mat@alice.UUCP (Mat Pirz) (02/02/85)
Hi again. I'd like to start up a discussion in net.politics about WWIII because I think it's an important topic and should be discussed. I'd like to know what other peoples opinions are. I have already posted one article, which failed to get the response I wanted but thanks to the people that did respond. The final results of my poll of people for and against nukes are as follows: 3 AGAINST and 0 FOR Now, this is hardly the amount of people who are needed to conduct an accurate poll. Please respond by mail, or to the net. There WOULD be some people that would survive, like in other countries that are not the objective of the missiles. They would probably become scavengers, with no technology, sort of blown back to Cave Man times. There is also the topic of Nuclear winter? I think it's possible. Anyone else care to comment? The dust cloud they say would occur would practically engulf the earth and lower the temperatures drastically. Most species would most certainly die out because that could not adapt. Mostly all life would die out, just like the Dinosaurs, when the asteroid hit the earth and they became extinct. Would the same thing happen to Man? Please, lets try to be serious about this topic. It's certainly not something to kid around with, or just forget about. If I was a commie and was wondering when to drop the Nukes, you wouldn't want me to forget that there are actually PEOPLE over there in the USA, would you? From The Great Pyramid in Egypt where it's safe Mat Pirz NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! P.S. If you respond to the net, please mail me of your vote, either in favor of nukes, or against. This will help me make my poll more accurate.
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (02/04/85)
> The final results of my poll of people for and against nukes are as > follows: > > 3 AGAINST and 0 FOR > > Now, this is hardly the amount of people who are needed to conduct an > accurate poll. Please respond by mail, or to the net. > -- Mat Pirz (mat@alice) This is supposed to be an accurate poll? If I respond "against," does that mean I favor immediate unilateral disarmament, or what? If I respond "for," does that mean that I enjoy the idea of killing millions? You might try rewording your poll question so that it asks for some meaningful information. Unloaded questions are best. Don't bother asking questions like "what do you think of the criminal nuclear arms race started and maintained by the fascist Reaganite administration?" But on second thought, don't bother. You might succeed in hiding your no-nukes bias to the point where you would fool a few people with your "poll." Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (02/04/85)
The principle behind Nuclear Deterence is:
to display the willingness (whether it is a real willingness or not)
to use nuclear weapons in response to infringement of certain
critical national interests, such as national boundaries,
lives, freedoms etc, in order to deter any potential aggressor
from such actions.
The principle behind (unilateral?) nuclear disarmament is:
that deterence is ineffective because:
a) Conventional war is no longer economically viable, and
the gains to any aggressor's leader are far outweighed by the
losses, and also the possibility of assassination, and cost
of governing any conquests.
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.
And, given that deterence is ineffective, it is provocative
(harming international relations), it is costly, and it is
dangerous (especially if the hardware is programmed in a non-
verifiable language, such as ADA).
I welcome correction on any point.
Myself, I favour Universal Peace, and Happiness.
But I wonder whether it is attainable.
Nigel Gale.plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (02/08/85)
> From Nigel Gale: > The principle behind Nuclear Deterence is: > to display the willingness (whether it is a real willingness or not) > to use nuclear weapons in response to infringement of certain > critical national interests...in order to deter any potential aggressor No doubt the Soviets expend some considerable resources analyzing the resolve of the American nuclear deterence. If it is a facade then it is useless. Deterence of any sort is effective in direct proportion to it's sincerity. In other words, it isn't a bluff. > The principle behind (unilateral?) nuclear disarmament is: > that deterence is ineffective because: > a) Conventional war is no longer economically viable, and > the gains to any aggressor's leader are far outweighed by the > losses, and also the possibility of assassination, and cost > of governing any conquests. Four premises here, all of them wrong. (1) Conventional warfare is quite "economical" as demonstrated by the Soviets piece-meal conquest of the world, exampled currently in Afghanistan, Central America, Africa. They do this because they have to, and because it works. (2) "Gains are outweighed by the losses:" point 1 refutes this, and on the larger scale it is merely problematical. Soviet analysts are not nearly so categorical as you; they are far more optimistic. (3) Assassination is not a problem; the flu is. (4) The cost of governing is refuted by point 1 also. If you are thinking the USSR is hurting over Afghanistan, you are almost certainly mistaken. Even conceding immediate losses may adversely affect Soviet capability, there is such a thing a strategy and amortization that takes care of today's pain. > 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
david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (02/09/85)
> The principle behind (unilateral?) nuclear disarmament is: > that deterence is ineffective because: > a) Conventional war is no longer economically viable, and > the gains to any aggressor's leader are far outweighed by the > losses, and also the possibility of assassination, and cost > of governing any conquests. Funny, that's exactly what many intellectuals in Europe were saying in 1910...right before World War I... > 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. What's "self-destructive" about using nuclear weapons against someone who can't strike back? > And, given that deterence is ineffective, it is provocative > (harming international relations), it is costly, and it is > dangerous (especially if the hardware is programmed in a non- > verifiable language, such as ADA). First of all, it's "deterrence"...two "r's"...secondly, you haven't established that deterrence is ineffective..in fact, you haven't established anything... > I welcome correction on any point. OK...hope the welcome mat is still out. > Myself, I favour Universal Peace, and Happiness. > But I wonder whether it is attainable. Nigel, I agree with both your hopes and doubts. --- das
kel@ea.UUCP (02/17/85)
[sacrificed to the line eater] One assumption that has remained tacit in this discussion is that all nuclear weapons remain in the control of the government (or other owner) who manufactured them. Some interesting questions arise if this assumption is relaxed. How secure are supplies of nuclear weapons, and can security be maintained under circumstances of proliferation. I suggest that at some point it must become impossible to maintain total security over ANYTHING. If this suggestion reflects reality, why isn't anybody asking about the security problem? Almost identically, how secure are suppllies of fissionables? Almost anybody with an engineering degree, and numerous others, can build a crude atomic bomb. If a 10-20 kiloton blast leveled Manhattan Island, would the government perceive an isolated incident, or a conspiracy that merited a retaliatory strike? What are possible motives for stealing a nuclear device? A sufficiently compelling motive allows individuals to perform amazing feats. Are BOTH American and Russian nuclear bases secure against ALL POSSIBLE attacks? Remember that almost all of the Russian arsenal is land based. Submarines are much easier to guard, of course(?) If an outside party did acheive control of a nuclear base, how would it be possible to cope with the immediate threat? What would be the obstacles to regaining control of the base and would any such move be practicable? Assuming the possibility of nuclear terrorism, what next? Obviously, we can't eradicate the knowledge of nuclear weapons. Even if we destroyed all record of their existence, you can bet some jerk is hedging his bets. Even if we should disarm, the threat of nuclear terrorism is only slightly diminished. Enough fissionables are unaccounted for in American fuel plants to level several (anybody have an educated guess how many?) cities. I have found the nuclear arms discussion most unimaginative heretofore. Ken