orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/10/86)
> >> From Tom Albrecht: > >> The only thing worth working > >> for is a verifiable arms reduction treaty. And that's what Reagan is > >> doing. We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try > >> to get the best of us every time. > >> > > >If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" why has he > >*always* opposed a bilateral Nuclear Freeze? It would seem to me > >that any *reductions* imply *stopping* the arms race at the very > >least. This Reagan has been totally unwilling to do. > >If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why does > >he refuse to stop all American nuclear testing while the Soviets > >have stopped their nuclear testing for the past 6 months? > > Maybe these things aren't in the best interests of the people of the US. > Besides, why stop the race when the other guy is ahead? > I see, it is in the best interests of the US for the Soviets to resume their nuclear testing and consequent nuclear weapons development? It is in the "best interests" of the US for the Soviets to continue deploying 5 more nuclear weapons every day? If the Soviets *were* already ahead in the nuclear arms race (which they are *not* - even Caspar Weinberge said he would not trade the US nuclear forces for the Soviet nuclear forces) then they are getting *more* ahead every day that Reagan refuses to negotiate any end or even control of the arms race. I would like you to explain how continued nuclear testing by the Soviet Union is in the US people's interest. tim sevener whuxn!orb
slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Ling Ku) (03/14/86)
>> Maybe these things aren't in the best interests of the people of the US. >> Besides, why stop the race when the other guy is ahead? >> > >I see, it is in the best interests of the US for the Soviets to resume >their nuclear testing and consequent nuclear weapons development? >It is in the "best interests" of the US for the Soviets to continue >deploying 5 more nuclear weapons every day? First, we all agree that the nuclear arsenal RIGHT NOW is sufficient to annihilate humanity (suppose SDI never works). Then it doesn't make matter worst if the USSR continues to improve/increase her arsenal. Second, we all judge our well being in a relative manner. If we live better than everybody else, then even though life is rotten, we still feel great ('cause we are the best). Eg., I would say 99% of human beings would rather be the richest (or most powerful) man/woman on earth now than be a regular being who lives two centuries from now (presume that we have not killed ourselves yet and science has progressed as fast as the past two centuries). Why? Even though a regular being 200 years from now probably lives much better than anyone could imagine today, the richest (most poweful) person lives much better than everyone alive today. (Sorry for the long-windedness) So, if the USSR builds 5 weapons a day, they are that much poorer (compare to us, even if we don't get any better). They are wasting their effort in an area that is already overdeveloped (unless you believe that more nuclear weapons translate to better defense/offense/power). While we (if we are smart enough) use our energies to strengthen ourselves in other areas (and I see we need a lot of strengthening in our technologies, manufacturing, etc. We should definitely learn a lesson from the Japanese, they learn their lesson in WWII, military conquest is the most EXPANSIVE and not necessarily the best way to build an empire.) For this to work, we must make sure that they *are* building these expansive weapons, not some cheap drones. Hence, provoke them by building some ourselves, (preferrably cheap drones), or embark in something like SDI. (The irony about SDI is that if we believe it would work, it would most probably fail. If we don't believe it would work, but still keep on doing it, it would probably succeed, albeit in another manner.) This might not be in the *best* interest of the US, but it certainly is bad for the USSR. If a policy is bad for your enemy (or everybody else) while not too bad for yourself, then it is a reasonble policy. (Extreme cynacism here - but that's what politics is). > If the Soviets *were* already >ahead in the nuclear arms race (which they are *not* - even Caspar Weinberge >said he would not trade the US nuclear forces for the Soviet nuclear forces) >then they are getting *more* ahead every day that Reagan refuses to >negotiate any end or even control of the arms race. So what, let them get more ahead. These nuclear weapons are either going to rust or we and they are all going to die, no matter how much more ahead they are. -- Siu-Ling Ku {decvax, harvard}!mitvax!slk slk%vax@mit-mc.ARPA