From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!hou5f!ariel!houti!trc
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: The third option... (NUKES)
Article-I.D.: houti.242
Posted: Fri Apr  8 08:15:42 1983
Received: Sat Apr  9 03:49:40 1983


When weapons are not being used to destroy, they are used to induce
fear in one's enemies.  Fear in reasonable quantities has the healthy 
effect of convincing both sides not to attack.  Fear in large quantities 
on both sides can have the opposite effect, of inducing a "preventive 
strike".  This is the real nuclear weapons problem - the precarious 
balance of fear.  And the MAD strategy has allowed the scales to
be continually loaded with more fear, so that they are near the
point of breaking.

We seem to have painted ourselves into a corner.  We are faced by two 
equally horrible prospects - nuclear war, or world domination by the 
other side, should we give up our weapons without them doing so also.
And yes, I do see these as equally horrible.  Which would be worse - to
die swiftly in a war, or to live on, watching the murder and destruction
of all you love?  

The source of the problem is that the US didnt make the commitment needed
to stay well ahead of the Russians, or to use the strength while ahead to
force the Russians to stay away from nuclear arms.  In either case, there
would be no fear of nuclear war, and the world would be a much stabler place.  
We should have USED our weapons JUDICIOUSLY, to prevent others from developing 
nuclear arsenals.  We are now paying the price of weakness.  

The solution is NOT to unilaterally accept weakness.  If we turn the 
other cheek, the Russians will slap it.  The freeze, even if done perfectly, 
merely delays the situation, doing nothing to defuse it. A third option, 
which no one seems to be considering, is intense dedication on our part to 
building up our strength.  The Russians are already doing this, but I 
believe that our country is so much more productive that we would be easily
capable of out doing them. (Of course it would really be the NATO countries, 
not just the US.) It has the advantage that the side that having more 
power would be the side that doesnt want world domination.

And if the thought of unilateral build-up of offensive weapons seems
distasteful, cant we at least agree upon a bi-lateral build up of 
defensive weapons, so that the load of fear on the scales is reduced?  
I think this is what the "Star Wars" plan could offer - a two sided 
race to REDUCE the nuclear threat.  When it is done, then perhaps a 
freeze would be reasonable, without the threat of planetary extinction
hanging over the heads of our children.

	Tom Craver
	houti!trc