Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Canadian participation in Star Wars. Message-ID: <5677@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 14:46:12 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.5677 Posted: Thu Jun 6 14:46:12 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 14:46:12 EDT References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <5669@utzoo.UUCP>, <945@mnetor.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 108 > 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.... FRED, Fred, Fred... You missed my point completely. I agree with you that the ability to fight a limited war makes war more likely, and I also agree with the implication that escalation to major disaster is more likely. But this is not the *only* implication of the shift in strategy! As I said in the article you refer to, it also has the side effect of bringing US and Soviet thinking *somewhat* closer together. It is *just* possible -- not certain -- that in the long run this just *might* be of sufficient benefit to balance out the increased risk. Whether this is enough to justify the change is another question entirely. My own view on "limited nuclear war" is that it is a theoretical concept only. In practice, in any war in Europe there will be enormous pressure to avoid "going nuclear". This will probably postpone the use of nuclear weapons long enough that the outcome will already have been decided. If the outcome is favorable, there will be no need for nuclear weapons. If it is not, there will be little to be gained. Considering this, and considering the significant risks involved in less-probable alternate scenarios, my own view is that tactical nuclear weapons in general are not earning their keep, and should be unilaterally scrapped at once. > 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. There is just the faintest chance that those people are right, that in the long term this hypothetical (and probably impossible) one-sided exchange would be our best course of action. But you're right that the concept is dangerous; quite apart from the moral aspects (which I am not dismissing, just declining to discuss right now), there is too much chance that they are wrong, and too little chance that things could be made to go "as planned". (Before I have to dig out my asbestos terminal, let me repeat: I am not saying these people are right. I am saying that the chances of them being wrong are not quite 100%.) > 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? Clearly the sanest *immediate* response is to put everything on alert but do nothing irrevocable. The report might be a mistake. Just how much of an alert is justified, in fact, would depend on how solid the information was and where the ICBMs were headed (if this were known). Except perhaps for the case of a strike against command centers, three ICBMs are not going to do crippling damage to retaliatory forces, so there is no need for immediate drastic action. This is, by the way, supposedly current official US policy: there will be no commitment to a nuclear attack until nuclear warheads have exploded on US territory. Just how well this corresponds to the real policy is, of course, hard to tell. > ... I think the leader of the agressors would > go down in history along with Hitler, even in his/her own country. I think this possible but by no means certain. > The war could be won without even firing a shot. What do you mean by "won"? Even if the leader of the aggressors goes down in history as a villain, that doesn't necessarily mean that the mob will lynch him tomorrow. In fact, it's unlikely. Unless there is a major revolutionary movement poised to strike anyway, I see little chance of immediate adverse consequences to the people involved. In fact, they could claim that they have won, by forcing us to back down on our promises to retaliate. With considerable justice, too. What do we do if they launch another three ICBMs next week? There is also the domestic political situation to consider. Whether or not the aggressors perceive their victory in a refusal to retaliate, the people that I (the leader) am supposed to be leading and protecting most assuredly will. If I refuse to retaliate for millions of deaths and a major blow to our economy, the lynch mob might come for *me*! I will surely be deposed almost immediately, and my successor is likely to be a "bomb them back to the Stone Age" hardliner. I fear that some sort of retaliation is both inevitable and necessary. What form it should take is a hard question. If we were sure we could do it, perhaps invading and conquering one of their satellite countries might do. If it was necessary to retaliate with nuclear weapons, I think I would launch three ICBMs, one at a time with a substantial delay in between, making some attempt to select targets analogous to the ones they hit. This is really a no-win situation. > 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. Clearly, then, we should not risk the planet over our current disagreements with the Soviets, and we should surrender to them right now... It should be obvious that I don't agree with this philosophy. There are things that are worth risks; freedom is one of them. How *big* a risk... now that's a hard question. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry