kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/24/86)
[ This seems to be my week for administrative errors! I accidently
left this message out of a digest a while back. My apologies to Keith
and M. Stubbs - CWM]
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!stubbs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
This amendment would not allow prohibition of the following
activities which I personally think should be prohibited ...
Building a nuclear reactor or bomb in my back yard.
I am not comfortable with priavte ownership of nuclear bombs.
Neither am I comfortable with government ownership of nuclear bombs.
As the world becomes a wealthier place we are likely to see more of
both, whether it's legal or not. I wish I had a solution. I don't.
But the problem with nuclear bombs has nothing to do with private
vs. government ownership. The problem has to do with their enormous
destructive capacity and the fact that they have no legitimate use
whatsoever, no matter who owns them.
Manufacturing, possessing or selling handguns, Thompson submachine
guns, artillery, dynamite, nitroglycerine
(insert many dangerous chemicals, processes, activities)...
These ARE privately manufactured and owned. And I see nothing wrong
with it.
...Keith
-------jim@oswald.UUCP (09/03/86)
In a recent article, Keith Lynch expressed his opposition to any
restrictions on private ownership of munitions, possibly excepting
nuclear weapons. This points up a crucial flaw in anti-gun-control
arguments: where do you draw the line between permissible and
impermissible weapons? There are two options:
OPTION 1: No restrictions whatsoever on ownership of weapons
------------------------------------------------------------
This would create a terrorist's paradise. The terrorist could, with
impunity, buy the latest instruments of death that modern technology
offers. Why settle for a puny pipe bomb when you can legally buy a
nice dirty nuclear device (heavy on the fallout, please).
Keith seems to say that, since governments now own nuclear bombs,
private ownership would make no difference. This is silly. Having a
dozen or so governments that can "push the button" is bad enough, but
if thousands of private citizens had their own nuclear devices (and
think of what kind of person would want a nuclear device) it would be
a very short time indeed before we saw another nuclear holocaust.
This may happen eventually, but there's no need to help the process
along by legalizing private nuclear bombs.
OPTION 2: Restrictions on private nuclear weapons
-------------------------------------------------
This is more reasonable, but how do you draw the line saying that
private nuclear weapons are illegal, but private ownership of anthrax
bombs or nerve gas or napalm is legal?
This raises the general question: which weapons should private
individuals be permitted to own?
---
Jim Olsen ARPA: jim%oswald.UUCP@ll-xn.ARPA
UUCP: ...!{decvax,lll-crg,seismo}!ll-xn!oswald!jim
-------mcampos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (09/10/86)
Keith F. Lynch writes: > I am not comfortable with priavte ownership of nuclear bombs. >Neither am I comfortable with government ownership of nuclear bombs. >As the world becomes a wealthier place we are likely to see more of >both, whether it's legal or not. I wish I had a solution. I don't. > But the problem with nuclear bombs has nothing to do with private >vs. government ownership. The problem has to do with their enormous >destructive capacity and the fact that they have no legitimate use >whatsoever, no matter who owns them. A couple of small points. I could see supporting private ownership of nuclear weapons for use in space mining and other applications. But I agree in that they have no real use on Earth other than mass destruction. I'm not overly comfortable with government ownership of nuclear weapons either, but I see no other good custodian for this destructive power on Earth, especially when the bad guys have them as well. The best we can do is try to make sure we have a government that will use them properly, if at all. -- Marc Campos, MIT Project Athena {decvax, mit-eddie}!mit-athena!mcampos 3 Ames St. Bemis 407 OR !mit-trillian!mcampos Cambridge, MA 02139 USA (617) 577-8234 ARPA: mcampos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU -------
karl@cbrma.UUCP (09/21/86)
oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA writes: >In a recent article, Keith Lynch expressed his opposition to any >restrictions on private ownership of munitions, possibly excepting >nuclear weapons. This points up a crucial flaw in anti-gun-control >arguments: where do you draw the line between permissible and >impermissible weapons? There are two options: Indeed, this points to an even greater flaw in pro-control arguments: Why is your line better than my line? Or Keith's line? Or HCI's or the NRA's line? >OPTION 1: No restrictions whatsoever on ownership of weapons >Having a >dozen or so governments that can "push the button" is bad enough, but >if thousands of private citizens had their own nuclear devices... Right, "thousands," uh-huh. Do you have any idea of either the cost or the difficulty of constructing such a weapon? Lessee, I should have saved up enough by, oh, about the year 2127... >This raises the general question: which weapons should private >individuals be permitted to own? What are your qualifications to be making such a decision for me? --- Karl Kleinpaste -------