Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes
From: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Nuclear silliness - (nf)
Message-ID: <890@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Dec-83 02:00:36 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.890
Posted: Sun Dec  4 02:00:36 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Dec-83 04:49:28 EST
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 66

#R:mprvaxa:-38300:ucbcad:21900001:000:3226
ucbcad!moore    Nov 20 16:32:00 1983

	If we are going to advocate unilateral disarmament, it
seems we must be able to answer the following questions:

Protection of Western Europe.  Despite earlier references
to number of U.S. troops abroad, my impression has been that
the USSR has a rather incredible superiority in conventional
forces over all of all of NATO combined.  The only advantage
NATO forces could hope to use would be superior communication, command,
countermeasure systems.  Because of this, it seems we are currently
depending on tactical nuclear weapons to counter an all out
armored assault. If we are to eliminate these tactical weapons,
then the protection of Western Europe would require either:

	a) Increase conventional forces in Europe.  Especially in
	   the present political climate, it doesn't look possible to
	   spend the money necessary to keep a standing army the size
	   of the USSR's.

	b) Negotiate troop reductions with the Soviets.  Considering
	   how well arms negotiations have worked and the well 
	   demonstrated paranoia of the Soviets over their borders,
	   this doesn't seem practical.

	c) Trust the Soviets with their superiority.  A possibility,
	   but consider Afghanistan, Poland, and the USSR's treatment
	   of its' satellites in general.  I am appalled by how
	   little control the American people have over the Pentagon
	   in general, and the Presidents uses of forces in Grenada, 
	   San Salvador, etc.  But at least there is some pressure
	   applied by public opinion.  The Soviet government seems
	   based on joint control by senior officers in the armed
	   forces and the KGB.  Imagine being governed directly by
	   the CIA and Joint Chiefs and see my hesitation in trusting
	   the Soviet government.

Nuclear Blackmail.  The above discussion assumed strictly conventional
warfare.  But what happens if the Soviet Union has the only nuclear
weapons?  The Soviets are not known for half way measures in warfare,
if reports of chemical warfare in Afghanistan are to be believed.  The
U.S. certainly didn't refrain from using nuclear weapons when it had
a nuclear monopoly.  An air burst over a city could be an incredibly
demoralizing attack,  with little fear of retaliation if you own 
a nuclear monopoly.  'Mother Jones' quoted a memo/diary entry of
Harry Truman that read something like "Build lots of atomic bombs,
bomb Russia, set up world-wide democracy".  I don't like that kind
of power in anyone's hands.

    I want to believe in unilateral disarmament: it is a simple,
immediate solution to a terrifying problem.  The last thing I want
is my country involved with the genocide of the entire race, and
I am damn tired of being in a situation where this is a day to day
reality. But is irresponsible to advocate this without some assurance
that we won't bring on the deaths of millions in an invasion of 
Western Europe or in nuclear blackmail.

    Please note, I am not asking for flames about the relative
merits of U.S. over U.S.S.R., this is irrelevant.  We are discussing
giving U.S.S.R. ALONE a nuclear monopoly.  And please show at least
as much cynicism in the actions and motivations of the U.S.S.R as 
you would for the U.S.. 

	Peter Moore  (moore@Berkeley, ucbvax!moore)