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!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The real issue about nuclear weapons
Message-ID: <367@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Nov-84 17:55:47 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.367
Posted: Mon Nov 26 17:55:47 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Nov-84 04:38:22 EST
References: <29200165@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 55

> Scott Renner writes: 
> Tim's argument is as follows:
>     1.  Doctors and biologists are the best judge of the health effects 
> 	of nuclear war.
>     2.  Doctors and biologists agree that a nuclear war would have
> 	disasterous effects on health care.
> Therefore:
>     3.  A nuclear war should be avoided.
> 
>     4.  Stopping the arms race NOW (ie., the nuclear "Freeze") is the 
> 	best way to avoid a nuclear war.
> Therefore:
>     5.  Let's stop the arms race NOW!
> 
> This is sloppy thinking at best, deliberate propagandizing at worst.  All
> of us agree on point #3.  Many of us disagree with Tim on point #4.  The
> real issue is not, "should we have a nuclear war," but rather, "what is the
> best way to avoid nuclear war?"
> 
> Articles with factual errors
> ("cruise missiles are first-strike weapons") and irrelevancies ("the US
> has 30,000 warheads, the Soviet Union only 25,000") also get in the way.
> 
> We all agree that nuclear war is a bad thing.  Now let's talk about the
> real issue.  
> 
> Scott Renner
> {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner

I think this is an apt summary of my argument. I also think it is a good
statement of the true question: how do we prevent nuclear war?
Does continuing the nuclear arms race make nuclear war more or less likely?
If continuing the nuclear arms race is ,at best , neutral and at worst,
detrimental with respect to preventing nuclear war, then what is the point
for both sides to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on the arms race?
I happen to agree that it is ultimately irrelevant exactly how many warheads
either side has when either side has enough to thoroughly devastate the other.
Unfortunately some people on the net do not accede to that point.
SO: Scott, do you really think that building more nuclear arms makes nuclear
war any less likely?
IF both sides would agree to stop building or developing new nuclear weapons
wouldn't the whole world be better off?
We can consider this problem historically: imagine that both sides had
stopped the nuclear arms race at bombers equipped with nuclear weapons.
Wouldn't we all be safer? We would have far less chance of an accidental
nuclear war--there would be a longer lag time before bombers could reach
their targets--and they *could* be recalled.
Or imagine that Nixon and Kissinger had been more farsighted and agreed to
stop MIRVed weapons before they were deployed by both sides.  We
would not find either sides ICBM forces threatened by a potential 
first-strike capability.
Do you have some better answer to preventing nuclear war than stopping
the arms race?
 
tim sevener whuxl!orb