unique questions, and broadening the scope of inquiry to include all kinds of conflict
may, I believe, muddy some issues more than it clarifies them.

I also prefer the term "nuclear war education" to "peace education" on other
grounds. Most people of good will, both conservatives and liberals, are for peace, not
war. Nevertheless, the common usages of the term "peace," as in "peace activist" or
"peace movement," have tended to be identified with an ideological viewpoint on the
left of the political spectrum. Conservatives, of course, have also tried to show that
they are propeace in their choice of terminology such as "peace-through-strength,"
the "Peacekeeper missile" ( President Reagan's not too widely accepted name for the
MX), and, more recently, President Reagan's so-called peace shield. Nevertheless, I
believe the term "peace education," as it is popularly understood, is a more ideologi-
cally restrictive term than "nuclear war education." I suspect that most peace educa-
tors, for example, would consider the arms race to be evil and based on a
misunderstanding between two morally equivalent superpowers. In using the term "nu-
clear war education" I intend to convey less well defined positions on both the nature
of the arms race and the differences between the Soviet and American systems, argu-

-2-