Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!faustus From: faustus@ucbvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics,net.followup Subject: Re: Unilateral Disarmament Message-ID: <1774@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Sat, 1-Sep-84 13:19:07 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.1774 Posted: Sat Sep 1 13:19:07 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 3-Sep-84 12:05:07 EDT References: <308@ihu1e.UUCP> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 65 > Some of the people who oppose unilateral disarmament seem to be operating > under two premises I disagree with. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong. > > 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."? Yes, they will do this. Why do you think that all of the Eastern European states are all so terrified of the USSR? They do make threats like this, and when provoked they carry them out. They have invaded several countries that didn't do as they wanted without any qualms, and the only reason that they haven't used nukes is that it is clearly not worth the trouble when you are talking about Hungary, for instance. > That's the kind of > thinking that perpetuates the nuclear Mexican standoff. I don't advocate > pulling all our NATO troops out of Europe. 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. Look at is this way -- the government controls the country, and the government surely doesn't want New York and Washington bombed. If threatened, they would comply with USSR demands. The idea of "freedom fighters" hiding in the Colorado mountains sniping at Soviet troops is a romanticized and unlikely scenario. > 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? They have to manage industry, agriculture, and > educational systems just as important as the military (more important to some > people). They have mothers, fathers, siblings, children, and other family. > What makes you think they're willing to throw all that away for the > satisfaction of bombing away the American capitalists? I don't want to explain the motivations of the Russian leadership, but just remember that most of the people around now lived through Stalin's purges. To have survived the purges, you either had to be very lucky or very ruthless. The character of Russian politics didn't change much after Stalin, either -- there were no more purges, but to achieve anything you had to be ruthless and cunning. The state of the non-military sectors of the USSR should be evidence enough that competence is not a requisite for advancement. > Why can't we treat > them the way we would like to be treated? Maybe they will reciprocate. We tried, and they didn't. There's no reason to expect that they will in the future. > Someone stated on the net that unilateral disarmament was a dangerous thing. > Can it be more dangerous, to the world as a whole, than continuing to escalate > a nuclear arms race? Lets get rid of these planet destroying weapons. > Jerry Nowlin 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