majka@ubc-vision.CDN (Marc Majka) (06/09/85)
> From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) > Message-ID: <280@looking.UUCP> > > It has been suggested that most people would prefer living in a > soviet dictatorship to being nuked. That's quite true, but it misses > the point. The real question is who would prefer soviet slavery to the > RISK of nuclear war. You got it wrong as well, Brad. Keeping the loaded words to a minimum, the question is: who would prefer the risk of Soviet domination to the risk of nuclear war. You say nobody is asking for a war. Nobody is asking for Soviet domination either. I don't question the facts of history. There has been an arms race which has left both sided armed to the teeth. What must be decided is the direction we are to take into the future. To me, the risk of my death, the death of billions of others, and possibly the death of every living creature on this planet is not worth taking, no matter what the alternative risks. This point of view does not preclude the defense of our security. But risking nuclear war has become a rather poor method of defence, since it denys the security it is supposed to protect. What we need to establish with the Soviets is trust. Pointing bombs at them, which results in them pointing bombs at us, does not establish trust. It only establishes fear. One problem with MAD is that it is a doctrine of escalation. The "ideal" MAD world is one in which each side can assure the destruction of the other, if the other pushes the button first. This prevents anyone but a madman or an errant computer from destroying the world. When one side builds new technology, the other side must either match the technology or make more bombs. The more bombs and the better technology one side has, the less secure the other side feels about its deterrent. The effectiveness of the eterrent more difficult to judge, leading to the familiar "better safe than sorry" attitude. And so it goes... Another problem with MAD is that it does not limit the nuclear weapons to exist only as a deterrent to the other side's nuclear weapons. The threat of first use as a deterrent to aggression leads to the notion of "limited" nuclear war. The trouble is, the "limit" is unknown. This allows the build-up of nuclear arms specifically for use outside the MAD doctrine. If such an exchange were to occur, the temptation would be very great for the losing side to escalate the war by using more force, leading to an all-out exchange. Two people, no matter how rational to begin with, could stand the strain of holding guns to each other's heads for very long. Two societies should not be expected to do much better. We need cooperation and understanding if we are to survive as a race on this planet. --- Marc Majka - UBC Laboratory for Computational Vision
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/09/85)
I stand corrected. The proper choice is between the risk of Soviet domination and the risk of nuclear war. However, don't forget that assuming (perhaps a large assumption) we trust ourselves not to strike first, these risks are the same, for nuclear war would only occur if the Russians attacked us. I suspect that Russian attack would be a good hint of impending Soviet domination. I called the soviet people slaves, and you felt that was loaded. Loaded in what way? Does it suggest that they are not free to speak their minds? Does it suggest that they are effectively the property of the state, and not allowed to leave if they choose? Does it suggest that they did not enter into this situation by choice? Does it suggest that they have far fewer rights than those who control the state and thus own them? I am sorry if it suggested such things. I am not suggesting that the Soviets are an "evil empire" in the horns and pitchforks sense, but their government (NOT their people) is a dictatorship that has a history of attempting to reach out and place other nations under some form of dictatorial control. The people of the U.S.S.R. are the victims of this dictatorship, and if there were any way we could threaten the dictators and not the people, I would be all for it. I agree, a real trust would be the ideal solution. I don't like the nuclear arms buildup any more than anybody else. But do we have any evidence we can trust the Kremlin? I wish we did. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/10/85)
> I stand corrected. The proper choice is between the risk of Soviet > domination and the risk of nuclear war. However, don't forget that > assuming (perhaps a large assumption) we trust ourselves not to strike > first, these risks are the same, for nuclear war would only occur if the > Russians attacked us. I suspect that Russian attack would be a good Or if there is an accidental launch. Or if a "defense" installation percieves a phantom attack (this has happened more than once) and the falsity is not found out before a retaliatory launch is made. Or if a few people go a little crazy. > hint of impending Soviet domination. > > I am not suggesting that the Soviets are an "evil empire" in the horns > and pitchforks sense, but their government (NOT their people) is a > dictatorship that has a history of attempting to reach out and place > other nations under some form of dictatorial control. The people of True and I would not want to have to defend a lot of their actions. You should also figure into this scenario however the fact that the US does the same sort of thing; if you don't think so then you should talk to people in Grenada, or relatives of "disappeared persons" in Chile, Argentina..., or people in Nicaraugua(sp?), or victims of bombing in Cambodia. The US has and does support totalitarian regimes both financially and militarily (Canada's past isn't all that lily white either) and has been known to attempt to topple the *democratically elected* governments of countries. > the U.S.S.R. are the victims of this dictatorship, and if there were > any way we could threaten the dictators and not the people, I would > be all for it. Me too. The fact (well, my opinion at least) is the people of both the USSR and the US probably have no desire for either war or conquest. The controlling forces of both countries do seem to though and I think that since they are the ones with the capability to start a global thermonuclear war we ought to concentrate on ways of disarming them. > > I agree, a real trust would be the ideal solution. I don't like the > nuclear arms buildup any more than anybody else. But do we have any > evidence we can trust the Kremlin? I wish we did. Do we have any evidence we can trust the US? I wish we did. It is instructive to read how various Canadian premiers have been treated by US presidents in the past. The incidents include an actual physical attack by a president on a prime minister. Is this the sort of person you want controlling a nuclear (or other) arsenal? > > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 John Chapman ....!watmath!watcgl!jchapman
banner@ubc-vision.CDN (Allen Banner) (06/11/85)
> nuclear war would only occur if the Russians attacked us.
