Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site looking.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: risks, methods of defence
Message-ID: <289@looking.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 00:00:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: looking.289
Posted: Thu Jun 13 00:00:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 04:18:50 EDT
References: <964@ubc-vision.CDN>
Organization: Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont
Lines: 44
Summary: 

There seems to be a belief that the defence debate consists of people
who dearly want nuclear weapons vs. those who hate them.  I don't think
this is close to the truth.  I, and others who have stated there are reasons
for the nuclear weapons we have find them deplorable.  I find the concept
of destroying Russian towns full of millions of innocent people disgusting.
I feel the same horror you do watching "Threads" or "The Atomic Cafe."

The debate is not, "are nuclear weapons good?"  It is:

1) Is there evidence that foreign nations such as the U.S.S.R. might desire
   to attack us?

2) What defences are effective to discourage or hold back such attack?

3) What are the risks, efficiencies and costs of various defences?


Of course, it's not as pure as that, since both sides are ruled by
power-hungry politicians.  These, however, are the main issues taht
must be considered.   The points I have made on the net give strong evidence
that the USSR is a likely threat, and that they DO attack when they feel
the attacked nation does not have adequate defence.

So the question for the net is:

How much defence to you think we need to keep foreign threats away?
We have all these nukes and SDI plans because nobody else has come up with
any method of defence that they can convince people is superior.
(We also have them because of the split armed services in the USA, but
that's another story)

So let's hear proposals for a non-nuclear defence.

  Talk them into multilateral disamament?  How would you go about it?

  Put on the economic squeeze?  What if they get desperate?

  Rely on conventional defence?  Why have the soviets built up a first-strike
    force when all the need for defence is a retalitory force?  (Why have we?)

Let's hear.

-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473