank you for sending ae the material on Cw. I was juite willing
to focus rather narrowly on BW,as a biologist at the CCb, but cannot
avoid naving some~ thoughts on Cw also. On the whole, I accept the
reasoning in your papers, which is, I believe very similar to Han
Swyter's arguments at the dablocki subcommittee.

I do thibk the obvious-demnareation arpunent say cut both ways.
Yes, "No Gas, Period." if that works. But I would not want to see
marginal breaches of that doctrine, if they should hapoen, then
ke used to justifxa¥y unlimited use of lethal vases in retaliation. Cr iM.

also, the lines are inevitably much fazzier wien we consider
stockpilinr,develoonent, ete. thereas I think we can identifv certain
catevories of anents which are likely to be the sources of real trouble,
and nut a double Line arounc them.

So I mignt want the chance for a sotential reservation for snebically
named "xages't, like CN, which are named, revistered, and justified as
being already used domestically, anu allow that their military use
might be justified “in circumstances where it migiut be Lelieved that (if ever)
this would reduce casuadties in the target group. This eill coubtless
leave room for arvument, but it will he on a different issue taan wiuether
illegal chemical warfare was woing on. However, tae point is not worth
holding on to if there is an international consensus for a warnable
arns-control scueve in Cy generally. J don't see tais as very liiely
soon if it must embrace all the marginal chemicals under a no-stochpile
rule!

the No Gas rule is still difficult if we push it down the road. that
do we call it if some guerillas are suffbcated in a cave through CO
generated by burning napalm? or just a Frushfire? Iwonder if that really
is the most durable consensual line. I don't nave very strong feelings
one way or another, and the best course might be to follow the trend of
international opinion. If we have a situation where all the countries
are on the same footing, it does not matter too much where the line is
drawn, provided of course that it sticis.

I have wondered if there might not be some merit to Ci as a level of
mu tua] deterrency a notch short of the themmonuclear, and therefore more credible

that it would be invoked. But, the disadvantages of proliferation out-
weigh the Likely merits. Also, I an convinced that US/NAIO stratezy is
committed to using "tactical nuclears" for this purpose, anc that both
sides do envisage something with more steps than the "No Atom" principle
seens to imply. hut this has its own dangers, and we mixht be better
off if Cw took the place of the tactical nuclears uncer an arms control
agreement. That would iaake the "No Atom" principle much more credible.

LT. J. P. KENNEDY, JR. LABORATORIES FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE, DEDICATED TO RESEARCH IN MENTAL RETARDATION
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY HEREDITY NEUROBIOLOGY DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE
but I don't see anything as complicated as tais ever working out.