Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5a.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hou5a!trc
From: trc@hou5a.UUCP (Tom Craver)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: anti-nuke questions
Message-ID: <437@hou5a.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Nov-83 18:30:36 EST
Article-I.D.: hou5a.437
Posted: Thu Nov 17 18:30:36 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Nov-83 01:37:45 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 32

The following are *serious* questions that I have about the anti-nuke
movement.  I would appreciate serious answers, rather than flames.

I would like to know why the possibility of nuclear war has suddenly
become such a "hot" issue.  After all, we've managed to avoid one for
about 40 years now.  The only recent change that I can see is that NATO
and the USSR are now about at parity in nuclear forces.  With this in 
mind, I cannot understand the "freeze" point of view.  If achieving parity 
is so scary, why attempt to freeze at that stage?  Is the ability to 
destroy the world 1 more time over, much more scary?

If our superiority over Russia prevented a nuclear war all these years, 
why should we think that parity or inferiority will work better?  If that 
disparity is not what prevented the war, what was?  If it was simply that 
neither side would *really* engage in a nuclear war, why do anti-nuke'rs
think they would they be more likely to do so now? 

It seems to me that it is the existance of nuclear arms that has prevented 
another World War, between NATO and the USSR.  Suppose that we managed nuclear 
disarmament - how would this war be prevented?  And once such a war got 
started, what would prevent both sides from re-building nukes and throwing
them as fast as they built them?  (Note: this is not an endorsement of the
MAD philosophy.)

It also seems to me that "building down" would leave us in a similar 
condition to where we were 30 or so years ago, except that we'd be
at parity with the USSR.  If we no longer have enough bombs to drive 
the human race to extinction, a nuclear war becomes an "acceptable risk".
Do you want Russia to have that perception?  Or even us?

	Tom Craver
	hou5a!trc