Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site erix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!enea!erix!mike
From: mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: World War III
Message-ID: <721@erix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 09:01:04 EST
Article-I.D.: erix.721
Posted: Mon Jan 28 09:01:04 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Jan-85 01:31:46 EST
References: <3329@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams)
Organization: L M Ericsson, Stockholm, Sweden
Lines: 27
Summary: 

I think the USA is more likely to start WWIII than the USSR. That doesn't
mean that I don't think the USA is a better place than the USSR. I infinitely
prefer the USA.

However the USSR has been involved in much more serious warfare in their
own country than the USA. The nearest that the USA has been involved in
war in the USA itself in recent times is Pearl Harbour. The people of the
    -----------------
USA probably cannot envisage the effects of WWIII.

The Russians have on the other hand had their country devastated on several
occasions within living memory and have lost millions of their own people.
The Russian leaders athough old and senile have experienced this themselves.
This is why it is an *advantage* that the Russian leaders are so old. In this
case senility helps too. Old people remember their youth even if they forget
the day to day occurances of recent times.

On the other hand, the old film star leading the USA has the experience from
films that the hero always wins. In WWIII there will be no winners and life 
will not be very pleasant for the survivors (if any).

The only thing we can do is to educate the people of the West (including
presidents prime ministers etc) as to what nuclear war would really mean.

Mike Williams