simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/21/84)
[The finger on the button is Yours!]
(The following is a revised version of a mail response to a correspon-
dent who questioned my statement that nuclear weapons are not a problem).
To expess it a bit differently, these (and all other) weapons exist
because of attitudes of attack/defend in the minds of nearly everyone. The
problem I have with freezes, the gesture at Brown U. and other such things
is that they focus the energy of the protest on the hardware - things,
rather than human attitudes, perceptions, and policies.
If you want to see the real threats to world peace, forget Washington
and Moscow and all the rest; look at most any neighborhood. Observe the two
families who exchanged a few cross words once, and haven't spoken since.
See the father teaching his son that it is "unmanly" to decline to fight
when challenged. See the almost universal inability to say to those who
hurt us, that we are above the pain, and we forgive - automatically, NO
MATTER WHAT.
It's much more fun to join a mob and carry picket signs. It's excit-
ing, and creates a feeling of "doing something". But, beyond doubt, the
"peace" demonstrator who bears in his mind and heart hatred for anyone,
including those on the other side of the issue, or police and the military,
is a pure hypocrite, nothing more.
Summarizing: the only significant progress in world peace will come
when there is no longer any inclination to build weapons - not due to fear
of their consequences, but rather a total absence of any sense of needing
them.
And you won't get rid of nuclear weapons until you get rid of brass
knuckles. When people learn it's not losing face to make peace with those
with whom they are feuding even when (or *especially* when) they "know damn
well it's their fault", when all the myriad minor attack/defend scenarios
that play out daily are released because at least one party refuses to feel
attacked, and therefore does not defend, when starting gossip, attacking
character, or building advantage on someone else's misfortune becomes as
generally unthinkable as streaking your neighborhood church - only then will
the (ostensible) goals of the peace movement come to fruition.
Peace begins at home. Let's start a peace movement there, where it
counts.
--
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
...Though we may sometimes disagree,
You are still a friend to me!orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/28/84)
>From Ray Simard: > [The finger on the button is Yours!] > To expess it a bit differently, these (and all other) weapons exist > because of attitudes of attack/defend in the minds of nearly everyone. The > problem I have with freezes, the gesture at Brown U. and other such things > is that they focus the energy of the protest on the hardware - things, > rather than human attitudes, perceptions, and policies. > > See the father teaching his son that it is "unmanly" to decline to fight > when challenged. See the almost universal inability to say to those who > hurt us, that we are above the pain, and we forgive - automatically, NO > MATTER WHAT. > Summarizing: the only significant progress in world peace will come > when there is no longer any inclination to build weapons - not due to fear > of their consequences, but rather a total absence of any sense of needing > them. > > .... When people learn it's not losing face to make peace with those > with whom they are feuding ... > the (ostensible) goals of the peace movement come to fruition. > > Peace begins at home. Let's start a peace movement there, where it > counts. Yes, it is true that hateful attitudes are a major cause of war. In order to help dispell such attitudes Roger Mollander had a VERY good suggestion: instead of spending a billion dollars on some new weapon spend it on an exchange program between the US and USSR so both sides will realize the other side is not demonic but merely human. When you become friends with your "enemies" you come to have a different attitude towards them. As far as promoting "peace at home" I have my own suggestion: replace policemen's guns with tranquilizer devices. Of course this is the type of "hardware" solution Ray says doesn't work. But it is NOT simply a matter of hardware- our total reliance on hardware solutions such as guns and nuclear weapons to social conflicts reflects a basic attitude towards violence: namely that the only way to prevent violence is to threaten more violence. By moving away from this type of solution towards methods which actually can *prevent* violence without merely increasing violence we are showing how the world *can* begin to do without such violent means. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" tim sevener whuxl!orb
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (11/29/84)
We all agree that world peace will only come when human attitudes change. THe problem is, will there be any humans around that long? Nuclear war is quite possibly the long-awaited war to end all wars. Faced with that threat, we do not have the luxury of waiting for the redemption of human nature. Yes, we can sit and mull over the human condition, searching for the perfect solution; we can, as Jonathan Schell put it, "doze our way to the end of the world." Or we can act. Short-term solutions are required in response to the (very real) threat of nuclear war. Those who claim that nuclear war isn't going to happen because it hasn't happened in forty years are idealists. I don't share their optimistic view. Neither, apparently, do the 80% of Americans who support a mutual, verifiable Freeze. Former Defense Department analysts, and even a former CIA chief, support the Freeze; perhaps they qualify as well-enough informed for those who consider most of us blithering idiots. As to the oft-repeated claim that Freeze supporters concentrate on pressuring the U.S., not the U.S.S.R., that's because we believe in America. We think the best hope for initiatives comes from the U.S. The U.S.S.R. pursues an essentially paranoid foreign and military policy and is unlikely to make any bold initiatives, although I do think they will negotiate treaties that are in their interest, which the Freeze is; it also is clearly in the interest of the U.S. No one I know ignores the SS-20s and other Soviet weapons. Yes, they are dangerous; so are Pershings and Cruise. It may take two to tango, but it only takes one to lead. I don't know how to pressure the Soviet leadership. I am an American, and I know quite well how to pressure my own government. I think it is very unfair to suggest that Freeze supporters are somehow pro-Soviet. We are Americans pressuring our own government. Europeans are pressuring their govern- ments to refuse to cooperate with American policy on this issue. To call people involved in these issues "loud mouths" suggests, to me, a profound intolerance of dissent. Mike Kelly