banner@ubc-vision.CDN (Allen Banner) (04/07/85)
In reply to Henry Spencer's submission "for the record": In spite of the fact that we are clearly on opposite sides of the fence regarding support for Ray Reiter's Declaration, we basically agree with each other! > one possible way is to link SDI deployment with major offensive-arms > reductions Effectively, this is the basis of "defense-protected build-down". I would wholeheartedly support SDI if there was an implicit incorporation of build-down of offensive weapons into it. Defense-protected build-down (DPB) has such a build-down integrally built into it. I think Prime Minister Mulroney's comments regarding being cautious of becoming involved in a project such as this where you are a small player with no say in the overall direction of the program is very wise and should be a major factor in determining the final decision. I don't think we should participate since, as proposed, there is nothing to ensure that a build-down will happen and there is nothing to convince the *Soviets* that such a build-down will occur. My personal belief is that an appropriate Canadian response would be to decline the invitation but with (1) the suggestion that the SDI program be restructured to include some of the features of DPB (such as an inherent *requirement* built in to the approach for a build-down of offensive weapons) and (2) an offer to participate *should* the program be modified (although I'm not sure Canadian participation would be required since DPB does not involve the immense development which SDI requires). There has been alot of discussion regarding the need for trust and the difficulty of developing and maintaining it. I think that there is alot of trust right now...in a perverse way, this "trust" is helping to maintain the arms race! Both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. "trust" that the other side will act rationally and not do anything that will start the unthinkable. The arms manufacturers, specifically must have a healthy dose of this "trust"...their corporate profits will come to an abrupt end in the event of a full-scale nuclear war. It is in the interest of the "military/industrial complex" to continue relying on this "trust". It is *not* in their interest to encourage development of trust between the two superpowers in the more usual sense of the word. It is *not* in their interest to support or encourage *any* sort of major arms reductions if they perceive that the "trust" (in the perverted sense) can keep the world in one piece (albeit at the expense of many people's sense of a secure future). I don't think that we should *hope* that major arms reductions will occur with a shift to defensive systems (a la SDI). Given the interests of the "military/industrial complex" and the destabilizing effects of SDI *prior* to its implementation, I think the likely outcome will be further offensive arms buildUP's. I think our support for any shift toward the use of defensive systems should *not* rely on faith that the military/industrial complex will act *against* its own interests (...we are still around aren't we?..."trust" will continue to work). Our support should be offered *only* if a build-down of offensive weapons is an integral part of the plan with no loopholes for the implementation of the plan to become simply another buildUP. I think that DPB could be the basis for such a plan. I also think, however, that it would receive *massive* opposition from the arms industry since adoption of DPB in favour of SDI would mean much less business for them. It also does not offer the "quick fix" illusion of a world freed from nuclear weapons by the wonders of space-age technology. Instead, it offers a first step out of the spiral of escalation which we are presently stuck in. The will to *work toward* an alternative to "peace through nuclear blackmail" would be essential to keep it going. DPB does not offer a "solution" as much as it offers a "start". It would require a great deal of support to counter the inevitable opposition from the arms industry and its supporters. That sort of support would be something for Canada to consider seriously. Again, I would love to hear what other people think of DPB. For people at UBC, I have posted a copy of the article by Barkenbus and Weinberg in the CPSI coffee room.