nowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (Jerry Nowlin) (08/30/84)
Some of the people who oppose unilateral disarmament seem to be operating under two premises I disagree with. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong. First you seem to indicate that when we eliminate our nuclear arsenal the Soviets will try to blackmail us with theirs. Do you think Russia will say "Now that we have nothing to fear in retaliation you must do as we say or we will blow up New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles."? That's the kind of thinking that perpetuates the nuclear Mexican standoff. I don't advocate pulling all our NATO troops out of Europe. If the Soviets want to take over Europe or America they will still have to take it with guns and people. They'll only destroy it with nuclear weapons. Second you seem to think that Russian leaders are inherently bad. What makes you think a man or woman can't rise to power in a country as large and diverse as Russia without being evil? They have to manage industry, agriculture, and educational systems just as important as the military (more important to some people). They have mothers, fathers, siblings, children, and other family. What makes you think they're willing to throw all that away for the satisfaction of bombing away the American capitalists? Why can't we treat them the way we would like to be treated? Maybe they will reciprocate. > Are these the same Ruskies (sp?) that shot down a 747 full of innocent people > and never even said sorry? No. Neither are 99% of the other Russian citizens who live and work as normal people would in any country. Are you one of the lousy Americans that mined the Nicaraguan harbor? I think we could probably come with long lists of nasty things that both countries have done or condoned. Someone stated on the net that unilateral disarmament was a dangerous thing. Can it be more dangerous, to the world as a whole, than continuing to escalate a nuclear arms race? Lets get rid of these planet destroying weapons. Jerry Nowlin ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin
mzal@pegasus.UUCP (08/30/84)
Indented excerpts are from ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin:
First you seem to indicate that when we eliminate our nuclear
arsenal the Soviets will try to blackmail us with theirs. Do you
think Russia will say "Now that we have nothing to fear in
retaliation you must do as we say or we will blow up New York,
Chicago, and Los Angeles."?
In days of old, the Berlin blockade, Hungary, Poland, and
Czechoslovakia were ample evidence of the Russian willingness
to use force. During the Kennedy years, they tried to put
missles on Cuba. I suspect this had more to do with a wish
to establish a situation where they could threaten us, rather
than a desire to make work for Cubans.
Today, the Russians still use force in Afghanistan and still
use intimidation and blackmail in Poland. And yes, they shoot
down civilian airplanes. This should say something about their
standard military procedure.
This is not meant to excuse or make light of similar behavior
on our part. But realistically speaking, there does not seem
to be much reason to believe the Russians would not gradually
move in on anything they wanted if we unilaterally disarmed.
That's the kind of thinking that perpetuates the nuclear
Mexican standoff.
Well, I think the problem is a little more complex than that.
There are long standing suspicions on both sides and both
sides can be quite pigheaded and intransigent in their views.
Last week Reagen says something dumb, this week the Russians
say the arms talks are pointless.
Perhaps what is needed is a different approach to the arms
talks, where we keep the discussions private, avoid confrontation,
and listen more than we talk. It would no doubt help if we had
someone more moderate than Reagan as our president.
If the Soviets want to take over Europe or America they will still
have to take it with guns and people. They'll only destroy it with
nuclear weapons.
This is true, but suppose the Russians announce that they are
going to take over Europe and that any American intervention will
result in the destruction of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles?
(I.e. they will destroy the U.S., but only invade Europe.)
How long would European forces last without U.S. support?
Second you seem to think that Russian leaders are inherently bad.
What makes you think a man or woman can't rise to power in a
country as large and diverse as Russia without being evil?
Bad and evil are strong words. I think of them as using a different
set of guidlines on what they consider acceptable things for the
government to do. Also, I thought most Russian leaders are from
one part of Russia (in ancient times, the war mongers) rather than
from a diverse background.
They have to manage industry, agriculture, and educational systems
just as important as the military (more important to some people).
Mismanage might be a better word. Foreign consumer products are
highly sought there. How many times have they needed to buy food
from the United States to feed their people? Some reports suggest
that the military are just as bad.
They have mothers, fathers, siblings, children, and other family.
Did anyone accuse them of being sub-human or something?
What makes you think they're willing to throw all that away for the
satisfaction of bombing away the American capitalists?
Of course, if we are unable to retaliate against any Russian
attack, they are not risking throwing away anything.
Why can't we treat them the way we would like to be treated? Maybe
they will reciprocate.
I have yet to see any evidence that proves to me that the idea of
a unilateral disarmament will not lead to expanded Russian
domination of the world.
Let me end this note with a question. Does anyone know what the
Russians think of the nuclear winter theory? It seems to me that
if both sides believe this theory - regardless of whether or not
it is true - we could be well on our way to some sort of effective
arms agreements.
-- Mike^Z [allegra! , ihnp4! ] pegasus!mzal Zaleski@Rutgersmmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/31/84)
=============
Let me end this note with a question. Does anyone know what the
Russians think of the nuclear winter theory? It seems to me that
if both sides believe this theory - regardless of whether or not
it is true - we could be well on our way to some sort of effective
arms agreements.
