peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (11/11/83)
A question for the net: Of all the Democratic candidates, George McGovern
has a unique position on nuclear arms: we've got more than enough so it is
economically foolish to build more. If the Russians want to build more than
they need (understandable in view of the paranoia resulting from their WWII
experiences), then let them go ahead, be stupid and wasteful, and do it.
There are people that suggest that the only reason for the MX and cruise is
to give the Air Force something to control, as their traditional domain
(land-based ICBMs) is becoming vulnerable, though submarine launched
missiles will be invulnerable for the forseeable future. Of course, the
military-industrial complex thrives on new weapon systems.
Here's the question: this theory, on the surface, seems plausible. It
relies on the overkill/Mutually Assured Destruction theory, which seems
to be substantiated by recent medical and environmental studies on the
effects of nuclear war. Are there cogent arguments publically available
to support or refute this argument? Please don't give me missile or
megatonnage counts unless they are used to refute the overkill theory.
References to published papers or books are most welcome.
peter rowley, University of Toronto Department of C.S., Ontario Canada M5S 1A4
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,ubc-vision,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!peterr
{cwruecmp,duke,linus,decvax,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr