Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: better dead
Message-ID: <2009@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 11:02:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2009
Posted: Mon Jun 10 11:02:49 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Jun-85 02:29:59 EDT
References: <963@ubc-vision.CDN> <283@looking.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 52

> I stand corrected.  The proper choice is between the risk of Soviet
> domination and the risk of nuclear war.   However, don't forget that
> assuming (perhaps a large assumption) we trust ourselves not to strike
> first, these risks are the same, for nuclear war would only occur if the
> Russians attacked us.  I suspect that Russian attack would be a good
  Or if there is an accidental launch. Or if a "defense" installation
  percieves a phantom attack (this has happened more than once) and
  the falsity is not found out before a retaliatory launch is made.
  Or if a few people go a little crazy.

> hint of impending Soviet domination.
> 
> I am not suggesting that the Soviets are an "evil empire" in the horns
> and pitchforks sense, but their government (NOT their people) is a
> dictatorship that has a history of attempting to reach out and place
> other nations under some form of dictatorial control.  The people of

  True and I would not want to have to defend a lot of their actions.
  You should also figure into this scenario however the fact that the
  US does the same sort of thing; if you don't think so then you should
  talk to people in Grenada, or relatives of "disappeared persons" in
  Chile, Argentina..., or people in Nicaraugua(sp?), or victims of bombing
  in Cambodia.  The US has and does support totalitarian regimes both
  financially and militarily (Canada's past isn't all that lily white
  either) and has been known to attempt to topple the *democratically
  elected* governments of countries.

> the U.S.S.R. are the victims of this dictatorship, and if there were
> any way we could threaten the dictators and not the people, I would
> be all for it.
  Me too.  The fact (well, my opinion at least) is the people of both
  the USSR and the US probably have no desire for either war or conquest.
  The controlling forces of both countries do seem to though and I think
  that since they are the ones with the capability to start a global
  thermonuclear war we ought to concentrate on ways of disarming them.

> 
> I agree, a real trust would be the ideal solution.  I don't like the
> nuclear arms buildup any more than anybody else.  But do we have any
> evidence we can trust the Kremlin?  I wish we did.
 
  Do we have any evidence we can trust the US? I wish we did.  It is
  instructive to read how various Canadian premiers have been treated
  by US presidents in the past.  The incidents include an actual
  physical attack by a president on a prime minister.  Is this the
  sort of person you want controlling a nuclear (or other) arsenal?
> 
> -- 
> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

  John Chapman
....!watmath!watcgl!jchapman