courtney (05/06/83)
#R:houti:-27200:hp-pcd:17400021:000:1715
hp-pcd!courtney May 5 12:38:00 1983
"GOOD GRIEF"... Tom Craver is out of touch with reality!!!!!
NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE SPECIAL!!!!!!!!!!
Only since the advent of nuclear weapons have humankind had the capability to
TOTALLY ELIMINATE ALL TERRESTRIAL HIGHER LIFE FORMS!!!
WHO CARES if it is "JUST" to retaliate to a nuclear first strike with a
nuclear missile... IT WON'T MATTER WHETHER IT IS JUST OR NOT, because if
we respond to a strike with another strike, WHERE WILL IT END... Only when
we have decimated each other and
MADE THE PLANET UNLIVIBLE BY ANY IMAGINABLE STANDARD.
If less than half of the EXISTING nuclear warheads were detonated, the effect
on the atmospheric ozone would be ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING! Humans would have
to go outside wearing sunglasses to keep the UV radiation from making them
go blind.... BUT THAT WON'T MATTER, because there won't be anything left
worth seeing. Would YOU be willing to go into the wilderness and put
sunglasses on all the wild animals? They DEPEND on vision to live, so they
would DIE. And the INSECTS... BEES and other insects would go blind and die,
leaving most plants with NO WAY TO POLINATE AND REPRODUCE. With only a few
wind polinated plants and a very few simple organisms able to reproduce,
terrestrial life go into a tailspin for a long time.
ANY REMAINING HUMANS WOULD NOT HAVE A PLANET WHICH COULD SUPPORT THEM!!!
So, for any of you foolish enough to think nuclear weapons are not special,
YOU'RE DEAD WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
(Comparing nukes with handguns... GOOD GRIEF!!!)
Looking for RATIONAL discussion of the nuclear weapons issue,
Courtney Loomis
hplabs!hp-pcd!courtneyneil (05/06/83)
Relay-Version:version B 3/9/83; site harpo.UUCP
Message-ID:<1413@hplabs.UUCP>
Date:Fri, 6-May-83 10:27:52 EDT
#R:houti:-27200:hplabs:15300001:000:811
hplabs!neil May 6 09:32:00 1983
re: Just how special are Nukes?
Just to try and change the semantics of the question: Perhaps
what we should be asking is, "are Nuclear Weapons unique?"
The answer is not really. An all out war would probably be
an NBC war (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). And the biological
weapons scare me more than the nuclear ones.
The US has renounced all use of biological weapons and first
use of chemical weapons. The USSR has and is using chemical
weapons in Afghanistan, and is doing active research on biological
weapons. (A few years ago (1979?) there was an Anthrax outbreak
near a biological weapons research center in the USSR; the mortality
rate was 80%).
So, my conclusion is that Nuclear weapons are not uniquely distructive,
they just are getting worse publicity.
Neil Katin
hplabs!neiljfw (05/10/83)
"Looking for RATIONAL discussion of the nuclear weapons issue,..." WHENEVER I see text with lots of CAPITALIZED words, it puts me in mind of the comic books of my HERO, ZIPPY the PINHEAD! Perhaps if people would quit SHOUTING about how their point of view is so RIGHT beyond question, and start thinking about what the other persons point of view might mean to them, perhaps the debate could be resolved more rapidly. To die from a bullet is still equivalent to dying from a nuclear fireball -- you end up dead either way. There are some of us who would like to avoid either possibility. John Woods, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, not off the net long enough...
jnc (05/11/83)
Relay-Version:version B 2.10 gamma 4/3/83; site mhuxt.UUCP Posting-Version:version B 2.10 gamma 4/7/83; site ihuxo.UUCP Message-ID:<232@ihuxo.UUCP> Date:Wed, 11-May-83 16:01:37 EDT Organization:BTL Naperville, Il. This note is in response to Neil Katin's comments on the issue of the unique-ness of nuclear arms, and specifically to his statements on biological/chemical warfare. Neil states, "The US has renounced all use of biological weapons and first use of chemical weapons. . ." This statement might lead us to believe that the U.S. has not recently used chemical weapons, when the U.S. has in fact used chemical warfare as recently as the Vietnam War. I'm referring to our use of Agent Orange, a defoliant sprayed, by the millions of gallons, on the Vietnamese countryside (and on the Vietnamese people, and inadvertently on U.S. soldiers). Agent Orange contained, among other ingredients, a chemical called dioxin, one of the most toxic substances known. Times Beach, Mo., was accidently contaminated with trace amounts of dioxin, and the EPA evacuated the town earlier this year. Certainly the use of Agent Orange qualifies as chemical warfare against the Vietnamese, who have complained of neurological and other organ damage, and enormous increases in the rate of birth defects, among peo;ple exposed to the defoliant. Vietnam veterans accidently sprayed with Agent Orange have documented similar effects. Just trying to set the record straight, Jeff Coleman