Brad, as somebody employed in the field of computer science, you must
be fully aware that one of the grave dangers with the current trend in the
arms race is increasing reliance upon computers for control of weapons
systems. The projects being undertaken in the Strategic Computing
Initiative and statements from Administration and DoD people show that the
military is hoping to use artificial intelligence to allow machines to fight
their battles autonomously or to take over tasks which are too difficult and
"unpredictable" for humans to handle. Star Wars will, of course, be
entirely (or close to) autonomous. If this trend continues, we are
begging for a disaster. The chances of a nuclear war occurring as a result
of computer error (or by escalation after an initial error) increase greatly
from what they are now.
One of the unfortunate things when people start talking about "the risk
of..." is that the risk is not easily quantified. What is the risk...high
or low? Even if we cannot agree on a specific figure, it should be evident
that the risk of nuclear war is not going down! I suggest that instead of
continuing this trend and saying "we have to because of the Soviet threat",
we should be looking around (and not too slowly either) for some other way
to ensure that they (and others as well) act in an acceptable manner. For
the mutual good of *all* countries and people, we should stop considering
the threat of nuclear force as a viable means to make people act the way we
want them to. Sooner or later, somebody may call our bluff or we may find
out that we have pushed our luck just a bit too far!
Now I can hear people yelling out "But they will never deploy systems which
are unreliable or could bring on such a disaster...". Two comments to that:
-- they may have no choice but to deploy such a system. The Soviets are not
going to sit back and do nothing. Once both sides are developing (or both
sides *perceive* that the other side is developing) such systems, there will
be tremendous pressure to produce something to counter it...and it may end
up being flakey because that's the best that can be done at the time!
-- under predictable circumstances perhaps the deployed system *won't* make
any mistakes (let's be optimistic...no bugs) but that is not to say that it
will not make a disasterous decision in an unforeseen circumstance! In this
month's "Atlantic" magazine there is a good article addressing this very
issue. There are quotes given from high ranking officials (I don't have it
right here in front of me right now) saying that some systems in SDI could
be shut off under most circumstances and then activated only in times of
crisis to avoid possible accidents...they are admitting that the system can
make mistakes if left on its own (who would have thought that!) but then to
top it off they are going to turn these dangerous parts on in times of
crisis (exactly when care should be the order of the day!)
--
Al Banner -- UBC Laboratory for Computational Visionfred@mnetor.UUCP (06/11/85)
> >I agree, a real trust would be the ideal solution. I don't like the >nuclear arms buildup any more than anybody else. But do we have any >evidence we can trust the Kremlin? I wish we did. > What evidence is there that they can trust us? (either Ottawa or Washington) In fact if Canada doesn't take a turn to the right soon, there will be little difference between communism and our brand of socialism. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Cheers, Fred Williams
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/12/85)
> The US has and does support totalitarian regimes both > financially and militarily (Canada's past isn't all that lily white > either) and has been known to attempt to topple the *democratically > elected* governments of countries. I think that the last sentence should actually read "has been known to *help* topple the democratically elected governments of countries". Remember Chile? (One is very tempted to even leave out the "help" part of the previous sentence, but one will restrain oneself so as not to get into silly arguments). -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (06/12/85)
> What evidence is there that they (the russians) > can trust us? (either Ottawa or > Washington) In fact if Canada doesn't take a turn to the right soon, > there will be little difference between communism and our brand of > socialism. > > Cheers, Fred Williams Fred, what the hell are you talking about? I think you'd better expand a little bit on your theory. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie