mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (09/17/86)
In article <1252@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > [Michael C. Berch] > > Of *course* survival equipment includes one or more guns. Do you > > suppose the people stopping by your shelter will be looking for a > > fourth for bridge? (Would be nice, though.) > > . . . > > No, Michael, if God forbid, there *is* a nuclear war and somehow I > survive the 60 bombs targetted on New York city alone, I will be > joining my wife (hoping that she too is still alive) in doing > whatever I can to heal the sick and dying, of which I will undoubtedly > like the rest of us, eventually be one. > > Perhaps I will be dodging the bullets of psychopaths with guns > who believe in violence to their last breath and last murder. > I don't know. > > I imagine, that like most disasters in history, that the survivors > will be shocked, dazed, half-crazy but mostly trying to pick up > whatever pieces they can *together* to help humanity survive. > I would *intend* to help the survivors but who knows, given that > Hiroshima left even trained Doctors wandering in circles, > how can any of us tell what we would do? > > All I know is if you intend to go out and commit murder that > I think you are sick and perhaps helplessly poisoned by an > obsession with violent solutions to even the most clear signs > that violence is foolish and futile. Precisely my point. I do not personally expect to survive a full-scale nuclear war nor even a single-city attack if it is *my* city that gets attacked. Nevertheless, if I do survive, I am going to want to try to assure the safety of myself and family (or friends or co-workers) in order to help out and try to re-establish some kind of commonsense community -- medical care, shelter, food distribution, sanitation, heat and light, etc. I also care about saving books, records, art objects, cultural artifacts, and the like, which would help in the rebuilding process that I would not be likely to live to see. However, in order to do any or all of this, it is important to survive the first few waves of "shocked, dazed, crazy" people who would kill for food, sex, or fun. The historical record of humans *suddenly* free of all social restraint, particularly in times of great stress and violence, is not a pretty one. I would *never* "go out and commit murder" but I sure as hell would kill in true self-defense or defense of family/friends. (Before OR after a nuclear war.) I think that in the case of a full-scale nuclear war much of the above would be moot; the vast majority of survivors would be badly injured people, wandering in the dark, without food, water, or shelter. There might be a small contingent "dug in" in remote, well-stocked, defensible shelters; I will probably not be among them as I consider the risk of *total* nuclear war small. Nevertheless, this population would probably represent the entire gene pool of the race for the succeeding N generations... Much more to the point is what to do about situations less than full-scale nuclear war: terrorist nukes, one or two-city exchanges, attacks on remote military targets with significant radiation release, fallout from a nuclear war on another continent, use of tactical warheads near civilian areas, or even non-nuclear mass disasters like a really big earthquake. Any or all of these present the likelihood of a local or regional breakdown in law enforcement, food distribution, and the like. Rioting, roving gangs, looting, arson, etc., are likely. The irony of surviving the attack/earthquake/whatever merely to perish at the hands of human monsters is not one I wish to experience. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
speter@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Peter Osgood) (09/18/86)
In article <20864@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: >In article <1252@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> > [Michael C. Berch] > >Precisely my point. I do not personally expect to survive a full-scale >nuclear war nor even a single-city attack if it is *my* city that gets >attacked. Nevertheless, if I do survive, I am going to want to try to >assure the safety of myself and family (or friends or co-workers) in >order to help out and try to re-establish some kind of commonsense >community -- medical care, shelter, food distribution, sanitation, heat >and light, etc. I also care about saving books, records, art objects, >cultural artifacts, and the like, which would help in the rebuilding >process that I would not be likely to live to see. > The survival of the human race after *all* the nukes that exist have been launched is remote, at best. So surviving is not a concern, join the Ground Zero Club with the rest of us and go in the first wave. >Much more to the point is what to do about situations less than >full-scale nuclear war: terrorist nukes, one or two-city exchanges, >attacks on remote military targets with significant radiation release, >fallout from a nuclear war on another continent, use of tactical warheads >near civilian areas, or even non-nuclear mass disasters like a really >big earthquake. This scenario is played out almost daily by the military leaders and many political scientists of the world. What looms large is the chance of escalation. In other words, could there realisticly be an exchange of 1 and 1 nuke or 2 and 2 nukes, etc. Since one side is likely to want to get the last say in, it would be very very difficult to rely on a limited engagement. I spent 14 years in the Army (3 1/2 as a reservist). I have seen our "military leaders" first hand, having been an officer, and frankly, I am not convinced that the vast majority of those field officers and general staff officers who are put in charge of tactical nukes are competant enough to make the right decision. What is even more scary is the fact that Communist Bloc officers are not nearly as good as their Western counterparts. To wit: in the Western forces authority to make decisions is relegated to the lowest possible level. In the East it is just the opposite. The definition of "possible" being: that level at which faith in judgement exists. Understand me clearly, I am very much in favor of a strong military but the present level of nukes is entirely unacceptable. Between the two powers there are approximately 20,000 warheads. It is estimated that something less than 1,000 warheads being used in any exchange will trigger a nuclear winter. Further, those 1,000 warheads are more than enough to reduce the world powers to nothing. ---peter osgood---