The central purpose of this provocative symposium on the issues underlying the possession by man of weapons to destroy himself is to demonstrate that there is no moral alternative to an unconditional renunciation of ""the deterrent"" principle -- the build-up of nuclear power for defense purposes. The argument developed holds that nuclear defense cannot produce security. Thus, the authors, insist, we do not surrender security when we renounce this defense. The argumentation is not easily ignored. Whatever holes can be found in the positions developed here, they should be given thoughtful study. The atmosphere today is one in which related, though possibly unpleasant and unpopular discussions are being freely advanced (among the recent is Gordon Zahn's German Catholics and Hitler's Wars) suggesting areas for the theologians to examine carefully so that a new set of practical applications for a radically different society might be advanced. This plea for sanity in a frightful world in which ""accidental"" war seems almost unpreventable disputes the validity of nuclear defense because it will lead to nuclear war. Whether the authors are right or not, their arguments for serious analysis of the Western policy which is contingent on ""the balancing fears of mutual annihilation"" should be heard. This is a timely though one-sided symposium in philosophical distinctions of supreme importance to mankind and should be read soberly particularly by those who may well control the very continuation of the human race.