ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (02/10/85)
In article <434@rlgvax.UUCP> plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) writes: [Your article made a number of valid points, tearing apart my opinion of the principle behind (unilateral) disarmament, which was not difficult. Perhaps someone who believes in it could put the argument across... However, in one part: > >> b) Even if a potential aggressor is willing to take on the >> costs & risks of war, the use of Nuclear weapons is so self- >> destructive as to be lunatic, so he would not believe that they >> would be used anyway. > >This is by no means certain, having never happened. I would not >recommend relying on this being the conventional wisdom in the >Politburo. > >..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying is by no means certain, that has never happened. It clearly wasn't that a potenetial aggressor would be willing to take on the risks of conventional war, as you argued against that earlier in your article. Was it that the use of Nuclear weapons is so self-destructive as to be lunatic? Or that he wouldn't believe that they would be used? If it was the latter, notice that Britain had nuclear weapons when Argentina invaded the Falklands. They didn't seem to be too deterred. Admittedly, the political situation was a little abnormal, but even so, the Royal Navy might (say) have knocked out the Belgrano with a nuke, and not caused any civilian casualties. Or any target out at sea, come to that. The Argentinians had to be pretty sure that that wasn't going to happen. So what's the point in Nuclear weapons? The above is not actually my opinion (again), but in the interests of a two-sided debate, I have put them up for target practice. -Nige Gale, University of Kent at Canterbury
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (02/18/85)
> >> b) Even if a potential aggressor is willing to take on the > >> costs & risks of war, the use of Nuclear weapons is so self- > >> destructive as to be lunatic, so he would not believe that they > >> would be used anyway. > > > >This is by no means certain, having never happened. I would not > >recommend relying on this being the conventional wisdom in the > >Politburo. > >..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett > > I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying is by no > means certain, that has never happened. There is no experience, other than the one-sided and very limited examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of nuclear warfare. Whereas the great debate in the Democracies seems to be (as G. Bush would have it) on "how high the rubble will bounce," the Soviet regime has always planned for survival; i.e., it intends to use them if and when necessary, and if tactically prudent. > .. Britain had nuclear weapons when > Argentina invaded the Falklands. They didn't seem to be too > deterred. Admittedly, the political situation was a little abnormal, > but even so, the Royal Navy might (say) have knocked out the > Belgrano with a nuke, and not caused any civilian casualties. > Or any target out at sea, come to that. > The Argentinians had to be pretty sure that that wasn't going to > happen. > So what's the point in Nuclear weapons? Clearly a situation, a threat, a move, must be of a scale to warrant the use of a nuke. Using one to sink a battleship is somewhat of an overkill, and ultimately self-defeating. This is because the primary point in nuclear weapons is deterring nuclear attacks; the secondary point of them is to prevail during a serious superpower brawl. The main problem with nuclear weapons is that the West is in the process of talking itself out of their secondary purpose because it is too horrific to contemplate. Without the second, the first collapses, and the U.S.S.R. wins. Scott Plunkett, ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett