arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (06/14/85)
From: The Arms-D Moderator (Harold Ancell) <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 45
Today's Topics:
Speculation on Soviet Response
Request for Commentary on ABC Program "The Fire Unleashed"
Emotions, Morality, & Actions
Reagan & Hiroshima
SDI
The Great Citizen Exchange Revisited
Proposed Unilateral 50% Reduction in Nukes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 85 08:21:42 EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Speculation on Soviet Response
To: foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA
Therefor I am immediately stopping all production of nulear
weapons. During the remaining three years of my term in office I
will have fifty percent of our nuclear weapons destroyed. We will
continue with our research and intelligence efforts in to insure
that the Soviets do not surprise us with any new military
capability.
I hope that the Soviets will respond with a reduction of their
nuclear arms. I will make this reduction wether they do or not,
because we have more important things to do than build nuclear
weapons which serve no military purpose."
The Soviets would surely applaud. What else they would do it not
clear. It is also not clear that it would make a military difference.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 85 08:24:45 EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: ABC The Fire Unleashed
I am curious about the reaction of ARMS-D to the above mentioned show.
Do people believe it was a fair and unbiased presentation of the issues?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 85 08:25:44 EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Emotions, Morality, & Actions
To: foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA
They still are under the influence of the emotion. They just
aren't aware of it. Thus they act less wisely than if they were in
touch with the emotion.
Why is this necessarily the case?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 85 08:31 PDT
From: "Morton Jim"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Subject: Reagan & Hiroshima
In response to Richard Foy's consideration of Presedent Reagan going
to Hiroshima, I wonder if it would have the effect of conveying the
idea that nuclear weapons are not so terrible after all. No matter
how many photographs one looks at, seeing a thriving city where once
lay atomic wasteland would have the effect of convincing one that the
damage caused by nuclear weapons is not permanent. If there were
significant areas of land that remain burned-out and useless, i think
the overall effect would be different.
I personally prefer the idea of an atmospheric test evry four years
with presedents and senators/congressmen close enough to get
"sunburned".
Typical disclamer of employer non-responsibility for my personal
opinions as described in this mail item.
Jim Morton
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 85 09:09:47 edt
From: mirror!prism!zrm@mit-eddie (Zigurd R. Mednieks)
Subject: SDI
I fear that on one side of the SDI debate we have have a bunch of
colonels who have been sold a bill of goods by the Beltway Bandits
who will be lining up for the contracts to write a zillion lines of
Ada. On the other side is the usual cast of anti-defense characters.
Wonderful. Just wonderful.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jun 85 11:46:37 PDT (Thu)
From: "Tim Shimeall" <tim@uci-icsd>
Subject: The Great Citizen Exchange Revisited
According to this morning's L.A. Times, Jacques Cousteau is arguing
for a compulsory exchange of all 7 and 8 year old children between
two enemy countries, as a means of preventing nuclear war. (i.e.,
we get all of the Soviet 7 and 8 year olds, and they get all of ours.)
This strikes me as quite similar to a proposal discussed over a year
ago on ARMS-D, but with some interesting differences. One of the
objections raised in the ARMS-D discussion was the difference in
the laws of the two countries, which might cause large human-rights
problems. I think this problem is lessened under Cousteau's proposal,
since children are normally treated with greater leniency than adults.
Now, I still think that this proposal is a pipe dream (consider the
logistical problems, not to mention the political ones), but it IS
an interesting thought.
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 85 11:19:08 PDT
From: mjw%phobos%deimos@cit-hamlet.arpa
Subject: response to foy
In response to Reagan's proposed unilateral 50% reduction in nukes:
I have often thought of this proposal, except 10%, and Reagan tells
the russians in secret and carries out our bit in secret as well.
Also, they are told that we will match them down the line keeping our
weaponry at 90% of theirs as they disarm. A different strategy would
presumably be called for at some Magic Number of remaining warheads.
But this public 50% reduction has the appeal that a secret arrangement
is difficult to keep secret, especially with people who wouldn't agree
knowing about it. By calling for 50% Reagan could do the same thing
he did with tax cuts, defense increases, domestic budget cuts, i.e.
change the zero point compromise fallback by a signifigant amount by
claiming an astounding amount. After a few months of heated outrage
from the people who disagree reagan could compromise and only cut our
weapons 20%.
As for the Russian reaction, who cares? They won't nuke us for it and
there is no doubt that some money recovered from nuke research and
construction would go straight into conventional weapons, to counter
the russians in a less permanent way.
This has the flavor of the kind of thing that only Reagan could pull
off, if only he believed in it...
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]