trc@hou5a.UUCP (Tom Craver) (11/18/83)
The following are *serious* questions that I have about the anti-nuke movement. I would appreciate serious answers, rather than flames. I would like to know why the possibility of nuclear war has suddenly become such a "hot" issue. After all, we've managed to avoid one for about 40 years now. The only recent change that I can see is that NATO and the USSR are now about at parity in nuclear forces. With this in mind, I cannot understand the "freeze" point of view. If achieving parity is so scary, why attempt to freeze at that stage? Is the ability to destroy the world 1 more time over, much more scary? If our superiority over Russia prevented a nuclear war all these years, why should we think that parity or inferiority will work better? If that disparity is not what prevented the war, what was? If it was simply that neither side would *really* engage in a nuclear war, why do anti-nuke'rs think they would they be more likely to do so now? It seems to me that it is the existance of nuclear arms that has prevented another World War, between NATO and the USSR. Suppose that we managed nuclear disarmament - how would this war be prevented? And once such a war got started, what would prevent both sides from re-building nukes and throwing them as fast as they built them? (Note: this is not an endorsement of the MAD philosophy.) It also seems to me that "building down" would leave us in a similar condition to where we were 30 or so years ago, except that we'd be at parity with the USSR. If we no longer have enough bombs to drive the human race to extinction, a nuclear war becomes an "acceptable risk". Do you want Russia to have that perception? Or even us? Tom Craver hou5a!trc
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (11/19/83)
Tom Craver asks the following questions of those of us who are opposed to the continuing buildup of nuclear weapons. They are good questions and I hope I can provide good answers. Understand, I speak only for myself and for no organized anti-nuclear group: >>I would like to know why the possibility of nuclear war has suddenly >>become such a "hot" issue. After all, we've managed to avoid one for >>about 40 years now. The only recent change that I can see is that NATO >>and the USSR are now about at parity in nuclear forces. With this in >>mind, I cannot understand the "freeze" point of view. If achieving parity >>is so scary, why attempt to freeze at that stage? Is the ability to >>destroy the world 1 more time over, much more scary? The possibility of nuclear war is not suddenly a hot issue. Some of us, who are older, learned to "duck and cover" in the late '50s (boy, does that seem dumb now!) were members of groups like the Student Peace Union in the early and mid '60s (yes, we demonstrated back then, too) and find ourselves back at the same stand in the '80s. During the '70s we were horrified by the insanity in Vietnam, but the issue was still with us (or did you not see "The Twilight's Last Gleaming" with Burt Lancaster.) The current anti-nuclear movement is focussed on the development of new technology and the deployment of that technology as close to the Soviet Union as Cuba is to us. We have "avoided" nuclear war (in some cases narrowly) for only 25 years now, not 40. The first workable ICBM was announced by the Soviets in 1958. Parity in nuclear weaponry seems to be a matter of perspective. According to some, we are *not* at parity with the U.S.S.R. and in fact lag badly behind. According to others, myself included, we are at parity in that both sides have sufficient weapons to obliterate the other no matter who fires first. Let's stop now. When both sides realize that this is a negative-sum game, then there is no deterrence no matter how many more weapons we have than the Soviets or they than us. Not only does the continued development and deployment of nuclear weapons have fewer and fewer returns as the sheer number grows larger, but it consumes resources and energy better spent in more profitable pursuits like solving problems in our own country or the exploration of space. It does nothing at all to deal positively with the critical problem of living together on this planet. >>If our superiority over Russia prevented a nuclear war all these years, >>why should we think that parity or inferiority will work better? If that >>disparity is not what prevented the war, what was? If it was simply that >>neither side would *really* engage in a nuclear war, why do anti-nuke'rs >>think they would they be more likely to do so now? Again, not all people believe that we have, or have had, nuclear superiority over the Russians. Again, I think that superiority, parity, or inferiority are not meaningful terms to use when considering the number of weapons currently deployed and their destructive power. The relative nuclear strength of both sides *may* have been a factor in preventing war, but cer- tainly was not the only one. A great deal of diplomacy has been carried on over the years, some of it very effective. There is also the moral issue of who is going to fire first -- which has deterred as as well as the Soviets. (The Soviets have had ample opportunity to use tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan, but have not.) Our relations with the Soviets are now at an apparent all-time low. There are critical tensions between the powers in the Mid-East, in Central America, and in the Far East. A nuclear war isn't going to happen overnight. If any of these trouble spots begins to heat up beyond the point of proxy fighters -- say, if the U.S. invades Nicaragua or if the Soviets invade somewhere else -- we are in big trouble. Given the deployment of high tech missiles in Europe (anybody remember what happened when the Soviets attempted to deploy missiles in Cuba in 1963? We nearly bought the Big One then!) things are very, very unstable. >>It seems to me that it is the existance of nuclear arms that has prevented >>another World War, between NATO and the USSR. Suppose that we managed nuclear >>disarmament - how would this war be prevented? And once such a war got >>started, what would prevent both sides from re-building nukes and throwing >>them as fast as they built them? (Note: this is not an endorsement of the >>MAD philosophy.) I thought you were asking questions, not making statements. The existance of nuclear weapons makes the nuclear strike a no-cost option -- it is already bought and paid for. All you have to do is push the funny little red button... A conventional war makes the costs of war somewhat more apparent in the immediate sense. You have to solve logistics problems, deploy and feed troops, move resources, etc. etc. All of this makes generals think a little bit before they act. Mobilization also takes time before it results in conflict. Hopefully diplomacy will have a little more time to work before a conventional war takes place. The same time delays, I suspect, would apply in the case of attempting to re-build a nuclear strike force. One or two won't do it...you have to make a bunch before you have a real threat. >>It also seems to me that "building down" would leave us in a similar >>condition to where we were 30 or so years ago, except that we'd be >>at parity with the USSR. If we no longer have enough bombs to drive >>the human race to extinction, a nuclear war becomes an "acceptable risk". >>Do you want Russia to have that perception? Or even us? At this point I don't think many people are talking about building down, just stopping this insanity where it is. The question you pose is a difficult one, but not insoluable. According to the TTAPS scenario, it won't take a whole lot of bombs (about 1,000) to kill the human race. Hopefully if we can build down to that point we will have learned something. If not, we certainly won't have lost anything and we will have been able to use the resources freed to solve some of our own problems. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!bch
peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (11/19/83)
A reply to the questions from Tom Craver, from someone who doesn't pretend to be an expert on disarmament, and would welcome any corrections... >I would like to know why the possibility of nuclear war has suddenly >become such a "hot" issue. After all, we've managed to avoid one for >about 40 years now. The only recent change that I can see is that NATO >and the USSR are now about at parity in nuclear forces. I can think of at least two new things: recent talk of limited and survivable nuclear war (that Reagan has since dropped) and deployment or development of significant new US weapons (cruise, Pershing, MX), particularly as the Pershing drastically reduces the time available for evaluating a strike (from around 20 min to 6). Both make war, either purposeful or accidental, more likely. >...I cannot understand the "freeze" point of view. If achieving parity >is so scary, why attempt to freeze at that stage? Is the ability to >destroy the world 1 more time over, much more scary? My understanding of the freeze is that it would be a first step to a substantial reduction in arms, to the point of simple mutual assured destruction, or lower. The freeze would mark a turning point, in that no further growth would be allowed, and thus would be important symbolically. >If our superiority over Russia prevented a nuclear war all these years, >why should we think that parity or inferiority will work better? If that >disparity is not what prevented the war, what was? If it was simply that >neither side would *really* engage in a nuclear war, why do anti-nuke'rs >think they would they be more likely to do so now? Mutual Assured Destruction was probably the reason for the lack of nuclear war in the past decades. As for questions of superiority or inferiority, I defy anyone to come up with a metric that makes sense in even military terms -- i.e. a metric that guarantees some sort of victory for the superior force. That is, a metric applied to the current vast over-stocking of weapons. Talk of a limited war on the part of the US made people think that they were really contemplating use of nuclear weapons for battlefield and local-area objectives. All the new weapons make accidental war more likely, and consume significant amounts of money in a time of economic hardship. In particular, they contribute to the US deficit which is hurting most Western economies by keeping interest rates high, and endangering the world economic system by making it more likely that countries like Brazil will be forced into default by those same interest rates. >It seems to me that it is the existance of nuclear arms that has prevented >another World War, between NATO and the USSR. Suppose that we managed nuclear >disarmament - how would this war be prevented? And once such a war got >started, what would prevent both sides from re-building nukes and throwing >them as fast as they built them? (Note: this is not an