tpkq@charm.UUCP (11/18/83)
~ An important question to consider when talking about the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence is, who's doing the deterring and who's being deterred? The U.S. is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons against another country. And since the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. government has on several occasions (that we know about) considered using them again. The only thing which stood in the way was the existence of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. The Soviet Union has good reason to fear a military attack from the United States. The U.S., along with more than a dozen other capitalist countries, sent troops into the Soviet Union right after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, and ever since the U.S. has tried to tie a military noose around the USSR. The U.S. has over a half million troops stationed in other countries, and, as of 1980, 110 countries had U.S. military bases. A look at the map of these bases shows that a large number of them are in countries bordering or near the Soviet Union or on islands in the western part of the Pacific, not far away. Great Britain, West Germany, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, South Korea, and Japan, for example, all serve as U.S. military outposts. And now the U.S. is proceeding with plans to use Western Europe as its launching pad for Pershing II and cruise missiles aimed at the Soviet Union. The U.S. government, and the class it represents, has shown that its decisions about the use of nuclear weapons are governed not by any concern for the fate of humanity but by what it can get away with and how its interests can be served.
jsanders@aecom.UUCP (Jeremy Sanders) (11/20/83)
I noticed at least one error in this article (neither Israel or Egypt have US bases on their soil), which puts into doubt the accuracy of some of its other assertions. The USSR has plenty of troops in its satelite countries (as much to keep them in line as to threaten the west), why doesn't our un-named writer mention those ? > The U.S. government, an the class it represents, has shown Phew! The US government does not represent some strange "class" (I guess he means rich); it represents the people of the United States and its decisions are, by and large, a reflection of the collective, expressed will of the majority of those people (a majority in which I am often, but not always included). If the US government can be said to represent any one "class" of people, I would call it the class of free people. As far the US gov't's represnting some class, thats a lot more than you can say for the group in control in the USSR. > that its decisions about the use of nuclear weapons are governed not > by any concern for the fate of humanity but by what it can get away > with and how its interests can be served. I should certainly hope so. The *entire* purpose of a government is to lead and protect the nation it governs. If, in the course of this, the cause of the rest of humanity is served, so much the better, but the duty of any government is to look out for its own. I certainly would never vote for a government that would give more - or even equal - consideration to foreigners. Jeremy Sanders
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/22/83)
==========
... I certainly would never vote
for a government that would give more - or even equal - consideration to
foreigners.
Jeremy Sanders
==========
With the present system of world government (ie near-anarchy), this
is probably a reasonable position. But would it be reasonable if
the assertion were made about a Town Council? Surely the interests
of the World must be considered at least equally with those of any
Nation (a purely artificial and quite new concept, anyway), just
as the interests of the Nation must be considered along with those
of a county, street or family. We should not tolerate powerful bullies
as Nations any more than we tolerate them as people.
There ARE interests that supersede National interests. Lots of people
on this net claim that personal interests do. I think it depends on
the question at hand, but at least sometimes Continental or World
interests must be allowed higher priority than National ones.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtesj@ihuxl.UUCP (J. Johnson) (11/22/83)
How much of your paycheck do you donate to the downtrodden, oppressed masses? $20 a year maybe? ihnp4!ihuxl!esj
preece@uicsl.UUCP (11/24/83)
#R:charm:-17800:uicsl:16300033:000:1820 uicsl!preece Nov 23 10:28:00 1983 The USSR has plenty of troops in its satelite countries (as much to keep them in line as to threaten the west), why doesn't our un-named writer mention those ? ---------- Well, the troops in, say, East Germany are not directly a threat to ME, so I see them as different from our troops in West Germany, which are a direct threat to the Soviet Union and its satellites. More important, we have bunches of missiles over there and we're currently putting in lots more. How would we react if they put missiles in, say, Cuba (what a novel idea) or Mexico? We have insisted that in discussing nuclear arms in Europe we could not count the independent forces of our allies. The Soviets may justifiably question exactly why we are entitled to put ANY of our own missiles in Europe under those circumstances. If the Europeans are independent, let them take care of themselves; if they want our umbrella, they ought to coordinate themselves with our arms control discussions. The natural geographic distribution of the world has arranged that we are surrounded by friends and they are surrounded by enemies (beyond the borders of their satellites, of course). Why SHOULDN'T they feel paranoid? They also know that we have more advanced missiles and guidance systems and more powerful computers and communications facilities. Why should they trust us any more than we trust them? I'm not saying there are any answers. I think a freeze would be nice, but not terribly meaningful, given the appalling level we'd be making fixed. A reduction might very well make conventional war more likely, and a conventional war would certainly lead to building nuclear weapons again. But a severe reduction, adequately policed, would at least reduce the danger of accidental cataclysm. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
andree@uokvax.UUCP (11/24/83)
#R:charm:-17800:uokvax:5000029:000:436 uokvax!andree Nov 22 20:50:00 1983 The US government shows imperialistic tendencies? This is new? As to the US thinking about using nukes, and being deterred by the soviet arsenal, please let us know when, and give references. The basic fact of the matter is that the US treats it's citizens better than the soviets treat theirs. The rest of it is political maneuvering to decide which side is going to run the rest of the world. Which side do you want to win? <mike
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (11/25/83)
#R:charm:-17800:uokvax:5000031:000:926 uokvax!rigney Nov 23 03:30:00 1983 /***** uokvax:net.politics / andree / 8:50 pm Nov 22, 1983 */ As to the US thinking about using nukes, and being deterred by the soviet arsenal, please let us know when, and give references. /* ---------- */ I don't know of any case where Soviet missiles deterred U.S. nuclear policy, but there are over a hundred instances where either the U.S. or U.S.S.R. has rattled the nuclear sabre. The Cuban missile crisis is the best known, another is the '73 Arab- Israeli War - the Soviets threatened to land paratroops in Cairo to defend it if the Israelis continued their advance into Egypt, and the U.S. threatened to launch if it happened. The U.S. put *heavy* pressure on Israel to back off and not humiliate the Egyptians, saying they would stop supplies otherwise. Such incidents are more common than most people think, but rarely recieve much publicity. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (11/28/83)
>> The basic fact of the matter is that the US treats it's citizens >> better than the soviets treat theirs. The rest of it is political >> maneuvering to decide which side is going to run the rest of the world. >> Which side do you want to win? >> >> <mike Neither side. I find the idea of Soviet domination of the world little more horrifying than the idea of U.S. domination of the world. From a global perspective, the existence of a couple hundred million people with some special privileges doesn't make much difference. As long as the U.S. views the rest of the world as spoils to be won in a conflict with the Soviet Union we have no reason to feel morally superior. ---- Prentiss Riddle {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle riddle@ut-sally.UUCP
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (12/01/83)
One reason for not including the missiles of Britain and France in our count (for negotiating purposes) is that we could not count on Britain and France using their missiles to protect anyone but themselves. W. Germany is not allowed to have nuclear weapons as a result of WW II. Does anyone seriously believe that the French would use their missiles against the Soviets in the event of a Soviet invasion of Germany?? Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/04/83)
#R:charm:-17800:uokvax:5000030:000:1565 uokvax!andree Dec 1 21:21:00 1983 Did I say that the US (or me, for that matter) was in some way morally superior to the USSR? Or anybody else, for that matter? If so, I slipped. Misbehaving client states of the US aren't much (if any) better off than misbehaving client states of the USSR. The thing is that citizens of the USSR aren't much better of than citizens of the those client states, whereas citizens of the US are noticably better off than those in the other three catagories. Being basically selfish, I want to keep my current standard of living (it would be nice if everybody in the world were there or better, but...). If this involves it being hard to tell the difference between the US & the USSR from the outside, that's to bad. I believe that the people of the world will be better off in the long run if the US wins the battle of world domination, but MY main motivation is not wanting to be in the state the citizens of the USSR & the client states are in (because "in the long run, we'll all be dead"). And don't try to kid yourself that it's not a battle. The world is heading for a world government (probably after there's somebody outside the world to hate! (-: <- upside down to avoid confusion with closing parens). The US & the USSR (or whoever replaces them) are going to play a part in this, and THE TWO FORMS OF GOVERNMENT ARE BASICALLY INCOMPATIBLE. A world government the US could live with the USSR couldn't, and vice versa. One side must dominate, even if it's only in having THEIR form of world government. So once again: which side do you want to win? <mike