tbray@mprvaxa.UUCP (11/18/83)
x <-- netnews insecticide
This is in response to pyuxa!wetcw's alarming rejection of the
unilateral nuclear freeze proposal. His/her statements are
worrisome, and in my belief represent a school of opinion which
significantly increases the risk of human extinction, and, as
a by-product, may be destroying the economies of the western
world.
To start with, it seems to me that anyone who talks about
"Marx's dream of world domination" is not all that clued in to
political realities. And yes, the foreign policy actions of the
Soviet leadership have frequently been amoral and adventurist,
as have been those of the United States. But let's talk
about cold military reality.
My basic gripe is that pyuxa!wetcw has apparently bought the
package concerning the "window of vulnerability". This is
suggested by remarks such as "the stationing of soviet subs off
the east and west coasts", "The Soviet Union is not going
to come to the barganing [sic] table as long as they in [sic] a
position of power over the West.", and worst of all,
"We have to somehow convince them that we are not going to negotiate
from a position of weakness."
Realistic analysis of the balance of nuclear power, (try
reading Scientific American rather than National Review) tends
to indicate that that balance is currently heavily tilted in
favour of the United States, and that the arms limitations
proposals being put on the table by the Reagan administration
would increase the imbalance. There is simply no possible way
in which a counterforce strike by the Soviets could seriously
disrupt the US ability to bomb the Soviets out of existence
within a few hours.
My opinion is that the current US adminstration is in the grips of
militarist paranoia heavily reinforced by the fact that the Republican
party and the new right are in bed with the defense contractor
segment of the economy (read military-industrial complex) -
check the funding of the PAC's that fund the Republicans. This
madness is reinforced by the inter-force rivalry in the US defense
establishment (They have Tridents, we gotta have MX's, arrrgggh).
Further, that this administration has no real intention of seriously
negotiating any arms reductions at the present time.
They will, however, go ahead and build weapons such as the Cruise
that present serious difficulties for verification in any future
arms control agreements. And make more and better nerve gas. And
spend tens of billions on the MX, which has essentially NO military
value.
Well, they MAY not destroy the world. But they may well destroy our
economies in the meantime. What? You don't buy that? Draw yourself
a little graph of overall economic performance vs. percenteage of GNP
spent on the military around the world. Clear inverse relationship.
Look at Japan, Germany, and Sweden. Funny thing is, the relationship
seems to hold in both Soviet-style and capitalist economies. Check
out the figures for Hungary, for example.
pyuxa!wetcw says: "...we must maintain a position of strength or
throw in the towel...". Sir, you are being lied to, you are believing
it, and you are increasing the chances of the destruction of the planet.
On one issue, though, I am in complete agreement with M. wetcw: "Nuclear
disarmament is not going to become the act of the day because we wish
it to happen." Too bloody true. Write letters to your elected repre-
sentatives, get out in the streets, and especially, don't believe
everything you are told.
...decvax!microsoft!ubc-vision!mprvaxa!tbray
PS: I dropped the name of Scientific American about 100 lines back.
They have had, over the last 4 or 5 years, an absolutely SUPERB series
of articles on the various issues of contemporary military strategy.
They back their statements up with facts and figures, as befits that
publication. I encourage everybody with an interest in being alive
in the year 2000 to find and read these articles.notes@ucbcad.UUCP (12/04/83)
#R:mprvaxa:-38300:ucbcad:21900001:000:3226
ucbcad!moore Nov 20 16:32:00 1983
If we are going to advocate unilateral disarmament, it
seems we must be able to answer the following questions:
Protection of Western Europe. Despite earlier references
to number of U.S. troops abroad, my impression has been that
the USSR has a rather incredible superiority in conventional
forces over all of all of NATO combined. The only advantage
NATO forces could hope to use would be superior communication, command,
countermeasure systems. Because of this, it seems we are currently
depending on tactical nuclear weapons to counter an all out
armored assault. If we are to eliminate these tactical weapons,
then the protection of Western Europe would require either:
a) Increase conventional forces in Europe. Especially in
the present political climate, it doesn't look possible to
spend the money necessary to keep a standing army the size
of the USSR's.
b) Negotiate troop reductions with the Soviets. Considering
how well arms negotiations have worked and the well
demonstrated paranoia of the Soviets over their borders,
this doesn't seem practical.
c) Trust the Soviets with their superiority. A possibility,
but consider Afghanistan, Poland, and the USSR's treatment
of its' satellites in general. I am appalled by how
little control the American people have over the Pentagon
in general, and the Presidents uses of forces in Grenada,
San Salvador, etc. But at least there is some pressure
applied by public opinion. The Soviet government seems
based on joint control by senior officers in the armed
forces and the KGB. Imagine being governed directly by
the CIA and Joint Chiefs and see my hesitation in trusting
the Soviet government.
Nuclear Blackmail. The above discussion assumed strictly conventional
warfare. But what happens if the Soviet Union has the only nuclear
weapons? The Soviets are not known for half way measures in warfare,
if reports of chemical warfare in Afghanistan are to be believed. The
U.S. certainly didn't refrain from using nuclear weapons when it had
a nuclear monopoly. An air burst over a city could be an incredibly
demoralizing attack, with little fear of retaliation if you own
a nuclear monopoly. 'Mother Jones' quoted a memo/diary entry of
Harry Truman that read something like "Build lots of atomic bombs,
bomb Russia, set up world-wide democracy". I don't like that kind
of power in anyone's hands.
I want to believe in unilateral disarmament: it is a simple,
immediate solution to a terrifying problem. The last thing I want
is my country involved with the genocide of the entire race, and
I am damn tired of being in a situation where this is a day to day
reality. But is irresponsible to advocate this without some assurance
that we won't bring on the deaths of millions in an invasion of
Western Europe or in nuclear blackmail.
Please note, I am not asking for flames about the relative
merits of U.S. over U.S.S.R., this is irrelevant. We are discussing
giving U.S.S.R. ALONE a nuclear monopoly. And please show at least
as much cynicism in the actions and motivations of the U.S.S.R as
you would for the U.S..
Peter Moore (moore@Berkeley, ucbvax!moore)