endorsement of the >MAD philosophy.) Personally, I believe that total nuclear disarmament will have to wait until institutions have been created to replace war as a means of settling disputes between nations. This does not mean that disarmament to the point required by the mutual assured destruction (MAD) doctrine cannot proceed. And why not endorse MAD? Has it been discredited? >It also seems to me that "building down" would leave us in a similar >condition to where we were 30 or so years ago, except that we'd be >at parity with the USSR. If we no longer have enough bombs to drive >the human race to extinction, a nuclear war becomes an "acceptable risk". >Do you want Russia to have that perception? Or even us? I sure don't. I favour maintenance of a MAD force, controlled by highly reliable control systems. Put the money into ultra-reliable software technology. There'll even be spinoff benefits for life-critical software (nuclear reactor control, air traffic control, etc.). -------- While I'm here, 3 cheers for Mike Kelly's stepped unilateral disarmament. Not only will it reduce the chance of accidental war, it will indeed show the world that the West is enlightened (might make us some friends of the countries yet to choose which camp they want to be in), and will save money to boot. peter rowley, U. Toronto utcsrgv!peterr
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (11/20/83)
Indented text is from Tom Craver; non-indented is mine. > I would like to know why the possibility of nuclear war has suddenly become such a "hot" issue. After all, we've managed to avoid one for about 40 years now. The only recent change that I can see is that NATO and the USSR are now about at parity in nuclear forces. With this in mind, I cannot understand the "freeze" point of view. If achieving parity is so scary, why attempt to freeze at that stage? Is the ability to > destroy the world 1 more time over, much more scary? One reason the possiblility of nuclear war has recently received more attention is the policies of the Reagan administration concerning this issue. The deployment of the Pershing II and Cruise missiles in Western Europe has forced people in those countries and others to come to grips with an issue that the population in general has been avoiding for 40 years. Achieving parity is not scary, it is the methods now being employed to achieve it that are under dispute. We don't want the Soviet Union to have us over a barrel, but increasing our deathpower only encourages the Soviets to build more and better responses to it. It does not even partially solve the problem. It is more scary to have more on both sides because it wastes resources, antagonizes the "other side", exascerbates the emotional and political tensions involved, and destabilizes security. > If our superiority over Russia prevented a nuclear war all these years, why should we think that parity or inferiority will work better? If that disparity is not what prevented the war, what was? If it was simply that neither side would *really* engage in a nuclear war, why do anti-nuke'rs > think they would they be more likely to do so now? Superiority over Russia did not prevent a nuclear war all these years. This question is meaningless, because nothing prevents war. There is simply no rational reason to have a war. Wars are always caused by stupidity. There has been no war because nobody has provoked one, and for good reason. However, escalation of amount and complexity weaponry could encourage twisted leaders to want to test it, and increase the possiblity of accidental war. This is one of the basic ideas of the "freeze" movement. > It seems to me that it is the existance of nuclear arms that has prevented another World War, between NATO and the USSR. Suppose that we managed nuclear disarmament - how would this war be prevented? And once such a war got started, what would prevent both sides from re-building nukes and throwing them as fast as they built them? (Note: this is not an > endorsement of the MAD philosophy.) This war would be prevented by mutual understanding, and the removal of leaders who do not want to understand the other side, or won't deal with what they do understand in a nonbelligerent way. This war would be prevented by nonstupidity, achieved through education and cultural exchange. Nothing but ethics could prevent either side from producing new weapons if a war were started, but nothing is preventing that under "deterrence", either. It also seems to me that "building down" would leave us in a similar condition to where we were 30 or so years ago, except that we'd be at parity with the USSR. If we no longer have enough bombs to drive the human race to extinction, a nuclear war becomes an "acceptable risk". Do you want Russia to have that perception? Or even us? Reducing our nuclear arsenals ("building down" is an oxymoron) to a level appropriate to defense would improve stablility, and encourage friendship. Why aren't we afraid that Britain will nuke us? They are our allies. Being at parity at a lower level allows defense without 40x Earth-killing capability. Nuclear war is obviously not an acceptable risk, but there are and were members of the present Administration who have stated outright and through their actions that it might be. Dave Decot decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)
grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/21/83)
