trc (04/08/83)
When weapons are not being used to destroy, they are used to induce fear in one's enemies. Fear in reasonable quantities has the healthy effect of convincing both sides not to attack. Fear in large quantities on both sides can have the opposite effect, of inducing a "preventive strike". This is the real nuclear weapons problem - the precarious balance of fear. And the MAD strategy has allowed the scales to be continually loaded with more fear, so that they are near the point of breaking. We seem to have painted ourselves into a corner. We are faced by two equally horrible prospects - nuclear war, or world domination by the other side, should we give up our weapons without them doing so also. And yes, I do see these as equally horrible. Which would be worse - to die swiftly in a war, or to live on, watching the murder and destruction of all you love? The source of the problem is that the US didnt make the commitment needed to stay well ahead of the Russians, or to use the strength while ahead to force the Russians to stay away from nuclear arms. In either case, there would be no fear of nuclear war, and the world would be a much stabler place. We should have USED our weapons JUDICIOUSLY, to prevent others from developing nuclear arsenals. We are now paying the price of weakness. The solution is NOT to unilaterally accept weakness. If we turn the other cheek, the Russians will slap it. The freeze, even if done perfectly, merely delays the situation, doing nothing to defuse it. A third option, which no one seems to be considering, is intense dedication on our part to building up our strength. The Russians are already doing this, but I believe that our country is so much more productive that we would be easily capable of out doing them. (Of course it would really be the NATO countries, not just the US.) It has the advantage that the side that having more power would be the side that doesnt want world domination. And if the thought of unilateral build-up of offensive weapons seems distasteful, cant we at least agree upon a bi-lateral build up of defensive weapons, so that the load of fear on the scales is reduced? I think this is what the "Star Wars" plan could offer - a two sided race to REDUCE the nuclear threat. When it is done, then perhaps a freeze would be reasonable, without the threat of planetary extinction hanging over the heads of our children. Tom Craver houti!trc
soreff (04/09/83)
In response to Tom Craver: Have you thought through what using out (nuclear?) weapons to prevent the USSR from building their own would have required? Remember that the US and USSR were allies in WWII, and I don't believe that we have been directly at war with each other at any point since then. Would you have carried out a pre-emptive strike on the USSR's research labs, presumably in peacetime? I'm also not convinced that the US government does not want global domination. The US has military forces all over the world, and has at least given military aid to nations in Asia and Africa, as well as in Europe and Latin America. These forces are, of course, limited by the USSR's forces. I doubt that either superpower would limit its use of power to control global events, if the other superpower didn't counterbalance it. -Jeffrey Soreff (hplabs!hplabsb!soreff)
werner (04/10/83)
I recommend to all who believe in Tom's logic, to somehow get to see a 10-minute animated movie which won an OSCAR in the late sixties, called "IT IS ALWAYS RIGHT TO BE RIGHT". I believe, it was produced by Professor Smith of UCLA. (My data might not be exact, but close) Other than that, all I can say is GOOD GRIEF !!!!!!
ucbesvax.turner (04/11/83)
#R:houti:-24200:ucbesvax:7500002:000:3776
ucbesvax!turner Apr 10 17:13:00 1983
You all know me, the Berkeley Commie for Peace and Soviet World
Domination. Just as you've always suspected, I have extensive ties to
the source of all evil in the world today, and forwarded T. Craver's
tidings of joy to those ruthless buzzards. Their reply was not long in
coming.
In fact, they seem to have spent an amazingly short amount of time
in composing this reply. Is it possible that they have screen editors in
the Great Dictatorships of the Proletariat?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When weapons are not being used to destroy, they are used to induce
fear in one's enemies. Fear in reasonable quantities has the healthy
effect of convincing both sides not to attack. Fear in large quantities
on both sides can have the opposite effect, of inducing a "preventive
strike". This is the real nuclear weapons problem - the precarious
balance of fear. And the MAD strategy has allowed the scales to
be continually loaded with more fear, so that they are near the
point of breaking.
We seem to have painted ourselves into a corner. We are faced by two
equally horrible prospects - nuclear war, or world domination by the
other side, should we give up our weapons without them doing so also.
And yes, I do see these as equally horrible. Which would be worse - to
die swiftly in a war, or to live on, watching the murder and destruction
of all you love?
The source of the problem is that the USSR didn't have the strength needed
to get well ahead of the Americans, or to use the strength when we caught up
to force the Americans to renounce the use of nuclear arms. In either case,
there would be no fear of nuclear war, and the world would be a much stabler
place. We should have USED our weapons JUDICIOUSLY, to prevent others from
further developing nuclear arsenals. We are now paying the price of weakness.
The solution is NOT to unilaterally accept weakness. If we turn the
other cheek, the Americans will slap it. The freeze, even if done perfectly,
merely delays the situation, doing nothing to defuse it. A third option,
which no one seems to be considering, is intense dedication on our part to
building up our strength. The Americans are already doing this, but I
believe that our country is so much more productive that we would be easily
capable of out doing them. (Of course it would really be the COMECON
countries, not just the USSR.) It has the advantage that the side that
having more power would be the side that doesn't want world domination.
And if the thought of unilateral build-up of offensive weapons seems
distasteful, can't we at least agree upon a bi-lateral build up of
defensive weapons, so that the load of fear on the scales is reduced?
I think this is that the "Tsar Wars" plan could offer - a two sided
race to REDUCE the nuclear threat. When it is done, then perhaps a
freeze would be reasonable, without the threat of planetary extinction
hanging over the heads of our children.
Yuri Andropov
yuri!kremlin!bulgariavax!viennavax!iriavax!decvax!ucbvax!esvax
P.S. It is, of course, with great reluctance that we must deploy
the particle-beam technology that we have been experimenting
with for years. It is rather expensive, but we are ahead in
many ways, and could probably build an ABM system sooner than
the Americans. This would be perceived as first-strike
advantage in the interim, and might lead to a pre-emptive
strike from them as a panic reaction: after all, they have
never renounced first their first-use policy, since it has
served them so well in their last 30 years of sabre-rattling.
But it is a chance worth taking, the only alternative being
world capitalism.mjk (05/02/83)
Am I oversimplifying, or does the basic disagreement in Geneva come down to just this: The Soviets say, "Look, those French and British are really your friends and, in the event of a war, their missles would probably be used to your advantage. Therefore, we should add up their missles and your missles and use that as a base number for your side." The Reaganauts say, "What French and British missles?"