david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/29/85)
Reply to a reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: "Disarmament" during the 70's: More warheads Message-ID: <6552@ucbvax.ARPA> References: <123@ttrdc.UUCP> <550@abnji.UUCP> <40@harvard.ARPA> <592@whuxl.UUCP> <56@harvard.ARPA> <596@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: University of California at Berkeley ... ... > The *only* positive feature of these new weapons have been decreases > in total megatonnage. There is a much better way to accomplish such > decreases in megatonnage: reduce rather than increase the total number > of nuclear warheads on both sides. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb That kind of staement ignores military objectives and requirements. Decreasing the meagatonnage lowers the collateral damage, and increasing accuracy allows more capability. Remember, we gave up on MAD sometime ago. Milo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm sorry to disagree, but your kind is still as MAD as can be: You believe that the 'superpowers' can indefinitely secure an incredible 'peace' on Earth with probable horror, by threats of horrifying retaliation against the innocent, who have no military ambitions and no ideological pretensions, and who are very often prisoners of injustice their homelands. More 'capability', as you say, for nuclear warfare is not more capability for peace -- it is what it is, a temptation to destroy hundreds of millions of human beings for the sake of blood- less, corrupt, and unjust political purposes. How much of our GNP do we give to poor nations, from charitableness, so that they may build and own their industries, care for their sick and starving, and educate their children, so that they may become our neighbors and equals? What is our 'capability' for charitableness? Do you realize that the total world-wide military expenditure is greater than the combined income of the poorer half of mankind? That the U.S. and U.S.S.R. secure their so-called 'peace' by profiting from virtually mercenary violence all over the world, each selling about 1/3 of all weapons, even as a large fraction of mankind is starving and sick and oppressed among the poorer nations. You did not "give up on MAD some time ago", except that you now relabel cities as 'military targets', and put the matter out of your conscience. But the fact remains, that neither side is deterred by threats against 'military targets' -- it is deterred by the horror of the holocaust that would come on that day. As for why there are more, but smaller warheads, it is partly because it makes limited nuclear war more thinkable among the MADmen, and partly because a nuclear 'shotgun' is more reliably but totally destructive than a 'rifle'. The other reasons often given for this are purely political doubletalk. The only effect of "decreasing megatonnage" has been "collateral damage" to your brain. This is not a benefit to any of us, if anyone is susceptible to your rationalizations of nuclear warfare. David Harwood