orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/20/84)
> If the weapons are in Western Europe, it is because the elected heads of > state of these countries saw fit to have them put there. If it were truly > against the self-interest of Western Europe to have the missles there, > the European governments wouldn't allow it. And I'm sure that the leaders > of the governments understand the situation a lot better than most of > the knee-jerk pacifists who have been making most of the protests. > Wayne It is the past "wisdom" of such leaders that led to World Wars I and II. We should realize that there is a VERY important difference between this missile deployment and past missile deployments in Europe--in the past the host country always possessed one key which was needed to fire the weapons. In that way BOTH Germany and the US for example would have to agree to begin a nuclear war by launching these weapons. But now the US *only* has the key: which means that Reagan could unilaterally decide to fry all of Europe with no veto power from the European gov'ts. How would Americans like foreign gov'ts having such decisive power over us? tim sevener whuxl!orb
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/21/84)
But the West Germans don't WANT a key to the new Cruise missiles and
Pershings! Such a move would defeat the purpose of attempting to "link"
US and European nuclear defenses: the Soviets could credibly threaten
to retaliate ONLY against the FRG if the missiles were used. By having
ONLY the US hold any keys, the Soviets would be forced to escalate
against the whole of NATO, rather than just against the FRG, thus
risking US cities to deter a conventional attack on West Germany.
Besides which, the Soviet Union has made it abundantly clear that it
would consider German control of nuclear weapons a grave violation of
treaty, and perhaps even a causus belli.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidorb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/26/84)
> But the West Germans don't WANT a key to the new Cruise missiles and > Pershings! Such a move would defeat the purpose of attempting to "link" > US and European nuclear defenses: the Soviets could credibly threaten > to retaliate ONLY against the FRG if the missiles were used. By having > ONLY the US hold any keys, the Soviets would be forced to escalate > against the whole of NATO, rather than just against the FRG, thus > risking US cities to deter a conventional attack on West Germany. > > Besides which, the Soviet Union has made it abundantly clear that it > would consider German control of nuclear weapons a grave violation of > treaty, and perhaps even a causus belli. > > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david The Germans already have VETO power over the use of previously deployed nuclear weapons on their soil. This does not mean they control such weapons but only that they *must agree to their use* ! This is important and to me represents a far more reasonable way of "linking" and sharing nuclear capability within NATO than with the newly deployed cruise missiles which take away this important veto power of European governments. Is NATO only the United States? Should the US have the power to unilaterally decide to launch European missiles without any consultation with Europe? How does that make NATO stronger? The fact is the cruise missile deployment has been a major issue leading to conflict within NATO and to severe discontent of a large portion of the European citizenry with their governments. Rather than making NATO stronger it has made it weaker. Because the US can fire European missiles unilaterally does not make it any more likely that US cities will be involved in a European nuclear war. (except insofar as such missiles strike Russian territory, which they are capable of doing) Rather it makes it possible for both sides to fire missiles from their European allies without any consultation with those allies. Because Russia can unilaterally decide to fire the nuclear weapons of the Warsaw Pact does not mean the US should have the same power. Or have we given up on the idea of democracy and true cooperation among Western nations? tim sevener whuxl!orb
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (11/27/84)
>> If the weapons are in Western Europe, it is because the elected heads of >> state of these countries saw fit to have them put there. >> Wayne > >It is the past "wisdom" of such leaders that led to World Wars I and II. >tim sevener whuxl!orb Tim, i'm surprised at you for making such an obviously untrue stmt. You are usually very clever at distorting the facts. Perhaps you just weren't thinking when you let this slip thru. First of all, both Wayne and you are making a mistake by putting the responsibility for the "weapons in Western Europe" on the leaders. As Wayne stated, they're elected. It is the wisdom (insert your own quote marks as you see fit) of the *people*. In last year's elections, the anti-defense groups made the election a mandate on the Pershing missle issue. The people elected leaders who would act to install them. The circumstances leading to WWI had nothing to do with a build-up of weapons, and little to do with "wisdom" of the leaders. WWI started very sloppily. I refer you to "The Guns of August" by Margaret Tuchman. WWII started because the leaders of the past did *not* have the wisdom to keep their country prepared to defend itself, both in terms of modern and plentiful weaponry, and in terms of morale. The type of thinking Wayne refers to, if applied to 1937 Europe, would have *prevented* WWII. It was the *opposite* thinking that led to WWII. sdcrdcf!alan
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/27/84)
===============
European governments. Is NATO only the United States? Should the US
....
Or have we given up on the idea of democracy and true cooperation among
Western nations?
tim sevener whuxl!orb
==============
Apparently yes, at least since the day a couple of years ago when
NATO voted 16-1 (US being the 1) on some issue, and the next day the
President's emissary was off to Brussels "To try to get our allies
to conform to NATO policy."
