cwa@ihuxm.UUCP (Carl W. Amport) (11/16/83)
Please don't start flaming before you have read the article. Thank you. I am as much against having a nuclear arsenal as the next person, but after all the ICBMs and Tactical Nuclear weapons are gone, the free world will NEED a replacement. This brings us back to the rationale for having nuclear weapons in the first place. The reason Atomic weapons were so "attractive" at the beginning were that they were the ultimate protectors of peace - no one would dare attack if we could retaliate with such ominous force. Even after they had a few bombs, we still thought that the threat of retaliation would prevent any major war between the super powers. They were (temporarily) RIGHT - as in the Cuban missile crisis. The reason for the all-out arms race was not that they had bombs and we had bombs and `who can have the most,' but it was ICBMs and improved delivery systems that led to a de-stabilized balance of nuclear "superiority." As soon as we, or they, could knock out the other side's arsenal with a first strike, the race was on! Both sides must have MORE AND MORE AND MORE in order to have enough left over after their first strike so massive retaliation is still pos- sible and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) can still be "achieved." HEY, I am not insane! MAD was thought up by some "brain trust" in the early sixties and many leaders on both sides still believe that MAD works. The reason that the US bought into this grim situation in the first place is that it was a "more attractive package" to sell to the US public than was the alternative. The alternative is having sufficient "conventional" weapons and a large enough active and reserve ARMED FORCES. Politicians, with the help of the military leaders, were able to convince the public that nuclear superiority was safer, cheaper, and less human-intensive than a conventional Army. What I am trying to say is: IF THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WANTS TO DISARM OUR EVER GROWING NUCLEAR ARSENAL, THEN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS GOING TO HAVE TO CONVINCE THE POLITICAL LEADERS THAT AMERICA WILL SUPPORT A SUFFICIENT CONVENTIONAL ARMY AND RESERVE. I think it would be impossible to disarm our nuclear arsenal without the above commitment and even then, the disarming would have to be world wide. Also, hesitation by the US people to support their military and their looking down at any action our armed forces takes, makes the commitment unlikely in my opinion. It also does not speak well of America's appreciation of what our past war dead have achieved for us. There is one phrase that is not spoken often enough in American politics: "Let's put up, or shut up!" Carl W. Amport Naperville, IL. ihuxm!cwa