From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!npois!houxm!hogpc!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!sb1!mb2b!uofm-cv!janc Newsgroups: net.politics Title: How to Save the World Article-I.D.: uofm-cv.180 Posted: Sun Apr 3 17:35:33 1983 Received: Tue Apr 5 01:08:24 1983 One of the more interesting things I've found to think about is the proper way to go about trying to avert a nuclear holocaust. Strangely, this seems to be a very unusual occupation. I thought I'd write up some of my thoughts on the subject, and see what people out on the net think about this. Some of my conclusions are rather different. (1) Nightmares vs. History Nuclear weapons are scary. A nuclear confrontation could easily wipe out civilization. (Is that bad? Let's assume it is.) On the other hand, we've had them around for some 30 years without anyone using a single one. In fact, we've pretty much avoided really big wars for that period. The situation, up to now, has been fairly stable. Suppose, for example, that America tryed unilateral disarment. Would the resulting political situation be as stable? Gosh, I don't know. Moreover, I don't believe anyone who says he knows. Unilateral disarment is risky because it puts us on unknown ground. Analogy: You are in the middle of a mine field. What's the best way out? A straight line? Sorry, life is not Euclidian. The best way out is the way you came in. The way we got into this situation was a slow bilateral build-up. The safest way out is a slow bilateral reduction. This keeps us pretty much on safe ground. Our politicians know how to handle a stalemate. Any other strategy could make the situation worse. (2) Protest vs. Negotiation To achieve bilateral reduction of nuclear weapons requires a negotiation between the Americans and the Russians. Each side would prefer to have more nuclear weapons than the other, if only because they trust themselves more than the other guy (a fallacy). Thus negotiating is a painful process. Many people who want fewer bombs in the world express this opinion by taking part in protests. The purpose is to apply political pressure to their leaders to do...something. The problem with this is that the pressure is applied to only one side. The other side, perceiving that his opponent is under pressure to produce something fast, refuses to give an inch, in hopes that his opponent will be forced to give in. (The Vietnam war is a good example of what I'm talking about. Remember the arguments over the shape of the table? That was a tactic designed to drive the Americans frantic. In the end the Vietnamese got whatever they wanted, and the Americans packed up and went home. What happened in Vietnam afterwards is partly the fault of the American peace protesters who made it impossible to negotiate a genuine peace.) In general, protest is only effective when it places pressure on all involved parties. What this comes down to, is that the nuclear protesters are doing more to hinder nuclear disarment than to help it. They apply pressure to the government to find a solution, while at the same time making it impossible to achieve one. This is a classic example of a strange loop. The world is full of them. The only real effect is to get Reagan out of office, but doing this at the price of sustaining the nuclear threat seems irrational. (3) More vs. Less Reagan is currently proposing to base Pershing missiles in Europe. The idea is to put pressure on the Soviets to agree to withdraw intermediate nuclear missiles from Europe. Obviously, this is another strange loop. I'm not at all sure that it's a workable one, but it makes a lot more sense than what the protesters are doing. It also seems to be targeted right. The intermediate range nuclear missiles are very likely the most immediate threat. Reagan seems to be using the levers available to him reasonably well. The main problem is that if Reagan can't talk the Soviets into a deal, both sides in Europe will loaded with nuclear missiles, and we won't be able to pull ours out again. IMPORTANT: Because of this you want Reagan to succeed, even if you hate his guts. Nuclear disarment is not a political issue! (4) Ask not what your country can do for you... The biggest chance of failure in his plan is that the Soviets don't believe that he has sufficient public support. They will stall, in hopes that he will not be reelected, and that his successor will not pursue Reagan's plan (this is likely). What to do? How about rallying in support of Reagan's initiative, instead of in protest? (You can't keep protesting everything--eventually you have to support something.) The point here would be to deliver two main messages: (A) WE SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN (B) WE ARE WILLING TO WAIT FOR A FAIR SETTLEMENT This keeps our side on the ball, but does not help deadlock the negotiation. Most of the media-grabbing tactics would be the same as those well known to protesters, but the tone would be different. For example, go to the place where the negotiations are going on and, instead of screaming insults at the delegates, hail them as the saviors of mankind. Note that I'm not asking you to believe in (A) and (B), only to sound like you do. Sometimes you have to go against your ideals to achieve them. (Another strange loop? You guessed it.) Please let me know what you think of the above. It's my best approximation to the truth, and I would like to hear your criticisms. Needless to say, the opinions above are exclusively those of-- Jan D. Wolter uofm-cv!janc