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!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re:Expertise:Nuclear War Casualties
Message-ID: <2092@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 12:44:35 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2092
Posted: Tue Nov  6 12:44:35 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 08:21:02 EST
References: <1133@drusd.UUCP> <2082@randvax.UUCP>, <328@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 26

] I happen to think that Doctors and biologists are far more qualified to
] judge the health effects of Nuclear War than people who know how much
] bang you can get with given weapons but know nothing about biology.
] Let's listen to the experts-let's stop the arms race NOW!
]
] Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
]
Tim, I think that most strategy analysts would agree with you: a doctor
or a biologist who had made a special effort to learn about the effects
of ionizing radiation on life would be *the* expert to consult--on the
effects of ionizing radiation.  But on matters of strategy, consulting a
doctor would be just as foolish as asking an orthopedic surgeon how best
to operate heavy machinery to avoid injury.

A doctor, or a biologist, or a climatologist will give us more detail
about something we already know: nuclear war would be an unprecidented
catastrophe.  They have NO SPECIAL EXPERTISE IN PREVENTING SUCH A WAR.

Do we trust our future to the people who can most graphically and
emotionally depict its dangers, no matter how otherwise unqualified?  Or
to those armed with the information, techniques, training, and cool-
headed intelligence necessary for dealing with and avoiding the dangers
of that future?

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall