cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (06/11/85)
>j chapman: > No one has responded to my other point: what gives the USSR and the US > the right to take this risk with the lives of the other few billion > inhabitants of the planet?? Power. It's what politics is all about. It's what the arms race is all about. The reason why people marching in the streets don't have too much effect is that they have no power, they don't control large lobbying organizations, and they're not "fighting in the trenches" like (perhaps) they should. By this I mean that in the US, not enough peace-group people lobby the various arms committees. The defense contractors all do, and that's why we have a big buildup when it seems to be the popular thing to do. Canada doesn't have this because there is no arms industry to speak of, and they don't spend near as much time/money on chasing down cabinet members. I read an interesting theory as to why the US military-industrial complex exists. The theory is that although the US economy is great, the Depression still happened, and was only escaped by means of military spending. The idea is that the US economy still needs continuous priming of the pump via government military subsidy. The consequnces of massive spending cuts are economic stagnation. The current recovery can be said to be military-fueled, for example. The guy said that the reason why public works spending doesn't do the trick is that the military is a big sink which can never be filled, while there are only so many bridges to build before people start saying "enough bridges already". The "guy" who is saying this (I might have forgotten) is Marvin Minsky. The point I'm trying to make through all this is that the peace movement, if it is to succeed in politics, must take over the reins of power. Power in the Western world is exercised by how much money you can spend. (Witness Jerry Falwell) The more money you can spend, and the more cash you can cause others to spend/not spend the more power you have. To stop the arms build-up you have to convince the spenders that there is more benefit elsewhere. Minsky's theory may be useful in finding an alternative to military spending. Find another way to keep the economy going without the required (it seems) continuous intraveinous feeding of buying weapons. In other words, just saying the crashingly obvious is clearly not enough. Saying "nukes cause mega-death" is insufficient to cause people to stop building them. It's like telling a heroin addict to stop shooting up. The peace movement is a bit guilty of not asking the right questions to solve the problem at hand. The peace people should ask "why nukes", and should at all costs avoid the clearly bogus answer "soviet domination". Another part of Minsky's theory is that the military/gov't has been able to convince the voters to go through with all this spending with the fear of Soviet Domination. You know, commies under your bed and in the maple syrup and hiding behind the refrigerator... all that crap. To solve this conundrum may only require an economic solution, noat a technological one. Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo In doubt? Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness !
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/11/85)
> >j chapman: > > No one has responded to my other point: what gives the USSR and the US > > the right to take this risk with the lives of the other few billion > > inhabitants of the planet?? > > Power. Well power is obviously what gives them the ability to do so. However I think the obvious answer is that they of course don't have the right to do this; many of the smaller nations are now deciding that they should bring whatever pressure they can to bear on the US/USSR. > > It's what politics is all about. It's what the arms race is all about. > The reason why people marching in the streets don't have too much effect is > that they have no power, they don't control large lobbying organizations, > and they're not "fighting in the trenches" like (perhaps) they should. Actually I think it is because there are still not quite enough people willing to go out and protest to sufficiently scare politicians. There seem to be very few politicians on the federal/provincial level whose primary objective is not re-election. Let them percieve that some action on their part to de-escalate(sp?) the arms race is necessary to their reelection and things will begin to happen. Judging by the reaction of the US to New Zealand's initiatives I think we can have (us smaller countries) an effect on the policies of the US/USSR. I think that the powers that be in the US would also like to avoid any sort of internal conflict or uprising among the population reminiscent of Vietnam. As some of your later arguments would indicate, they have to sell the idea to a reasonably large number of people. The peace movement must try to sell more; perhaps the peace movement has something of an advantage in that if one can think about it rationally for a few minutes the threat of nuclear anhililation is probably more terrifying and likely than the threat of economic/military domination by the soviets. > > [ various other reasonable comments] > > I read an interesting theory as to why the US military-industrial complex > exists. The theory is that although the US economy is great, the Depression > still happened, and was only escaped by means of military spending. The > idea is that the US economy still needs continuous priming of the pump via > government military subsidy. The consequnces of massive spending cuts are > economic stagnation. The current recovery can be said to be military-fueled, > for example. The guy said that the reason why public works spending doesn't > do the trick is that the military is a big sink which can never be filled, > while there are only so many bridges to build before people start saying > "enough bridges already". I think (given the state of the environment, public education, forests, fisheries, public libraries and a large part of the work force in need of retraining etc. etc.) that we could find sufficiently many outlets for any required economic activity. Unless it is required that the economic activity produce no tangible benefit (other than economic stimulus) for some reason (in which case we could just increase the senate :-) ). . . > > > In other words, just saying the crashingly obvious is clearly not enough. > Saying "nukes cause mega-death" is insufficient to cause people to stop > building them. It's like telling a heroin addict to stop shooting up. Some herion addicts do quit; some from sheer force of will and others because they are given sufficient motivation and/or help to do so. > > The peace movement is a bit guilty of not asking the right questions to solve > the problem at hand. The peace people should ask "why nukes", and should at all > costs avoid the clearly bogus answer "soviet domination". Another part of > Minsky's theory is that the military/gov't has been able to convince the voters > to go through with all this spending with the fear of Soviet Domination. > You know, commies under your bed and in the maple syrup and hiding behind the > refrigerator... all that crap. To solve this conundrum may only require an > economic solution, noat a technological one. > Well I think that that is all probably true however since people have been scared into not thinking clearly about the problem perhaps it is necessary to scare them (e.g. by saying "nukes cause mega-death" in sufficiently many and provovative ways) into wanting to think of alternatives. > > Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath > University of Waterloo > In doubt? Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness John Chapman
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/18/85)
> ... 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