andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (James H. Andrews) (06/11/85)
Many "better {dead|red} than {red|dead}" people seem to be operating under
the assumption that the following formulas will always hold:
Lower risk of nuclear annihilation <--> Higher risk of Soviet domination
Higher risk of nuclear annihilation <--> Lower risk of Soviet domination
But in fact we can and should be decreasing the risk of S.D. WHILE decreasing
the risk of N.A. in many simple ways. Militarily, we should be building up
non-nuclear weapons and defense systems (the basic goal of Star Wars) while
dismantling our nuclear weapons (Star Wars doesn't even consider this).
Politically, we should be actively opposed to dictatorships of both the right
and the left in all countries, instead of supporting the right-wing ones
and driving their opponents into the arms of the better-equipped Soviet-backed
armies. And so on.
S.D. and N.A. are horrible alternatives to have to choose from, but there are
other choices. I want to work toward those other choices.
In article <152@watmum.UUCP> cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes:
>The unifications of Italy & Germany, for example, upset the British/French
>power balance, and started serious problems of who was going to run things
>after all. The result was WW1.
>The situation now is similar. US & USSR are in the balance, playing a
>variation of the empire game....
This is precisely my view. I believe that no matter what balance of power
or terror there is in the world, the US and the USSR WILL, DEFINITELY,
EVENTUALLY have a war, just as the superpowers at the turn of the century
chucked out their balance of power to have WW1. When this war happens, I
just don't want to see several species, including the supposedly most
intelligent (I mean white mice, of course), wiped out in the process.
--Jamie ("better zed than zee") Andrews.