Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!faustus
From: faustus@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Christopher)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense...
Message-ID: <1753@ucbvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 26-Aug-84 03:26:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.1753
Posted: Sun Aug 26 03:26:20 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 19:04:53 EDT
References: <302@ihu1e.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Lines: 61

> I've never heard anyone seriously denounce  unilateral  disarmament  and  give
> some real reasons why it won't work.  What would happen if the US shot all its
> nuclear weapons out into space or dropped them into  a  live  volcano  or  did
> something  to  make  them  inaccessible  to  us or anyone else?  We could even
> invite the Soviets to watch.  Then what would  they  do?   I  seriously  doubt
> they'd rub their hands together in glee and start pushing their buttons.  They
> don't want to conquer a waste land.  Meanwhile we could use most of the  money
> we'd  save  on  peaceful  programs  (like space exploration, medical research,
> etc.) and still have enough for a strong conventional defense.

Is it really that difficult to see what wold happen if we did something
like that? The Russians say, "Ok, we have nukes and you don't, so do as
we say or we start taking out your cities one at a time." And they'd
mean it too. You have to understand that the essense of Soviet foreign
policy is agression and its only ultimate aim is world domination. 

> I worked with some Russians while visiting IIASA in Austria  some  years  back
> and  the impression I got was NOT that they were a bunch of war mongers.  They
> were just as scared of war as I was and just as worried about nuclear weapons.

Sure, the Russian people don't want war, but what say do they have in
the matter?  The USSR is a dictatorship. 

> It  seems  natural for both governments to want to compete.  Why can't they be
> interested in being the best in alternative energy  sources  or  biotechnology
> instead of military might?

They also have one of the most inefficient economies in the industrialized 
world, and they know that it is never going to get any better under the 
communist system. They don't want to compete, they want to be on top, and 
the only way they can do this is by dominating the world militarily.

> I really don't see why the US can't be big enough  to  end  this  showdown  by
> saying  nuclear war is bad and we're not going to fight one.  

And when they say, "Sure it's bad but we're going to fight one anyway",
where does that leave us?

> Let *them* set a
> foot on US soil and I'll get out the old squirrel gun and help  kick  em  off.

But they will have tanks and machine guns. After they have taken out all
of our major military bases (with nukes, if they have to), that's all
there is to it...

> I don't think it would come to that.  I'd have to think twice about going over
> to Germany or France to fight but it would sure beat using cruise missiles.

But you can't fight Russian SS-11's with rifles...

> If the whole world agreed with me I'd be awful bored, so if you want to  flame
> that's  fine.  I'd rather have some informative answers though.  You'll notice
> several sentences ended with question marks.

> Jerry Nowlin
> ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin

I hope the answers are informative...

	Wayne