From: utzoo!decvax!cca!charlie
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Arms Limitation
Article-I.D.: cca.4557
Posted: Tue Apr  5 19:25:10 1983
Received: Wed Apr  6 05:35:15 1983

I question the assumption that an arms freeze or arms reduction has much
to do with preventing nuclear war.  And there are so many nuclear weapons
now in existence that even a large percentage reduction would not
substantially reduce the devastation of a nuclear encounter.

In my mind, a freeze or reduction should not be thought of as the first
step toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.  By itself, that goal is
not only not attainable, it is not even clearly desirable.  If we were
going to fight an all out war, nuclear is probably the way to go.  Being
vaporized at ground zero is a much nicer way to go than the chemical,
toxin, and nerve gas based weapons which would replace it.  Our goal
must be to reduce the probability of war rather than the magnitude of
it.  It's far too late to do much about the magnitude.

There are several sound reasons for mutual arms reductions other than
making war more tolerable:

1) Weapons systems which give a first strike advantage are destabilizing
so it would be nice to minimize them.  MIRVs and ABMs together are the
classic and we have done a surprizing job of keeping these down.

2) The fewer weapons around, the less chance one will slip into "the
wrong hands".  This argument is weak if the level of security on the
weapons which do exist is uniform, but there it is.

3) It saves money on both sides.  Since both sides care only about
relative strength, mutual cutbacks would maintain the status quo and
allow more consumer spending in both countries.  There is no evidence
that this goal has ever actually worked, but it's a good idea.

4) It is a symbolic gesture that the super-powers can agree on
something.  Mutual dependence and trust are the real key to peace.
Given the accusations of cheating and such which usually accompany these
agreements, we might be better off with another symbol.

None of these purposes has the punch of saying we're taking the first
step toward eliminating the nuclear threat, but they are not necessarily
worthless either.

Where should this leave the peace movement?  I see no reason why they
should be interested in arms reductions talks one way or the other
except to label the hypocracy when negotiators claim goals beyond the
above four.

What should you do to increase the chances of peace?  I have given it
much thought and come up with very little.  My thoughts lead toward
increasing international interdependence through increased trade and
such.  Boring stuff.  What do others think?