Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: Unilateral Disarmament
Message-ID: <1100@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Sep-84 10:02:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1100
Posted: Tue Sep  4 10:02:10 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Sep-84 11:15:13 EDT
References: <1774@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 31

=============
Yes, it is more dangerous. A balance of terror is a much better thing
than an imbalance, unless, of course, you are the sort of weak-willed
person who can't bear any sort of dangerous situation, and refuses to
stand up for what you believe in. I'd like to get rid of nuclear weapons
as much as you would, but not in return for Soviet domination and
complete loss of freedom. (And if you claim that this doesn't follow
logically, you are either a communist or a fool...)

        Wayne
=============
Doesn't leave much room for reasoned discussion, does it?  Agree with me
or you are a communist or a fool, eh?  With deep freedom-thinkers like
Wayne around, we don't need much besides weapons, it seems.  Certainly,
brains and thinking are not wanted, neither is understanding of social
effects that might be used to get us out of this mess we are in.


Personally, I think the weak-willed people who can't bear any sort of
dangerous situation and refuse to stand up for what they believe in
are moe likely to be found among those who cling to ever-increasing
armaments as a safety-blanket.  The course to true safety may
indeed seem more dangerous in the short term, but there may be no
other way to get there.

Note that I shifted this from net.followup to net.flame.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt