mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/03/85)
>Regarding "peace through strength" versus "peace through goodwill": > >There is another alternative; peace through fear. Fear of self >annihilation. The use of "superordinate goals" for conflict resolution has >been well demonstrated (see "Reducing Intergroup Conflict", pages 454 to 474 >in B.H. Raven and J.Z. Rubin (1976), "Social Psychology: People in Groups" >published by Wiley & Sons, New York...don't mistake me...I am NOT a >psychologist, but what they had to say made sense to me). Fear of >extinction could be used as a superordinate goal...it is a threat to all and >it is in the mutual interest to cooperate to do something about it. The >point of superordinate goals is that "peace through fear" would encourage >the *gradual* development of "peace through goodwill". I think that SDI is >evidence of the fear. We need to convince people that "peace through >strength" will not work indefinitely ON A GLOBAL SCALE. Let us imagine that we knew that there were unfriendly aliens in the neighbourhood, who had the power to erase life from this planet UNLESS we found a way to avoid, quasi-permanently, the threat of internal war. Do you not think that we all (US, USSR, China, Chad etc.) would be working strenuously together to thwart this *external* threat? The US, UK and USSR put aside strong animosities in 1939-45 to deal with an external threat, and I see no reason to believe that they would not do it again in the face of a threat external to the planet. If this assumption is so, then what prevents us from working strenuously together to avoid self-annihilation? Is it that we don't all agree that the threat exists? I find that hard to believe, but I cannot come up with another explanation. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (04/04/85)
> The US, UK and USSR put aside strong animosities in 1939-45 to deal with > an external threat, and I see no reason to believe that they would > not do it again in the face of a threat external to the planet. You have a serious historical error. From September 1939 to June 1941 the USSR was an Axis power. On June 22 Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and it was on that day that the Russians switched from being part of the external threat to "putting aside its strong animosities". The US entered WWII in December 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It was Germany that declared war on the U.S., not vice versa, although admittedly the US was very supportive of the Allies before then. In fact, on June 21, the UK was the only country at war with Germany. > If this assumption is so, then what prevents us from working strenuously > together to avoid self-annihilation? Is it that we don't all agree > that the threat exists? I find that hard to believe, but I cannot > come up with another explanation. > > Martin Taylor Because we fear that the Soviet Union will do the equivalent with nuclear weapons that they did with Germany in 1939: Bargain away the security of the civilized world for their own temporary safety. -- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918