notes@ucbcad.UUCP (11/29/83)
#R:houxu:-24800:ucbesvax:7500057:000:3505
ucbesvax!turner Nov 29 02:18:00 1983
Re: Larry Welsch's "An Alternative to Limited Nuclear War"
Let me say, first off, that I don't disagree with the Scientific American
article cited, nor with the conclusions Larry draws from it. I disagree
with his proposal, however: expansion into the oceans and into space is
not going to solve anything, and especially not for the reasons that he
gives, which are very dubious. Rather, it would exacerbate the conflict.
Leaving aside the can-of-worms issue of who owns the oceans, I doubt very
much that space can be considered "big" in the same sense that Russia is
considered big. Nor is Russia "big" in nuclear warfaring terms. These
are not the days of Napolean--they are not even the days of Hitler!
Considered in terms of the number of targets to hit, the U.S. is larger.
Similarly, the question of whether "anyone [would] think seriously of
attacking a country that had the technology to successfully colonize"
either the oceans or space is unimportant: global ecocide hits everyone,
no matter how big and spread out they might be. And the spitefulness that
would result in a nuclear exchange would most certainly not spare the
hanging gardens of Tycho Crater!
The final paragraph was a masterpiece of blind optimism:
More importantly such a space race would remove the tensions
from nuclear arms race and create useful outlets for the world's
population and new resources to support the world.
There is a treaty about putting nuclear arms in orbit. It says "we won't".
If one side or the other should decide to abrogate, we will see a precarious
situation. "Such a space race" will have precisely the *opposite* effect of
what Larry expects: it will raise tensions to a fever pitch. (You *have*
heard of the ultimate MX basing option, haven't you? Proposed, I believe,
by think-tankers at the Heritage Foundation [1], is that MX's be modified
to be launched into orbit, and then dropped on *command*. Please don't
tell me that you don't want to live on a planet H-bombs poised in orbit,
while the superpowers snarl and bicker. Being on the moon or in the ocean
wouldn't be a whole lot of help.[2])
You might protest: "we'll keep nukes out of space." But what you're
proposing is to extend the borders of the U.S. upward and downward. Are
you saying that the current national defense priorities will not extend
in these directions? The superpower mentality *demands* that they should.
Another major objection: the incredible cost of the proposal. The vast
majority of people in the world will never make enough money in their
lifetimes to fund an emigration of this kind. Space will *not* be a "useful
outlet for the world's population" for at least a century. The problem
we're talking about must be solved a little sooner than that--maybe next
month, given the way things are going at the moment.
Come on, Space Cadets! Let's get our heads out of the Magellanic clouds.
(You too, Laura! [3].) A space-colonization effort is what you do with
the money left over from defense budgets *after* superpower conflicts have
been resolved or rendered moot. Now, it could only worsen matters.
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)
[1] Please pardon me if I'm slandering one of the more level-headed
conservative research organizations. I don't know that much about them.
The Heritage Foundation is what came to mind.
[2] How to get them down? They say "we'll use the space shuttle!"
[3] net.flame article by L. Creighton. (Better than Larry's, but...)laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/02/83)
Well, at least Michael Turner read my article. I was wondering if it got out there.... The problem with trying to settle the problems of the earth *before* we get to space is that if it was that easy we would have solved them already. Why do people have wars is a very good question and there are thousands of answers, but they all boil down to: people are willing to do truly rotten things to each other Right. Suppose we wanted to do something about this. Let us say that everybody in the US, say adopted a moral stance that we would not do rotten things to other countries. What would happen? There would be considerable argument as to what was a "rotten thing". There would be considerable argument as to whether you should allow another nation to do a rotten thing. Doesn't this sound like what is going on NOW? If you abandon the stereotypes and look at your neighbours, you are struck with the conclusion that it is not that we are rampant "vehicles of evil" or even that "Ronald Reagan and the Moral Majority are vehicles of evil" but that here are some people who may be making horrible and rotten discisions but who still are trying not to do rotten things to each other or to allow other people to do rotten things to themselves and to each other... Thus we are flawed. We cannot come up with a universal and good morality which will be acceptable even in so small an area as the United States -- let alone The USSR and India and Iran and China and all these other places where it is so clearly needed as well if this solution is to work. Is it any wonder? What harder questions are there than "what is good" and "what is evil"? If they are not insoluable questions then they sure are very tough ones --- and if we have not solved them over the course of human history it is unlikely that we would solve them right now even though they are desparately needed right now. (aside: every age probably felt that they were desparately needed *right now*). Thus what we need is a way to avert nuclear war which is not based on knowing "what is right" and "what is good" and "what is moral". Most especially we must give up the self-centred and quaint notion that "If *I* were President then none of these awful things...". The President is not some governmental demi-god --- indeed there is not one of us who would not make a president that many people would not approve of! now something that human beings are good (not great, but better than at understanding good and evil!) at is deciding how much something will cost. So far, the threat of nuclear war has been deemed worth the cost. Whatever you or I may think about this, they are still building nuclear weapons.... What you are facing is the destruction of the world as we know it (and perhaps as *ANYTHING* knows it) as a possible outcome. Still it has been decided that it is worth the cost... Thus the basic human goods of freedom, home and property have been declared to be worth the risk. So what we need to do is make the *gains* of war less attractive. If you are *already* secure, and you cannot remove a menace and you know that they cannot remove you why bother fighting? If people actually *enjoy* war, then there is one reason but I am sure that we can accomodate them. But if *nobody* wants nuclear war then what is really wanted is the security that your way of life will continue. And if you have thriving space colonies then that is satisfied -- so why bother protecting yourself? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (12/02/83)
#R:houxu:-24800:uokvax:5000028:000:1479 uokvax!rigney Nov 30 20:31:00 1983 /***** uokvax:net.politics / houxu!welsch / 5:25 pm Nov 27, 1983 */ Russia has no choice, but to follow the U.S. in developing this capability. This in turn will heighten tensions throughout the world as well as make it more likely for terrorists to obtain nuclear weapons. /* ---------- */ I'm afraid you've got it backwards. Russia has been training its troops to fight on a Nuclear-Chemical battlefied for a long time, and the use of tactical nukes and chemical weapons is a STANDARD part of Soviet Military Doctrine. The U.S. is only now beginning to think about fighting in such an environment, as it should be. There's far less incentive to use such weapons if the other side is both prepared for it and ready to respond in a similar matter. The ONLY reason the Germans didn't use poison gas during the Normandy Invasion is that they were afraid the U.S. (excuse me, I meant Allies) would respond similarly, and the Germans were not prepared to be on the receiving end of a gas attack (much of their transport was horse-drawn, and they couldn't make an effective gas mask for horses.) The Terrorism issue is a red herring, I suspect. Getting a bomb from a military stockpile is much more difficult than getting the raw materials and making it yourself. Besides, what does training to fight in a nuclear environment have to do with increased numbers of nukes? It's not like they use live ammo in their nuclear training, you know!-) Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney