ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/23/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, December 23, 1985 3:23PM
Volume 5, Issue 69
Today's Topics:
Neutrality
Better read than dead...
Better Dead ... [CORRECTION]
Re: Better Dead...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 85 10:23:29 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: Neutrality
1. Why did my last two submissions get labelled as Jeff Broughton ?
2. I notice a number of references to the submission by T. Siili of Finland.
I would be more disposed to hear a neutral's upbraiding of the nasty
superpowers were it from a Swede or an Irishman perhaps, but I rather suspect
any one-sided (as usual - I thought there were two nasty superpowers) comments
about US intentions made by commentators whose countries are "under the gun."
Finland's neutrality is colored by the leverage exerted over its foreign
policy by the Soviet Union, the price Finland must pay not to be an S.S.R.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 85 10:51 EST
From: Mills@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Better read than dead...
There is one point that the people who would rather end the world than
let the Soviets "win" for a while are missing. If we end the world, we
end all freedom in any meaningfull sence. As long as people as still
alive they can still fight for their freedom. To the best of my
knowledge there is no goverment that has been around for more than 300
years. I would be surprized if any of the current goverments end up
with a better track record. How can it possibly make sence to end the
world because some of us find the current situation realy repulsive,
when it seems pretty clear from history that things will different in
the not to distant future?
Some people on this list have talked about trading other people's rights
away. I can not think of a more extreme example of this than taking
away their choise to fight for freedom by killing them.
Just for the record, I do beleive the Soviets are esentially evil and
that we must appose them. However, we should do this in a way we can
win with conventional forces. If we keep trying to defend ourselves by
threatining to end the world, eventually someone is going to call our
bluff. At the point we, the U.S. etc., loose or we all wind up dead.
This is a rather stupid and childish way to "defend" our selves.
John Mills
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 85 11:49:00 EST
From: wolit%mhuxd.UUCP at harvard.HARVARD.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Better Dead ... [CORRECTION]
[Please substitute the following for my previous submission.
Note the change in the penultimate line of text. -- JW]
From: Tim Shimeall <tim@ICSD.UCI.EDU>
``There is nothing in this world worth risking the earth's
destruction.'' (Gwyn Dyer's "War") In my personal opinion,
this is false. I would not care to live, nor do I want my
descendents (if any) to live, in a country which lacks the
freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.
By this reasoning, the inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto in
the 40s, or of Budapest in the 50s, or Athens in the 60s, or
Santiago in the 70s, or Teheran in the 80s, etc., would all
have been justified in bringing the temple down around
themselves (and the rest of the world) to spare future
generations from what they had to endure. Fortunately, THEY
did not have that capability -- fortunately not only for us,
but for those very descendents, many of whom already have
managed not only to survive, but to escape or even reform
their oppressive systems. To posit that Americans, unlike
all these others, would be unwilling to resist a tyrant
bespeaks a lack of faith in our commitment to freedom that
goes far beyond the worst propaganda of our "enemies." I
would not want to live without those freedoms either, but I
have too much confidence in the inability of an oppressor to
hold nations captive for long to deny my descendents all
hope of liberation.
Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit
(Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
------------------------------
Date: 23 Dec 85 09:51:37 PST (Monday)
From: Morrill.PA@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Better Dead...
You have said, "I would not care to live, nor do I want my descendents
(if any) to live, in a country which lacks the freedoms of religion,
speech, press and assembly. This means that I think that freedom is the
sole commodity worth the destruction of the world, and if risking the
destruction of the world is the sole means by which freedom can be
defended -- so be it."
Well, it seems a bit hasty to destroy the entire world just because you
are not satisfied with the quality of life at the present. Do you think
your descendants would appreciate your decision which has eliminated
their chance at experiencing the miracle of life, as well as their
opportunity to change the quality of life to something acceptable to
them and/or their descendants?
When I'm depressed and my whole world seems to be falling apart, suicide
is never an option because I know that I have the power and
determination to change my world no matter how long it might take (a
day, a week, a year or even the rest of my life). We can not murder our
future generations just because we have failed to preserve our quality
of life.
D. Toby Morrill
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************