Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: The Day After, Nuclear Arms
Message-ID: <2752@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Nov-83 13:12:30 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.2752
Posted: Thu Nov 17 13:12:30 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Nov-83 13:34:51 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 50

One of the objections to "The Day After" given on the 60 Minutes piece was
that the film assumes, by depicting a nuclear war, that "deterrence doesn't
work" and thus the film is biased.  This objection misses the point that a
nuclear war could be started entirely by accident (as in WarGames), and the
probability of such an accident probably increases as arms buildups continue.

From the path of the discussion of nuclear weapons on this group, I conclude
that the pro-nuclear forces are bound to win as they have succeeded in
restricting the debate to the virtually non-existent question of nuclear
superiority.  Given the variety of weapons systems, any number of superior-
ity metrics may be devised, giving superiority to the other side, which can
be used as rationale for building more arms.  Even if the metrics are shaky,
the natural desire for security tends to lead one to err on the side of
significant "superiority".

A major turning point in the debate would be the realization by all concerned
that nuclear superiority is, past a certain point, a meaningless concept.
After that point, new weapons act solely to (a) increase the probability of
accidental nuclear war, (b) consume vast sums of money, and (c) increase the
sense of hopelessness on the part of the young with respect to the future.
Of course, the money expended does not disappear into a pit; it goes to the
defense contractors which take their profit from it and employ people with
it (As it turns out, spending the money on almost anything else would employ
more people per dollar spent).  Sadly, the current peace movement, by
concentrating on the likely effects of a war, misses the effects of the
arms race which are hurting people RIGHT NOW, in economic and psychological
terms.  "Jobs not useless bombs" might be a better slogan than "Stop the bomb".

Why is unilateral arms reduction such a taboo?  Many submissions say "I'm
for mutual, *balanced* arms reductions; oh, no, not unilateral action for
me."  Wouldn't you rather have your money spent on revitalizing your
industry to compete with other countries?  Wouldn't you rather have it spent
on education so your children could read better?  Or, even in terms of
foreign policy, wouldn't you rather have it spent on aiding countries to
become strong partners with the West?  THAT would worry rational Soviets
more than another weapons system.  To those people who cite recent
Soviet aggressions (Afghanistan, etc.), I ask "Did nuclear weapons prevent
them from happening?"  EVEN IF the Soviets are monstrous baby-eaters, I
contend that nuclear weapons are not going to stop them.  Nukes are just
too crude a weapon.

Carl Sagan and Paul Erhlich have an analogy which is particularly evocative.
They depict the world as a gasoline-soaked room.  On one side of the room is
a man with 150 matches.  On the other side, a man with 160 matches.  And
the first man is thinking "If I only had another 20 matches, I'd be much
more secure".  To this analogy, I add the matchmakers, who put up posters
on the walls in the best tradition of Madison Ave., with glossy photos,
catchy names, and appeals to security through stockpiles of matches.

peter rowley, U. Toronto