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtorb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/28/84)
> sdcdcf!alan writes: > The circumstances leading to WWI had nothing to do with a build-up of > weapons, and little to do with "wisdom" of the leaders. WWI started > very sloppily. I refer you to "The Guns of August" by Margaret Tuchman. > If World War I had nothing to do with a mutual buildup of weapons and entangling alliances, with the desire of Germany to get in on the other European powers colonialism, what did it have to do with? George Kennan just wrote a book about the origins of World War I which he ends by explicitly suggesting an analogy with our present nuclear age. None of the great powers wanted WW I -- but they were not willing to take reasonable steps to avoid war. > WWII started because the leaders of the past did *not* have the wisdom > to keep their country prepared to defend itself, both in terms of > modern and plentiful weaponry, and in terms of morale. The type of > thinking Wayne refers to, if applied to 1937 Europe, would have > *prevented* WWII. It was the *opposite* thinking that led to WWII. > Again, you don't suppose that the Versailles Treaty which forced Germany to pay enormous war reparations had anything to do with the rebirth of a vengeful German nationalism under Hitler? In this case Woodrow Wilson was a strong voice for restraint by Britain and France in exacting revenge on Germany for World War I. Unfortunately he could not prevent them from extracting enormous reparation payments anyway. Those reparation payment helped foster the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic and focussed people's discontent on Britain and France. Just as Americans focussed their resentment on Iran and other Middle Eastern nations after the oil crisis, people tend to seek a scapegoat outside themselves for their problems. Unfortunately in the case of Germany after WWI there was some justification for blaming Britain and France. tim sevener whuxl!orb
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (11/28/84)
> > > >It is the past "wisdom" of such leaders that led to World Wars I and II. > >tim sevener whuxl!orb > > Tim, i'm surprised at you for making such an obviously untrue stmt. You > are usually very clever at distorting the facts. Perhaps you just weren't > thinking when you let this slip thru. What??!? I seem to recall that Germany, Austria, and Russia did not have elected leaders. The people of just about any nation don't want war, but leaders can always drag them into one (this is a paraphrase of a statement by Hermann Goering at the Nuremburg trials). > > First of all, both Wayne and you are making a mistake by putting the > responsibility for the "weapons in Western Europe" on the leaders. As > Wayne stated, they're elected. It is the wisdom (insert your own > quote marks as you see fit) of the *people*. In last year's elections, > the anti-defense groups made the election a mandate on the Pershing > missle issue. The people elected leaders who would act to install them. > No election is decided on one issue alone. As in America, the big issue was handling the domestic economy (according to the political analyses I read at the time of the W. German elections). But the left did better than they otherwise might have because of the missle issue. The difficulty of having the people fairly represented on all issues is a big failing of the typical Western "vote every four years" system of democracy. Democracy (with a capital D) must be preserved and extended, but it must also evolve. > The circumstances leading to WWI had nothing to do with a build-up of > weapons, and little to do with "wisdom" of the leaders. WWI started > very sloppily. I refer you to "The Guns of August" by Margaret Tuchman. Exactly. It had to do with leaders being unwilling to back down from their alliances because they did not want to lose face. Exactly as nuclear arms talks today are mostly about how not to lose face, and fighting to make the fewest concessions for chest beating purposes. > > WWII started because the leaders of the past did *not* have the wisdom > to keep their country prepared to defend itself, both in terms of > modern and plentiful weaponry, and in terms of morale. The type of > thinking Wayne refers to, if applied to 1937 Europe, would have > *prevented* WWII. It was the *opposite* thinking that led to WWII. > Perhaps. With WWI, all nations were heavily armed, and an approximate balance of power did nothing to stop the onset of the war. WWII MAY not have started if the balance had been more toward the allies. It would behoove us to remember the lessons of BOTH wars, which should lead to the conclusion that negotiated reduction of arms without disturbing balance of power relations MUST occur in order to insure the ecological safety of the planet. Increased scientific, cultural, and economic sharing and inter- dependency would also help to reduce international tensions which lead to conflicts. It will be a very narrow path to tread, perhaps, but it's the only way out I see. Deterance will not work forever. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of my employers. Madison Academic Computing Center ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!myers
kevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders) (11/29/84)
In article <> alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) writes: >WWII started because the leaders of the past did *not* have the wisdom >to keep their country prepared to defend itself, both in terms of >modern and plentiful weaponry, and in terms of morale. The type of I guess you never heard of the Maginot Line (which was the 1930's equivalent of the Strategic Defense Initiative in both scale and military usefulness) and are unaware that a massive world-wide arms buildup preceded WWII, starting around 1937. The problem was not a lack of money, but the fact that military and political leaders prepared for the last war. Alistair Horne's _1940: The Battle of France_ (? this title is not guaranteed correct) has offers some interesting insights into this period, including the possibility that French conservatives were more worried about the Popular Front than the Germans. Their post-1940 political behavior seems to bear this notion out. The Best Defense is a Strong Offense, sadly enough, Kevin Eric Saunders kevin.lasspvax@cornell.arpa