nowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (Jerry Nowlin) (09/18/84)
Oh come on guys. I never said I was an expert on foreign policy. Or
were you in awe of my insight? I only know I feel very nervous when someone I
don't know or trust has their finger on the trigger of a gun, and that gun is
pointing at the world's head.
It used to be you had to worry about some nut in the bunker pushing the
button because his girl friend left him, his longjohns were too tight, or the
chili/borscht he had the night before had taken over his mind. It would have
been a "mistake" if the button had been pushed though. Nobody in their right
mind actually considered pushing it.
Now there are some heavy weight decision makers out there starting to
think in terms of winning a nuclear war. We have to worry about someone
pushing the button on purpose. Probably someone who's family has already been
secured in one shelter, while he pushes the button from a shelter somewhere
else.
I don't favor unilateral disarmament to the exclusion of other solutions
like the nuclear freeze movement or bilateral disarmament. I just don't want
to wait around for an "agreement" to be reached. Unilateral means we can do
it without waiting for the Soviets to approve. Since we've been waiting over
3 years now for the President to speak to them I don't see any light down that
tunnel.
I think foreign policy isn't the real disagreement here. I'm worried
about the future of the planet first and my country second. You arms racists
are only worried about your country. If you can't have it the way you want
it, you'll see that nobody has it period.
Jerry Nowlin
ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlinhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/27/84)
> Now there are some heavy weight decision makers out there starting to > think in terms of winning a nuclear war. ... Let us not forget that the notion of "winning a nuclear war" has never been foreign to Soviet military thought, if only in the sense that the U.S. must never be in a position to do so. This is not a question of the Soviets being evil, just of them having a rather different view of WW3 and how to prevent it. For a long time, U.S. doctrine has been (generally speaking) that a nuclear war is an unthinkable disaster, and that the way to prevent it is to make this absolutely clear to the Soviets. I.e., deterring war by convincing the Soviets that it would be an unthinkable disaster for them too. It is worth emphasizing that THE SOVIET VIEW IS NOT QUITE THE SAME. Their doctrine is that nuclear war would be a terrible disaster that must be avoided, and that the best way to do this is to convince the U.S. that it cannot possibly win such a war. Please note that both sides agree that a nuclear war is undesirable and should be avoided. [Even the recent U.S. rumblings about winning a nuclear war have not, to my knowledge, suggested starting one.] But it is crucial to realize that the two sides do not agree on exactly how it should be prevented. The U.S. has a tendency to assume that the Soviets think exactly the same way the U.S. does, and to build elaborate hypothetical scenarios on this basis. Everyone should really be aware that the Soviets are *not* reading from the same script! Seen in this light, certain Soviet actions can be explained without invoking fundamental evil on the Soviet side. The Soviet Union must be prepared to *fight* a nuclear war, so well prepared that the U.S. will clearly perceive the impossibility of winning. Of course, the Soviets prepare for such a war according to their own doctrines of how to fight a war. For example, they are great believers in counter- battery fire -- knocking out the opponent's artillery -- so the notion of a first strike to knock out the enemy's ICBMs before they can be used is obvious and natural, not a "major change in policy". Similarly, they do not believe in holding civilians as hostages -- note that this is the basis of U.S. deterrence policy! -- since it is quite irrelevant to *fighting* a war. Missiles should obviously be aimed at military targets, not cities (unless the cities contain targets of military importance). And the concept of communications and control systems that can survive an attack is clearly of first importance, without any implication of intent to start a war. The Soviets -- by and large -- are not evil monsters bent on the conquest of the world out of sheer malice. (Some small fraction of them are bent on it because orthodox doctrine says it is right, but this is no different from any other form of religious fanaticism.) But they take a rather different approach to some things than the U.S. does, and they have a different view of many issues. It would be nice (to put it mildly!) if this was better understood. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/02/84)
As Henry Spencer says, the Soviets have somewhat different view of
nuclear war than the US. However, even though they may deem civilian
lives irrelevant to *fighting* a nuclear war, they must be aware of
the dire political consequences to the Soviet state.
The continued existence of the Soviet state is made possible only by
the forceful repression of its varying nationalities' ambitions by the
central government. Any significant civilian casualties in the
centers of Russian power will substantially increase local autonomy.
Fragmentation of the Soviet Union would likely follow. If civilian
casualties do not deter Soviet leadership, the danger to their unitary
state will.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david