||ENDS AND MEANS IN CONFLICT 5 history, the deadly weapons now stored up and being manufactured will be used until the people are wasted away.7 Somewhere along the way the relationship between the end of national security and the means of appropriate armaments to accomplish this goal went awry. There simply is no congruence between such means and the ends to be achieved. If one sentence can capture the tragedy of the Vietnamese War it must be the statement of the American officer who explained that we must destroy a village to save it. That was done, almost, to that whole sad nation. Now the same grotesque logic is being applied to our entire globe. The end of security and peace can never be assured by producing, endlessly, weapons which can destroy continents, forests, oceans and rivers, fish and birds and all the people. The means of nuclear weapons can never affect peace and security in any way but to destroy them. Even if no nuclear weapon were ever fired we have done terrible violence to ourselves. The prophetic vision of peace saw not only the perpetuation of life but a quality of living that reflected equity and justice and compassion. Peace and justice share that same dialectical relationship as do ends and means. The terms should be hyphenated. Perhaps the notion is best captured by shalom. When we spend as we have spent this past decade on ever more murderous means of killing each other we do double evil. We not only provide barbaric means of killing and wounding other human beings, and in doing so make the likelihood of the use of such weapons more rather than less likely, but we also use scarce resources that might have been used to help and heal, to teach and to enjoy. In the first five years of the Reagan presidency we doubled our national debt which had taken 200 years, two world wars, a worldwide depression and the costs of Vietnam and Korea to accumulate. Had we frozen any further expenditure on nuclear weaponry in 1984, other than maintenance of existing systems (with which we could still annihilate everyone in the Soviet Union fifty times over), we would have saved nearly one hundred billion dollars within five years. This would have allowed us to restore and maintain social spending at 1981 levels, before the enormous increase in military spending. This would 7 B. Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, 324 (10 February 1861) (Liverpool: William Budge, 1854-86).