cut back production of nuclear explosive materials, stirred editorial writers to express fresh hope that it might mean at least a “halting step in the direction of disarmament.
The New York Times, which is in position to know, offered a more candid explanation, Tohn W. Finney, writing in the April 22 issue International edition] said the agreement “will not reduce by one kiloton the ability of both sides to wage a hot war,
"the production of atomic weapons will not be affected by the moves, although ultimately the growth of the nuclear arsenal of the two sides may be retarded."
The truth is, Finney said, that for "nearly four years" the cutsback has been in sight, wAfter nearly two decades of ever in~ | creasing production, the nuclear arsenal .contained tens of thousands of weapons." The U.S. "by the middle of this year will have more than a $1 billion surplus of processed uranium .,. "
The surplus is so huge that the United States "has more than enough weapons materials to continue modernizing and expanding its nuclear arsenal,” One of the results of the hundreds of nuclear tests conducted by the United States is the discovery of how to. pro’ duce "miniature" nuclear weapons, Thus the U.S. armed forces are now completely equipped with thousands of "small, battlefield weapons," which is what is meant by ttmodernization," and enormous supplies are still available.
"Tt was this huge surplus of enriched uranium combined with an impending oversupply of plutonium that permitted the Administration to take the initiative in January to cut back the production of the two fissionable materials," .
And so Johnson arranged with Khrushchev to do a little peacemongering on the cheap, Khrushchev was obliging. A little favor in helping Johnson to win the election next November might well be remem-= bered, American Presidents are like that, aren't they?