#R:hou5a:-43700:uiuccsb:11000075:000:1877 uiuccsb!grunwald Nov 20 16:04:00 1983 Well, one thing that lots of people mention is the fact that our current government, and to a lesser extent, the preceeding one, have had a rather cavilier attitude towards utilizing the nuclear option. When people consider the use of these weapons to be plausible, one does begin to become a trifle piqued. Additionally, the fact that the shear number of weapons has increased so dramatically would seem to support a heightened awareness of the nuclear issues. In this world of 50,000 warheads, one must begin to consider the the possibilities of accidents and terrorists much more so than in the past. When the world had but 500 warheads, it wasn't hard to safeguard them all. Now, several countries have them and no one can insure that those weapons will stay out of the hands of those loonies in the world who like to see pretty lights in the sky. Also, the reaction time of the various factions in the nuclear club have become, by neccesity, shortened. With six minutes E.T.A. from West Germany to the corner of 4th and Lenin Av in downtown Moscow, one can not trust people to make assumptions on the kind-heartness of their fellows to the point of not lauching on warning. These reasons would seem to justify some intensified interest. One must also consider that the U.S. has never been inferior to the U.S.S.R. as far as missles count go. The recent drive by the Soviets to MIRV their missles was, in fact, an attempt to build pairty with us. We, not being satisfied, have attempted to surpass them again. It would appear that we shall do this again and again. So why not stop now? Anyway, for a more coherent and facts and figures type of argument, go talk to people from a local freeze group. You'll find that they usually are willing to talk. Dirk Grunwald University of Illinois USENET : ihnp4 ! uiucdcs ! grunwald CSNET : grunwald.uiuc@Rand-Relay
smb@ulysses.UUCP (11/21/83)
Rather than trying to answer Tom Craver's questions one by one -- others have done a good job of that (and thanks, Byron, for pointing out that to some of us, peace isn't a new issue. Anyone else remember how the peace symbol originated? It's from the semaphore signals for "ND", meaning "nuclear disarmament") -- I thought I'd describe the philosophical under- pinnings of the freeze movement. I believe that it will answer Tom's questions (which were phrased in a rather loaded fashion, I might add) in a more comprehensive fashion than a straight answer. Supporters of a nuclear freeze have one main objective: preventing a nuclear war, since (in the opinion of many) such a war would quite likely lead to the destruction of the human race. At the very least, civilization as we know it would be totally destroyed. All other objectives are, in a sense, secondary -- corpses can't exercise their rights under a free government -- and all policies must be examined in this light. Note that this means that any all-out war must be averted, since in a conventional war both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. could easily build new weapons from scratch in a relatively short time. The knowledge of how to build bombs exists and can't be destroyed; we have to live with the nuclear genie out of the bottle. To my way of thinking (and I don't claim that this is true of other freeze advocates), unilaterally abandoning the defense of Western Europe is a very dangerous idea. Some policies are more dangerous than others. Any policy that tempts the other side to launch a nuclear first strike is very dangerous. It doesn't matter much, incidentally, if the temptation exists because of the doubts it creates as to the other side's intentions, or because of inherent properties of the policy. Consider, for example, the MX missile. Its high accuracy makes it usable as a first-strike weapon -- you don't need a 50 meter CPE to wipe out a city, but you do to wipe out a silo. So deploying it creates doubts as to our intentions. Furthermore, given the vulnerabilities of land-based silos to attack, the MX is a "use-or-lose" missile -- it'll only take two or three warheads (probabilistically) to destroy a missile carrying 10 or 12 warheads, which makes them tempting targets for an enemy first strike. But that in turn means that we have to move more towards a launch-on-warning policy, a very dangerous move. In this sense, all MIRVed missile are bad; they increase the payoff of an enemy first strike. In this sense, Midgetman is a "safer" missile, because it's clearly not a first strike weapon, and it's harder to knock out. Another example of a dangerous policy is forward-based weapons, such as Pershing II, European-based ground-launched cruise missile, and SS-20. They're dangerous because they're too vulnerable to being overrun by a quick conventional attack; our bases in West Germany are especially bad. This puts NATO commanders in the position of having to choose between firing nuclear missile too early, and without proper authority, or risk losing them intact to the Soviets. The SS-20s are somewhat less vulnerable, because they're deployed somewhat further back. (If you think I'm implying a need for a better conventional defense of Europe, you're right -- except that I'm not implying it, I'm stating it outright. McNamara and a few others published a long article last year (in Foreign Affairs?) on the feasibility and costs of doing this; they conclude that the incremental cost is zero or low.) Given all this, what policies can we follow to reduce the risk of (nuclear) war? Well, one