jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/24/85)
<> What would a reasonable probability of nuclear war be? If we include
<> war precipitated by accidental detonation/launch or phantom attacks
<> being percieved by "defense" installations as well as actual planned
<> attacks then perhaps a probability greater than 0.0000000....0000000001
<> would be resonable. How about the consequences? Since we are talking
<> about what would very likely be the complete anihilation of all life
<> on earth I think a value of infinity would be appropriate.
<As I've said before, this reasoning indicates that our only rational course
<of action is to surrender to the Soviets immediately. Why are you not out
Nonsense. Surrender would be the only rational course ONLY if it were true
that the only effective defense was/is a massive nuclear umbrella and a
burgeoning arms race. If you think you can prove that I'd be happy to
see you try.
<campaigning for this? For that matter, why are you living in Canada instead
Perhaps that is what I'm doing here Henry.
<of New Zealand (which would not be immune to nuclear winter, but would be a
<lot less likely to be badly affected in the absence of n.w.)? Clearly you
<yourself believe that some risks are worth taking.
Perhaps I also believe in staying and fighting a bunch of crazed assholes
who are willing to destroy (or take the chance of) the world for their
own beliefs regardless of what the vast majority of the people who
inhabit the planet actually want. Perhaps I also believe that not only
is there no place to run (which pretty much seems to be the case) but
also that running and letting the "them" keep on escalating unnopposed
is morally indefensible.
<> > As witness the lack of popular revolt against the current situation (the
<> > anti-nuclear marchers are numerically insignificant against the population
<> > of the nations involved), most people are willing to take a (perceived)
<>
<> What do you consider insignificant? Polls indicate more than half of
<> the canadian public does not want cruise testing in canada. Anywhere
<> from 50,000 to 80,000 people (depending on whose estimates you want
<> to believe) were in the last vancouver peace march ( I know that this
<> is insignificant compared to the US/USSR populations but it is large
<> for Canada and we do participate in the nuclear arms race in one
<> way or another).
<
<50,000-80,000 *is* insignificant in a population of 25,000,000, dammit!
<That's a small fraction of one percent of the total population of Canada.
<It doesn't matter what fraction of the public would prefer not to have
<cruise testing in Canada, what matters is how many of them care enough
<about it to act. Since very few do, obviously most of that "more than
<half" are really almost indifferent, with only a slight bias against.
Well lets at least use the correct numbers Henry; that was the Vancouver
peace march so compare it to the (approx.) population of two million in
the lower mainland rather than twenty five million. Sounds like a
large turnout for a Canadian city to me. It's pretty easy to
denigrate the efforts of others "oh it's just 80,000 people they
don't count; they aren't large enough to have an effect." What are
the rules here? does a movement have to spring into existence with
half the population of Canada out marching within the first year?
Four years ago the march had about 30,000 now there are 2-3 times as
many people and more and more people are becoming concerned all the
time. Considering how hard it is to get people out for *anything*
I think that is pretty impressive. Why not help it along instead
of casually dismissing it - these people are at least trying to change
things.
<
<> Are you really that confident that Ron would rather give in to the
<> soviets than commit global holocaust. Are you also sure that a war
<> will not be started by mechanical/electronic/human-judgement error?
<
<I have no confidence that any of our world leaders, Soviet, US, or for
<that matter Canadian, would surrender rather than trigger catastrophe.
Then presumably you see the necessity for nuclear disarmament.
<I see no difference between Reagan and almost any other potential US
<president in this regard.
Really? While I might not agree with a lot of the policies of prior
U.S. presidents at least they seemed to have c reasoning abilities
and most of them were fairly well informed. I don't think you could
make the same case about Reagan. It is also my impression that most
other U.S. presidents were able to stay awake during meetings :-) .
<
<> > As for the temporary nature of Soviet domination, when "temporary" is
<> > defined as centuries, it's permanent as far as most folks are concerned.
<> > --
<> Well as far as I personally/physically am concerned it is permanent
<> too. However from a racial perspective it is but the bat of an eye
<> whereas nuclear war is the end. Making decisions and promoting
<> behaviour whose beneficial consequences will not be experienced for
<> extremely long periods is, I hope, not completely foreign to the
<> human race.
