Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdccsu3.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!za16ao
From: za16ao@sdccsu3.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re:  Disarmament
Message-ID: <1358@sdccsu3.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Dec-83 17:07:57 EST
Article-I.D.: sdccsu3.1358
Posted: Thu Dec  1 17:07:57 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Dec-83 08:04:39 EST
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Computer Center
Lines: 30


> "I think disarmament is not always taken to mean total disarmament, but I
   shall be more careful this time:  What is the argument against unilateral
   disarmament to the point where one can obliterate the other nation only,
   say, once?"


Now here's a cute problem.  There isn't a good answer to that.  I agree
that escalation of arms at this point seems mad, sad, and paranoid.  My
only comment is that we are dealing with people  who are similarly mad
and paranoid.  Perhaps this is the kind of warped statement that they
can understand.  Don't misunderstand me.  I spent a lot of years trying
very hard to think of the Soviet government as "just ordinary people" -
but *no* government can be as uncautious or relaxed as ordinary people; too 
much strain, for one thing.  And in my mind, anyone who could perpetuate a 
state such as the U.S.S.R., who has a way of looking at the world so vastly 
different than mine that it actually threatens mine, is quite likely worth 
classifing as mad.  Add to this the testimony of my many friends who have 
emigrated from Russia and I get the distinct feeling that the *easiest* 
way to respond to paranoia is with paranoia.

Note:  I did *not* say it was the best way, the only way, or other such
nonsense!  In fact it makes me sick. But I can't come up with a really
good alternative...


-- 
        -=< Lady Arwen >=-

      ...sdcsvax!sdccsu3!arwen