Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!david
From: david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: re: Nuclear War Casualties
Message-ID: <2082@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 13:49:16 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2082
Posted: Thu Nov  1 13:49:16 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 20:50:39 EST
References: <1133@drusd.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 65

----------
>>..................................  I have talked to Teller about
>>this myself, and he mentioned that ..............................
>>..........................................  I want some hard
>>numbers.  Like a study conducted by RAND or LLNL or LBL, some
>>scientists who undertook a scientific study and got some supportable
>>results.......................................................
>>I would encourage you to read a book called 'The Effects of Nuclear
>>Weapons', published in '77 by ERDA.  Its full of facts, not fantasises.
>>........................................
>>
>>					Milo


>Aw! Come on, Milo!  These are all people with a vested interest in escalating
>the balance-of-terror.  Their paychecks depend on maintaining the status quo.
>
>- Phil Lavette


    Of all the things that disgust me about the nuclear arms "debate" I
    think this unwillingness to concede expertise is the most sickening.
    Sure, Phil, and doctors make their money off disease, which is why they
    poison water supplies and release starved plague-carrying rats in the
    midst of large crowds...and without crime there'd be no cops, so
    policemen have a "vested interest" in seeing more and more murder and
    mayhem in our streets...ditto for attorneys...

    I'm sorry to be snide, folks, but I spend more time every day thinking
    about these issues than just about any of you have in your lifetime...
    I've read more, written more, discussed more, and yes, am better
    qualified to say what's right or at least what's a good guess.  Hate to
    burst your egalitarian bubble like this, but facts is facts.

    To paraphrase Richard Pipes, people who wouldn't dream of giving a
    cordon bleu chef advice on making a Hollandaise seem to think nothing
    of instructing professionals in the complex and arcane area of
    strategic policy and arms control.  Well, I wish that the world were as
    easy and simple as many of you out there seem to think it
    is...unfortunately, unlike Never-Never land, wishing doesn't make it
    so...

    I'm also extremely resentful of the self-righteousness displayed in
    many postings...what, do you think that we "chronic war-preparers"
    don't have husbands, wives, children, and puppies???  We're doing what
    we think is right...Do you think we do our jobs without consideration
    of the moral considerations involved (or, perhaps more to the point,
    the awful consequences should we fail in our task)?  Sheesh, from
    reading this net you'd think that the only "thinking" people in the
    world are computer science undergrads!

    I've frankly had it with being talked down to by people who, from all
    indications, aren't qualified to even whisper about the topics upon
    which they pontificate with such certainty and moral superiority.  I'm
    tired of being told my hard-earned skills and knowledge are worthless
    because the issues involved are "too important" to be decided upon by a
    "nuclear priesthood." Well, historically, there have been two ways of
    winning converts from priests: one is to present an alternative
    theology which, in the "free market of ideas" achieves dominance...the
    other is to burn the offending priests at the stake...

    Need I even specify into which category pieces like Phil Lavette's
    above fall into?

						--- das