Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site vu44.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!mcvax!vu44!jack
From: jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan
Message-ID: <388@vu44.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Sep-84 01:17:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: vu44.388
Posted: Mon Sep 17 01:17:30 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Sep-84 05:50:38 EDT
References: <557@ttds.UUCP>
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 23

Thomas Sj|land (alf@ttds.UUCP) states that nuclear arms
have protected us for 40 years, by insuring that a war
would end in total destruction of the earth, and that they
are used by *not* being used.
 I fully agree with him, only this theory does not extend to
the new nuclear arms. Weapons like the neutron bomb, the SS-20 and the
cruise missile are designed to be used. *That* is what makes
them so dangerous. Formerly, if there was a conflict, there was
a big jump needed to go from a minor conflict with conventional
arms to a big, probably fatal, nuclear attack. 
 Now, with the event of small nuclear arms, the distinction is
fading. If a general sees a tank division coming his way, he might be
tempted very soon to use something like a neutron bomb.
The other side will probably see this as a nuclear aggression,
and launch a couple of cruise missiles or SS-20's to take out
a minor city as a warning.
The other side will probably see this as a nuclear .... etc etc etc.
 I think that this is the real reason for the opposition against
the new nuclear weapons. The are *NOT* meant to scare the other
party, the are meant to be *USED*. MAD protected us against war
for 40 years, but these new weapons make MAD obsolete.

	Jack Jansen, {philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack