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!ken
From: ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: risks, methods of defence
Message-ID: <556@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 16:50:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: alberta.556
Posted: Wed Jun 19 16:50:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 00:42:07 EDT
References: <964@ubc-vision.CDN> <289@looking.UUCP> <691@utcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: ken@pembina.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
Lines: 30

In article <691@utcs.UUCP> shindman@utcs.UUCP (Paul Shindman) writes:
>
>Method #n+1
>

>   . . .

>   There are thus only a few thousand people in charge in the USSR
>   and the USA (toss in France, Nato, and China as well) who are
>   really keen on maintaining and developing these huge nuclear
>   arsenals.
>
>   I say take these guys out, line em up, and.....ok, that's too 
>   extreme. Take these guys, lock em up, and let the rest of us
>   go on about our lives.  
>
>   Wishful thinking, eh, so take this method with a big :-)

Method #n+2

A related measure - taken with a smaller :-) - would be to remove all
the fallout shelters and contingiency measures that would preserve the
politicians who would presumably be responsible for a possible nuclear
conflict. If this "safety net" was removed - no matter how ineffective
it is - perhaps the consequences of a confrontation would be made more
real. I suspect that, to some politicians and military leaders, a nuclear
war just means an inconvenient stay in some well stocked cavern somewhere.

						Ken Hruday
					  University of Alberta