=============
Who knows what "the Russians" think. Their Academy of Sciences presented
a report about the same time as the TTAPS report, coming to much the
same conclusions, and it was publicized internationally, so somebody
must accept the idea enough to get it through the censors.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtfaustus@ucbvax.UUCP (09/01/84)
> Some of the people who oppose unilateral disarmament seem to be operating > under two premises I disagree with. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong. > > First you seem to indicate that when we eliminate our nuclear arsenal the > Soviets will try to blackmail us with theirs. Do you think Russia will say > "Now that we have nothing to fear in retaliation you must do as we say or we > will blow up New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles."? Yes, they will do this. Why do you think that all of the Eastern European states are all so terrified of the USSR? They do make threats like this, and when provoked they carry them out. They have invaded several countries that didn't do as they wanted without any qualms, and the only reason that they haven't used nukes is that it is clearly not worth the trouble when you are talking about Hungary, for instance. > That's the kind of > thinking that perpetuates the nuclear Mexican standoff. I don't advocate > pulling all our NATO troops out of Europe. If the Soviets want to take over > Europe or America they will still have to take it with guns and people. > They'll only destroy it with nuclear weapons. Look at is this way -- the government controls the country, and the government surely doesn't want New York and Washington bombed. If threatened, they would comply with USSR demands. The idea of "freedom fighters" hiding in the Colorado mountains sniping at Soviet troops is a romanticized and unlikely scenario. > Second you seem to think that Russian leaders are inherently bad. What makes > you think a man or woman can't rise to power in a country as large and diverse > as Russia without being evil? They have to manage industry, agriculture, and > educational systems just as important as the military (more important to some > people). They have mothers, fathers, siblings, children, and other family. > What makes you think they're willing to throw all that away for the > satisfaction of bombing away the American capitalists? I don't want to explain the motivations of the Russian leadership, but just remember that most of the people around now lived through Stalin's purges. To have survived the purges, you either had to be very lucky or very ruthless. The character of Russian politics didn't change much after Stalin, either -- there were no more purges, but to achieve anything you had to be ruthless and cunning. The state of the non-military sectors of the USSR should be evidence enough that competence is not a requisite for advancement. > Why can't we treat > them the way we would like to be treated? Maybe they will reciprocate. We tried, and they didn't. There's no reason to expect that they will in the future. > Someone stated on the net that unilateral disarmament was a dangerous thing. > Can it be more dangerous, to the world as a whole, than continuing to escalate > a nuclear arms race? Lets get rid of these planet destroying weapons. > Jerry Nowlin Yes, it is more dangerous. A balance of terror is a much better thing than an imbalance, unless, of course, you are the sort of weak-willed person who can't bear any sort of dangerous situation, and refuses to stand up for what you believe in. I'd like to get rid of nuclear weapons as much as you would, but not in return for Soviet domination and complete loss of freedom. (And if you claim that this doesn't follow logically, you are either a communist or a fool...) Wayne
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/04/84)
=============
Yes, it is more dangerous. A balance of terror is a much better thing
than an imbalance, unless, of course, you are the sort of weak-willed
person who can't bear any sort of dangerous situation, and refuses to
stand up for what you believe in. I'd like to get rid of nuclear weapons
as much as you would, but not in return for Soviet domination and
complete loss of freedom. (And if you claim that this doesn't follow
logically, you are either a communist or a fool...)
Wayne
=============
Doesn't leave much room for reasoned discussion, does it? Agree with me
or you are a communist or a fool, eh? With deep freedom-thinkers like
Wayne around, we don't need much besides weapons, it seems. Certainly,
brains and thinking are not wanted, neither is understanding of social
effects that might be used to get us out of this mess we are in.
Personally, I think the weak-willed people who can't bear any sort of
dangerous situation and refuse to stand up for what they believe in
are moe likely to be found among those who cling to ever-increasing
armaments as a safety-blanket. The course to true safety may
indeed seem more dangerous in the short term, but there may be no
other way to get there.
Note that I shifted this from net.followup to net.flame.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtnowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (Jerry Nowlin) (09/04/84)
>> Someone stated on the net that unilateral disarmament was a dangerous >> thing. Can it be more dangerous, to the world as a whole, than continuing >> to escalate a nuclear arms race? Lets get rid of these planet destroying >> weapons. >> Jerry Nowlin > Yes, it is more dangerous. A balance of terror is a much better thing > than an imbalance, unless, of course, you are the sort of weak-willed > person who can't bear any sort of dangerous situation, and refuses to > stand up for what you believe in. I'd like to get rid of nuclear weapons > as much as you would, but not in return for Soviet domination and > complete loss of freedom. (And if you claim that this doesn't follow > logically, you are either a communist or a fool...) > Wayne Obviously everybody didn't agree with me. I won't call them fools. It seems I came off as sort of naive in my opinions on unilateral nuclear disarmament. I probably am. There were some real convincing reasons posted for not trashing our nukes. I just can't convince myself that it wouldn't be better to take our chances without them. I have no problems with fighting for my country. I spent my time guarding parking lots and painting rocks for the USMC. I didn't know that's what I'd be doing when I volunteered. I only mention that because my next suggestion might make me sound a little traitorous. I'd rather take my chances with unilateral disarmament, and have at least one continent retain some form of terran life, than see the whole planet sterilized. Even if that continent is Asia and it's ruled by Soviets. Staging a nuclear war goes beyond the point of diminishing returns when it comes to fighting for a national cause. I think freedom is worth fighting for, but not if there will be nobody left to appreciate it. It's one thing to lay down your life for a cause. It's quite another to die for a cause that dies with you and destroys your enemies and all other life as well. Will the winner be the country with the lowest overall radiation level? Who will keep score? Jerry Nowlin ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (09/04/84)
The best argument I can muster against unilateralism is that it won't sell politically in any country. Why defend a position that's too easy to attack? That's what the Right wants to label us as, unilateralists. The Freeze has succeeded precisely because it is an important first step and explicitly non- unilateralist. Pure unilateralism isn't needed. The Soviets have shown, I think, a willingness to abide by treaties that are fair. One interesting idea that has grown out of the Freeze campaign is the so-called "Quick Freeze". The concept here is a first step initiated by the U.S. that is accompanied by a challenge to the Soviets to reciprocate. This would bring an immediate halt to further testing, production and deployment while negotiations proceed on a comprehensive treaty. The argument is that the risks of such a step are small -- we could easily abandon it if the Soviets don't reciprocate -- but the symbolic importance is great. In short, why tackle the problems of unilateralism when bilateralism will work just as well? Mike Kelly
faustus@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Christopher) (09/06/84)
> I'd rather take my chances with unilateral disarmament, and have at least one > continent retain some form of terran life, than see the whole planet > sterilized. Even if that continent is Asia and it's ruled by Soviets. > Staging a nuclear war goes beyond the point of diminishing returns when it > comes to fighting for a national cause. > > I think freedom is worth fighting for, but not if there will be nobody left to > appreciate it. It's one thing to lay down your life for a cause. It's quite > another to die for a cause that dies with you and destroys your enemies and > all other life as well. Will the winner be the country with the lowest > overall radiation level? Who will keep score? This isn't the only alternative. If the choice was between Soviet domination and mutual total destruction, I would pick Soviet domination. But that's not the case. If we build more weapons, that doesn't make it necessary (perhaps not even likely) that a full-scale nuclear war will take place. It is always a danger, but there is always danger whenever you have something worth defending. It's almost like a game of chicken, where the first one to back down loses. But the difference is that if we lose, everybody loses, but if we win, everybody wins, including all the people under Communist control right now. Maybe this isn't a good analogy -- the situation now is not one where one of us MUST back down or we will both be destroyed (and it is important that it not be brought to this point), it's more like if neither of us backs down we both run a small risk of destruction. The most important danger now is not that of destruction, but rather of the overpowering fear of destruction that will cause us to back down even before things become critical. I can understand your position, and I'm certainly not calling you a fool or a communist, but I think you're not the kind of person who identifies with Clint Eastwood when he says, "Do you feel lucky, punk?" (But I don't really like the picture of Reagan saying, "Do you feel lucky, Chernenko?"...) Hoping that I'm not sounding like a crazy paranoid idiot, Wayne Christopher
jcz@ncsu.UUCP (John Carl Zeigler) (09/07/84)
The USSR has done some atmosphereic modeling that seems to support what US scientist have conjectured will happen to the climate in a nuclear war. The August Scientific American has a rather terse article that references work done in the USSR. --jcz John Carl Zeigler North Carolina State University
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (09/09/84)
The only way to be sure of the Nuclear Winter scenario is to test it out. Thats something I'd rather not try. Until that happens I wouldnt count on people making policy on pure simulation data. I worked on a program awhile back trying to simulate blast waves from nuclear detonations at various altitudes, trying to figure out what altitude was the best for detonating weapons for maximum blast over the target area. There were several groups meeting to discuss their results with the DNA. All groups had the same input data, and the best group managed to get the least sensitive variable (overpressure (one factor overshoots, the other undershoots)) right to 40% of experimental data. That was the closest they actually got. When they first tested the X-ray laser, when the set it off, it destroyed the test equipment designed. Simulation data was way off. My point is that I am very wary of simulation. I wouldnt expect any formal policy to be based solely on it. There needs to be more work. If you want some real facts about nuclear weapons, there is a book published by the DOE (then ERDA) in 1977 called 'The effects of nuclear weapons'. Its very comprehensive. I recommend it highly, and a lot of people in the trade have it. It has a chapter on EMP. Very enlightening. Milo Medin NASA Ames Research Center
jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen) (09/18/84)
> ... But the difference is that if we > lose, everybody loses, but if we win, everybody wins, > including all the people under Communist control right now. I don't agree. First of all, I don't think the people in El Salvador or Nicaragua will be very glad if you win. Also, I think that a world with only one superpower is very very dangerous, whether this superpower is the US or the USSR. I think that such a country would move towards totalitarian regime very soon, and there would be no-one to oppose it if it did. What would you do if the US army said "Well, we'll put the constitution aside and rule the world for a while"? There is absolutely nothing you could threaten them with. Jack Jansen, {philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack