orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/26/84)
> Reagan may be many things, but you are really being absurd in accusing him > of actually desiring a nuclear war. Tell me, what sort of sentiments do > you think would motivate anybody to want such a thing? A desire to commit > suicide in the most dramatic way possible, maybe, but I doubt that Reagan > wants to do this... He's had four years to destroy the world and hasn't > managed it yet, has he? > > Wayne Of course it is absurd to think that Reagan "desires" a nuclear war. But what has he done to prevent one, to lessen the number of nuclear weapons threatening the planet, to keep the nuclear fuse from getting shorter? Nothing. Instead he has launched a full-scale nuclear arms race that makes the nuclear fuse shorter and shorter. The time to react to a nuclear attack is less today than it was four years ago. Kurt Vonnegutt spoke at Indiana University when I was there and gave a very good analogy. He said we had a major social problem in our society that was very much neglected but more dangerous than alchoholism, drunk driving or other forms of addictive behavior. It was the disease of the "chronic War Preparers". The chronic War Preparers are addicted to getting more and more arms--it really doesn't matter if they serve any purpose--they make them think of Parades and Heroism and playing War when they were kids. Just as alcoholics are always surprised and upset when their addiction leads to the inevitable hangover, so the chronic War Preparers are the first to be shocked when all their preparations for War, which seemed so grand and fun, actually lead to war! How did that happen? We didn't WANT a War! We just wanted to PREPARE for one! The parades were great but all these people actually getting killed.... how could that happen? It's not like it was in the movies! Ronald Reagan is a chronic War Preparer of the worst sort. It would be bad enough to constantly prepare for conventional War, but what Ronnie especially gets his kicks out of is preparing for the Big One. Thus just several weeks ago the Pentagon released its report to prepare not only for the Big One but for the Days, Weeks, Months After--in response to Reagan's administrations plans to be prepared to fight "protracted Nuclear War". First off this shows a shocking disregard for reality--after the Big One there will be very few people left, and ultimately it is extremely likely there may be none left. Thus this plan for "protracted nuclear war" illustrates the belief common in the Reagan administration that both sides will somehow "survive" an allout nuclear war. Secondly, to the extent there may POSSIBLY be anyone left, do we really want to prepare to REALLY wipe out the human race? I find this attitude and such Nuclear War Preparing very dangerous. But most of us will not wake up when this hangover is over.... Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/29/84)
Once again you show your gullibility for the emotional arguments on strategic policy. Kurt Vonnegut(sp?) is certainly no expert on strategy, and I wouldnt count his advice on such issues as worthwhile. Wars start when a sufficient ambiguity in the distribution of power exists. The US has never gotten in a war when its possible enemy was inferior or percieved inferior to the US. And this includes the judgement of national will. Thats the reason for our loss in Vietnam. Tet was a beautiful example of this. The VC were dessimated by the attack, but that victory was percieved as a loss, and the resulting withdrawl of national support resulted in our not fighting for victory, but fighting for a cessation of hostilities. I dont blame the press entirely for this, the President handled it wrong, and some of the military brass didnt do the best PR job either. But when you look at the power of a determined US, well equipped, we have maintained peace. Thats what the Reagan position is, and one which is borne out historically. So Tim, enough emotionism already, the issues are too important for that. Milo
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/29/84)
Certainly, expert testimony is valuable. However, Milo may set dangerous precedent by allowing ONLY observations from "experts" as admissable evidence. Under such circumstances, public policy would be determined by only a small group which may have interests differing from that of the public at large. This would be analagous to, say, allowing doctors to regulate themselves. Under such circumstances, doctors could restrict the number of openings in medical schools, thus creating a shortage of trained physicians and thus maintaining high salary levels for themselves. They could "discipline" themselves, thus removing their actions from public scrutiny. They could thwart any reform which might threaten their control of the medical market. I'm damn glad doctors can't do those things, and especially glad that even if there were an "Amercian Medical Association", that nuclear scientists are far superior morally and would not ever seek similar refuge from outside scrutiny. David Rubin
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (10/30/84)
ee, Dave, I think you forgot your tounge-in-cheek symbol at the end of your article refering to the AMA. We all know that he AMA is above reproach in dealing with its members, don't we?|-) Just like the BAR Association, they are very dilligent in rooting out the bad apples.:-) T. C. Wheeler
jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (10/31/84)
I hear a lot of people proposing that large stockpiles of nuclear
weapons are increasing the chances of a war. How can you justify this
belief given the fact that most of the wars occured before the invention
of nuclear weapons. This includes two "World Wars".
Granted the effects of a nuclear war would be longer lived. I am not
convinced that more people would be killed. A conventional WW3 could
easily kill as many people as a nuclear one. It would just take
longer.
Granted that the nuclear missiles make escelation faster. I am not
convinced that they make it more probable. Just read descriptions
of the events leading up to any war. There was always plenty of time to
consider events and take action to prevent war. The wars happened any
way. Wars happen and will continue to happen when people convince
themselves that it is to their advantage to go to war.
Another idea being discussed receintly is that the Russians are "just
nice people" and don't want war. We "nice Americans" broke our treaties
with the American Indians, napalmed civilians, and are the only nation
in the world to ever actually use nuclear weapons against people. If we
can overcome our "niceness" so can they. It just isn't a valid argument
concerning war.
Jerry Aguirre
{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerrydavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/31/84)
TC, you are quite right on this one. I forgot to put a "smiley face"
(aka :-)) on my references to a "fictional" organization of
physicians. Let me atone by putting one here....:-)
Have a nice day! :-)
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidmedin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (11/02/84)
Nuclear Weaponry and strategy are very complex things, and there is an air of emotionalism surrounding it. There is little emotionalism surrounding a case of the flu. As I've said before, I am for rationality and facts. ANyone coming to the table prepared to deal under those terms is welcome. People in the business tend to ignore those who dont. Milo
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/05/84)
Response to some remarks by Jerry Aguirre: > I hear a lot of people proposing that large stockpiles of nuclear > weapons are increasing the chances of a war. How can you justify this > belief given the fact that most of the wars occured before the invention > of nuclear weapons. This includes two "World Wars". > There are two aspects of the current nuclear arms race that increase the chances of a war. One is that arming to the teeth and cocking the trigger makes both sides more nervous and apt to take quick irrational responses. If both sides are whipping their citizens into a frenzy with fear of the other side in order to build more weapons then hotter rather than cooler heads are more likely to prevail. Both sides are more distrustful and suspicious of the other. Both sides point to the others arms buildup to justify their own. It was very stupid for the Russians to shoot down the KAL airliner. But such incidents become far more likely when both sides are on edge and moving away from agreements to limit nuclear weapons towards arming to produce and deploy more nuclear weapons. The second aspect that increases the chances of a war is that we ARE "cocking the trigger". Many Americans can remember our own sense of fear and dread when the Soviets stationed nuclear missiles in Cuba 90 miles away. We are currently stationing missiles in Europe which have the capability of hitting Moscow in 10 minutes. Reducing the time between when nuclear weapons are launched and when they hit their targets reduces the time to consider whether an attack should really be made in response to indications of an opposition attack. It makes the nuclear fuse shorter, just as cocking the trigger of a gun makes it far more likely to go off. > Granted the effects of a nuclear war would be longer lived. I am not > convinced that more people would be killed. A conventional WW3 could > easily kill as many people as a nuclear one. It would just take > longer. Some basic facts: the destructive power of ALL of World War 2 amounted to 3 megatons. The destructive power of the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia amount to 18,000 megatons-- 6000 World War 2's. This only considers sheer explosive power and does not include such effects as radioactivity, destruction of the ozone layer, the possibility of a Nuclear Winter, the fire storms that would be created by atomic blasts and wreak additional destruction. > > Just read descriptions > of the events leading up to any war. There was always plenty of time to > consider events and take action to prevent war. The wars happened any > way. Wars happen and will continue to happen when people convince > themselves that it is to their advantage to go to war. > NOW is the time to react to Reagan's arms buildup and try to stop us from moving headfirst into war. Before it is too late..... Tim Sevener whuxl!orb