daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) (12/15/83)
#N:hp-kirk:12800007:000:346
hp-kirk!daver Dec 13 18:44:00 1983
There've been a number of notes and replies about what the USSR would
do if the US disarmed its nuclear force unilaterally. I wonder if anyone
on the net has any ideas of what the US or other countries would do if
the USSR disarmed its nuclear force unilaterally.
Dave Rabinowitz
hplabs!hp-pcd!davercourtney@hp-pcd.UUCP (Courtney Loomis) (12/15/83)
#R:hp-kirk:12800007:hp-pcd:17400038:000:830 hp-pcd!courtney Dec 14 15:03:00 1983 Dave's question reminds me of a gnawing fear that I frequently feel in the times of US Euromissiles... A fear that Ronald Reagan thinks that he might be able to eviscerate the Soviet Union from the face of the Earth (hence the build-up of a first-strike missile arsenal in Western Europe). And even if Bonzo doesn't think that he can succeed in such an action, once these missiles are in place, every president who follows him will have this question placed in from of her/him. The "deterence" argument is a farce... Imagine two enemies sitting in a small room, each with a box of grenades that would destroy everyone in the room. There is no reason for either of them to build better or more grenades... that is unless one of those enemies thinks that they might be able to use them (an absurd hypothesis). Courtney Loomis
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) (12/15/83)
Daver@hp-pcd wonders what the Western alliance would do in the face of unilateral USSR nuclear disarmament. Answer: Nothing. The Soviet Union in Europe would still maintain an overwhelming conventional force, so we would still require nuclear weaponry--the neutron shell would be best-- to resist conventional onslaughts. The failure to apply nuclear weapons against the advancing Soviet forces would surely result in yet another wholesale destruction of Europe and its peoples. But this is mere fantasy. We all know the Soviets, cunning devils, would keep an SS-20 or two or a thousand tucked away behind the Urals. ..allegra!rlgvax!plunkett
tim@isrnix.UUCP (12/18/83)
#R:hp-kirk:12800007:isrnix:11700012:000:643 isrnix!tim Dec 17 10:12:00 1983 What would the United States do if the USSR unilaterally disarmed itself of nuclear weapons? Probably the same thing we did (fortunately!) when we had the capability to deliver nuclear bombs to the Soviet Union when they did not in the 50's -namely nothing. Of course there were military men urging a first strike but they were not heeded. What good would it do us or anybody to see the Soviet Union a heap of ashes and radioactive wastes? What good would it do to plunge the world's climate into a Nuclear Winter? If there was ever any purpose in War, there is none now. tim sevener Indiana University, Bloomington pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (12/20/83)
..allegra!rlgvax!plunkett writes:
"The failure to apply nuclear weapons
against the advancing Soviet forces would surely result in yet another
wholesale destruction of Europe and its peoples."
How's that again?andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/20/83)
#R:hp-kirk:12800007:uokvax:5000045:000:930 uokvax!andree Dec 18 16:58:00 1983 What would the US do if the USSR unilaterally disarmed? I think that the answer is `nothing.' This is radically different from what I think would happen in the converse situation. This difference is not due to any difference I percieve in the people involved (the rulers of both countries), but in the manner that those people remain in power. In the USSR, the mass of the populace has nothing to say about who is going to rule the country and their actions. In the US, the mass of the populace has very little say - but they do have SOME say. If the ruling class of the US tried a starting a nuclear war with a disarmed USSR, I think the people of the US would promptly throw them out on their ear. I know I'd be shouting for such things (as well as charges of murder, etc.). Witness the impeachment movement after Grenada (short-lived, but it was there) as an example. I don't think the USSR has this form of feedback. <mike
andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/25/83)
#R:hp-kirk:12800007:uokvax:5000050:000:787
uokvax!andree Dec 22 18:26:00 1983
/***** uokvax:net.politics / tty3b!mjk / 9:49 pm Dec 19, 1983 */
..allegra!rlgvax!plunkett writes:
"The failure to apply nuclear weapons
against the advancing Soviet forces would surely result in yet another
wholesale destruction of Europe and its peoples."
How's that again?
/* ---------- */
Seems straightforward to me. A conventional war in western europe now
would make WW II look like a picnic. Of course, it's not at all clear
that nuking the advancing soviet forces would be produce much better
results.
As a side note, the last time I looked, the Soviets didn't recognize
such things as `tactical nukes'. As far as they were concerned, a
nuke is a nuke is a nuke, and once one is thrown, the cat is out of
the bag, and it's time to start the mass urban renewals.
<mike