david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (11/24/84)
> Needless to say it takes no great amount of sense to know that 2 bullets > are even worse than one. > Increasing our nuclear weapons does NOT make us safer by any means. > Peace, before it's too late..... > tim sevener whuxl!orb Well, that all depends...I'd feel a lot better with two bullets in my hand than I would with one in David Berkowitz'... *** FLAME ON, FULL BLAST *** Jesus, Tim, when are you going to get it through your head that hysterical emotional jeremiads like yours accomplish nothing towards promoting the cause of peace?!? I'm sure they make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside 'cause you've once again demonstrated your moral superiority to those who merely THINK about these issues twenty-four hours a day...but you (and those who share your rhetorical proclivities) will never get anywhere worthwhile so long as you persist in substituting fantastic ravings for sober analysis. That's what Milo has been trying to tell you, albeit in a somewhat bombastic manner... Tim, I've tried in net postings and private communications to get you to undersrand this, and so have numerous others, but you just don't seem to be getting the message...No one is arguing that nuclear war would be an unimaginable and unprecedented catastrophe, SO WHY DO YOU PERSIST IN PREACHING TO THE CHOIR??? The REAL question, and one that I'be never seen you address in a cool, rational manner, is how best do we prevent such a war from happening...Yeah, universal disarmament would be a gas, but IT JUST AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN, and you're just wasting your breath screaming about it. Now I honestly don't care how long you bang your head against any wall of your choosing (this is, thank God, America), but that act doesn't give you any sort of moral or intellectual superiority over those of us who choose to muddle along in the real world, solving the problems we confront the best we can. Sorry Tim, but this white boy's just plain out of patience...I've tried reasoning with you, now I'm down to my only other option... ignoring you... I just hope that my `n' key can take the strain... Peace yes, surrender, no... --- das
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (11/26/84)
> > = Lauri Rohn (me!) > = tim sevener whuxl!orb > > ... And I hope he doesn't mean > > that just because one understands calculus, one automatically understands > > nuclear policy or strategy. That is definitely absurd. > > > > Lauri Rohn > No, and just because somebody may NOT understand calculus does not mean they > cannot be informed on ways to promote Peace and control nuclear arms. > (which is the proposition repeated by Milo and others) This is not what I said, and what I said does not even imply this. Nor do I believe that understanding calculus is a prerequisite to understanding arms control issues. Please do not twist things like that in the future. > The only way to *control* nuclear weapons is to *control* nuclear weapons. > That is to negotiate bilateral verifiable agreements which attain exactly > this aim. This does not guarantee that such agreements will not be broken. Please note the word "verifiable". This is a major stopping point, particularly so when some sides refuse to allow on-site inspections. > But then there is a body, the Standing Consultative Committee which has > been established to monitor compliance with treaties. > Why hasn't the Reagan administration brought their complaints of violations > before this committee? > Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter all brought complaints before this > Committee, so far Reagan has brought none. Why? Probably because he saw how effective it was. What did this Committee do about said violations brought to its attention? Bend the offending side's library card? The SCC seems about as effective as the World Court. > If one million six hundred thousand times the destructive power of > Hiroshima does not threaten the human race what level does? > Both sides have enough nuclear weapons to target every city down to > 15,000 people. Do we need more? Ah, we are again reverting to beancounting. I have commented on the uselessness of this before. > Increasing our nuclear weapons does NOT make us safer by any means. As a matter of fact, it may in fact make us safer. The issues are still not nearly as black and white as you would like them to be. Sorry! Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (11/28/84)
> = Sevener's reply to David Shlapak (-das) > 1)I have never supported unilateral disarmament, nor does the Nuclear Freeze While this may be true of the nuclear freeze movement in general, there are some very vocal members of the movement who have made such proposals. The "logic" was that if we unilaterally froze or disarmed, that the Soviets would be nice guys and do the same. That is not the case. > As I pointed out in an earlier posting people like RayGuns have made > inaccurate arguments that the US "unilaterally disarmed" during the 70's. > This is NOT TRUE. We increased our strategic warheads 2 1/2 times. I don't think this is the case at all. I'd like to know where you come up with your facts. But I'll match your beancount with my own. The US has kept its ICBMs at a fairly constant number, between 1000 and 1100, since 1968. Soviet ICBMs rose from about 700 in 1968 to about 1400 in 1984. US re-entry vehicles (RVs) have risen from about 1000 in 1968 to about 2000 today. Soviet RVs have risen from about 700 in 1968 to about **6400** today. (The preceding numbers are according to Lt. Gen. Robert D. Russ, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition, USAF. From the Nov. 1984 issue of Aerospace America.) > Do you have a better suggestion for stopping the arms race than stopping > the arms race? Unfortunately, simply "stopping the arms race" may *or may not* be the best way to avoid a nuclear war. Given a choice between the two, I think I would prefer stopping nuclear war. > 2)Milo IS arguing that nuclear war would NOT be an unimaginable and > unprecedented catastrophe for the Soviet Union. Somehow Milo thinks they > could *win* a nuclear war and would thus be undeterred from waging one. > I think that is a very dangerous and untenable position. It is also untrue. Well, as it turns out, the Soviets are doing their best to plan out a strategy to win a nuclear war. It isn't unthinkable to them that such a thing could occur. So far, they have been deterred from starting one. This is what deterrence is all about. Hopefully, it will continue to work. > That is why I have continued to point out the horrors of Nuclear War. You're still preaching to the choir. Do you seriously believe that there are people who think nuclear war would be a good thing? > I am NOT a wide-eyed idealist-- I realize that just because the Soviets say > they would accept a Freeze does not mean there would not be major problems in > deciding just what it should cover and how it should be verified. > But even Harold Brown (another "expert" for you expert lovers!) Carter's > Defense Secretary and hardly known as a "dove", wrote in a recent "Foreign > Affairs" that the Freeze *did* represent a viable approach to arms control > that offered roughly equivalent pluses and minuses to both sides. > The critical thing is trying to stop the new generation of missiles BEFORE > they are deployed and almost impossible to remove. The ABM treaty did > help prevent an ABM race. We should do the same thing now. > Is this "irrational"? Brown may be correct. But I would remind you that there is little that the US can do currently to stop the deployment of lots of missiles. Right now, it is the Soviets who are creating a dangerous situation with the continued deployment of the SS-20. And missiles are not impossible to remove once they are in. > 5)Who is being "irrational" and ranting? Lets not talk about > "unilateral disarmament", let's talk about "stopping the arms race". > Don't you think the world would be better off if both sides stopped > the arms race than continuing to pile up evermore weapons? > Is this an "unattainable ideal"? When Harold Brown suggests it is a > viable option in arms control I don't think so. Militarists said > Kennedy's attempt to stop atmospheric nuclear testing was an > "unattainable goal". Yet both sides agreed to it and the world's ecology > is far better off because of it. If arms control is an "unattainable > goal" then I would like to be off this planet when the bombs go off. The ban on atmospheric testing works because such testing is easily detected, primarily because of the fallout it creates. Verification of numbers and kinds of nuclear weapons is a much touchier issue. Milo has mentioned that one could conceivably hide a cruise missile in one's living room. They are not as easy to identify as are ICBMs. It is also frequently difficult to verify the number of warheads or range of a cruise missile. Verification of compliance is getting much harder. We may or may not have an "unattainable goal" on our hands. > What is wrong with a Nuclear Freeze by both sides David and Milo? > The Soviets have said numerous times they would accept one. Why don't we > put them to the test? Is it because some major military contractors (and > the Rand corporation) stand to lose 200 billion dollars in new nuclear > arms contracts? Ah, yes, the big bad military contractors are the root of all evil. Get serious! A nuclear freeze by both sides may in fact be a viable solution, **but it HAS to be VERIFIABLE!** And, for your information, the Rand Corporation does not produce nuclear arms. I would suggest that you get your facts straight before you go about merrily lambasting companies and people. Rabid, uninformed emotionalism will only hurt your cause. Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn NOTE: The views expressed above are solely mine and may or may not have anything to do with the positions of the Rand Corporation, or any other reasonably entity, for that matter.
jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (11/29/84)
Re the Soviets preparing for a nuclear war: Lets remember that Russia was absolutely devastated by World War II (in fact, the casualty rates approach those of several nuclear war scenarios). In terms of economic damage, it was probably GREATER than many possible nuclear wars. (the Soviets actually lost control of most of their major cities, and several more, (Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc.), were destroyed as thouroughly as by nuclear weapons). It is therefore entirely reasonable for the Soviets to prepare to fight a nuclear war. Russia didn't start World War II, but it happened anyway. Similarly, any reasonable Russian would look at the situation and say, 'Well, assuming I believe that our Government would never start such a thing, the nuclear war still might occur, (if the US started it, or China, or anyone else)'. Hence, civil defense preparations, etc. Now, of course, being well prepared, (which is reasonable without malicious intent), would provide a substantial lowering of the risks of nuclear war, (as viewed from the perspective of the Soviet military), making it less likely to avoid the event. (this is the malicious part of the problem). On the other hand, I quite agree with the logic shown by the Russians here. Being eminently practical people, they are preparing for something THAT REALLY MIGHT HAPPEN. As soon as Americans face up to the real possibilities here, I expect a crash program, (typical American style), to prepare here as well. We actually did a little of this in the 50s, (which was exactly the right thing to be doing), but for some reason stopped doing it in the 60s. (Got distracted, I presume). Oh well. -JCP-
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/30/84)
> >From me (Tim Sevener): > > The only way to *control* nuclear weapons is to *control* nuclear weapons. > > That is to negotiate bilateral verifiable agreements which attain exactly > > this aim. This does not guarantee that such agreements will not be broken. > >Laurinda Rohn's reply: > Please note the word "verifiable". This is a major stopping point, > particularly so when some sides refuse to allow on-site inspections. > Conservatives repeat this charge again and again. The Soviets HAVE agreed to 4 onsite inspections a year in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Unfortunately, despite the request of the Republican-controlled Senate to submit this treaty for ratification, Reagan has refused to do so. > >From me (Tim Sevener): > > But then there is a body, the Standing Consultative Committee which has > > been established to monitor compliance with treaties. > > Why hasn't the Reagan administration brought their complaints of violations > > before this committee? > > Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter all brought complaints before this > > Committee, so far Reagan has brought none. Why? > > Probably because he saw how effective it was. What did this Committee > do about said violations brought to its attention? Bend the offending > side's library card? The SCC seems about as effective as the World > Court. No the SCC did *NOT* just "bend their library card". In fact, on several occassions the Soviets stopped activities brought up as possible treaty violations before the SCC. That we haven't always gotten our way before the SCC is no reason to refuse to bring charges before it. Anymore than discontent with court decisions means one should no longer use the courts. > >From me (Tim Sevener): > > If one million six hundred thousand times the destructive power of > > Hiroshima does not threaten the human race what level does? > > Both sides have enough nuclear weapons to target every city down to > > 15,000 people. Do we need more? > > Laurinda Rohn's reply: > Ah, we are again reverting to beancounting. I have commented on the > uselessness of this before. > It is not simply beancounting. It is an attempt to point out that we already have more than enough of these terribly destructive weapons. > > From me (Tim Sevener) : > > Increasing our nuclear weapons does NOT make us safer by any means. > > Lauri's reply: > As a matter of fact, it may in fact make us safer. The issues are still > not nearly as black and white as you would like them to be. Sorry! If increasing our nuclear weapons makes us safer, I would like to see your arguments for that proposition. Please consider that the history of the arms race shows that everytime *we* increase our weapons that the Soviets will also increase theirs. You will thus have to argue that allowing the other side to increase their weapons with no restraints is better than even rudimentary restraints which could ( and have) reduce the level of Soviet nuclear weapons aimed in our direction. Awaiting your reply, tim sevener whuxl!orb
emks@uokvax.UUCP (12/01/84)
/***** uokvax:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 7:11 pm Nov 26, 1984 */ >> ... The REAL question, and one that I'be never seen you address >> in a cool, rational manner, is how best do we prevent such a war from >> happening...Yeah, universal disarmament would be a gas, but IT JUST AIN'T >> GONNA HAPPEN, and you're just wasting your breath screaming about it. >> >> Peace yes, surrender, no... >> --- das [Here, here -ks] >David, >1)I have never supported unilateral disarmament, nor does the Nuclear Freeze > As I pointed out in an earlier posting people like RayGuns have made > inaccurate arguments that the US "unilaterally disarmed" during the 70's. > This is NOT TRUE. We increased our strategic warheads 2 1/2 times. > The Nuclear Freeze calls for BOTH SIDES to stop the arms race- now. > It does not call for either side to unilaterally disarm. > Do you have a better suggestion for stopping the arms race than stopping > the arms race? > I am tired of people who support an arms race arguing that people who > want both sides to stop the arms race advocate "unilateral disarmament" Yeah, Tim. And I am tired of people who live in a dream world supported by their own view of a Utopian world and insist that they are right and the rest of us are [tacitly] unreasonable. Why do you insist on using such emotional statements as "[we] call for BOTH SIDES to stop the arms race--now." First of all, we've heard and heard and heard this. I think by now we know what the stated aims of the nuclear freeze movement are. [BTW, my use of the phrase "stated aims" is not implying that there are "unstated aims"; it's merely my putting weight on the fact that they're stated.] It sounds to me that you're just trying to get the average American "riled up" enough to say "gee, I don't want any big bad bombs dropping on ME!" [and Reagan's folks are the "me" generation??!] That sort of attitude, which is irrespective of the politics of the situation, is more dangerous than any policy ever pursued by this or previous administrations. This is a REAL world, believe it or not, and we have to deal with it in a REAL way. Baloons in Moscow don't cut it. They're just a bunch of hot air. >2)Milo IS arguing that nuclear war would NOT be an unimaginable and > unprecedented catastrophe for the Soviet Union. Somehow Milo thinks they > could *win* a nuclear war and would thus be undeterred from waging one. > I think that is a very dangerous and untenable position. It is also untrue. > That is why I have continued to point out the horrors of Nuclear War. Yeah. Um, I'm kind of curious why you don't think we could fight and win a nuclear war, Tim? We already have. I don't mean that as a trite response. Instead, I mean that "nuclear war" should not be instantly interpreted as "total release of NUWEPs," "cleaning out of the arsenals," or a more layman-ish term "pushing the button." I'm not necessarily saying that we SHOULD cross the much-talked-about nuclear threshold, but it doesn't mean that the entire world would become a flaming cinder that would fall into the sun or something. And after reading net.politics for a while, that's the sort of thing I'd expect would happen! >3)I think there are many rational proposals that have in fact already been > negotiated by past American Presidents--why hasn't Reagan done anything > to ratify those agreements? Unless things have changed, Presidents don't ratify treaties. I know he *could* try to muster support on the Hill, but there's very little enthusi- asm there, too. >tim sevener whuxl!orb kurt <emks@uokvax.UUCP>
david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (12/02/84)
> Please consider that the history of > the arms race shows that everytime *we* increase our weapons that the > Soviets will also increase theirs. You will thus have to argue that > allowing the other side to increase their weapons with no restraints > is better than even rudimentary restraints which could ( and have) > reduce the level of Soviet nuclear weapons aimed in our direction. > tim sevener whuxl!orb To quote Harold Brown on the peculiar dynamic of this "arms race:" When we build, the Soviets build. When we stop building, the Soviets build. Virtually every study I've read concerning the effects of American strategic behavior (both arms-building and arms-controlling) on Soviet behavior comes to the same conclusion: no causal linkage can plausibly be inferred. .. Yes, Tim, awareness of the "history of the arms race" is useful. You might consider acquiring some... Sheesh! --- das