Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!tekgds!tekecs!shark!tims
From: tims@shark.UUCP (Tim Stoehr)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Nuclear exchange.
Message-ID: <122@shark.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Nov-83 13:41:28 EST
Article-I.D.: shark.122
Posted: Mon Nov 21 13:41:28 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Nov-83 11:16:19 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR.
Lines: 49

After watching "The Day After", and the follow-up discussion by Sagan,
Kissinger etc., I came up with the following points and questions.

Nuclear weapons as a deterrent:

In order for nuclear weapons to be an effective deterrent, you must
take the position that you will use them if they are used by an
enemy against you.  But once a large scale attack is launched against
you, your nuclear arsenal serves you no purpose since you are going
to be destroyed anyway, so why launch them?  But if you are not
ready to launch them, what's to keep someone from taking advantage of
that fact?  etc. etc.  (Catch 22)

Nuclear Arms Reduction:

It is argued that the number of nuclear weapons in the world today can
destroy the world, let alone the US and USSR, so we should internationally
reduce the number of these weapons to zero.  But that course of action
would, sooner or later, bring you to the point where a nuclear war would
be survivable, winnable and a viable alternative.  Hence, that might
actually increase the chances for a nuclear exchange, albeit a reduced
one.  In effect, nuclear weapon reduction to a survivable level removes
the deterrent effect of these weapons, turns them into purely an
instrument of war, and removes their effectiveness to prevent a war.
(by war, I mean US/USSR, NATO/Warsaw Pact)

Nuclear arms can destroy the world:

I don't believe this is true.  I do believe that most life would be
destroyed, and most likely all human life.  But somewhere, something
would survive, perhaps some dormant microbe in the depths of some
ocean.  Eventually, maybe as long as a million years, the radiation
would dissipate, the dust would settle, the atmosphere would settle,
what's left of it anyway, and all human creations would be buried or
disintegrated.  By and by, the same processes that evolved life as we
know it today, would work in a new world.  These processes might be
given a tremendous head start due to the presence of some radiation
resistant microbes or algae that could form the basis of a new chain
of evolution.  Mountains would continue to come and go.  Life forms
would be different, the most obvious difference would be that there
would be no people to slaughter the animals, strip the forests, erect
cities and highways, build cars, pollute the air, land and sea, etc.
The point is, that a full-scale nuclear exchange would destroy mankind,
would that not actually be a blessing for the earth as a whole?


			Responses welcome, by mail or net
			Tim Stoehr
			tekecs!shark!tims