brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/13/85)
There seems to be a belief that the defence debate consists of people
who dearly want nuclear weapons vs. those who hate them. I don't think
this is close to the truth. I, and others who have stated there are reasons
for the nuclear weapons we have find them deplorable. I find the concept
of destroying Russian towns full of millions of innocent people disgusting.
I feel the same horror you do watching "Threads" or "The Atomic Cafe."
The debate is not, "are nuclear weapons good?" It is:
1) Is there evidence that foreign nations such as the U.S.S.R. might desire
to attack us?
2) What defences are effective to discourage or hold back such attack?
3) What are the risks, efficiencies and costs of various defences?
Of course, it's not as pure as that, since both sides are ruled by
power-hungry politicians. These, however, are the main issues taht
must be considered. The points I have made on the net give strong evidence
that the USSR is a likely threat, and that they DO attack when they feel
the attacked nation does not have adequate defence.
So the question for the net is:
How much defence to you think we need to keep foreign threats away?
We have all these nukes and SDI plans because nobody else has come up with
any method of defence that they can convince people is superior.
(We also have them because of the split armed services in the USA, but
that's another story)
So let's hear proposals for a non-nuclear defence.
Talk them into multilateral disamament? How would you go about it?
Put on the economic squeeze? What if they get desperate?
Rely on conventional defence? Why have the soviets built up a first-strike
force when all the need for defence is a retalitory force? (Why have we?)
Let's hear.
--
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (06/14/85)
The reason why NATO has nuclear capability is that none of the NATO allies is really willing to spend the required amount of money to keep a conventional force of the appropriate size in Europe. This has been the case since 1948 (roughly). In fact, right from the start, this has been NATO policy... save money on real troops by relying on the US nuclear umbrella. ... To answer a point made by Brad in an earlier posting, he is afraid/wary of Soviet takeover, and he mentioned Czechoslovakia in 1968. There are 2 points I'd like to make... 1) To be perfectly egocentric.. Czechoslovakia isn't North America. We are not talking about OUR secruity, but someone else's, and I think it's important to remember that distinction. 2) Czechoslovakia was never "ours" to begin with. It was (since 1945) a sattelite state of the USSR. The actions of 1968 were to remind the world in general (and the Czech gov't in particular) that the USSR means business when it sees a "security threat" on its borders. The USSR's action is analogous to what's going on in Nicaragua with the US. Of course, one might argue that it would have been worth the effort to free the people of Czechoslovakia, but we weren't ready (militarily, see above), and the USSR would SEVERELY doubt our motives. It could easily be interpreted as the opening skirmishes to an invasion of the USSR proper. This doesn't mean I like the Soviet actions in Czechoslovakia in 1968, just that one's political/philosophical views shouldn't get in the way of reality. Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo In doubt? Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness !
shindman@utcs.UUCP (06/14/85)
Method #n+1
It is obvious to most that the majority of eastern (commies) and
western (us good guys) people have absolutely no desire for both
sides to be stocked to the sky with nukes.
There are thus only a few thousand people in charge in the USSR
and the USA (toss in France, Nato, and China as well) who are
really keen on maintaining and developing these huge nuclear
arsenals.
I say take these guys out, line em up, and.....ok, that's too
extreme. Take these guys, lock em up, and let the rest of us
go on about our lives.
Wishful thinking, eh, so take this method with a big :-)
--
-----------------
Paul Shindman, U of T Computing Services, Toronto (416) 978-6878
USENET: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!shindman
BITNET: paulie at utoronto IP SHARP MAIL: uoftdyck@alberta.UUCP (Terry Dyck) (06/19/85)
> There seems to be a belief that the defence debate consists of people > who dearly want nuclear weapons vs. those who hate them. > > The debate is not, "are nuclear weapons good?" It is: > > 1) Is there evidence that foreign nations such as the U.S.S.R. might desire > to attack us? > > 2) What defences are effective to discourage or hold back such attack? > > 3) What are the risks, efficiencies and costs of various defences? > > > Of course, it's not as pure as that, since both sides are ruled by > power-hungry politicians. > > So the question for the net is: > > How much defence to you think we need to keep foreign threats away? > We have all these nukes and SDI plans because nobody else has come up with > any method of defence that they can convince people is superior. > (We also have them because of the split armed services in the USA, but > that's another story) > > So let's hear proposals for a non-nuclear defence. > > Talk them into multilateral disamament? How would you go about it? > > Put on the economic squeeze? What if they get desperate? > > Rely on conventional defence? Why have the soviets built up a first-strike > force when all the need for defence is a retalitory force? (Why have we?) > > Let's hear. > > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 First, what is `multilateral disarmamment`? Once the knowledge of how to build these hell weapons is established, and the raw materials are available, `multilateral disarmament` becomes a buzzword. If you wish an example of this look at chemical/bacterial warfare research. The same research that gives us medicines can be changed ,almost overnight, in government labs to produce these bugs. The B.S. you hear about not stockpiling them is just that, B.S. How do you stockpile bacterial agents? Economic squeeze is no better. The quickest way to make someone totally unpredictable is to economicaly grind him into the dirt. If you are cold and hungry, and you can see that it is the result of intentional actions of a foreign power, how long are you going to think rational thoughts? There is no safety in a conventional defence if you are badly outnumbered. I don`t see that there is any other choice at the moment than the present course taken by the U.S. That is unless you don`t mind living in a regime where `freedom` is only an abstract concept and `standing up for your rights` illegal. Terry Dyck : ihnp4!alberta!dyck *Dept. of Computing Sc. U. of Alberta*
ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) (06/19/85)
In article <691@utcs.UUCP> shindman@utcs.UUCP (Paul Shindman) writes: > >Method #n+1 > > . . . > There are thus only a few thousand people in charge in the USSR > and the USA (toss in France, Nato, and China as well) who are > really keen on maintaining and developing these huge nuclear > arsenals. > > I say take these guys out, line em up, and.....ok, that's too > extreme. Take these guys, lock em up, and let the rest of us > go on about our lives. > > Wishful thinking, eh, so take this method with a big :-) Method #n+2 A related measure - taken with a smaller :-) - would be to remove all the fallout shelters and contingiency measures that would preserve the politicians who would presumably be responsible for a possible nuclear conflict. If this "safety net" was removed - no matter how ineffective it is - perhaps the consequences of a confrontation would be made more real. I suspect that, to some politicians and military leaders, a nuclear war just means an inconvenient stay in some well stocked cavern somewhere. Ken Hruday University of Alberta
ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) (06/21/85)
In article <553@alberta.UUCP> dyck@alberta.UUCP (Terry Dyck) writes: > First, what is `multilateral disarmamment`? Once the knowledge of >how to build these hell weapons is established, and the raw materials are >available, `multilateral disarmament` becomes a buzzword. If you wish an >example of this look at chemical/bacterial warfare research. The same research >that gives us medicines can be changed ,almost overnight, in government labs >to produce these bugs. The B.S. you hear about not stockpiling them is just >that, B.S. How do you stockpile bacterial agents? > I agree that since we'll always have the knowledge and the materials that we'll never be rid of nuclear weaponry. These weapons can be easily constructed at any time in the future so total disarmament is possibly a futile dream. The problem, however, is not just nuclear weapons. The problem is the very fast deployment of these weapons. If you have seconds to decide the fate of the world based on some spurious radar readings then I don't have much hope for the fate of the world. If there was more time to decide this would certainly bring greater stability. The consequences of the SDI scheme would be to shorten this time rather than lengthen it - i.e. SDI forces the Russians to a launch on warning type of system -> given the track record of Russian technology, this isn't too comforting. > > I don`t see that there is any other choice at the moment than >the present course taken by the U.S. That is unless you don`t mind >living in a regime where `freedom` is only an abstract concept and >`standing up for your rights` illegal. > >Terry Dyck : ihnp4!alberta!dyck *Dept. of Computing Sc. U. of Alberta* > While your premises are sound your conclusion isn't. This is not the only alternative. Aside from it's dangerous consequences it is expensive, and there is a high probablity that it won't work. The "solution" to the problem doesn't lie in some "miraculous" defense shield, but rather in compromise. Compromise *DOESN'T* mean that we accept Russian domination! I suspect that no real progress will be made until there is some significant internal change in the Soviet Union, accompanied by a change in U.S. attitudes. Until that change occurs we shouldn't shorten the fuse of nuclear destruction but rather, if possible, lengthen it. Ken Hruday University of Alberta
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/24/85)
> totally unpredictable is to economicaly grind him into the dirt. If you > are cold and hungry, and you can see that it is the result of intentional > actions of a foreign power, how long are you going to think rational > thoughts? How about a different kind of economic warfare? The US response to Nicarauga having a (democaratically elected) government that they don't like was first to employ economic sanctions and then military sanctions (through various forms of aid to the contras). Does this really sound like a freedom/peace loving country to you?). Then they become outraged when Nicarauga turns to Moscow for help; where else were they supposed to turn? If instead the US had recognized the government and offered aid of various sorts Nicarauga might have become either neutral or a western ally instead of an eastern ally. Maybe the east and west should compete for friends by showing people how much they can do for them etc etc, instead of trying to intimidate them. > > There is no safety in a conventional defence if you are badly > outnumbered. Is the "west" really outnumbered or outgunned by the "east"? Nothing I've heard/read would lead me to believe that. > > I don`t see that there is any other choice at the moment than > the present course taken by the U.S. That is unless you don`t mind > living in a regime where `freedom` is only an abstract concept and > `standing up for your rights` illegal. > > Terry Dyck : ihnp4!alberta!dyck *Dept. of Computing Sc. U. of Alberta*