Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes
From: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: An Alternative to Limited Nuclear Wa - (nf)
Message-ID: <908@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Nov-83 07:33:27 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.908
Posted: Tue Nov 29 07:33:27 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Dec-83 04:41:29 EST
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 68

#R:houxu:-24800:ucbesvax:7500057:000:3505
ucbesvax!turner    Nov 29 02:18:00 1983

Re: Larry Welsch's "An Alternative to Limited Nuclear War"

Let me say, first off, that I don't disagree with the Scientific American
article cited, nor with the conclusions Larry draws from it.  I disagree
with his proposal, however: expansion into the oceans and into space is
not going to solve anything, and especially not for the reasons that he
gives, which are very dubious.  Rather, it would exacerbate the conflict.

Leaving aside the can-of-worms issue of who owns the oceans, I doubt very
much that space can be considered "big" in the same sense that Russia is
considered big.  Nor is Russia "big" in nuclear warfaring terms.  These
are not the days of Napolean--they are not even the days of Hitler!
Considered in terms of the number of targets to hit, the U.S. is larger.

Similarly, the question of whether "anyone [would] think seriously of
attacking a country that had the technology to successfully colonize"
either the oceans or space is unimportant: global ecocide hits everyone,
no matter how big and spread out they might be.  And the spitefulness that
would result in a nuclear exchange would most certainly not spare the
hanging gardens of Tycho Crater!

The final paragraph was a masterpiece of blind optimism:

	More importantly such a space race would remove the tensions
	from nuclear arms race and create useful outlets for the world's
	population and new resources to support the world.

There is a treaty about putting nuclear arms in orbit.  It says "we won't".
If one side or the other should decide to abrogate, we will see a precarious
situation.  "Such a space race" will have precisely the *opposite* effect of
what Larry expects: it will raise tensions to a fever pitch.  (You *have*
heard of the ultimate MX basing option, haven't you?  Proposed, I believe,
by think-tankers at the Heritage Foundation [1], is that MX's be modified
to be launched into orbit, and then dropped on *command*.  Please don't
tell me that you don't want to live on a planet H-bombs poised in orbit,
while the superpowers snarl and bicker.  Being on the moon or in the ocean
wouldn't be a whole lot of help.[2])

You might protest: "we'll keep nukes out of space."  But what you're
proposing is to extend the borders of the U.S. upward and downward.  Are
you saying that the current national defense priorities will not extend
in these directions?  The superpower mentality *demands* that they should.

Another major objection: the incredible cost of the proposal.  The vast
majority of people in the world will never make enough money in their
lifetimes to fund an emigration of this kind.  Space will *not* be a "useful
outlet for the world's population" for at least a century.  The problem
we're talking about must be solved a little sooner than that--maybe next
month, given the way things are going at the moment.

Come on, Space Cadets!  Let's get our heads out of the Magellanic clouds.
(You too, Laura! [3].)  A space-colonization effort is what you do with
the money left over from defense budgets *after* superpower conflicts have
been resolved or rendered moot.  Now, it could only worsen matters.
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)

[1] Please pardon me if I'm slandering one of the more level-headed
    conservative research organizations.  I don't know that much about them.
    The Heritage Foundation is what came to mind.

[2] How to get them down?  They say "we'll use the space shuttle!"

[3] net.flame article by L. Creighton.  (Better than Larry's, but...)