esk@wucs.UUCP (10/03/84)
[] About 10 days ago, columnist Marianne Means attacked Reagan for statements such as that "politics and morality are inseparable". She goes on: >> The other day he [Reagan] claimed a "moral purpose" for his foreign >> policy and defended his plan to extend military defense into space by >> saying he had a "moral obligation" to do it. >> There it was again, the clear implication that those who oppose his >> policies are immoral or at least amoral. This implication exists only in Means's oversensitive mind. >> But national policies are legitimately the subject of debate and >> dissent ... And morals aren't?? >> The argument over Star Wars has nothing to do with morality. GAK!! I don't believe I'm actually reading this in a major newspaper! If the potential destruction of civilization is not a moral issue, what on earth is??!! If (contrary to fact) a Star Wars defense could guarantee that no cities or civilizations would die in nuclear war, we MOST CERTAINLY *WOULD* have an obligation to pursue it! "Politics and morality are inseparable." For once, Reagan was dead right. --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.
orb@whuxk.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/05/84)
I have to agree that Marianne Means was totally wrong to claim that debate over nuclear arms is not a moral issue. However I also think that there is justification to criticism of Reagan's attempt to ally private morality with public politics. The key distinction there is between moral issues which involve each individual's own choice of lifestyle and proper behavior versus moral issues which involve society in general. Whether individuals decide to go to Church, to pray, to eat meat, or to eat only kosher foods are matters which are between them and their own conscience. If somebody is trying to lead a religious life and part of that religious life is considered to be going to church (as Reagan does NOT do) then it is commendable if they live up to the strictures of their private beliefs. However whether they wish to go to church or pray, or bless their meals is a matter for them to decide. Not for me or anyone to decide for anyone else. Personally I feel that most drug consumption whether of tobacco, alcohol, sleeping pills or other outlawed drugs is also a matter for the individual to decide--to the extent their actions don't directly harm others. (Smokers who force nonsmokers to inhale their noxious fumes are thereby interfering with non-smokers rights to a certain extent) But issues such as nuclear war are eminently public--we are talking not just about the American public but the future of the whole human race. If that is not a moral issue, I don't know what is. I think on that basis I would consider the Reagan administrations plans to fight a protracted nuclear war immoral. There is no justification that I can see for implementing a system to allow nuclear war to be fought for weeks, months or years after an initial allout nuclear exchange-- if there is ANY chance for human survival we should not jeopardize it by continuing to lob nukes at the other side for sheer vengeance sake! Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (10/06/84)
> >> The argument over Star Wars has nothing to do with morality. > > GAK!! I don't believe I'm actually reading this in a major newspaper! If > the potential destruction of civilization is not a moral issue, what on earth > is??!! If (contrary to fact) a Star Wars defense could guarantee that no > cities or civilizations would die in nuclear war, we MOST CERTAINLY *WOULD* > have an obligation to pursue it! See, your "(contrary to fact)" is the whole argument. Many experts believe that the Star Wars defense plans would be unstabilizing, and some believe the opposite. Are you saying that the way to figure out who is right is to look deeply into our souls and see what our conscience tells us about relative values of different technologies? The only thing that IS a moral issue is something that is pretty obvious -- nuclear war is bad. So after you provide the experts with this information, please let them decide how best to avoid it without your interference. (Unless, of course, you are prepared to discuss the matter on a technical level.) Wayne
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (10/09/84)
> The key distinction there is between moral issues > which involve each individual's own choice of lifestyle and proper > behavior versus moral issues which involve society in general. > But issues such as nuclear war are eminently public--we are talking not > just about the American public but the future of the whole human race. > If that is not a moral issue, I don't know what is. You are missing a few important points -- morals are SUBJECTIVE. That means that there can be no such thing as "public" moral issues that the government should be dictating to us. I am thinking of things like abortion and religon when I use the term. Nuclear war, however, is not a moral issue, because whether somebody wants to destroy the human race is not a relativistic thing. It is something that no sane person would want to do, and thus is beyond the moral level, it is a basic fact of human psychology. Calling it a moral issue just confuses it with the Moral Majority and what they call "moral" issues. > I think on that basis I would consider the Reagan administrations plans > to fight a protracted nuclear war immoral. There is no justification that I > can see for implementing a system to allow nuclear war to be fought for > weeks, months or years after an initial allout nuclear exchange-- > if there is ANY chance for human survival we should not jeopardize it > by continuing to lob nukes at the other side for sheer vengeance sake! > Tim Sevener You don't think very clearly, do you? Nuclear weapons aren't made so that we can USE them, they're made because we DON'T WANT to use them. (Now, think about that a bit...) If you believe that Reagan really wants to fight a nuclear war, you must not be making much of an effort to understand the factors really at work in international politics. Wayne
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/10/84)
> > > I think on that basis I would consider the Reagan administrations plans > > to fight a protracted nuclear war immoral. There is no justification that I > > can see for implementing a system to allow nuclear war to be fought for > > weeks, months or years after an initial allout nuclear exchange-- > > if there is ANY chance for human survival we should not jeopardize it > > by continuing to lob nukes at the other side for sheer vengeance sake! > > Tim Sevener > > You don't think very clearly, do you? Nuclear weapons aren't made so > that we can USE them, they're made because we DON'T WANT to use them. > (Now, think about that a bit...) If you believe that Reagan really > wants to fight a nuclear war, you must not be making much of an effort > to understand the factors really at work in international politics. > > Wayne I do not believe that Reagan WANTS to fight a nuclear war. I do believe that he supports the plans put out by the Defense Dept. in 1982-- that the US be prepared to fight and win both limited and protracted nuclear war. The quandary of nuclear weapons is well-spelled out by Jonathan Schell in the Fate of the Earth. Yes, nuclear weapons are made NOT to be used under the doctrine of deterrence. But at the same time you must convince your opponent that they WILL be used. This means you must also be prepared to use them --which means that in fact they MAY be used in calling your opponent's bluff. But this is under the doctrine of deterrence-that both sides have enough nuclear weapons to totally wipe out the other side. This assumes that you accept the proposition that both sides would be totally wiped out in a nuclear war. There are members of the Reagan administration, and very probably Reagan himself who don't believe that proposition. The Undersecretary of Defense, T.K. Jones told a Senate committee that all that was necessary to survive a nuclear attack was to have a shovel to dig a hole with. Dig the hole, jump into it and one wouldhave an excellent chance of survival. Gen. Graham told a Senate committee that standing behind lilac bushes was an effective talisman against nuclear war. One would think such an outrageous statement would lead to resignation as Watt's remarks finally led to his resignation. But no, T.K. Jones is still an Undersecretary of Defense helping to set policy on nuclear arms in the Reagan administration. Reagan himself told Robert Scheer of the LA Times (his interview is in the book, "Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War") that he believed the Russians had an effective civil defense program that would save half their population and even allow their factories to keep working. Yes, the Soviets have a civil defense program still extant from many years ago. No, there is no evidence that they have vast underground factories set up to keep industries going. They have enough trouble keeping their industries going above ground! The latest and scariest evidence that the Reagan administration is preparing for protracted nuclear war is the article last week in the New York Times, noted elsewhere in this newsgroup. This article details the Pentagon's plans to dig caverns deep underground and keep a reserve of nuclear weapons, in addition to the triad already in place. These weapons would be incapable of being fired in an immediate nuclear attack--they would be buried and protected so deep underground that they could not be fired in a nuclear attack--hence they are not a deterrent in the usual sense. Instead they would only be used many weeks AFTER a nuclear attack had already taken place as tunnels were burrowed to the surface allowing these weapons to be fired in vengeance after both sides have already devastated each other. The assumption of course is that there will be something left to fire at, and that there is some point to such madness. The assumption is that, not only could we have a nuclear war but we could and should be prepared to continue fighting one for weeks and months. If you believe that we can survive a nuclear war this makes sense-- it implies nuclear warfare is merely an extension of conventional warfare and the more we can throw at them and the longer we can keep fighting the better. I don't think many reasonable people believe that. Do you believe that we can survive nuclear war by digging holes and jumping into them? How many casualties do you think an allout nuclear exchange will cause? Do you think we should prepare to fight a nuclear war as if it were conventional warfare? Apparently the Reagan administration believes nuclear warfare is only slightly nastier than conventional warfare. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/14/84)
Ok Tim, I have just about had it. All this talk that a nuclear war would not leave survivors is pure BS! You talk about Reagan stating thatover 50% of Soviet population would survive and you say this is ludicrous. You are dead wrong. Please show me some figures to support your claim!!! I have given several sources for my assertion that Soviet casulaties after a US retaliation would be low. Where are yours staing the contrary. All the talk about blowing up the world 12 times over must have been started by somebody who is a Soviet agent, this sort of stuff is totally off base and anyone in the business will tell you so. Heck, even McNamara said that we could only kill 20% back in the 60's, and we have cut our throweight enormously since then! His claim was that that was enough to deter. Now that is a matter for debate, but those figures which show Soviet casualties anywhere near US casualties are ridiculous. I want to see FACTS and NUMBERS!!! Milo
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (10/14/84)
> Ok Tim, I have just about had it. All this talk that a nuclear war > would not leave survivors is pure BS! You talk about Reagan stating > thatover 50% of Soviet population would survive and you say this > is ludicrous. You are dead wrong. I think that this argument is drifting in the direction of "nuclear war is winnable". So what if 50% of the people aloive today would survive? Having 50% of your population killed (or any number of this magnitude) is NOT winning a war. And this is aside from theories of nuclear winter, which is certainly not freezenik soviet propaganda.... Wayne
wall@ucbvax.ARPA (Steve Wall) (10/14/84)
I don't know much of the details about the nuclear arms race, mostly because I get fed up with arguments like "they have 10,000 type A bombs and we only have 6,000 type A bombs..", but someone mentioned whether people would survive a worldwide nuclear war. The claim was that some people would survive, which could be true, BUT: If some people did survive, the world that they would find themselves living in would hardly resemble the world we live in now. Clearly, the chance of starvation from lack of food and the problems that would arise when the atmosphere is weakend by the nuclear exchange would prove disasterous for those people who did survive. Our water would be poisoned, our land would be poisoned, and the farming equipment that we use for cultivation would be destroyed during the exchange. Especially with our dependence on international trade and exchange patterns that currently exist for much of our food, would not our food supply be threatened, if not destroyed? Also, on a more sociological approach. Do we really think that our current type of government would still be intact following a nuclear exchange? It seems clear that most of our government institutions would be destroyed, and the organization that our government is dependent and based on would be gone. I can't imagine there being an emergency session of Congress called the day after a nuclear exhcange! Our entire government would be in shambles. There would be chaos everywhere. And lastly, those areas that were victims of the nuclear exchange would be useless for thousands of years. Can we live without the San Jouquin (sp?) Valley and the Midwest breadbasket? What about the livestock that is subjected to radiation? Clearly our electrical, gas, and communications networks would be damaged or destroyed. Like I said above, I don't claim to be an expert on the nuclear issue. These thoughts come from more common sense (my common sense anyway). I don't trust theories or predictions as to the result of a nuclear war because there are too many factors that cannot be quantified and there is plenty of room for error. The only way to be safe is to never let a nuclear war happen. What was that quote from Einstein when the first atomic bomb was set off? Something like, "Everything has changed except man's way of thinking." Steve Wall wall@ucbarpa ..!ucbvax!wall
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/15/84)
Wayne, I am disputing the casualty figures, not stating that a nuclear war can be fought and won. Certainly, even 10% casualties would create massive disruption of society. But what constitutes a victory in this arena is very unclear. My mind is not made up on whether or not such a war is winnable. Rather, I would prefer to avoid finding out. However, the Soviets believe it is winnable, and regardless of what the truth is, we must deal with them on what their perceptions are. Dealing with people without taking into account fundamentally different assumptions about strategy is a VERY dangerous thing to do. This is somewhat relatied to my feelings about Nuclear Winter. That is, while it may be true (which I am not conceeding), the leadership of a major government will not use this as the basis for any sort of policy, unless they are sure it is a real effect. Unfortunatly, there is only one way to know for sure. I should point out I have looked at the study, and while they make some dubious assumptions, I dont consider it a shoddy piece of work. But it isnt the gospel truth either, and hopefully noone will ever know. I've worked on simulations myself, regarding laser design and blast wave modeling, and I can tell you its not a very accurate game for the most part. My point is, if nobody believes it, for this sort of debate, its inconsequential, because if its true, theres not anything you can do about it, but if its not, there's still some hope. I think a lot more research needs to be done in this field, but right now, its a pretty tenuous sort of thing. As for survival if its not true, mankind has a remarkable way of adapting to his environment. Clearly, there would be significant amounts of survivors, whether they would remain as one cohesive political entity is another issue. Also, I just noticed that all of the poeple engaging in this discussion are men. I am rather curious as to why women arent participating. I would imagine this newsgroup is read by a significant fraction of females as opposed to males... Milo
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/15/84)
Steve, you have fallen into a common trap. That is of assuming that Soviet society and economy is similar to ours. As I said before, the US, if hit in a countervalue strike, would probably lose 90-94% of our population, because we are so urbanized. Our economy would be totally destroyed, all forms of transport from farms (some which would be intact) would be wiped out. All major financial institutions destroyed, and most communications shattered. For the US, we would cease to exist as a national entity. I dont claim the US could survive a Soviet countervalue strike. The question is if the USSR could,survive the US retaliatory strike and here I believe it has a good chance of doing so. I guess I am saying that for the US, a nuclear war is unwinnable unless we could prevent such a strike, which would be a very difficult thing to do indeed. Milo
medin@ucbvax.UUCP (10/15/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxe.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Message-ID: <2534@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Sun, 14-Oct-84 18:49:53 EDT vax.ARPA> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 20 Steve, you have fallen into a common trap. That is of assuming that Soviet society and economy is similar to ours. As I said before, the US, if hit in a countervalue strike, would probably lose 90-94% of our population, because we are so urbanized. Our economy would be totally destroyed, all forms of transport from farms (some which would be intact) would be wiped out. All major financial institutions destroyed, and most communications shattered. For the US, we would cease to exist as a national entity. I dont claim the US could survive a Soviet countervalue strike. The question is if the USSR could,survive the US retaliatory strike and here I believe it has a good chance of doing so. I guess I am saying that for the US, a nuclear war is unwinnable unless we could prevent such a strike, which would be a very difficult thing to do indeed. Milo
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/17/84)
> Ok Tim, I have just about had it. All this talk that a nuclear war > would not leave survivors is pure BS! You talk about Reagan stating > thatover 50% of Soviet population would survive and you say this > is ludicrous. You are dead wrong. > Milo Unfortunately you are *dead* wrong. Here is description of the effects of the Hiroshima bomb of "only" 13 kilotons, earlier replies have said that our submarine launched warheads at "only" 40 kilotons, would hardly dent Soviet society or cities: (from "Fate of the Earth" by Schell): ************************************************************************* "It is no exaggeration," the authors of "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" tell us, "to say that the whole city was ruined instantaneously." In that instant, tens of thousands of people were burned, blasted, and crushed to death. Other tens of thousands suffered injuries of every description or were doomed to die of radiation sickness. The center of the city was flattened, and every part of the city was damaged. The trunks of bamboo trees as far away as five miles from ground zero--were charred. Almost half the trees within a mile and a quarter were knocked down. Windows nearly seventeen miles away were broken. Half an hour after the blast, fires set by the thermal pulse and by the collapse of the buildings began to coalesce into a firestorm, which lasted for six hours. Starting about 9AM and lasting until late afternoon, a "black rain" generated by the bomb( otherwise the day was fair) fell on the western portions of the city, carrying radioactive fallout from the blast to the ground. For four hours at midday, a violent whirlwind, born of the strange meteorological conditions produced by the explosion, further devastated the city. The number of people who were killed outright or who died of their injuries over the next three months is estimated to be one hundred and thirty thousand. Sixty-eight percent of the buildings in the city were either completely destroyed or damaged beyond repair, and the center of the city was turned into a flat, rubble-strewn plain dotted with the ruins of a few of the sturdier buildings. ...Those within a mile and a quarter of ground zero had also been subjected to intense nuclear radiation, often in lethal doses. *************************************************************************** The world now has one million, six hundred thousand times this destructive power. Can we survive its use? Who will come to aid the cities destroyed as they aided Hiroshima's victims when all cities to the level of 15,000 people are destroyed? What will happen to those cities which very likely will have their nuclear power plants bombed and spewing forth plutonium and other deadly radioactive isotopes? Face the facts, we CAN blow up the world. What do we do about it? Continue to produce nuclear arms until we have one BILLION times the destructive power of Hiroshima? Extend nuclear conflict into space? continue to make the nuclear fuse shorter and shorter, until machines are the only thing quick enough to spark a quick nuclear retaliation? Think about it ........tim sevener whuxl!orb
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/19/84)
Granted the Soviet govt is highly centralized, and there would indeed be a power vaccuum after an exchange. But the party is also fairly distributed, though its leadership is not. I can imagine the party bosses of local areas that survived taking control over their districts. Also, in a first strike, do you really think the leadership is all going to be in one place just waiting to get hit? I think they recognize the shortcomings of their system, and take measures. Their govt at least will have a large majority of the population to govern at least. Milo
medin@ucbvax.UUCP (10/19/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxe.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Message-ID: <2677@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 19:45:48 EDT <2534@ucbvax.UUCP> <2907@mit-eddie.UUCP> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 13 Granted the Soviet govt is highly centralized, and there would indeed be a power vaccuum after an exchange. But the party is also fairly distributed, though its leadership is not. I can imagine the party bosses of local areas that survived taking control over their districts. Also, in a first strike, do you really think the leadership is all going to be in one place just waiting to get hit? I think they recognize the shortcomings of their system, and take measures. Their govt at least will have a large majority of the population to govern at least. Milo