thing we have to do is reduce doubts about our intentions (and about the Soviets' intentions). Cruise missile are too easily concealed, and hence difficult to verify, but I suspect that they're a genie that's already out of the bottle. Antisatellite weapons are very dangerous, because they pose the threat of blinding the other side's satellites. Encrypted telemetry data is bad, because it creates uncertainty about the other side. An anti-missile system is very bad, because -- given the current MAD balance -- it destroys the other side's deterrent. Look at it this way: if deterrence is the only thing preventing a war now, and you knew that next year, your enemy wouldn't be deterred by your weapons, what would you do? Fire first, while you still could? You may claim that the U.S. wouldn't, but look at it from the Soviets' perspective: why should they believe that of us? Another thing we can do is freeze development of new nuclear weapons. Why? Well, for one thing, it's a powerful symbolic act. We're trying to reduce tensions, remember. I'd actually go a step further and publicly destroy 5-10% of our current stock, and challenge the Soviets to do the same. (This policy is called GRIT, for "graduated reduction in tensions". Who makes up these acronyms, anyway?) It would pose no real danger to our deterrent ability, because -- and this is a crucial point -- our current forces have a tremendous overkill ability. Just one Trident submarine carries enough firepower to destroy more than 100 Soviet cities. "Nuclear parity" is a dangerous buzzword, because it ignores the conept of overkill. This note is long enough, so let me close with an answer to an unasked question: what defense programs do I (or other liberals) support? I can't speak for others, of course, but I'd be satisified if I were presented with a coherent non-MAD strategy. Show me how a new tank, or a larger navy, or a stealth tactical bomber fits in to a larger scheme for non-nuclear defense, and I'll listen. Tell me we need to double our strategic nuclear force and I won't. (A discussion of specific military needs is beyond the scope of this article, but I'd be glad to give my opinions about the idiocies of tanks that don't get 1 mile per gallon, don't run in the dessert, etc., some other time.)
eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/24/83)
#R:hou5a:-43700:uiuccsb:11000078:000:138 uiuccsb!eich Nov 23 23:51:00 1983 Sorry. The Peace symbol is derived from an ancient German rune connoting death (specifically, it is a depiction of the male genitalia).
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (11/25/83)
#R:hou5a:-43700:uokvax:5000030:000:1350 uokvax!rigney Nov 23 03:17:00 1983 /***** uokvax:net.politics / uiuccsb!grunwald / 4:04 pm Nov 20, 1983 */ Well, one thing that lots of people mention is the fact that our current government, and to a lesser extent, the preceeding one, have had a rather cavilier attitude towards utilizing the nuclear option. When people consider the use of these weapons to be plausible, one does begin to become a trifle piqued. /* ---------- */ Actually, this isn't really correct. In the 40's, 50's and early 60's, Nuclear weapons were viewed largely as just another weapon, a very powerful and dangerous one, but no different in kind than firebombings and non-nuclear arms. It is only in the last decade or two, probably because of Soviet strategic parity, that nuclear weapons have been set apart as *special*. Their use is considered far less plausible now than when it was considered at Dien Bien Phu. I have no argument with the remainder of your points, but you certainly neglected an important reason for increased concern; namely Soviet support for Western peace movements. The KGB has spent $600 million to date to sway western opinion against the Euromissile deployment, and is willing to spend whatever it takes. Compared to the stakes involved, $600m is dirt cheap. The Soviet yearly budget for disinformation is several billion dollars. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney
zrm@mit-eddie.UUCP (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (11/27/83)
The "peace" symbol is also used as a grave marker for military graves in Communist countries. It connotes the opposite of being buried under a cross. But it all must be just a monsterous coincidence because we all know that the "peace movement" has no connection with the Soviet Union. Cheers, Zig
zrm@mit-eddie.UUCP (11/27/83)
References: <4102@uiucdcs.UUCP> Relay-Version:version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP Posting-Version:version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path:duke!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!zrm Message-ID:<965@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date:Sat, 26-Nov-83 19:40:07 EST Organization:MIT, Cambridge, MA The "peace" symbol is also used as a grave marker for military graves in Communist countries. It connotes the opposite of being buried under a cross. But it all must be just a monsterous coincidence because we all know that the "peace movement" has no connection with the Soviet Union. Cheers, Zig
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/28/83)
===========
The "peace" symbol is also used as a grave marker for military graves in
Communist countries. It connotes the opposite of being buried under a
cross. But it all must be just a monsterous coincidence because we all
know that the "peace movement" has no connection with the Soviet Union.
Cheers,
Zig
===========
Does anyone out there know at first hand whether this is true? Or is it
another of those pieces of disinformation intended to discredit the
CND, so well described in the "Guardian" article I just posted?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtmjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (11/29/83)
uokvax!rigney writes
"The Soviet yearly budget for disinformation is several billion dollars."
What's the budget for Voice of America? Or the USIA?
And are you such an elitist as to think that all those people are wrong but
the small number of "leaders" are right? Are all those protestors so unaware
of the Soviet Union's actions that they are easily duped into supporting
something not basically in their interest? Does anyone really LISTEN to what
the peace movements are saying?
Mike Kelly
..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjkzrm@mit-eddie.UUCP (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (11/29/83)
===========
The "peace" symbol is also used as a grave marker for military graves in
Communist countries. It connotes the opposite of being buried under a
cross. But it all must be just a monsterous coincidence because we all
know that the "peace movement" has no connection with the Soviet Union.
Cheers,
Zig
===========
Does anyone out there know at first hand whether this is true? Or is it
another of those pieces of disinformation intended to discredit the
CND, so well described in the "Guardian" article I just posted?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
___________________
Oh! Pardon me! If it says so in the Guardian it surely must be so! What
a relief it must have been to find that there were only spies aboard KAL
flight 7. And those nasty Afganis, enemies of socialism every one. Gosh
mister Taylor will you show me how you attained your clear and
enlightened world view?
Cheers,
Zigtim@isrnix.UUCP (12/01/83)
#R:hou5a:-43700:isrnix:11700009:000:4076 isrnix!tim Nov 30 23:42:00 1983 Once again when factual arguments are impotent in the face of the evidence we find proponents of Nuclear armaments engaging in red-baiting again. It is no doubt true that the Soviet Union has a propaganda budget, just as the U.S. has- in my town in Bloomington just a month or so ago an Air Force colonel came as part of a nationwide "information" campaign on the part of the Pentagon to try to justify the latest escalation of the arms race. The issue of the extinction of homo sapiens is not one which is only the concern of the Soviet Union--people on BOTH sides are beginning to question the actions of their governments in threatening the extinction of the human race. Are the supporters of the Peace Movement in Eastern Europe also funded by the KGB? If the Peace Movement is solely funded by the KGB then how does one explain the following article in the New York Times?: >MARCHERS IN RUMANIA ASSAIL ARMS PLANS OF EAST AND WEST > >Bucharest,Rumania, Nov. 12 (AP)-About 30,000 people joined a Government- >sponsored march today against missile deployment in Europe by both >East and West. The Soviet Union has reportedly been pressing Rumania >to accept deployment of Soviet missiles if Soviet-American arms talks >fail and new missiles are deployed in Western Europe. or how about this article from the New York Times?: >SOME CZECHS QUESTION NEED FOR SOVIET MISSILE RESPONSE > >Prague, Nov. 5(AP)-Some Czechoslovaks are questioning the wisdom >of the deployment of Soviet medium-range missiles in their >country, the Communist Party newspaper Rude Pravo said today. >Public airing of doubts about policy formulated in Moscow is rare >in Czechoslovakia. Rude Pravo said it had received letters since >the Soviet Union said last month that it would respond to the >deployment of United States Pershing 2 and cruise missiles in >Western Europe by stationing missiles in Czechoslovakia and East >Germany. Most letters "show a resolve to do all for the defense of >peace," said Rude Pravo. "but there are also some from which one >can sense doubts whether the recently announced steps for the >strengthening of defense 'are necessary at this stage.'" >Other letters ask "whether we should not have waited until the >Pershings are stationed." >"What will the defenders of peace in the West say to this?" and >"Who really started all this?" said Rude Pravo. Lest one thinks these reports (which are actually from the Associated Press anyway) are merely products of the "liberal" New York Times, recent issues of the conservative US News and World Report have reported the same phenomenon- the growing peace sentiments in Eastern Europe in East Germany and Czechoslovakia. In East Germany peace groups have been meeting in Churches to question the present arms race and the Soviet desire to station retaliatory missiles in East Germany in response to US deployment of Pershings. And why not? If Europe is the first target of a nuclear exchange BOTH East and West Europe will be fried first. It is about time that the people on both sides of the brink of armageddon forced their leaders to stop playing nuclear blackmail with the life of the species and our whole planet for the sake of their power politics games. Of course one can be sure that Peace supporters in the East are also accused of being "unpatriotic" or puppets of the West just as Peace supporters are here. But the facts are that everybody from East or West has an interest in preserving our species. Another common tactic is to accuse Peace supporters of only opposing "our" missiles, or advocating only our own disarmament. The fact that the Peace marchers in Europe have called for the removal of Soviet SS-20's as well as a halt to US cruise missiles is generally ignored. When the Social Democrats in Germany approved a resolution opposing the deployment of cruise missiles in Germany, they also called for the halt of any more deployment of SS-20's. Avoiding nuclear war is as important for us as for them! tim sevener Indiana University, Bloomington pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!tim
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (12/02/83)
#R:hou5a:-43700:uokvax:5000027:000:1253 uokvax!rigney Nov 30 20:15:00 1983 The budget for Voice of America, Radio Liberty and all similar programs is a few tens of millions of dollars, if that much. They are in some cases using equipment left over from WW 2, and are desperately in need of funding to upgrade. The Soviets jam them very strongly, but they are still eagerly listened to in the U.S.S.R., by the people there. The Soviet people know their own broadcasts and papers are purely propaganda, and love hearing outside reports, but it is very difficult. I only wish we could use the money for ONE MX to upgrade Radio Liberty instead; we'd get a lot more value for our money. Radio Liberty never pretends to be anything other than what it is. On the other hand, the KGB directorate of disinformation prefers to plant its stories in non-communist sources, to provide an air of legitimacy. As well, it uses such tactics as forgery to present documents supposedly from the U.S.; an example is their forged letter from Reagan to Spain, harshly criticizing the latter, in an attempt to alienate and isolate the U.S. I'm not saying the peace movements are KGB-controlled, or even KGB dupes; their concerns are quite real. I AM saying that the KGB is using the movements for their own purposes, and fanning the flames.
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (12/02/83)
>> In East Germany peace groups >> have been meeting in Churches to question the present arms race and the >> Soviet desire to station retaliatory missiles in East Germany in >> response to US deployment of Pershings. >> >> tim sevener >> pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!tim I'd like to corroborate that. I spent last year in West Germany and the papers were full all year long of celebrated cases of East Germans who lost their citizenship or were imprisoned for their peace movement activites. Most of them had connections both to the Protestant church and to the West German peace movement. It is true that the pro-Soviet West German Communist Party is trying to capitalize on the peace movement by keeping its visibility high, but its numbers are small and it isn't taken very seriously. Most people in the movement in both halves of Europe seem to be aware that neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact wants to see a real peace movement flourish in its own territory. ---- Prentiss Riddle {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle riddle@ut-sally.UUCP
rpw3@fortune.UUCP (12/16/83)
#R:hou5a:-43700:fortune:17300009:000:98 fortune!rpw3 Dec 16 00:04:00 1983 Gee, I thought the peace symbol was the old Celtic run for war, turned upside down to mean peace.