Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site cwruecmp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cwruecmp!decot
From: decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: anti-nuke questions
Message-ID: <805@cwruecmp.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Nov-83 22:55:01 EST
Article-I.D.: cwruecmp.805
Posted: Sat Nov 19 22:55:01 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Nov-83 00:31:22 EST
Organization: CWRU Computer Engr. Cleveland, Ohio
Lines: 67

Indented text is from Tom Craver; non-indented is mine.

>   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?

One reason the possiblility of nuclear war has recently received more attention
is the policies of the Reagan administration concerning this issue.  The
deployment of the Pershing II and Cruise missiles in Western Europe has
forced people in those countries and others to come to grips with an issue
that the population in general has been avoiding for 40 years.  Achieving
parity is not scary, it is the methods now being employed to achieve it that
are under dispute.  We don't want the Soviet Union to have us over a barrel,
but increasing our deathpower only encourages the Soviets to build more and
better responses to it.  It does not even partially solve the problem.  It
is more scary to have more on both sides because it wastes resources,
antagonizes the "other side", exascerbates the emotional and political
tensions involved, and destabilizes security.

>   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? 

Superiority over Russia did not prevent a nuclear war all these years.  This
question is meaningless, because nothing prevents war.  There is simply no
rational reason to have a war.  Wars are always caused by stupidity.
There has been no war because nobody has provoked one, and for good reason.
However, escalation of amount and complexity weaponry could encourage twisted
leaders to want to test it, and increase the possiblity of accidental war.
This is one of the basic ideas of the "freeze" movement.

>   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.)

This war would be prevented by mutual understanding, and the removal of leaders
who do not want to understand the other side, or won't deal with what they do
understand in a nonbelligerent way.  This war would be prevented by
nonstupidity, achieved through education and cultural exchange.  Nothing
but ethics could prevent either side from producing new weapons if a war
were started, but nothing is preventing that under "deterrence", either.

    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?

Reducing our nuclear arsenals ("building down" is an oxymoron) to a level
appropriate to defense would improve stablility, and encourage friendship.
Why aren't we afraid that Britain will nuke us?  They are our allies.
Being at parity at a lower level allows defense without 40x Earth-killing
capability.  Nuclear war is obviously not an acceptable risk, but there
are and were members of the present Administration who have stated outright
and through their actions that it might be.

Dave Decot
decvax!cwruecmp!decot    (Decot.Case@rand-relay)