Richard Pipes' article (Editorial Pages, Oct. 21), "Call Iceland What It Was--a Trap" and Jeremy Stone's, (Editorial Pages, Oct. 24), "Scrapping Ballistic Missiles Would Benefit Both Sides" present a thought-provoking contrast.
Pipes argues that we must retain our ballistic missiles and protect them with the Strategic Defense Initiative, because Soviet strategy calls for "massive preemptive strikes against U.S. deterrents."
Jeremy Stone, director of the Federation of American Scientists, says that mutual elimination of ballistic missiles " . . . would not undermine U.S. security in the slightest." He argues that bombers with the new cruise missiles and stealth technology would be ample protection.
Mutually eliminating ballistic missiles, he says, would: (1) eliminate the incentive (and capacity) for a first strike with missiles, (2) provide more time for averting a nuclear war by lengthening the "delivery time," (3) improve our chances for effective command and control, (4) vastly reduce the megatonnage (thus fallout and environmental damage) of a nuclear exchange.