majka@ubc-vision.CDN (Marc Majka) (12/19/84)
> Yes, we ( homo sapiens ) certainly are a bloodthirsty bunch. Unfortunately, > this is something that members of the peace-at-any-price school of thinking > ( especially those advocating *unilateral* nuclear disarmament ) either > don't realize or tend to ignore. > > J.B. Robinson The sentiment that Jim expresses here bothers me greatly. I hope that he hasn't been misinterpreting my reasons for calling for ANY kind of nuclear disarmament, unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral. I do not advocate "peace at any price". This would be a blindingly ignorant point of view. The problem with the present level of nuclear armament is the price of a war fought with these weapons. The price of that war could well be the destruction of all life on earth. It is THAT price that I am unwilling to pay. The price of peace based on disarmament is a pittance in comparison. ----- Marc Majka
lffast@watrose.UUCP (lffast) (12/28/84)
> The problem with the present level of nuclear armament is the price of a war > fought with these weapons. The price of that war could well be the > destruction of all life on earth. It is THAT price that I am unwilling to > pay. The price of peace based on disarmament is a pittance in comparison. > Marc Majka Disarmament, as I understand it, would be meaningless unless the eventual goal is that we eventually have few enough arms around that the world would not be decimated (sp?). At the moment war is unthinkable, everybody loses. If total destruction is not inevitable, war becomes conceivable again and therefore, by my rationalizations, more likely. I think you're ignoring this price of peace based on disarmament, and that is an increased likelyhood of war. At the moment, I think the highest risk is that of war by accident. I think disarmament is trading off cost against likelyhood. Larry Fast ( University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario ) The opinions expressed here are MINE ( but I'd never admit it ).