peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (11/17/83)
One of the objections to "The Day After" given on the 60 Minutes piece was that the film assumes, by depicting a nuclear war, that "deterrence doesn't work" and thus the film is biased. This objection misses the point that a nuclear war could be started entirely by accident (as in WarGames), and the probability of such an accident probably increases as arms buildups continue. From the path of the discussion of nuclear weapons on this group, I conclude that the pro-nuclear forces are bound to win as they have succeeded in restricting the debate to the virtually non-existent question of nuclear superiority. Given the variety of weapons systems, any number of superior- ity metrics may be devised, giving superiority to the other side, which can be used as rationale for building more arms. Even if the metrics are shaky, the natural desire for security tends to lead one to err on the side of significant "superiority". A major turning point in the debate would be the realization by all concerned that nuclear superiority is, past a certain point, a meaningless concept. After that point, new weapons act solely to (a) increase the probability of accidental nuclear war, (b) consume vast sums of money, and (c) increase the sense of hopelessness on the part of the young with respect to the future. Of course, the money expended does not disappear into a pit; it goes to the defense contractors which take their profit from it and employ people with it (As it turns out, spending the money on almost anything else would employ more people per dollar spent). Sadly, the current peace movement, by concentrating on the likely effects of a war, misses the effects of the arms race which are hurting people RIGHT NOW, in economic and psychological terms. "Jobs not useless bombs" might be a better slogan than "Stop the bomb". Why is unilateral arms reduction such a taboo? Many submissions say "I'm for mutual, *balanced* arms reductions; oh, no, not unilateral action for me." Wouldn't you rather have your money spent on revitalizing your industry to compete with other countries? Wouldn't you rather have it spent on education so your children could read better? Or, even in terms of foreign policy, wouldn't you rather have it spent on aiding countries to become strong partners with the West? THAT would worry rational Soviets more than another weapons system. To those people who cite recent Soviet aggressions (Afghanistan, etc.), I ask "Did nuclear weapons prevent them from happening?" EVEN IF the Soviets are monstrous baby-eaters, I contend that nuclear weapons are not going to stop them. Nukes are just too crude a weapon. Carl Sagan and Paul Erhlich have an analogy which is particularly evocative. They depict the world as a gasoline-soaked room. On one side of the room is a man with 150 matches. On the other side, a man with 160 matches. And the first man is thinking "If I only had another 20 matches, I'd be much more secure". To this analogy, I add the matchmakers, who put up posters on the walls in the best tradition of Madison Ave., with glossy photos, catchy names, and appeals to security through stockpiles of matches. peter rowley, U. Toronto
esj@ihuxl.UUCP (11/19/83)
I think the argument against unilateral disarmament is the fear of nuclear blackmail. If we removed/destroyed/whatever all of our strategic nuclear weapons, the Soviets could always use the line, "You do this or we excise New York." (Hmm ... Sorry, couldn't resist!) How could we afford to say no? Same thing for the French, British, and Canadians. I have no desire to die of radiation sickness but then again I don't like the Soviet style of people's/workers' paradise either. ihnp4!ihuxl!esj
peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (11/20/83)
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?
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (11/25/83)
#R:utcsrgv:-275200:uokvax:5000033:000:658 uokvax!rigney Nov 23 03:39:00 1983 While the matchstick analogy is an over-simplification (something Sagan is very good at), I find it interesting to use it as well to discuss the various defense schemes - these are fire extinguishers. You don't know that a fire extinguisher would actually save you in a gas-soaked room, but it's certainly better to have than another 20 matches, or a bic lighter. A better alternative is to drain the gasoline in the room, or remove the oxygen; then the matches don't matter, do they? As Kissinger said, weapons don't cause wars, tensions and conflicting national interests do. Hiding a Hafla 35L behind the matches, Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney