jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (05/16/86)
In article <782@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >The idea that declaring yourself a "nuclear free zone" is going to make >even ONE bit of difference whether war is fought on your soil is so >incredibly naive as to be unbelievable. Since otherwise intelligent >people claim to believe this nonsense, I am forced to conclude that >they do so because they are attempting to create a popular support for >pacifism. Totalitarians have always benefitted from pacifism -- that's >why groups like CND exist. What's wrong with popular support for pacifism? The more people who object to violence, the better. We'd all live in a better world if there were more pacifists. Sorry, I don't see the connection between CND and totalitarianism. CND exists because some nations think it's a good idea to stockpile weapons that can obliterate the planet we all live on and then threaten each other with these weapons. Where does totalitarianism come into it? [I'm only a stupid pacifist, so what do I know? :-)] It's humanity that will benefit from the CND movement - Raygun and Gorbachov would not even be trying to have talks about talks about arms reductions if it wasn't for the massive public opinion against them, particularly in Western Europe. Jim
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/23/86)
> In article <782@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > >The idea that declaring yourself a "nuclear free zone" is going to make > >even ONE bit of difference whether war is fought on your soil is so > >incredibly naive as to be unbelievable. Since otherwise intelligent > >people claim to believe this nonsense, I am forced to conclude that > >they do so because they are attempting to create a popular support for > >pacifism. Totalitarians have always benefitted from pacifism -- that's > >why groups like CND exist. > > What's wrong with popular support for pacifism? The more people who object > to violence, the better. We'd all live in a better world if there were > more pacifists. > If all the pacifists are on one side, the other side will quickly take away your freedom, and perhaps your lives. > Sorry, I don't see the connection between CND and totalitarianism. CND > exists because some nations think it's a good idea to stockpile weapons > that can obliterate the planet we all live on and then threaten each other > with these weapons. Where does totalitarianism come into it? [I'm only a > stupid pacifist, so what do I know? :-)] > You really are stupid, then. Take a look at the 1930s in Europe. The pacifist sentiments widely held in France and Britain made it easy for Hitler to take over Austria & Czechoslovakia. No one wanted to start a war -- and when it finally came, Germany had a huge advantage. Didn't you learn any history? I know German schools don't teach history after the Weimar Republic -- but then, they have something be embarrassed by. What's your excuse? > It's humanity that will benefit from the CND movement - Raygun and Gorbachov > would not even be trying to have talks about talks about arms reductions > if it wasn't for the massive public opinion against them, particularly in > Western Europe. > > Jim Arms limitations talks have been going on for 20 years -- well before there was any popular opposition to nuclear weapons. (You really DO need to understand the past to understand the present, Jim.) Clayton E. Cramer
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (05/27/86)
In article <137@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes: >What's wrong with popular support for pacifism? The more people who object >to violence, the better. We'd all live in a better world if there were >more pacifists. Depends on which side they were on. >Sorry, I don't see the connection between CND and totalitarianism. CND >exists because some nations think it's a good idea to stockpile weapons >that can obliterate the planet we all live on and then threaten each other >with these weapons. Where does totalitarianism come into it? [I'm only a >stupid pacifist, so what do I know? :-)] > >It's humanity that will benefit from the CND movement - Raygun and Gorbachov >would not even be trying to have talks about talks about arms reductions >if it wasn't for the massive public opinion against them, particularly in >Western Europe. I suspect that the Soviet Union couldn't care less what *anybody's* opinion was of them. Since the leaders can't get kicked out of office they have no reason to care what the citizenry thinks. And if they don't care what their own people think why in the world should they care what foreigners think? The reason they want arms talks is because the arms race is a drain on their economy. Such a drain makes it difficult to keep their people happy (hence a high rate of alcoholism), and it makes it difficult to finance conventional mischief around the world (however, they do have their priorities "right" - military aid to Ethiopia but no food aid until the West shamed them into providing some). I am curious about the use of the term pacifism. Is it being used to mean an opposition to war regardless of the circumstances? This has always seemed to be an incredibly naive view to me and I'd be very interested in hearing a defence of such a position by someone who believes in it. J.B. Robinson To paraphrase Lazarus Long: The meek shall inherit the earth - about 6 feet of it.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (05/27/86)
> [Jim, from University of Strathclyde, UK] > What's wrong with popular support for pacifism? The more people who object > to violence, the better. We'd all live in a better world if there were > more pacifists. ---------------- We sure would, if they were more evenly spread around the globe. I'm damn glad that your views were in the minority in the UK in 1939. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan