Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!ames!al From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: poll (nuclear disarmament verifiability) Message-ID: <907@ames.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Apr-85 21:46:55 EST Article-I.D.: ames.907 Posted: Tue Apr 2 21:46:55 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:55:38 EST References: <5202@ucbvax.ARPA> <386@abnji.UUCP> <5544@ucbvax.ARPA> <634@tty3b.UUCP> <5650@ucbvax.ARPA> <643@tty3b.UUCP> <5743@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 23 > > 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. There is not a shread of evidence to support the contention that diverting energy to the military increases internal strife. It does produce extremely powerful military establishments though. On the contrary, revolutions seem to occur after a population has experienced improved conditions and then recieves a sharp, if small set back. There are some cases, such as the Russian revolution, where military defeat caused the revolution. Building weapons doesn't cause military defeat, combat does. Combat between the US and USSR is suicidal. No one else is strong enough to take the Soviets. I.e., we cannot solve the fundimental problem militarily. I suspect that defeat in Afganistan combined with A REDUCTION in pressure on the Soviet Union might work wonders. Simultaneously disgrace the military on the field of battle and reduce the very real need for it (Russia has been invaded by Western Europe three times in the last two hundred years) and we might get somewhere.