berman@ihuxm.UUCP (Andy Berman) (11/15/83)
There is a full page ad in the New York Times 11/13/83, calling for an immediate
nucluear freeze. The ad is signed by 1500
American physicists, including 22 Nobel Laureates.
In part the ad says:
WE CALL FOR AN AGREEMENT TO HALT THE TESTING PRODUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS DELIVERY SYSTEMS. MEANWHILE, NO FURTHER NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR DELIVERY SYSTEMS SHOULD BE DEPLOYED ANYWHERE.
...IF THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT MOVED BY THESE MILLIONS (OF AMERICAN ANTI-
NUCLEAR PROTESTORS) PERHAPS IT WILL PAY ATTENTION TO THE STAND TAKEN BY THESE PHYSICISTS..."
Among the signers there are no less than 15 Physicists from Bell Labs. Kind off makes for real Corporate Pride!
Andy Bermanwetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (11/15/83)
I am at a loss to understand how anyone can advocate a one-sided nuclear freeze given events over the past 50 odd years. Soviet leaders, from Stalin to Andropov, have been following the Marxist line without deviation throughout this span of history. From the subjugation and massacure of the Ukrainian people to the supplying of SAM missles to the Syrian military, they have not wavered from Marx's dream of world domination. Nothing has happened within the last 20 years that seems to have changed this goal. Have you forgotten the Korean airliner, Afganistan, new SAM missles in Lebenon, Soviet arms caches in Grenada, poison rain in Cambodia, the assasination attempt on the Pope, the assasination of four Korean ministers, the jailing of dissidents, the sujegation of soviet jews, the closing of all of their borders over the past 40 years, the stalling and disruption of every arms talk conference, the stationing of soviet subs off the east and west coasts, the use of Cuba as a surrogate revolutionary tool, the twisting of the truth about world events, and on and on in every facet of human life. Wouldn't it be nice if the same Times ad could be run in Isvetia (fat chance). The naive of the world are going to have to wake up and smell the coffee. The Soviet Union is not going to come to the barganing table as long as they in a position of power over the West. Nuclear disarmament is not going to become the act of the day because we wish it to happen. The Soviet leaders only seem to understand and recognize power. We have to somehow convince them that we are not going to negotiate from a position of weakness. Therefore, as sad as it is, we must maintain a position of strength or throw in the towel which would mean there would be no more dialogues such as this.
pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli) (11/16/83)
---------------------------------------------------------------- I don't recall anybody advocating unilateral disarmament by the West. Perhaps I'm not reading the right (pun intended) magazines. I do recall people advocating that the West should stop escalating the nuclear arms race. After all, it was the U.S. which first developed and built the: Hydrogen Bomb, Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles, ABM (Anti ballistic missile defense, now mothballed), MIRV (Multiple warhead missiles), Cruise Missiles, and coming soon to a country near you, MX missiles, Midgetman, and the Deathstar (space based laser defenses). If I remember right, we built all of these things to promote peace and harmony and to use as bargaining chips to get the Russians to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, all that seems to have resulted is that the Russians built the same damn things and aimed them at us. The opinion expressed in the article from pyuxa!wetcw appears to be that we must keep some sort of nuclear advantage over the Russians in order to get them to negotiate arms reduction and stop stirring up trouble in the world. This strategy has been followed by us for the last thirty years, and does not seem to have accomplished anything. The opinion of a large number of other people is that if we keep escalating the arms race, we are going to blow ourselves up someday. It is a historical fact that whenever a new weapon is developed, no matter how terrible the consequences of its use are thought to be, (e.g. the crossbow, TNT, etc. ), it ends up being used in a war. Fortunately, the human race managed to survive its previous attempts at suicide. We will probably not survive the next. I, for one, am glad to see BTL scientists taking the lead in an attempt to halt the arms race. Phil Polli ihuxl!pvp
jhh@ihldt.UUCP (John Haller) (11/16/83)
If the US had not developed that long list of nuclear weapons, do you believe that the Soviets would have refrained from building them first? I don't. And if they had built them first do you beleive that they wouldn't have taken advantage of their superiority to dominate the world and maintain their supremacy. I agree that nuclear weapons are a menace, and the world would be a better place without them. The mechanism to eliminate them is not well defined, and we would do as well to bury our heads in the sand as to unilaterally quit working on nuclear weapons. The solution is still "Solution Unsatisfactory," as described by R. A. Heinlein. John Haller
larry@ihuxf.UUCP (11/16/83)
A couple years ago there was a TV show "Battlestar Galactica" - personally I thought the first episodes were VERY good. Remember what they were about? A peacefull bunch of humans that were fighting for their lives against a tryanical force. Trouble was that good as their military was, the political leaders and "the masses" kept wanting to make peace with this force - even made an peace agreement, and started to dismantal their military. If you don't remember the show, the peace agreement was just a stalling tactic to the bad guys - a way to catch the good guys with their military weakened, and off guard. I think that while the story was told with "science fictional" characters, the basic story was very present day. I cringe every time I hear of some group of "peace loving people" trying to get our military position weakened. I don't consider myself to be a "hawk", I certainly don't think we should ALWAYS be the "world's defender", but on the other hand politics alone doesn't do diddley! After the Russian's invaded Afghanistan (sp?) and the world was upset, world leaders gave them essentially a slap on the wrists. What did the Russians do then? Even apologies? HA! Personally I am VERY glad that Ronnie Reagen is tough on the "Red Menace". -- Larry Marek ihnp4!ihuxf!larry
pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli) (11/16/83)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- >A couple years ago there was a TV show "Battlestar Galactica" - personally I >thought the first episodes were VERY good. Remember what they were about? A >peacefull bunch of humans that were fighting for their lives against a >tryanical force. I would prefer not to try to compare the current world situation to a TV show. I realize that our president likes to do so, but I hope that the rest of us can be a little more rational. If you insist on using Battlestar Galactica as a morality play for our times, let me remind you that television writers have the luxury of painting their world black and white. In the real world things are not so simple. It is simply not true that the United States is always on the side of the angels, and that we are always a peaceful, freedom loving people. We support many military dictatorships throughout the world. We are the worlds leading arms supplier. We have overthrown both covertly and overtly many freely elected governments (e.g. Iran, Chile ). We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in WWII via firebombing of major population centers. Going back further in history, we even invaded Russia once. We also did a pretty good job of exterminating the Indians. Now please note what I did *not* say in the above paragraph. I did *not* say that the Russians or other Communists are *better* than us. I did *not* even say that they are *half* as good as us! I am trying to explain to people that other countries have some reasons to be afraid of us, and to try to prevent us from dominating them. For example, Reagan put Kenneth Adelman in charge of our nuclear disarmament talks. This particular person is on record as stating that the disarmament talks should be continued only to pacify the Russians while we continue to expand our arsenal of nuclear weapons. What would you think if the Russians did this? What do you suppose they think? >Trouble was that good as their military was, the political >leaders and "the masses" kept wanting to make peace with this force - even >made an peace agreement, and started to dismantal their military. Will you please point out exactly where I or any other contributor to this discussion suggested dismantling our military? We are simply saying that when you have enough megatonnage to destroy the world a thousand times over, what is the sense in building more? Exactly what will it accomplish? If the Russians had 100 times more nuclear weapons than we did, what would they be able to do that they can't do already? If the recent Sagan study is correct, we don't even have to deliver our bombs to the Soviet Union. All we have to do is explode them in our own country, and the resulting world-wide holocaust will destroy both of us anyway. > If you >don't remember the show, the peace agreement was just a stalling tactic to the >bad guys - a way to catch the good guys with their military weakened, and off >guard. Again, even if they were able to drop their nuclear arsenal on us with no counter strike, the resulting world wide dust and radiation would destroy them also. Or do you you subscribe to the same theory that an Air Force general proposed to Congress? When asked what he meant when he talked about winning a nuclear war, he said (roughly) "If 2 Americans are alive, but only 1 Russian is, that's winning!" >I think that while the story was told with "science fictional" characters, the >basic story was very present day. I cringe every time I hear of some group of >"peace loving people" trying to get our military position weakened. I don't >consider myself to be a "hawk", I certainly don't think we should ALWAYS be >the "world's defender", but on the other hand politics alone doesn't do >diddley! Do you realize that there are a lot of people in Russia who say exactly the same things? Only they talk about the American threat to world peace. What difference is there between you and them besides an accident of birth? By the way, after the number of times Russia has been invaded (France, Germany, Mongols, U.S., etc.) they probably have a lot more reason to be paranoid about national security than we do. > After the Russian's invaded Afghanistan (sp?) and the world was >upset, world leaders gave them essentially a slap on the wrists. What would you propose we do? If we had the only nuclear weapons in the world, would you threaten them with a nuclear attack? Do you believe that the threat of mass murder is the best way to get other nations to behave? Would nuking Leningrad be a good way to show our displeasure with the Russians? Would you mind if they nuked Chicago because we invaded Grenada? > What did the >Russians do then? Even apologies? The Russians reacted in very much the same way that Reagan reacted when presented with the UN resolution deploring the invasion of Grenada. > HA! Personally I am VERY glad that Ronnie >Reagen is tough on the "Red Menace". Unfortunately, Ronald Reagans "toughness" is all talk and no action. At least Carter had the guts to cut off Russian grain shipments and boycott their Olympics. What has Ronnie done besides give more money to defense contractors to build more bombs, and make sneak attacks on little islands in the Carribean? We used to think that there was something morally repugnant about a country that would send their airplanes in a sneak attack on another country. Remember Pearl Harbor? At least the Japanese had the guts to attack someone their own size, and a sense of shame when they discovered that the declaration of war had not been delivered before the attack. We seem to have neither. Phil Polli ihuxl!pvp
walsh@ihuxi.UUCP (11/16/83)
Re: Phil Polli's comments, I can see your point on most everything you said, with the exception of the remark about Carter having the guts to boycott the Olympics and end grain shipments to Russia. These particular actions hurt the US much more than the Russians and I don't think it showed much 'guts' to do so. (Note: this does NOT mean I would have advocated any military action in this case; I simply don't think those actions did anything to hurt the Russians, and I would have preferred NO action to action that hurt us.) Granted, I can think of nothing we could have done to hurt them without hurting ourselves as well, but I'm open to suggestions. B. Walsh
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (11/17/83)
From Phillip Polli: > If the recent Sagan study is correct, > we don't even have to deliver our bombs to the Soviet Union. > All we have to do is explode them in our own country, and the > resulting world-wide holocaust will destroy both of us anyway. The operative word in this statement is IF! > > HA! Personally I am VERY glad that Ronnie > >Reagen is tough on the "Red Menace". > Unfortunately, Ronald Reagans "toughness" is all talk and no action. > At least Carter had the guts to cut off Russian grain shipments > and boycott their Olympics. What has Ronnie done besides give more > money to defense contractors to build more bombs, and make sneak > attacks on little islands in the Carribean? We used to think that > there was something morally repugnant about a country that would send > their airplanes in a sneak attack on another country. Remember > Pearl Harbor? At least the Japanese had the guts to attack someone > their own size, and a sense of shame when they discovered > that the declaration of war had not been delivered before the attack. > We seem to have neither. How about the deployment of missiles in Europe?? You don't think that was being tough on the Russians?? Then why are they so unhappy over this development and trying every thing they can think of short of war to thwart this deployment?? I cannot figure how you could characterize Carter as a tough President. The cutting off of the grain shipments hurt Americans much more than the Soviets. Boycotting the Olympics was not too effective either. Your are spouting the same old tired rhetoric about Grenada and I will not even bother to respond to that. You will have to admit that the public indignation in Grenada was not even slightly comparable to that in the US after Pearl Harbor. Also, Reagan avoided a situation that was the downfall of Carter by invading Grenada, namely another potential hostage situation. Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
okie@ihuxs.UUCP (B.K. Cobb) (11/17/83)
Alright, alright -- move it net.politics or net.flame. Enough is too much, esp. in btl.general! BKC
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/18/83)
Another "Allan England says": How about the deployment of missiles in Europe?? You don't think that was being tough on the Russians?? Then why are they so unhappy over this development and trying every thing they can think of short of war to thwart this deployment?? ========== How do you figure putting Pershings and Cruise missiles in Europe is being tough on the Russians? It may be tough on the West Europeans, but the Russians??? All it accomplishes is that WE now have to rely on the Russians having computers good enough to be sure never to initiate any false-alarms that can't be found in 6 minutes. Are OUR military computers that good? If you think their computers are so much better than ours, then why was the US Administration so concerned about letting them see a VAX-11/782 last week? Of course the Russians are worried about the missiles in Europe. So should any rational person be. They are DANGEROUS. To the Europeans, firstly, and to us a few minutes later. Confucius say: Ostrich with head in sand get bottom shot. Martin Taylor