ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (12/08/85)
> > > We also have to be careful with what *we* say, and how we say it. > > > Physicist Freeman Dyson, in his recent book *Weapons and Hope*, > > > points out that the word "deterrence," used so frequently in arms > > > discussions in the West, translates in Russian as "intimidation." > > > It's little wonder, given the Russians' paranoid proclivities, > > > that they respond coolly to talk of "intimidation" by the West. > > > Michael McNeil > > > > > If this is why the Russians are so "intimidated" by us, then I will personally > > go to may local drug store and by an English to Russian dictionary and send > > it to Moscow, free of charge. > > I mean, after 40 years of negoiations, the Russians should be told the real > > meaning of deterrence. > > Well, that takes care of intimidation, next problem? > > > > ray the diplomat > > The Soviets are (quite rightfully) afraid of a nation which has 600,000 > Hiroshimas pointed at it ...... So afraid that they decided to point 700,000 Hiroshimas back at us. > ...and which is currently developing or deploying > such first-strike weapons as the MX missile and Trident D-5 missiles We've had a first strike capability from 1945 to 1970, why didn't we use it if as the Russians believe we are planning to do it eventually? I really think they need that dictionary. > The Soviets are afraid of Start Wars in conjunction > with these first-strike weapons The Soviets started their own Start Wars(SDI) back in 1975, what did you think then? What were the Soviet's motives? A first strike? Did you or anyone else speak out against the Soviet version of Start Wars? Of course no one did, this would have been to rational. Particle beam accerlerator? What's that, a new flat screen portable television? > Given that the Republican platform *explicitly* called for American > *superiority* rather than parity, wouldn't one think the Soviets > have every right to be paranoid? Given that the Russians are hell bent in gaining superiority in conventional as well as nuclear capability, would'nt one think the U.S. has every right to be just as paranoid as the Russians? > Even more, the world should be horrified at the Pentagon's plans to > consider digging tunnels under the earth with which to deploy nuclear > missiles which could only be fired after months of digging....... After an all out nuclear war, just who is going to be around to do months of digging to fire those missles? > It is reality and not talk which scares the Soviets. It is reality and not talk that scares the hell out of me and every other free person on this earth, the Soviets certainly don't have a monopoly on being scared, and they also don't have a better reason for being scared than any- one else. The bottom line here is, I for one am tired of hearing about the poor Russians and how justifiably paranoid they are due to the horrors they endured during WW2. Will they use that time period for infinitum to justify their mistrust of everyone. There is no doubt they suffered greatly, but are they living in the past like a sick person refusing to get better and basing all their actions on a part of history that is gone forever? Does the leader of every free country seem to Russia like a Hitler ready to pounce on them? If so, they are indeed a menace to the world. Or perhaps they are just using as an excuse 'that' time period to justify their massive arms buildup and are not really paranoid, but just aggressive. ray ray