Should we make such a declaration, it would place Russia in an embarrassing position indeed. For while as a tactical weapon the non-rigged H-bomb offers us great advantages as a counterforce to neutralize her huge army, she can use the H-bomb, both the rigged and the non-rigged, as a constant threat against our densely populated cities. As Senator Brien McMahon, of Connecticut, chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, has warned, an H-bomb attack “might incinerate 50,000,000 Americans—not in the space of an evening but in the space of a few minutes.” We have eleven cities of one million or more inhabitants, whereas Russia has only three or four. We have forty cities of 200,000 and over, inhabited by 40,000,000, or 27 per cent of our population, whereas Russia has only twenty cities of 200,000 and over, inhabited by only 20,000,000, or 10 per cent of her population. Furthermore, her industries are now largely dispersed, whereas our industries are highly centralized. Russia would thus get much the worse of the bargain if she were to accept our challenge to renounce the use of strategic bombing, particularly that of the A- and H-bombs, while we still retain the right to use them in tactical bombing against her armies. Suppose Russia in this dilemma, and recognizing the need to avoid the moral opprobrium of the peoples of the world that her refusal to meet our renunciation would entail, comes forth with a counterproposal to renounce the use of both A- and H-bombs altogether, as strategic as well as tactical weapons, thus exchanging the elimination of the threat of the annihilation of our teeming cities and industries, for the removal of the threat of destruction to her armies. Suppose that at the same time she repeats her demand, frequently voiced by her in the United Nations, that all stockpiles of A- and H-bombs be destroyed and a convention signed to outlaw their uses. The world already knows the answer, for we have already made it again and again.