Would a new SALT agreement strengthen or weaken the United States? Would failure to reach such an agreement make a nuclear holocaust more or less likely? Two samples from this high-octane debate: PN: "Let me now get to the substantive part. You agree with [chief SALT negotiator] Paul Warnke's statement in which he says that neither the U.S. nor the USSR can attain superiority over the other except by default, and that we will not be guilty of default in this sphere?" GL: "I'd have to answer that I support the statement of Henry Kissinger when he said, 'Nuclear superiority-what in the hell good is it?' "... WFB: "I perceive that there is great confusion, Senator, because you spent the early part of the evening telling us that we had redundant power, and now in the beginning of the second hour you're telling us that the Soviet Union intends to deploy 700 more missiles. Why do they want 700 more missiles when you have just told us how frequently they could kill us with the missiles they have? ..." GM: "Mr. Buckley, what I am saying is that in the absence of an agreement, both sides will continue the pattern they've followed for years-" WFB: "Why? Why?" GM: "-of increasing. Because of the madness that exists-" WFB: "Who's mad? I'm not mad." GM: "I would suggest that if not mad, you're at least lacking in vision and common sense."