Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!rigney
From: rigney@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: anti-nuke questions - (nf)
Message-ID: <4132@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Nov-83 22:48:49 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4132
Posted: Thu Nov 24 22:48:49 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Nov-83 07:18:17 EST
Lines: 29

#R:hou5a:-43700:uokvax:5000030:000:1350
uokvax!rigney    Nov 23 03:17:00 1983

/***** uokvax:net.politics / uiuccsb!grunwald /  4:04 pm  Nov 20, 1983 */
   Well, one thing that lots of people mention is the fact that our current
government, and to a lesser extent, the preceeding one, have had a rather
cavilier attitude towards utilizing the nuclear option. When people consider
the use of these weapons to be plausible, one does begin to become a trifle
piqued.
/* ---------- */

Actually, this isn't really correct.  In the 40's, 50's and early 60's,
Nuclear weapons were viewed largely as just another weapon, a very
powerful and dangerous one, but no different in kind than firebombings
and non-nuclear arms.  It is only in the last decade or two, probably
because of Soviet strategic parity, that nuclear weapons have been
set apart as *special*.  Their use is considered far less plausible
now than when it was considered at Dien Bien Phu.

I have no argument with the remainder of your points, but you certainly
neglected an important reason for increased concern; namely Soviet
support for Western peace movements.  The KGB has spent $600 million
to date to sway western opinion against the Euromissile deployment,
and is willing to spend whatever it takes.  Compared to the stakes 
involved, $600m is dirt cheap.  The Soviet yearly budget for
disinformation is several billion dollars.  

	Carl
	..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney