Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site alberta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!sask!alberta!dyck
From: dyck@alberta.UUCP (Terry Dyck)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: risks, methods of defence
Message-ID: <553@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 10:23:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: alberta.553
Posted: Wed Jun 19 10:23:34 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 00:41:50 EDT
References: <964@ubc-vision.CDN> <289@looking.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
Lines: 61

> There seems to be a belief that the defence debate consists of people
> who dearly want nuclear weapons vs. those who hate them. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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

	First, what is `multilateral disarmamment`? Once the knowledge of
how to build these hell weapons is established, and the raw materials are
available, `multilateral disarmament` becomes a buzzword. If you wish an
example of this look at chemical/bacterial warfare research. The same research
that gives us medicines can be changed ,almost overnight, in government labs
to produce these bugs. The B.S. you hear about not stockpiling them is just
that, B.S. How do you stockpile bacterial agents?

	Economic squeeze is no better. The quickest way to make someone
totally unpredictable is to economicaly grind him into the dirt. If you
are cold and hungry, and you can see that it is the result of intentional
actions of a foreign power, how long are you going to think rational
thoughts?

	There is no safety in a conventional defence if you are badly
outnumbered.

	I don`t see that there is any other choice at the moment than
the present course taken by the U.S. That is unless you don`t mind
living in a regime where `freedom` is only an abstract concept and
`standing up for your rights` illegal.

Terry Dyck : ihnp4!alberta!dyck *Dept. of Computing Sc.  U. of Alberta*