Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site uwvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!uwvax!myers From: myers@uwvax.ARPA (Jeff Myers) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: The Draft Message-ID: <1040@uwvax.ARPA> Date: Sun, 21-Aug-83 05:06:16 EDT Article-I.D.: uwvax.1040 Posted: Sun Aug 21 05:06:16 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Aug-83 15:07:56 EDT References: <946@ittvax.UUCP> <719@hou5e.UUCP> Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 101 I've been reading the submissions on the draft with some interest, and was finally prompted to add my bits of tinder to the fire upon reading Mark Terrible's rantings against our 'utopian' comrade David Wexelblat's cry for help. I have two small comments to make, the first on whether or not War is a permanent aspect of human society and the second on the fallacy that draft registration contributes to our nation's defense. David made an appeal for a halt to war. Yes, such cries have been heard before. Yes, humans do fight amongst each other quite a lot. However, imputing human nature to 'complex organisations' such as states under all circumstances is not valid reasoning. Do all multi-celled organisms react to light in the same manner that a single-celled amoeba does? Yes, war is and has been widely practiced in human societies; but it is *extremely* important to realize that unless positive and concrete work is done toward the elimination of war between countries, USENET is going to meet the BIG- BAD-BOMB, at which point there will be no more routing of flames to /dev/null. In my opinion, it's easy to cry "We'll never be rid of War - just read 'Heart of Darkness'!" It's somewhat more difficult to at least TRY to radically cut down or eliminate appearances of the phenomenon. Again in my opinion, the single most important place to begin is the reduction of tension between the superpowers. If they feel less threatened by each other, alot of good things should happen. For one, resources will be freed-up for consumer production and peaceful energy and space research. For another, there will be less need for security forces and their associated 'clampdowns' on civil liberties. For yet another, if the major powers cease to be overtly antagonistic, there will be less acceptance of such behaivior by Third World nations, especially if the First and Second World stops selling arms to put' near ev'rbody and his dog. The obvious place to start reducing superpower tensions is at the heart of their antagonism: Europe. Our upcoming 'defense' of Europe by planting Pershing II's and Cruises like trees is based on the paranoid delusion that Soviet tanks are chafing at the bit to drive to Gibralter via Frankfurt-am-Main. This view is ridiculous on at least three grounds. 1) Consider the difficulty the Soviets are having quelling resistance in Afganistan. Then consider what trouble the already motley (culturally) Soviet Empire would have in digesting Western and Southern Europe. They have trouble feeding their own people. 2) The Soviet Union lost 20 million people in WWII. Cynics will take this as evidence that Communists drink blood with relish. 3) A more likely reason for the presence of all those Soviet tanks is to quell Warsaw Pact rebellion, or, rather, to unconditionally prevent such a rebellion. Enough. The US and the USSR must work to begin a disengagement from the European theatre by the removal of tactical and intermediate nuclear weaponry from both NATO and Warsaw pact countries and then the removal of US and Soviet conventional forces from the same area. Yes, it will be difficult to negotiate. But have we any choice? Do more and more Cruises and SS-20's pointed at Europe contribute to its (or our own) security? Pardon. I digress from the subject of the draft. Is the draft necessary for our national security? A draft would only be implemented, we are told, in the event of a major war. Correction: in the event of a major CONVENTIONAL war, of which there are really only two types: a limited war against a third world nation like Vietnam or one against The Enemy. Let's take the latter case first. Considering the highly advanced weaponry which both of the heavy-weights have in large quantities, the war would be over quite quickly, and would be on a global scale. The war would end quite quickly, with no time to impose a draft either due to nuclear escalation or a bilateral fit of sanity. If one side got a decisive advantage at some point on some theatre, the temptation to go nuclear would be just too much, as ably demonstated by Pentagon war-room simulations, or through personal experience with military simulation games by the now defunct Simulations Publications, Inc. The only case one can seriously imagine a draft being actually implemented is in a Third World war (pardon the pun) which heats up slowly. Such a war would come about by the US flexing its military muscles to prove its national virility. Such a war, following our Vietnam experience (which was an important national experience), would be unpopular, and would not be a matter of national defense, but of an attempt to re-assert global hegemony. On the other hand, if it really was a matter of national defense (a Mexican attack of Texas) or a clear case of massive aggression (say, by Qadaffi on all of North Africa), the war would be justified, popular, and hence in no need of drafting recruits. Let's face it: draft registration is not a matter of national security but of a pawn in an ideological game. It shows to the commie hordes our commitment to fight the ghost of Karl Marx, no matter in what political incarnation and to bring pressure on any potential young commie sympathizers at home to straighten up and fly Right (better dead than pacifist). The Underground Keyboard of Jeff Myers@uwvax -------------------------------------------- P.S. stands for Protest and Survive. Help make the world a safer place for wombats and your present and/or future kids. This is an emotional appeal/ploy. Citizens, en masse, are going to have to make it clear to the decision makers of the USSR and US that we want peace, not ever more clubs to brandish. Talk to your lover about it; go to Hungary or the USSR and talk to citizens there. Above all, THINK. Learn to look between the lines of both American and Soviet propoganda (Horrors! We propogandize?! Ludicrous!) P.S.S. to Mark the Terribly uninformed. Angola has a bit too many South African counter-revolutionaries on its hands to destabilize anyone. Angola is an interesting case because the current government has made rather lucrative deals with two US oil firms which throw a monkey-wrench in knee-jerk State Dept. opposition to Marxist regimes.