trc (05/10/83)
Response to Courtney Loomis and Tim Sevener: Perhaps Courtney should re-read my note. I did not say that nuclear are exactly analagous with handguns. I did point out that, while the degree of destruction is greater, the intention of both the nuclear weapon and a saturday night special is to kill the enemy or shoot up his property. The degree of destruction does not change the nature of the thing - it is still a weapon. WHY do some people try to make some sort of distinction? Are they trying to defend the right to go about murdering people? DEAD IS DEAD! A billion deaths are only quantitatively worse than a single death, not qualitatively! The death of the last man on earth would be a tragedy only because of the billions of lives lost before it. With each murder committed, Mankind announces that it feels extinction is its just due. In order to deny that claim, humans must abhor all murders equally, and seek justice. Yes, we do have another choice than giving up the world, either to communism or to death. We have the choice of life. Choosing to "make peace" with the Russian government is like feeding a hungry tiger your arm, then lying down with it to go to sleep. You may survive a while longer, but you'd better wake up in time to feed it a midnight snack, or you'll be that snack. And even if you wake up in time, every time, it won't make much difference - eventually there will be more of you inside the tiger than outside. Yesterday Eastern Europe, today Afganistan. Perhaps a bloody red chunk of South America next? If you want to choose life, it will take more than convincing the tiger not to sharpen its claws and teeth. Merely being armed does not protect the hunter. The tiger must know that he is armed, and willing to protect himself. (And the hunter does NOT provoke the attack of the tiger by carrying a gun.) A wise hunter would not risk his family by hunting the tiger while they are along. Rather, he would stand guard over them, gun loaded and ready. The hunter does have one advantage over the tiger, if he is patient - the tiger is sick, requiring frequent transfusions from free human minds to keep it alive. Cut that off, and it will eventually die. On the other hand, the tiger could have an advantage - for the hunter's family is getting panicky, and are suggesting that the hunter make a deal with the tiger. "Only eat a little of us at a time, and dont use your terrible claws, and we wont try to defend ourselves with our terrible guns". Not a pretty story. But accurate. Before the storm of protest and criticism starts, I'd like to ask a question that Ayn Rand has asked, and already answered. Why are people so certain that a nuclear war is inevitable? Her answer (1) is that people sense that they have not given up the idea that is the source of war. That is, that it is sometimes right to use force to achieve goals, rather than merely in self-defense. That sometimes men are incapable of any other means of achievement. If anyone could convince Russia to give up this idea, and get the US to avoid it more consistantly, there would be no fear of war between the two nations. But the use of force is inherent to any form of collectivism - the idea being that there are certain social goals that are worthwhile enough to force people to work for them. So, for Russia to give up the basis for war would mean that it would give up the (false) basis for communism. While I would greatly like that, I am scarcely so naive as to believe it could happen soon, or spontaneously. Tom Craver houti!trc (1) "The Roots of War", First published in The Objectivist, June 1966; reprinted in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", Nov, 1967; by Ayn Rand.
soreff (05/10/83)
Tom, your analogy is almost reasonable, except for one element. The hunter and tiger should be more equivalently armed, since they "tiger" can shoot back even if mortally wounded. Also, some allowance for the side effects on noncombatants of massive use of nuclear weapons (no one REALLY knows what 10,000 megatons of nuclear explosions will do to the atmosphere). Treat the landscape as being lined with explosives, and I think the analogy will hold. -Jeffrey Soreff (hplabs!soreff)