Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-vision.CDN
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!majka
From: majka@ubc-vision.CDN (Marc Majka)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: better dead
Message-ID: <963@ubc-vision.CDN>
Date: Sat, 8-Jun-85 17:29:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.963
Posted: Sat Jun  8 17:29:58 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 19:41:40 EDT
Organization: UBC Computational Vision Lab, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 52


> From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
> Message-ID: <280@looking.UUCP>
>
> It has been suggested that most people would prefer living in a
> soviet dictatorship to being nuked.  That's quite true, but it misses
> the point.  The real question is who would prefer soviet slavery to the
> RISK of nuclear war.

You got it wrong as well, Brad.  Keeping the loaded words to a minimum, the
question is: who would prefer the risk of Soviet domination to the risk of
nuclear war.  You say nobody is asking for a war.  Nobody is asking for
Soviet domination either.  

I don't question the facts of history.  There has been an arms race which has
left both sided armed to the teeth.  What must be decided is the direction we
are to take into the future.  To me, the risk of my death, the death of
billions of others, and possibly the death of every living creature on this
planet is not worth taking, no matter what the alternative risks.

This point of view does not preclude the defense of our security.  But
risking nuclear war has become a rather poor method of defence, since it denys
the security it is supposed to protect.  What we need to establish with the
Soviets is trust.  Pointing bombs at them, which results in them pointing
bombs at us, does not establish trust.  It only establishes fear.  

One problem with MAD is that it is a doctrine of escalation. The "ideal" MAD
world is one in which each side can assure the destruction of the other, if
the other pushes the button first.  This prevents anyone but a madman or an
errant computer from destroying the world.  When one side builds new 
technology,  the other side must either match the technology or make more 
bombs.  The more bombs and the better technology one side has, the less
secure the other side feels about its deterrent.  The effectiveness of the 
eterrent more difficult to judge, leading to the familiar "better safe than
sorry" attitude.  And so it goes...

Another problem with MAD is that it does not limit the nuclear weapons to
exist only as a deterrent to the other side's nuclear weapons.  The threat
of first use as a deterrent to aggression leads to the notion of "limited"
nuclear war.  The trouble is, the "limit" is unknown.  This allows the
build-up of nuclear arms specifically for use outside the MAD doctrine. 
If such an exchange were to occur, the temptation would be very great for
the losing side to escalate the war by using more force, leading to an 
all-out exchange.

Two people, no matter how rational to begin with, could stand the strain of
holding guns to each other's heads for very long.  Two societies should not
be expected to do much better.  We need cooperation and understanding if we
are to survive as a race on this planet.

---
Marc Majka - UBC Laboratory for Computational Vision