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!mhuxj!ihnp4!ucbvax!medin
From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The Chronic War-Preparers
Message-ID: <2889@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 28-Oct-84 17:40:33 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.2889
Posted: Sun Oct 28 17:40:33 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Oct-84 02:59:20 EST
References: <362@tjalk.UUCP> <2752@ucbcad.UUCP> <300@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 22

Once again you show your gullibility for the emotional arguments
on strategic policy.  Kurt Vonnegut(sp?) is certainly no expert
on strategy, and I wouldnt count his advice on such issues
as worthwhile.  Wars start when a sufficient ambiguity in the
distribution of power exists.  The US has never gotten in a war
when its possible enemy was inferior or percieved inferior
to the US.  And this includes the judgement of national will.
Thats the reason for our loss in Vietnam.  Tet was a beautiful example
of this.  The VC were dessimated by the attack, but that
victory was percieved as a loss, and the resulting withdrawl of
national support resulted in our not fighting for victory, but fighting
for  a cessation of hostilities.  I dont blame the press
entirely for this, the President handled it wrong, and some of the
military brass didnt do the best PR job either.  But when you look
at the power of a determined US, well equipped, we have maintained
peace.  Thats what the Reagan position is, and one which is borne out 
historically.  So Tim, enough emotionism already, the issues are
too important for that.


						Milo