<
<Not completely foreign, but damn close. My point is that "it's only
Perhaps if we encouraged it and set examples it might be more common.
<temporary" is an attempt to make the prospect of a Soviet-controlled
<world more palatable, and it fails completely because the time span
<is far too long.
Compared to the total destruction of the entire world perhaps it is
more palatable. I know that there are situations where I would be
willing to give up my own life to save others (WWII for instance; or
to save someone I cared for) where I would *not* be willing to
take the (thousands, millions, billions - take your choice) of lives
of others.
-------------------------------------
.
. different article
.
<> to hold down a population for very long. Not when the whole population is
<> completely against the idea.
<
<Tell it to the Afghans; I'm sure they'll be pleased to know. As it stands,
<unless they get serious outside help (notably antiaircraft weapons), they
<are under Soviet domination for the foreseeable future. And it's not because
<they like the idea, or are unwilling to fight it.
<--
< Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
< {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
This is not a valid comparision. The Afghan situation is a very large
country suppressing a very small country. The original article was
talking about the USSR suppressing the entire west; quite a different
ball game.
--------------------------------------------
.
. different article
.
<
<> ... many of the smaller nations are now deciding that
<> they should bring whatever pressure they can to bear on the US/USSR.
<
<Name three smaller nations that have made serious attempts to put pressure
<on the USSR. For that matter, name one.
<--
< Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
< {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
I suppose it depends on your definition of pressure. How about Trudeau's
(and therefore Canada's) peace initiative - it was asking *both* sides
to do something. You might also check UN votes; althought the UN is
currently being painted as anti-US I think that in fact you would find
that just as many (roughly) votes are made against the USSR as against
the US (cetainly my impression from reading the paper and listening to
the news).
John Chapman
...!watmath!watcgl!jchapmanhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/25/85)
> Nonsense. Surrender would be the only rational course ONLY if it were true > that the only effective defense was/is a massive nuclear umbrella and a > burgeoning arms race. ... I was using the arithmetic of the original article: if the "badness" of nuclear war is infinity, then any chance, however minute, of incurring it is sufficient reason to disallow an action. The *only* criterion that is valid for making decisions, then, is minimizing the probability of war. Nothing else matters. Surrendering at once clearly minimizes the chance of war, if for no other reason than because it is *quicker* and more certain than, say, negotiated disarmament. If, on the other hand, you believe that the badness of nuclear war is very large but not infinite, then tradeoffs become possible. *Then*, and only then, is it reasonable to consider disarmament as a viable alternative to surrender. Please do your calculations consistently, and don't introduce infinite quantities unless you are prepared to take the consequences. > Well lets at least use the correct numbers Henry; that was the Vancouver > peace march so compare it to the (approx.) population of two million in > the lower mainland rather than twenty five million. Sounds like a > large turnout for a Canadian city to me. I agree that it's an impressive turnout. But this does not invalidate my original argument: since the bulk of the population has not risen in open revolt against current policies, clearly most people think some risk of nuclear war is acceptable in order to preserve other things (domestic order, elected government, freedom from Soviet domination, the peace and quiet of their lunch hour, whatever). You are the one saying that nuclear war is so overwhelming that nothing else matters; clearly most of those two million don't agree. > Why not help it along instead > of casually dismissing it - these people are at least trying to change > things. There are two important questions here: (a) what is their chance of getting results, and (b) are they trying for the right sort of changes? I am doubtful of the former, and cannot answer the latter because the anti-nuclear-weapon movement seems to have no clear consensus on the details of what should be done. > <I have no confidence that any of our world leaders, Soviet, US, or for > <that matter Canadian, would surrender rather than trigger catastrophe. > > Then presumably you see the necessity for nuclear disarmament. I see the necessity for changing the situation in such a way that the actions of leaders cannot trigger global catastrophe. It is not obvious to me that disarmament is the right way to do this, if only because I am not at all confident that it can be done. > <I see no difference between Reagan and almost any other potential US > <president in this regard. > > Really? While I might not agree with a lot of the policies of prior > U.S. presidents at least they seemed to have c reasoning abilities > and most of them were fairly well informed. I don't think you could > make the same case about Reagan. It is also my impression that most > other U.S. presidents were able to stay awake during meetings :-) . Note "in this regard": I was discussing the willingness of presidents to surrender rather than destroy the biosphere (which I assess as zero for almost any president), not their general skill and competence. I also suspect that Reagan gets more bad press than he deserves -- other recent presidents have not been saints -- although I agree that some of it is certainly justified. > <Tell it to the Afghans; I'm sure they'll be pleased to know. As it stands, > <unless they get serious outside help (notably antiaircraft weapons), they > <are under Soviet domination for the foreseeable future. And it's not because > <they like the idea, or are unwilling to fight it. > > This is not a valid comparision. The Afghan situation is a very large > country suppressing a very small country. The original article was > talking about the USSR suppressing the entire west; quite a different > ball game. Then how about the USSR suppressing all of Eastern Europe, and a good bit of Asia (a fair bit of the USSR itself is effectively conquered territory)? Or Nazi Germany suppressing essentially all of Europe? (The Nazis were dislodged by external invasion, not by the Resistance movements.) Most conquered people don't resist; those who do, don't all rise up at the same instant. Afghanistan is a pretty fair comparison, because pretty near the whole nation is up in arms or effectively supporting those who are. So far, no important result. > <> ... many of the smaller nations are now deciding that > <> they should bring whatever pressure they can to bear on the US/USSR. > < > <Name three smaller nations that have made serious attempts to put pressure > <on the USSR. For that matter, name one. > > I suppose it depends on your definition of pressure. How about Trudeau's > (and therefore Canada's) peace initiative - it was asking *both* sides > to do something. You might also check UN votes... "Pressure" means attempting to apply leverage, not just pleading with people to please play nice. The recent fuss with Australia and New Zealand is a good example of putting pressure on the US. How many comparable cases are there for the Soviet Union? I count none. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/28/85)
> > Nonsense. Surrender would be the only rational course ONLY if it were true > > that the only effective defense was/is a massive nuclear umbrella and a > > burgeoning arms race. ... > > I was using the arithmetic of the original article: if the "badness" of > nuclear war is infinity, then any chance, however minute, of incurring it > is sufficient reason to disallow an action. The *only* criterion that is > valid for making decisions, then, is minimizing the probability of war. ^^^ I repeat : nonsense. WHat you say is only true if the only effective defense is a burgeoning nuclear umbrella. You slip from talking about nuclear to war in general. Please read what I am saying not what you think I am saying. As I said in an earlier article: are you prepared to say that our present (nuclear) system is the only viable defense; if so then please defend that position. I think a credible defense can be made without relying on a system which is virtually guaranteed to end life on earth if it is ever used (intentionally or otherwise); in which case the penalty is not infinite (although hopefully to be avoided as well) and surrender is then not the only logical conclusion. > Nothing else matters. Surrendering at once clearly minimizes the chance > of war, if for no other reason than because it is *quicker* and more > certain than, say, negotiated disarmament. > > If, on the other hand, you believe that the badness of nuclear war is > very large but not infinite, then tradeoffs become possible. *Then*, > and only then, is it reasonable to consider disarmament as a viable > alternative to surrender. Please do your calculations consistently, and > don't introduce infinite quantities unless you are prepared to take the > consequences. > > > Well lets at least use the correct numbers Henry; that was the Vancouver > > peace march so compare it to the (approx.) population of two million in > > the lower mainland rather than twenty five million. Sounds like a > > large turnout for a Canadian city to me. > > I agree that it's an impressive turnout. But this does not invalidate > my original argument: since the bulk of the population has not risen > in open revolt against current policies, clearly most people think some > risk of nuclear war is acceptable in order to preserve other things > (domestic order, elected government, freedom from Soviet domination, > the peace and quiet of their lunch hour, whatever). You are the one saying > that nuclear war is so overwhelming that nothing else matters; clearly > most of those two million don't agree. I reiterate previous statements: you can't expect half the population to suddenly stand up and engage in protest; these movements build over time. Dismissing them because they do yet number >50% seems pointless. Rather than ascribing the nonparticipation of the bulk of the population to an acceptance of the risk of nuclear war (I have never seen any evidence which would support that conclusion) why not put it down to most people not yet being convinced that they can have an effect? Ten years ago most of the peace movement could handily be dismissed as fringe elements; given the number of lawyers, doctors, teachers, clergy (and numerous representatives of what are usually considered "respectable" groups/organizations/affiliations) it is not so easy to dismiss. Large groups generally require leadership and the peace movement continues to gain members from what are usually considered those groups which give leadership and guidance to the "masses" so perhaps it won't be that long before you see the bulk of the population doing the same. There are also people who while not cosidering themselves peace activists per se are definitely for nuclear disaramament/control - included here are generals and admirals of western forces. > > > Why not help it along instead > > of casually dismissing it - these people are at least trying to change > > things. > > There are two important questions here: (a) what is their chance of > getting results, and (b) are they trying for the right sort of changes? > I am doubtful of the former, and cannot answer the latter because the > anti-nuclear-weapon movement seems to have no clear consensus on the > details of what should be done. > > > <I have no confidence that any of our world leaders, Soviet, US, or for > > <that matter Canadian, would surrender rather than trigger catastrophe. > > > > Then presumably you see the necessity for nuclear disarmament. > > I see the necessity for changing the situation in such a way that the > actions of leaders cannot trigger global catastrophe. It is not obvious > to me that disarmament is the right way to do this, if only because I am > not at all confident that it can be done. > > > <I see no difference between Reagan and almost any other potential US > > <president in this regard. > > > > Really? While I might not agree with a lot of the policies of prior > > U.S. presidents at least they seemed to have c reasoning abilities > > and most of them were fairly well informed. I don't think you could > > make the same case about Reagan. It is also my impression that most > > other U.S. presidents were able to stay awake during meetings :-) . > > Note "in this regard": I was discussing the willingness of presidents > to surrender rather than destroy the biosphere (which I assess as zero > for almost any president), not their general skill and competence. I also > suspect that Reagan gets more bad press than he deserves -- other recent > presidents have not been saints -- although I agree that some of it is > certainly justified. Yes but it requires some reasoning ability and information to determine that things (would) have deteriorated to that point - where that is the actual decision to be made. I contend that Reagan is less likely to be able to determine when that is *not* the case and needlessly trigger a nuclear confrontation (as compared to most of his predecessors). > > > <Tell it to the Afghans; I'm sure they'll be pleased to know. As it stands, > > <unless they get serious outside help (notably antiaircraft weapons), they > > <are under Soviet domination for the foreseeable future. And it's not because > > <they like the idea, or are unwilling to fight it. > > > > This is not a valid comparision. The Afghan situation is a very large > > country suppressing a very small country. The original article was > > talking about the USSR suppressing the entire west; quite a different > > ball game. > > Then how about the USSR suppressing all of Eastern Europe, and a good bit > of Asia (a fair bit of the USSR itself is effectively conquered territory)? > Or Nazi Germany suppressing essentially all of Europe? (The Nazis were > dislodged by external invasion, not by the Resistance movements.) Most > conquered people don't resist; those who do, don't all rise up at the same > instant. Afghanistan is a pretty fair comparison, because pretty near the > whole nation is up in arms or effectively supporting those who are. So far, > no important result. > Again this is not the same thing as the USSR facing a fully (conventionally) armed US. Even if the entire population of Afghanistan resisted they still wouldn't have the arms or the knowhow to resist the USSR or the virtually limitless (in comparison) number of troops to "expend". It is however probably worth noting that it is costing the USSR a lot more to be there than the Afghanis(sp?). They just don't have the resources to take over the entire world and probably not even the US alone. > > <> ... many of the smaller nations are now deciding that > > <> they should bring whatever pressure they can to bear on the US/USSR. > > < > > <Name three smaller nations that have made serious attempts to put pressure > > <on the USSR. For that matter, name one. > > > > I suppose it depends on your definition of pressure. How about Trudeau's > > (and therefore Canada's) peace initiative - it was asking *both* sides > > to do something. You might also check UN votes... > > "Pressure" means attempting to apply leverage, not just pleading with people > to please play nice. The recent fuss with Australia and New Zealand is a > good example of putting pressure on the US. How many comparable cases are > there for the Soviet Union? I count none. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > I would count it as pressure when countries that supply you with basic foodstuffs (since you don't have enough to feed you own population) ask you to be a little more cooperative. Pressure does not have to be either blatant or military. Even the Soviets respond to world opinion. John Chapman