mat@alice.UUCP (Mat Pirz) (01/24/85)
[Hello there] Sorry if this has been posted before and/or it doesn't belong here, but this seemed like the best spot to put it, looking at the other topics discussed. I was wondering what other people thing about WAR. What would you do if WORLD WAR III broke out? What do you think about nuclear war, germ warfare, hand to hand, etc...?? Why do you think the US and Russia have nukes? What would make them both launch them?? My thoughts: First Question: I think if WORLD WAR III broke out there wouldn't be any one left. The sad thing is that we have to have war in the first place. I really hate the person who thought of war to solve problems, It just makes more. second ques: Nuclear war doesn't ware off for a while (the radiation i mean), same thing with germ warfare. Hand to hand is be far the mildest, but it still shouldn't happen. Third question: I have no idea WHY you would want to kill other people because of some stupid argument a president started 10 years ago. There is really no good excuse to have nuckear weapons in the first place. If you asked the question "Why do you have nuclear weapons" You might get a response: "They had them first" or maybe "There number exceedes our amount by far..." What sort of reasons are those??? When do you think it (World WAR III) will happen, if ever?? I will also make a survey of how many people are against nukes, and haw many people think they are necessary for defense. Please respond by mail to my questions. If I get a sufficent response, I will post them (unless otherwise asked not to) From the Taj Mahal, Bomb shelter of: Mat Pirz alice!mat NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!!
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (01/28/85)
I think the USA is more likely to start WWIII than the USSR. That doesn't
mean that I don't think the USA is a better place than the USSR. I infinitely
prefer the USA.
However the USSR has been involved in much more serious warfare in their
own country than the USA. The nearest that the USA has been involved in
war in the USA itself in recent times is Pearl Harbour. The people of the
-----------------
USA probably cannot envisage the effects of WWIII.
The Russians have on the other hand had their country devastated on several
occasions within living memory and have lost millions of their own people.
The Russian leaders athough old and senile have experienced this themselves.
This is why it is an *advantage* that the Russian leaders are so old. In this
case senility helps too. Old people remember their youth even if they forget
the day to day occurances of recent times.
On the other hand, the old film star leading the USA has the experience from
films that the hero always wins. In WWIII there will be no winners and life
will not be very pleasant for the survivors (if any).
The only thing we can do is to educate the people of the West (including
presidents prime ministers etc) as to what nuclear war would really mean.
Mike Williamsdaf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (01/29/85)
> [Hello there] > Sorry if this has been posted before and/or it doesn't belong here, but this > seemed like the best spot to put it, looking at the other topics discussed. > I was wondering what other people thing about WAR. > What would you do if WORLD WAR III broke out? > What do you think about nuclear war, germ warfare, hand to hand, etc...?? > Why do you think the US and Russia have nukes? What would make them both > launch them?? > My thoughts: > First Question: > I think if WORLD WAR III broke out there wouldn't be any one left. The sad > thing is that we have to have war in the first place. I really hate the person > who thought of war to solve problems, It just makes more. Well, I'll tell you. The Peaceful Botanist thought up war. > second Question: > Nuclear war doesn't ware off for a while (the radiation i mean), same thing > with germ warfare. Hand to hand is be far the mildest, but it still shouldn't > happen. Unfortunately, the Peaceful Botanist will not fight hand to hand. > Third question: > I have no idea WHY you would want to kill other people because of some stupid > argument a president started 10 years ago. There is really no good excuse to > have nuckear weapons in the first place. > If you asked the question "Why do you have nuclear weapons" > You might get a response: > "They had them first" > or maybe > "There number exceedes our amount by far..." > What sort of reasons are those??? The reason we have nuclear weapons is to create large dust clouds which remove inefficient species from the earth. I know. > When do you think it (World WAR III) will happen, if ever?? It will probably occur over a dispute over dinosuar remains. -- The Last Surviving Bronto seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
jca@abnji.UUCP (james armstrong) (01/30/85)
