Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!medin From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: poll (nuclear disarmament verifiability) Message-ID: <5743@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Sun, 24-Mar-85 18:29:49 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.5743 Posted: Sun Mar 24 18:29:49 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 25-Mar-85 03:01:19 EST References: <5202@ucbvax.ARPA> <386@abnji.UUCP> <5544@ucbvax.ARPA> <634@tty3b.UUCP> <5650@ucbvax.ARPA> <643@tty3b.UUCP> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 53 Lets see here, my vision of the future... Well, my vision of the future isn't quite decided on. As I see it, we face 3 alternatives: 1) Conceed inferiority to the Soviets. This means knuckling under as they squeeze U.S. interests one by one until we are no longer a major opposing power. This means the spread of 'godless communism' across the globe, and the enslavement of millions of peoples into a tyrannical system which deprives them of their liberity and their rights. We would be the last to go under, but we would go nonetheless. This vision I do not care for. 2) Attempt co-existance with the Soviets by fostering detente and nonverifible inequitable arms control treaties. This degenerates into the first case, though its spread out more over time. I see arms control as the opium of the intellectuals, who want to believe, even though it may be false, that we can co-exist peacefully with an imperialist, militaristic, ruthless, Soviet state. Our interests are in direct opposition, and such co-existance can only occur if a major policy shift in the Soviet governmental system occurs. I do not think it will, and I think history bears me out. Thus, I see this path leading to ruin as well. 3) Attempt to maintain parity and achieve superiority if possible, and oppose Soviet actions throughout the world. This method is expensive, and requires much patience. If we maintain such pressure, not only military but economic, we can force the Soviet state to divert more and more money to the military, causing more and more internal strife. The Soviet leadership will see that they cannot maintain control and superiority at the same time, and thus conceed inferiority to us. Or if they do not, the people will revolt causing the downfall of the state and we will be rid of the USSR as we know it. The last 2 possibilities may take a long time, but we will have peace in the meantime. The key point to remember is that the Soviets are extremely conservative, and if they look at the books and see a given action has a low chance of success, they will not move. Thus, by attaining superiority we also attain peace, not cheaply, but peace nonetheless. This is one reason why I see a BMD system as being important, if we can show them their attack would have only 5-15% effectiveness, or even if they only worried about it, any hopes of a successful first strike would vanish. If they tried to overwhelm it, this would result in huge expenditures, expenditures they cannot afford. The key point is whether its more cost-effective to defend or overwhelm. I believe such a BMD system can be produced. So I favor the 3rd approach. Now of course, many will differ with my assumptions, which lead them to different conclusions. But I aim to be a realist, and sometimes, there isn't a nice answer around. No matter how much we want one to exist. Milo