Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mprvaxa.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!mprvaxa!tbray From: tbray@mprvaxa.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Nuclear silliness Message-ID: <383@mprvaxa.UUCP> Date: Fri, 18-Nov-83 13:12:22 EST Article-I.D.: mprvaxa.383 Posted: Fri Nov 18 13:12:22 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Nov-83 01:21:26 EST References: <703@ihuxm.UUCP>, <348@pyuxa.UUCP> Organization: Microtel Pacific Research, Burnaby BC Lines: 76 x <-- netnews insecticide This is in response to pyuxa!wetcw's alarming rejection of the unilateral nuclear freeze proposal. His/her statements are worrisome, and in my belief represent a school of opinion which significantly increases the risk of human extinction, and, as a by-product, may be destroying the economies of the western world. To start with, it seems to me that anyone who talks about "Marx's dream of world domination" is not all that clued in to political realities. And yes, the foreign policy actions of the Soviet leadership have frequently been amoral and adventurist, as have been those of the United States. But let's talk about cold military reality. My basic gripe is that pyuxa!wetcw has apparently bought the package concerning the "window of vulnerability". This is suggested by remarks such as "the stationing of soviet subs off the east and west coasts", "The Soviet Union is not going to come to the barganing [sic] table as long as they in [sic] a position of power over the West.", and worst of all, "We have to somehow convince them that we are not going to negotiate from a position of weakness." Realistic analysis of the balance of nuclear power, (try reading Scientific American rather than National Review) tends to indicate that that balance is currently heavily tilted in favour of the United States, and that the arms limitations proposals being put on the table by the Reagan administration would increase the imbalance. There is simply no possible way in which a counterforce strike by the Soviets could seriously disrupt the US ability to bomb the Soviets out of existence within a few hours. My opinion is that the current US adminstration is in the grips of militarist paranoia heavily reinforced by the fact that the Republican party and the new right are in bed with the defense contractor segment of the economy (read military-industrial complex) - check the funding of the PAC's that fund the Republicans. This madness is reinforced by the inter-force rivalry in the US defense establishment (They have Tridents, we gotta have MX's, arrrgggh). Further, that this administration has no real intention of seriously negotiating any arms reductions at the present time. They will, however, go ahead and build weapons such as the Cruise that present serious difficulties for verification in any future arms control agreements. And make more and better nerve gas. And spend tens of billions on the MX, which has essentially NO military value. Well, they MAY not destroy the world. But they may well destroy our economies in the meantime. What? You don't buy that? Draw yourself a little graph of overall economic performance vs. percenteage of GNP spent on the military around the world. Clear inverse relationship. Look at Japan, Germany, and Sweden. Funny thing is, the relationship seems to hold in both Soviet-style and capitalist economies. Check out the figures for Hungary, for example. pyuxa!wetcw says: "...we must maintain a position of strength or throw in the towel...". Sir, you are being lied to, you are believing it, and you are increasing the chances of the destruction of the planet. On one issue, though, I am in complete agreement with M. wetcw: "Nuclear disarmament is not going to become the act of the day because we wish it to happen." Too bloody true. Write letters to your elected repre- sentatives, get out in the streets, and especially, don't believe everything you are told. ...decvax!microsoft!ubc-vision!mprvaxa!tbray PS: I dropped the name of Scientific American about 100 lines back. They have had, over the last 4 or 5 years, an absolutely SUPERB series of articles on the various issues of contemporary military strategy. They back their statements up with facts and figures, as befits that publication. I encourage everybody with an interest in being alive in the year 2000 to find and read these articles.