Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site ihuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!ihuxl!pvp
From: pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli)
Newsgroups: net.politics,btl.general
Subject: Re: Re: Re: BTL Takes the Lead
Message-ID: <749@ihuxl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Nov-83 12:42:03 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxl.749
Posted: Wed Nov 16 12:42:03 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Nov-83 06:32:34 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 110

--------------------------------------------------------------------
>A couple years ago there was a TV show "Battlestar Galactica" - personally I
>thought the first episodes were VERY good.  Remember what they were about?  A
>peacefull bunch of humans that were fighting for their lives against a
>tryanical force.

I would prefer not to try to compare the current world situation
to a TV show. I realize that our president likes to do so,
but I hope that the rest of us can be a little more rational.
If you insist on using Battlestar Galactica as a morality play
for our times, let me remind you that television writers have the
luxury of painting their world black and white. In the real world
things are not so simple. It is simply not true that the United
States is always on the side of the angels, and that we are always a
peaceful, freedom loving people. We support many military dictatorships
throughout the world. We are the worlds leading arms supplier.
We have overthrown both covertly and overtly many freely elected
governments (e.g. Iran, Chile ). We killed hundreds
of thousands of civilians in WWII via firebombing of major population
centers. Going back further in history, we even invaded Russia once.
We also did a pretty good job of exterminating the Indians.

Now please note what I did *not* say in the above paragraph.
I did *not* say that the Russians or other Communists are *better*
than us. I did *not* even say that they are *half* as good as us!
I am trying to explain to people that other countries have some
reasons to be afraid of us, and to try to prevent us from dominating
them. For example, Reagan put Kenneth Adelman in charge of our
nuclear disarmament talks. This particular person is on record
as stating that the disarmament talks should be continued only
to pacify the Russians while we continue to expand our arsenal
of nuclear weapons. What would you think if the Russians did this?
What do you suppose they think?

>Trouble was that good as their military was, the political
>leaders and "the masses" kept wanting to make peace with this force - even
>made an peace agreement, and started to dismantal their military.

Will you please point out exactly where I or any other contributor
to this discussion suggested dismantling our military? We are simply
saying that when you have enough megatonnage to destroy the world
a thousand times over, what is the sense in building more?
Exactly what will it accomplish? If the Russians had 100 times
more nuclear weapons than we did, what would they be able to do
that they can't do already? If the recent Sagan study is correct,
we don't even have to deliver our bombs to the Soviet Union.
All we have to do is explode them in our own country, and the
resulting world-wide holocaust will destroy both of us anyway.

>  If you
>don't remember the show, the peace agreement was just a stalling tactic to the
>bad guys - a way to catch the good guys with their military weakened, and off
>guard.

Again, even if they were able to drop their nuclear arsenal on us
with no counter strike, the resulting world wide dust and radiation
would destroy them also. Or do you you subscribe to the same theory
that an Air Force general proposed to Congress? When asked what
he meant when he talked about winning a nuclear war, he said (roughly)
"If 2 Americans are alive, but only 1 Russian is, that's winning!"

>I think that while the story was told with "science fictional" characters, the
>basic story was very present day.  I cringe every time I hear of some group of
>"peace loving people" trying to get our military position weakened.  I don't
>consider myself to be a "hawk", I certainly don't think we should ALWAYS be
>the "world's defender", but on the other hand politics alone doesn't do
>diddley!

Do you realize that there are a lot of people in Russia who say
exactly the same things? Only they talk about the American threat
to world peace. What difference is there between you and them besides
an accident of birth? By the way, after the number of times Russia
has been invaded (France, Germany, Mongols, U.S., etc.) they probably
have a lot more reason to be paranoid about national security than we do.

>  After the Russian's invaded Afghanistan (sp?) and the world was
>upset, world leaders gave them essentially a slap on the wrists.

What would you propose we do? If we had the only nuclear weapons in the
world, would you threaten them with a nuclear attack? Do you believe
that the threat of mass murder is the best way to get other nations
to behave? Would nuking Leningrad be a good way to show our displeasure
with the Russians? Would you mind if they nuked Chicago because we
invaded Grenada?

>  What did the
>Russians do then?  Even apologies?

The Russians reacted in very much the same way that Reagan reacted
when presented with the UN resolution deploring the invasion
of Grenada.

>  HA!  Personally I am VERY glad that Ronnie
>Reagen is tough on the "Red Menace".

Unfortunately, Ronald Reagans "toughness" is all talk and no action.
At least Carter had the guts to cut off Russian grain shipments
and boycott their Olympics. What has Ronnie done besides give more
money to defense contractors to build more bombs, and make sneak
attacks on little islands in the Carribean? We used to think that
there was something morally repugnant about a country that would send
their airplanes in a sneak attack on another country. Remember
Pearl Harbor? At least the Japanese had the guts to attack someone
their own size, and a sense of shame when they discovered
that the declaration of war had not been delivered before the attack.
We seem to have neither.

		Phil Polli
		ihuxl!pvp