arnold (04/06/83)
I have a few comments, additions and replies to Jan D. Wolter's article
on how to save the world. Following will be a brief and somewhat modified
description of what Jan said and then my reply. (refer to net.politics)
J.W. - Nuclear weapons are scary. On the other hand,, we've had them around
for some 30 years without anyone using a single one. In fact, we've
pretty much avoided really big wars for that period. The situation,
up to now, has been fairly stable. Unilateral disarment is risky
because it puts us on unknown ground.
Response - I most hardily agree with the first statement, Nuclear HOLOCOST is
very scary! Studies on the ozone show that if the U.S. released just
one tenth of its nuclear arsenal on Russia that 1/4th of the ozone would
be disrupted, eventually causing the death of most life on earth. VERRY
SCARRY!!!!! The second statement is true, we've had them around for
quite a while, and the longer they continue to exist the more we tempt
the fate of an accidental launch or detonation. I've read some scant
literature that some statistician calculated that we've already defied
the odds on just one accident. The longer they exist and the more we
manufacture the longer we will continue to play this game of Russian
Roulette with the human race. As for the statement "things are fairly
stable," I couldn't disagree more. 1/4 of the worlds nations are
currently involved in some type of armed conflict. If you're refering
to the military state of the U.S. it is true that we have not been in
a "War," but the price for this insecure stability will be paid sooner
or later. The last statement is pure ignorance! What unilateral
disarment does is assure that future generations will be around to
enjoy life, not necessarily a good one but never the less life. Who
cares if they get us conventionally at least it is not
Armagaden (spelling).
J.W. - The way we got into this situation was a slow bilateral build-up. The
safest way out is a slow bilateral reduction. This keeps us on pretty
much safe gound. Any other strategy could make the situation worse.
Response - The last statement above says that the only non-worsening strategy
is bilateral reduction. I believe that even a bilateral reduction can
make the situation worse. Any situation is risky. I would venture to say
that bilateral reduction would be the most popular choice of action and
maybe (who knows?) the best. I contend that any reduction would be an
improvement, one less chance of starting the Jihad. (Dune Fans)
J.W. - What this comes down to, is that the nuclear protesters are doing
more to hinder nuclear disarment than to help it. They apply pressure
to the government to find a solution, while at the same time making
it impossible to achieve one.
Response - I will not take a stand on protesters, but I don't think they're
hindering the process any more than the patriotic militaristic person.
Preasure is being applied at the extreems by two minorities, not just
by protesters. Who is to say that preasure is being applied at all
considering that it is being applied by a small minority, now if you
were saying that most of the nation was protesting, then I would
agree with you. But I personally don't think that the people who feels
this assumed preasure are listening to the two hundred protesters
out at Rocky Flats. (In Colorado)
J.W. - By introducing the Pershing missiles in Europe we are moving more
in the right direction of disarament than the nuclear protesters.
Response - This strange loop speaks for itself.
J.W. - How about rallying in support of Reagan's initiative, instead of in
protest?
Response - The more nuclear weapons we produce the higher our chances of
ivoking a Nuclear Holocost. The only way to lessen the chance of the
dreaded Holocost is to disarm. One side, both sides, any side. The
less number of weapons the less chance of starting something that
either side can, and would, finish. I don't want to see the entire
human race go down the drain and our world destroyed because of
idologically political bickering. Our main concern should be the
continuation of man, not the endurance of the U.S.A. or U.S.S.R.!!!
(and progress of man)
Sorry for the length. I have just put on my asbestos flack jacket so you
may now flame away!!! Thank you Jan D. Wolter and hope you come up with some
appropriate responses. As for all you other political animals, if your way
is right and you can prove it to me, I'll be happy to advocate it. Reference
is made to strange loops, please refer to the book "Godel, Escher Bach written
by Douglas Hofstatler (spelling)."
Ed (they call me flame) Arnold
hao!csu-cs!arnold