Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site tty3b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!we13!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.tv,net.politics
Subject: Re: The Day After
Message-ID: <244@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Nov-83 18:17:06 EST
Article-I.D.: tty3b.244
Posted: Mon Nov 14 18:17:06 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Nov-83 19:46:43 EST
References: <434@ihuxb.UUCP>
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 28

The conservatives are upset because they see any depiction of the
the possible result of their policies as dangerous.  They're right.
You get too many people upset about the end of the world, and next
thing you know, they're trying to do something about it, rather than
leaving it to calm experts who can think reasonably about these
things.

One person quoted by the 60 Minutes story said that he was mad the
program didn't mention anything about deterrence.  Seems to me that
by the time Lawrence, Kansas is blown up, the failure of deterrence
is a foregone conclusion.  What he really means is, deterrence can't
fail.  If it fails, we're all dead so it can't.  It can't.  It can't.
It can't.   It can't.

The annoying thing about this whole debate is the labels.  Those in
favor of continuing the path are pragmatic realists.  Those who want
to change things because they think that just maybe deterrence CAN
fail are idealistic dreamers.  Now my Oxford American Dictionary defines
"idealize" as "to regard or represent as perfect".  In order for current
policies NOT to result in the destruction of Lawrence, Kansas (and maybe
the whole world), they must function perfectly.  Seems clear to me who's
idealistic and who's being coldly rational about this whole thing.  What
could be more rational than the statement: "If we don't turn around, pretty
soon we're going to get where we're heading."

Mike Kelly
..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk