Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!fred
From: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canadian participation in Star Wars.
Message-ID: <945@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 09:55:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.945
Posted: Thu Jun  6 09:55:50 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 12:52:38 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <5669@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Distribution: can
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 39
Summary: Limited nuclear war scenario increases probability of war.

In article <5669@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>. . .  So in effect, the recent changes in direction
>in the US may have the accidental side effect of bringing the two nations'
>basic philosophies of nuclear deterrence closer together.  This improves
>the chances of mutual understanding on such issues, and might actually
>help *prevent* war!
>-- 
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

	HENRY, Henry, Henry. . . I can see that you and I see the world
through two entirely different set of eyes. The idea of fighting a
limited nuclear war only has the attraction of one's being able to pull
out if things if they appear to be getting too hot. This makes the
whole endeavour seem less threatening, and therefore more thinkable.
Some military types feel that it is worth sacrificing a few cities
if they could just get rid of the other side. I think such ideas are
dangerous. 
	By the way, just in case we don't have enough to disagree about
already; suppose you were the leader of , oh, say either side and
you were told that three ICBM's were going to impact on your country
in about ten minutes,(more or less). What is your opinion of the
best, or say sanest response?
	Just to be fair I'll give you mine. I think that without any 
other special circumstances I would not launch a counter-strike right
away. I would go to the highest alert status and make every effort to
contact the other side. If three "targets" were destroyed, there would
be no doubt about who was responsible for the first strike, or 
perhaps the only strike. I think the leader of the agressors would
go down in history along with Hitler, even in his/her own country.
The war could be won without even firing a shot.
	Furthermore, even if lost, how long do nations last on this earth,
anyway? A few centuries? In the larger scheme of things, it is not
worth risking the death of the human,(and many other), species
for a temporary political victory.
	Looking forward to your response,

Cheers,		Fred Williams.