Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: The Chronic War-Preparers
Message-ID: <327@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Nov-84 09:15:44 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.327
Posted: Mon Nov  5 09:15:44 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 06:37:19 EST
References: <362@tjalk.UUCP> <2752@ucbcad.UUCP> <300@whuxl.UUCP> <208@oliveb.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 45

Response to some remarks by Jerry Aguirre:
> I hear a lot of people proposing that large stockpiles of nuclear
> weapons are increasing the chances of a war.  How can you justify this
> belief given the fact that most of the wars occured before the invention
> of nuclear weapons.  This includes two "World Wars".
> 
There are two aspects of the current nuclear arms race that increase the chances
of a war.  One is that arming to the teeth and cocking the trigger makes both 
sides more nervous and apt to take quick irrational responses.  If both sides
are whipping their citizens into a frenzy with fear of the other side in order
to build more weapons then hotter rather than cooler heads are more likely to
prevail.  Both sides are more distrustful and suspicious of the other. Both sides
point to the others arms buildup to justify their own. It was very stupid for
the Russians to shoot down the KAL airliner.  But such incidents become far more
likely when both sides are on edge and moving away from agreements to limit
nuclear weapons towards arming to produce and deploy more nuclear weapons.
The second aspect that increases the chances of a war is that we ARE "cocking
the trigger".  Many Americans can remember our own sense of fear and dread when
the Soviets stationed nuclear missiles in Cuba 90 miles away.  We are currently
stationing missiles in Europe which have the capability of hitting Moscow in
10 minutes. Reducing the time between when nuclear weapons are launched and
when they hit their targets reduces the time to consider whether an attack
should really be made in response to indications of an opposition attack.
It makes the nuclear fuse shorter, just as cocking the trigger of a gun makes
it far more likely to go off.
> Granted the effects of a nuclear war would be longer lived. I am not
> convinced that more people would be killed.  A conventional WW3 could
> easily kill as many people as a nuclear one.  It would just take
> longer.
Some basic facts: the destructive power of ALL of World War 2 amounted to
3 megatons.  The destructive power of the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia
amount to 18,000 megatons-- 6000 World War 2's. This only considers sheer
explosive power and does not include such effects as radioactivity, destruction
of the ozone layer, the possibility of a Nuclear Winter, the fire storms that
would be created by atomic blasts and wreak additional destruction.
> 
> Just read descriptions
> of the events leading up to any war.  There was always plenty of time to
> consider events and take action to prevent war.  The wars happened any
> way.  Wars happen and will continue to happen when people convince
> themselves that it is to their advantage to go to war.
> 
NOW is the time to react to Reagan's arms buildup and try to stop us
from moving headfirst into war.  Before it is too late.....
Tim Sevener whuxl!orb