>[Hello there] Hello. >Sorry if this has been posted before and/or it doesn't belong here, but this >seemed like the best spot to put it, looking at the other topics discussed. > >I was wondering what other people thing about WAR. > >What would you do if WORLD WAR III broke out? I would die, probably quite quickly, along with the rest of New Jersey, my friends in San Diego, London, Stoke on Trent, St. Andrews, Cambridge, Boston, et cetera. (All targets, or within 5 miles of a target) >What do you think about nuclear war, germ warfare, hand to hand, etc...?? War is proof that man is not the most intelligent species on this planet. Perhaps the Brontosaurus was :-) >Why do you think the US and Russia have nukes? What would make them both >launch them?? The US has nuclear weapons because they didn't know what they were getting in 1945. Since then, it has been fear of the USSR that has caused them to keep them. (A bit pedantic, now) Russia does not have nuclear weapons any more than New York State has them. Russia, better known in the USSR as the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic (RSFSR) is the largest state and and ethnic group in the USSR. The USSR has nuclear weapons because everybody else who has them professes to point them at the USSR. These nuclear weapons will be launched either (1) by mistake or (2) when a world leader feels that the destruction caused to his own country is worth the destruction he (or she- right Maggie?) causes to the other country. The US will launch their weapons if they are losing a land war in Europe. The USSR will launch their weapons if the US deploys an effective "Star Wars" defense system. If one side uses nuclear weapons, all will. Translated: Nuclear weapons will be used when national integrity is threatened. > My thoughts: > >First Question: > >I think if WORLD WAR III broke out there wouldn't be any one left. The sad >thing is that we have to have war in the first place. I really hate the person >who thought of war to solve problems, It just makes more. Over what timespan? When the war end, after say 6 hours, there will be survivors. People would probably live for years afterwards. The species would probably survive. As for our technology, and those things we think make life worthwhile, that is another matter. >second ques: > >Nuclear war doesn't wear off for a while (the radiation i mean), same thing >with germ warfare. Hand to hand is be far the mildest, but it still shouldn't >happen. > >Third question: > >I have no idea WHY you would want to kill other people because of some stupid >argument a president started 10 years ago. There is really no good excuse to >have nuckear weapons in the first place. > >If you asked the question "Why do you have nuclear weapons" > >You might get a response: > >"They had them first" > >or maybe > >"There number exceedes our amount by far..." > >What sort of reasons are those??? Fear. >When do you think it (World WAR III) will happen, if ever?? > >I will also make a survey of how many people are against nukes, and haw many >people think they are necessary for defense.
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/31/85)
> I have no idea WHY you would want to kill other people because of some stupid > argument a president started 10 years ago. There is really no good excuse to > have nuckear weapons in the first place. > > If you asked the question "Why do you have nuclear weapons" > You might get a response: > "They had them first" > or maybe > "There number exceedes our amount by far..." > What sort of reasons are those??? > When do you think it (World WAR III) will happen, if ever?? ... > Mat Pirz *Whether or not* nukes are a good idea in the modern world (on the face of it, they are not), those reasons for not having them are severely lacking. Would you, for example, hold this philosophy about weapons in general if you were a Pole in 1939? In fact, the Britons and the French had precisely this philosophy in 1939, which is why they didn't help the Poles much in that year. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (02/02/85)
> I think the USA is more likely to start WWIII than the USSR. That doesn't > mean that I don't think the USA is a better place than the USSR. I infinitely > prefer the USA. The answer to the hypothetical question is much more complicated than that. Although the USSR may be less likely to launch the first nuke deliberately, they may be more likely to launch it accidentally, because their safety-control is in general inferior to ours. If we had one Pershing missile that went up in flames, a large percentage of their whole Navy was destroyed by a huge conventional explosion not too long ago. The question is, will nuclear war be started deliberately or by a technical failure? Even if we are the first to use the weapons, they are the first to strike. Having had so many terrible previous wars, they know that war is unpredictable and will make no attempt whatsoever to control it. While the doves in our government think that nuclear war is unthinkable and unwinnable, and the hawks think that it is neither unthinkable nor unwinnable, the Soviets think that it is unthinkable and yet winnable. So if we drop one nuke on their invading forces, and to counter they drop three hundred nukes on our cities, who started World War III? > On the other hand, the old film star leading the USA has the experience from > films that the hero always wins. In WWIII there will be no winners and life > will not be very pleasant for the survivors (if any). If we start a nuclear war, it will probably be with our tactical forces in Europe, which are under control of the Army. Reagan will probably not make the decision. > The only thing we can do is to educate the people of the West (including > presidents prime ministers etc) as to what nuclear war would really mean. ... > Mike Williams This is very worthwhile. It is, however, not the only think that we can do. It is worthwhile to remove our tactical nuclear weapons. It is worthwhile to have skilled diplomats who understand the Russians. It would also be worthwhile to convince the Russian leadership that we do not wish to invade the Soviet Union, but this is at the moment not under our control. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/06/85)
> > I have no idea WHY you would want to kill other people because of some stupid > > argument a president started 10 years ago. There is really no good excuse to > > have nuckear weapons in the first place. > > > > If you asked the question "Why do you have nuclear weapons" > > You might get a response: > > "They had them first" > > or maybe > > "There number exceedes our amount by far..." > > What sort of reasons are those??? > > When do you think it (World WAR III) will happen, if ever?? > ... > > Mat Pirz > > *Whether or not* nukes are a good idea in the modern world (on the face of > it, they are not), those reasons for not having them are severely lacking. > Would you, for example, hold this philosophy about weapons in general if > you were a Pole in 1939? In fact, the Britons and the French had precisely > this philosophy in 1939, which is why they didn't help the Poles much in > that year. > Greg Kuperberg > harvard!talcott!gjk Yes, I'm sure the Poles would have been glad to have a nuclear war in Europe.........
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (02/07/85)
> > *Whether or not* nukes are a good idea in the modern world (on the face of > > it, they are not), those reasons for not having them are severely lacking. > > Would you, for example, hold this philosophy about weapons in general if > > you were a Pole in 1939? In fact, the Britons and the French had precisely > > this philosophy in 1939, which is why they didn't help the Poles much in > > that year. > > Greg Kuperberg > > harvard!talcott!gjk > > Yes, I'm sure the Poles would have been glad to have a nuclear war > in Europe......... Oh, you're completely right. The Poles, French, and British should have thrown all of their arms into the ocean, and surely the Germans would have been quick to follow! --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (02/08/85)
In article <471@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> Would you [ support nuclear disarmament ] if >> you were a Pole in 1939?... >> Greg Kuperberg > >Yes, I'm sure the Poles would have been glad to have a nuclear war >in Europe......... Just as Hitler would have still invaded, conquered, and looted Poland if he knew that it might lead to a nuclear exchange... ( Germany was in Europe as well, remember. Still is, actually ) -Nigel Gale
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (02/13/85)
> > > *Whether or not* nukes are a good idea in the modern world (on the face of > > > it, they are not), those reasons for not having them are severely lacking. > > > Would you, for example, hold this philosophy about weapons in general if > > > you were a Pole in 1939? In fact, the Britons and the French had precisely > > > this philosophy in 1939, which is why they didn't help the Poles much in > > > that year. > > > Greg Kuperberg > > > harvard!talcott!gjk > > > > Yes, I'm sure the Poles would have been glad to have a nuclear war > > in Europe......... > > Oh, you're completely right. The Poles, French, and British should have > thrown all of their arms into the ocean, and surely the Germans would have > been quick to follow! > --- > Greg Kuperberg > harvard!talcott!gjk AAARGH! This is EXTREMELY illogical. The question is not one of complete unilateral disarmament, including conventional weapons . You should know, Greg, since the original posting is yours. The question is whether there are reasons for not having nuclear weapons (see your own posting above, Greg). There are some very good reasons, including the prospect of nuclear winter. If a nuclear war would really cause another ice age, then "winning" a nuclear war would destroy the "winner". This should provide a strong incentive for all nuclear powers to negotiate for the omnilateral elimination of nuclear weapons, or at least the reduction of nuclear forces to levels where a nuclear winter couldn't happen. This isn't just smoke; according to Thomas Power's November article in The Atlantic, both the U.S. and Soviet military are researching whether the theory is true, and if so, what should be done about it. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak