andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (12/23/86)
In article <271@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >Who said anything about North America. The last two world wars were >started in Europe. Without a nuclear defense the third one probably >would have started there too. And probably would have ended with a lot less loss of life than a nuclear war would, even if it went on twice as long as the Second World War. Since you've now changed the subject to the so-called Nuclear Defense, note that the most notable thing about said Defense is that if it even came close to being used, either the populace would rise up against its use, or they wouldn't and the entirety of Western civilization [since we're using the American spellings here] would get blown away. Thus the Nuclear Defense is a massive waste of resources, since we have more of it than we could possibly use in the first place. The two superpowers should try to get away from it as much as possible, and no more world powers should try to get into it. However, for forty years either one side or the other, or both, has been unwilling to stop the ridiculous buildup by seriously negotiating for even MUTUAL disarmament. This is the main problem here. Whether or not Canada gets the NukeDef, if it ever gets used we'll all be blown away anyway. The best thing Canada could do right now is to build up conventional civil defense, refuse to do anything more with nukes, and try to put some real effort into negotiating disarmament between the US and the USSR. >As I stated before the Western world has agreed (can you spell NATO) yes N - A - T - O > ... to >keep the Eastern Bloc out of Europe. The problem is we don't want to spend >enormous amounts of money putting a large army into Europe. The result >is the use of the Nuclear defense. Endanger the future of life on the planet for cost-effectiveness. Sounds just like the military mentality. [P.S. mainly for JBR and DWA: did you see the recent "Nancy" in which Nancy builds a "peace shield" wall of snow to stop her and Sluggo from throwing snowballs at each other, and then tips the wall on top of Sluggo? That's what I like about "Nancy"!!! Good, TOPICAL HUMOUR!!!! :-)] --Jamie. ...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto, you're beautiful"
sl@van-bc.UUCP (12/23/86)
> > And probably would have ended with a lot less loss of life than >a nuclear war would, even if it went on twice as long as the Second >World War. > That's not the issue. The Nuclear Defense is not against people once they have started a war, it is a defense AGAINST people starting wars. By definition once you started to use them they have failed. > Thus the Nuclear Defense is a massive waste of resources, since >we have more of it than we could possibly use in the first place. >The two superpowers should try to get away from it as much as >possible, and no more world powers should try to get into it. The two superpowers are trying to do just that. It's just that politics and practicalities keep getting in the way. The Russian's don't trust the Americans, who keep worring about how they are going to fight the Russian conventional forces. I doubt very much if the US will seriously consider doing more than just stopping the buildup until they see drastic reductions in the Soviet forces. >However, for forty years either one side or the other, or both, >has been unwilling to stop the ridiculous buildup by seriously >negotiating for even MUTUAL disarmament. This is the main problem >here. > Thats right, mutual disarmanment of the conventional forces that both have, especially the Soviets. >we'll all be blown away anyway. The best thing Canada could do >right now is to build up conventional civil defense, refuse to do >anything more with nukes, and try to put some real effort into >negotiating disarmament between the US and the USSR. > Absolutely agreed! > Endanger the future of life on the planet for cost-effectiveness. >Sounds just like the military mentality. > Right, so lets all write our politicians that we want Canada to quadruple our defense spending -- say over the next five years. That should at least get us up the NATO norm. Then we can convince all of NATO to do the same and presto an army the size of the Soviets. Then maybe we could get rid all our nuclear weapons. Then instead of worring about an event with fairly low probability of happening (all out nuclear war), we can worry about an event with fairly good chances of happening (conventional war). An think of all the employment we would have generated. Lets face it armies generate a lot of spin off benefits in terms of jobs, technology etc :). We could even bring back conscription to get people to join ;). -- Stuart Lynne Public Access Network - Vancouver BC UUCP: ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vi!van-bc!sl Mail: 225B Evergreen Dr., Port Moody, BC, Canada, V3H 1S1 Phone: 604-937-7532
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (12/23/86)
In article <739@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > > Since you've now changed the subject to the so-called Nuclear >Defense, note that the most notable thing about said Defense is that >if it even came close to being used, either the populace would rise >up against its use, or they wouldn't and the entirety of Western >civilization [since we're using the American spellings here] would >get blown away. First off, the Soviet populace would probably find out about the large scale use of nuclear weapons after the fact, if at all. Secondly, even if by some miracle they did find out I can't imagine them revolting. The Soviet government has such a tight reign on these people that even if they wanted to revolt (which is doubtful) it would be a short revolt indeed - the Soviet people know this and would probably act accordingly. And lastly, given the situation that the pacifists so deeply desire, i.e. a non-nuclear West, it would be no more necessary to end "the entirety of Western civilization" than it was necessary for the US to end the entirety of Japanese life. A limited number of strategically placed nukes should be able to ensure the West's defeat *without* turning the West (and everywhere else) into a nuclear wasteland. Just for good measure the Soviets could use neutron bombs where appropriate, and voila - no long lasting radioactivity. > > Thus the Nuclear Defense is a massive waste of resources, since >we have more of it than we could possibly use in the first place. >The two superpowers should try to get away from it as much as >possible, and no more world powers should try to get into it. >However, for forty years either one side or the other, or both, >has been unwilling to stop the ridiculous buildup by seriously >negotiating for even MUTUAL disarmament. This is the main problem >here. I agree. > Whether or not Canada gets the NukeDef, if it ever gets used >we'll all be blown away anyway. The best thing Canada could do >right now is to build up conventional civil defense, refuse to do >anything more with nukes, and try to put some real effort into >negotiating disarmament between the US and the USSR. Canada would have zero leverage with the US if it was to unconditionally have nothing to do with nukes. What *may* make sense is for Canada and the other NATO members to demand a bigger say in the US's nuclear policy as a condition of their continued membership in NATO and/or their continued support of nuclear weapons. E.g. we'll deploy your missiles if you sit down and bargain with the Russians in good faith (and find out if Gorby is serious about disarmament or just trying to score propaganda points). Unconditionally pulling out of the "game" accomplishes nothing and perhaps just hardens the US's resolve. Pulling out because *reasonable* suggestions/demands were not accepted is another thing altogether. >> ... to >>keep the Eastern Bloc out of Europe. The problem is we don't want to spend >>enormous amounts of money putting a large army into Europe. The result >>is the use of the Nuclear defense. > > Endanger the future of life on the planet for cost-effectiveness. >Sounds just like the military mentality. Actually, it sounds like the civilian mentality. Increasing regular forces as noted above would cost a bundle. Can you seriously see Brian (or John or Ed) advocating a tax increase to finance a bigger Canadian armed forces. The Canadian public wants nifty social programs, not big armies; until they realize that "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom" (hope I got that right) they'll just keep their heads buried in the sand w.r.t. military spending and their hands out for more and more goodies. Given the self-serving nature of 99% of politicians, I would hardly expect any of them to take any other course of action than the most cost-effective - with the public's implicit blessing. One of the arguments against Star Wars is that the Soviets would, quite understandably, not allow themselves to be put in the position of inferiority that would result. Something to do with the Soviets not trusting the US's intentions, I believe. Yet, by some perverse twist of logic it is perfectly acceptable for the West to put itself in such a position of extreme inferiority, if one listens to the unilateralists. Or perhaps I got this wrong - maybe the unilateralists support a 100% effective Star Wars (a feat of engineering that, admittedly, seems as likely as me sprouting wings), since it would achieve their goal of effecting unilateral nuclear disarmament of one of the super powers. Someone previously said something along the lines that the likelihood of a nuclear war would be greatly reduced if the West unilaterally disarmed. I agree. What this person did *not* say is that (like Star Wars) such a policy would have an extremely destabilizing effect that would probably be too great a temptation for the hawks in the Kremlin to resist (or is the US the only country that has hawks?). And, with the nuclear ace in the hole they could most likely achieve all of their objectives with only conventional forces. Let's see ..... the "reunification" of Germany might be a good place to start, eh comrade? J.B. Robinson
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/30/86)
> >... The problem is we don't want to spend > >enormous amounts of money putting a large army into Europe. The result > >is the use of the Nuclear defense. > > Endanger the future of life on the planet for cost-effectiveness. > Sounds just like the military mentality. Actually it's the political mentality. This decision was made by, and continues to be backed by, elected politicians. Not that the military has been opposed to the idea, at least in the nuclear-weapons nations, but they're being blamed for something that wasn't really their fault. (Well, with a few exceptions. The USAF Strategic Air Command is not entirely blameless in this mess...) The current situation is not the result of destruction-crazed generals who were only interested in bigger and more devastating weapons; it is much more the result of reelection- crazed politicians who were only interested in cheaper ways to get the same apparent effectiveness in defence, at a time when big defence budgets were very unpopular and tended to cost votes. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/30/86)
> Someone previously said something along the lines that the likelihood > of a nuclear war would be greatly reduced if the West unilaterally > disarmed. I agree. What this person did *not* say is that ... such a policy > would have an extremely destabilizing effect ... with the nuclear ace in the > hole [the Kremlin hawks] could most likely achieve all of their objectives > with only conventional forces. Let's see ..... the "reunification" of > Germany might be a good place to start, eh comrade? Quite likely. The Soviets haven't forgotten what the Germans did to them a few decades ago. They fear Germany. East Germany is the only Warsaw Pact state that has Soviet troops stationed in it in peacetime. The Soviets would dearly love to have all of Germany, rather than just half of it, under firm Soviet control to make sure it can never threaten them again. The split down the middle of Germany just makes the situation worse, because the Germans deeply resent it and the Soviets realize this. The descendants of the National Socialist (usually abbreviated to "Nazi") party are still a major force in West German politics, they hate the Soviets to hell and back, and the Soviets know this too. They have good reason to fear such forces in a high-technology (i.e., nuclear-capable) nation. They would undoubtedly sleep a lot easier with a few dozen armored divisions occupying West Germany. This also brings up an issue that the radical disarmament advocates don't seem to consider: what happens in the "frontline" states (e.g. W. Germany) if their nuclear backers (e.g. the US) renounce force, or even just dissolve the alliances that commit them to support the frontline states? The comments in the previous paragraph are nothing new to the Germans; they know that the Soviets distrust and fear an independent West Germany. What happens if West Germany, facing huge nuclear-armed Warsaw Pact armies, feels it has lost its own nuclear backing? It will do the same thing that Israel did, faced with big hostile neighbors and unreliable allies: build its own nuclear weapons. [The current debate about whether Israel actually has a nuclear arsenal is pretty superficial; even if the Israelis are telling the truth about not having nuclear bombs on hand, nobody doubts that they could assemble some on damned short notice if they needed them badly enough.] And then the shit would truly hit the fan. The Soviets are edgy enough about Germany now. They remember how close they came to disaster in 1941, and which nation was responsible, and are utterly determined that no repetition will be allowed. Bad enough that the Germans are capable of building nuclear weapons, restrained only by treaties (the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was practically custom-built to suit West Germany) and allies. What do the Soviets do when the Germans actually get nuclear weapons, or are obviously building them? Rephrased: right now, those hypothetical armored divisions occupying West Germany look nice but overly dangerous against the alternative of coexisting with a non-nuclear Germany restrained by its allies; what do the Soviets do when that alternative becomes an unrestrained Germany, with a populace that generally dislikes the Soviet Union and a large faction that hates it, armed with nuclear weapons? -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry