za16ao@sdccsu3.UUCP (12/02/83)
> "I think disarmament is not always taken to mean total disarmament, but I
shall be more careful this time: What is the argument against unilateral
disarmament to the point where one can obliterate the other nation only,
say, once?"
Now here's a cute problem. There isn't a good answer to that. I agree
that escalation of arms at this point seems mad, sad, and paranoid. My
only comment is that we are dealing with people who are similarly mad
and paranoid. Perhaps this is the kind of warped statement that they
can understand. Don't misunderstand me. I spent a lot of years trying
very hard to think of the Soviet government as "just ordinary people" -
but *no* government can be as uncautious or relaxed as ordinary people; too
much strain, for one thing. And in my mind, anyone who could perpetuate a
state such as the U.S.S.R., who has a way of looking at the world so vastly
different than mine that it actually threatens mine, is quite likely worth
classifing as mad. Add to this the testimony of my many friends who have
emigrated from Russia and I get the distinct feeling that the *easiest*
way to respond to paranoia is with paranoia.
Note: I did *not* say it was the best way, the only way, or other such
nonsense! In fact it makes me sick. But I can't come up with a really
good alternative...
--
-=< Lady Arwen >=-
...sdcsvax!sdccsu3!arwen