Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pegasus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!mzal
From: mzal@pegasus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Unilateral disarmament
Message-ID: <1671@pegasus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Aug-84 16:12:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: pegasus.1671
Posted: Thu Aug 30 16:12:51 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 31-Aug-84 03:13:58 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft NJ
Lines: 91

Indented excerpts are from ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin:

    First you seem to indicate that when we eliminate our nuclear
    arsenal the Soviets will try to blackmail us with theirs.  Do you
    think Russia will say "Now that we have nothing to fear in
    retaliation you must do as we say or we will blow up New York,
    Chicago, and Los Angeles."?

In days of old, the Berlin blockade, Hungary, Poland, and
Czechoslovakia were ample evidence of the Russian willingness
to use force.  During the Kennedy years, they tried to put
missles on Cuba.  I suspect this had more to do with a wish
to establish a situation where they could threaten us, rather
than a desire to make work for Cubans.

Today, the Russians still use force in Afghanistan and still
use intimidation and blackmail in Poland.  And yes, they shoot
down civilian airplanes.  This should say something about their
standard military procedure.

This is not meant to excuse or make light of similar behavior
on our part.  But realistically speaking, there does not seem
to be much reason to believe the Russians would not gradually
move in on anything they wanted if we unilaterally disarmed.

    That's the kind of thinking that perpetuates the nuclear
    Mexican standoff.

Well, I think the problem is a little more complex than that.
There are long standing suspicions on both sides and both
sides can be quite pigheaded and intransigent in their views.
Last week Reagen says something dumb, this week the Russians
say the arms talks are pointless.

Perhaps what is needed is a different approach to the arms
talks, where we keep the discussions private, avoid confrontation,
and listen more than we talk.  It would no doubt help if we had
someone more moderate than Reagan as our president.

    If the Soviets want to take over Europe or America they will still
    have to take it with guns and people. They'll only destroy it with
    nuclear weapons.

This is true, but suppose the Russians announce that they are
going to take over Europe and that any American intervention will
result in the destruction of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles?
(I.e. they will destroy the U.S., but only invade Europe.)
How long would European forces last without U.S. support?

    Second you seem to think that Russian leaders are inherently bad. 
    What makes you think a man or woman can't rise to power in a
    country as large and diverse as Russia without being evil?

Bad and evil are strong words.  I think of them as using a different
set of guidlines on what they consider acceptable things for the
government to do.  Also, I thought most Russian leaders are from
one part of Russia (in ancient times, the war mongers) rather than
from a diverse background.

    They have to manage industry, agriculture, and educational systems
    just as important as the military (more important to some people).

Mismanage might be a better word.  Foreign consumer products are
highly sought there.  How many times have they needed to buy food
from the United States to feed their people?  Some reports suggest
that the military are just as bad.

    They have mothers, fathers, siblings, children, and other family.

Did anyone accuse them of being sub-human or something?

    What makes you think they're willing to throw all that away for the
    satisfaction of bombing away the American capitalists?

Of course, if we are unable to retaliate against any Russian
attack, they are not risking throwing away anything.

    Why can't we treat them the way we would like to be treated?  Maybe
    they will reciprocate.

I have yet to see any evidence that proves to me that the idea of
a unilateral disarmament will not lead to expanded Russian
domination of the world.

Let me end this note with a question.  Does anyone know what the
Russians think of the nuclear winter theory?  It seems to me that
if both sides believe this theory - regardless of whether or not
it is true - we could be well on our way to some sort of effective
arms agreements.

-- Mike^Z       [allegra! , ihnp4! ] pegasus!mzal  Zaleski@Rutgers