Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!russ From: russ@uokvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Notes on Nuclear Arms - (nf) Message-ID: <3925@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 17-Nov-83 23:08:02 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3925 Posted: Thu Nov 17 23:08:02 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Nov-83 23:05:22 EST Lines: 124 #N:uokvax:2200011:000:8246 uokvax!russ Nov 17 00:20:00 1983 The physical effects of the detonation of nuclear weapons are well known. It is quite obvious that in the event of a nuclear exchange, civilization as we know it would cease to exist. The direct and indirect effects of such an exchange would be the deaths of millions of civilians, the destruc- tion of the industrial base of the northern hemisphere, and irreparable ecological damage. A nuclear detonation would vaporize tons of earth that would be blown into the upper atmosphere in the form of dust. Some will settle down and fall on the surface of the earth as deadly fallout. Part of this dust will stay in the upper atmosphere. This dust, combined with the smoke from burning cities and forests, will block the sun and cause climate changes that will cause widespread famine in countries not even attacked. Even considering the physical consequences of the use of nuclear arms, it is obvious that if civilization is to survive we must achieve world peace, or failing that, begin the reduction of nuclear arms with the goal of dismantling all nuclear weapons. Either alternative will require the cooperation of the Soviet Union. It is in their interest, as well as ours, to reduce and eventually dismantle the stockpiles of nuclear arms on both sides. Nuclear weapons are so destructive that there is no construc- tive military application that would not be counter-productive. They can- not be used for conquest, because they would destroy the very objective they were used to conquer. To use them in defense would invite a retribu- tive strike that would destroy what you intended to defend. We must real- ize the responsibility that we hold for the preservation of the world. This concern must override even national disputes. Besides the obvious, physical dangers that nuclear arms pose, there are other effects that deserve attention. These are the psychological effects that nuclear arms have by the very fact that they exist and the leaders of this country are willing to use them. A populace that lives in a world with nuclear arms will live under constant fear that they will be used. What hope for the future can people have when they realize that there is a distinct possibility that everything they know and love could be destroyed utterly by the actions of a few leaders? Knowing that people make mis- takes, we live with the fact that if nuclear arms are in the possession of governments, eventually they will be used. With the increasing speed with which society moves and the length of time that nuclear arms have been around, the probability that they will be used seems to increase every year. Even so, the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union continue to develop and deploy new and more deadly nuclear devices. The stockpiling of nuclear weapons and the willingness to use them has grave consequences on the human soul. They erode the morals and values of people. The leaders of a country set an example for the people to follow. If the leaders of the country publicly proclaim that they are willing to destroy an entire country, why should citizens be concerned with the safety of ordinary private property? The willingness of public leaders to destroy millions of people naturally leads to a lack of respect for human life. If the president is ready to destroy entire cities, why should someone be con- cerned about breaking a window or slashing some tires? How can we condemn a common murderer if we are prepared to commit murder on a nationwide scale? Each person in the United States lives with that fact that he is financing a means for destruction that is unheard of in the entire history of the world. A means of destruction whose use cannot be justified except as a weapon of vengeance that would ensure not only the destruction of your enemy, but also yourself and countless generations unborn. Morally, the use of nuclear arms is inexcusable and the possession of them should be avoided at all costs. The continued development of these weapons will necessarially damage the moral fiber of this country, both in the eyes of other nations and in our own. The more desensitized we are to the destruc- tion of human life, the easier it will be to actually use weapons of mass destruction. This is a vicious cycle that we must avoid. The devaluation of human life in this country is something that can be seen very easily in the movies and television shows that we watch. Even if we manage to get rid of nuclear arms, the people in this country as well as Europe will be concerned with the security of their homes. To ensure security it is necessary for a country to be strong. Not only in the force of its conventional arms but in its resolve to maintain its free- dom and way of life. The government must have the confidence of its citizens and the country must have a strong economy. Without these a coun- try is vulnerable to attack from the inside as well as the outside. Before we can totally end our dependence on nuclear arms we must make strides in the direction of national strength. In the meantime, we must reduce the numbers of nuclear arms and recognize the need for total disarmament. The road to a stronger and better country leads through education. To make the correct decisions and convince politicians to act on them, the people of this country need to understand the issues involved. Any real policy must be based on ideas that the public understand and approve of. An obvi- ous way to increase the education level is to put more quality into the schools. In a technological society, knowledge is necessary for produc- tivity. This is very important, but there are other things that need to be done. The leaders of a country must be honest to its citizens. They must allow the people to get the information necessary to make informed deci- sions about the right course to follow. If they will not do so, then the citizens must use their power (the vote) to rectify the situation. This country was created on moral grounds, yet we not only face the possi- bility of destruction by nuclear arms, but also the moral disintigration of the spirit of this country. The people of this country should not only be concerned with threats to our security from the outside, but also with the less tangible, but still dangerous, threats to the attitudes of every citizen. This country must be firm in its moral resolve and make its judgements on the basis of justice and freedom. The security of a country does not depend on the numbers or types of its weapons, but rather on the will of the people who use them. We must recreate our national pride. For our national leaders to be effec- tive in negotiations or any other activity, they must have the national will behind them. This puts new responsibility on us. We must take our destinies in our own hands. We must make difficult decisions and carry them out with confidence. It will not be easy, but it must be done if we are to have a stake in the future of this country and the world at large. To accomplish this goal will require the individual effort of each one of us. Our security can be maintained through the doctrine of Mutual Assured Des- truction (MAD). To accomplish this we need only our submarine forces. Land based missiles are designed specifically for the purpose of first strike. These can be removed without jeopordizing our national security; however, it can have great effects on our attitudes toward nuclear weapons. We should not remove these without a similar withdrawal from the Soviet Union. These missiles should be used to negotiate the withdrawl of Soviet missiles. Each person should examine these issues on his own. The only way to change things is to increase the public awareness of this issue and examine the moral ramifications of it. It is not an easy issue. It will require alot of study and discussion to reduce the threat of nuclear distruction. I think we owe it to ourselves, and the world, to try.