KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/16/86)
To: oswald!jim@LL-XN.ARPA, mcampos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
From: oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA
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?
I suppose to be consistent I should advocate allowing private
ownership of nuclear bombs. It is true that if I did so, anyone on
this list could describe possible horrible consequences.
Is this a good argument against my position? I would say not,
because:
1) Someone who plans to use nuclear bombs against people isn't going
to be too concerned about legalities.
2) Nuclear bombs are expensive and hard to build. Even if they were
legal, no individuals could afford one, nor could any but the
wealthiest companies, all of which have better things to do with
their money.
3) In the future it is likely that nuclear bombs will become cheaper
to build, thanks to a general worldwide increase in wealth and in
efficiency. Once this happens, it is likely that anyone who wants
one can get one, whether or not they are legal.
4) By the null hypothesis, it is ok for governments to have nuclear
bombs. Are you really any more comfortable with the idea of Libya
and Lebanon and Iran having them than you are with the idea of
IBM and AT&T having them? Personally, I would much prefer GM and
RCA to have them rather than Russia and China.
5) If the world were to adopt a libertarian system, everyone would
become much more wealthy. There would be more money available for
finding countermeasures to nuclear bombs. If there are no possible
countermeasures at any price, at least it would be more likely that
mankind would be sufficiently spread out through the solar system
that a war on Earth would not mean the end of mankind or even of
man's civilization. Libertarian space colonies, after all, would
be self supporting. Government space colonies would probably
require massive subsidies and would die without support from Earth,
as well as being more likely to be a target in a nuclear war.
No, I don't see any way out of the current nuclear dilemma, with or
without adoption of a libertarian system. I don't think it is fair
that this be held against me unless YOU can come up with some way out
of the nuclear dilemma. Arms control agreements with the Soviet Union
won't do it, since there are several other countries with nuclear
weapons, and since there will likely be several more soon. No fair
suggesting that we surrender to the Soviet Union, for the same reason.
If the USSR took over the US, we would then be in a nuclear stalemate
with China, England, and/or France. Besides, I would rather FIGHT a
nuclear war than surrender to the Soviets, even if we were guaranteed
a nuclear free world while working in their slave labor death camps.
From: <mcampos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
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, ...
Why do you assume that governments are automatically more reliable
custodians than individuals or corporations? Keep in mind that many
governments ARE individuals. Do you really think that Qadaffi and
Khomenei are more trustworthy than ANY INDIVIDUAL in the US?
...Keith
-------