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: Re: risks, methods of defence
Message-ID: <559@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 17:26:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: alberta.559
Posted: Thu Jun 20 17:26:49 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Jun-85 01:22:12 EDT
References: <964@ubc-vision.CDN> <289@looking.UUCP> <553@alberta.UUCP>
Reply-To: ken@pembina.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
Lines: 47

In article <553@alberta.UUCP> dyck@alberta.UUCP (Terry Dyck) writes:

>	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?
>
 
I agree that since we'll always have the knowledge and the materials that
we'll never be rid of nuclear weaponry. These weapons can be easily constructed
at any time in the future so total disarmament is possibly a futile dream.
The problem, however, is not just nuclear weapons. The problem is the very
fast deployment of these weapons. If you have seconds to decide the fate of 
the world based on some spurious radar readings then I don't have much hope 
for the fate of the world.

If there was more time to decide this would certainly bring greater stability.
The consequences of the SDI scheme would be to shorten this time rather
than lengthen it - i.e. SDI forces the Russians to a launch on warning 
type of system -> given the track record of Russian technology, this isn't
too comforting.

>
>	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*
>

While your premises are sound your conclusion isn't. This is not the only
alternative. Aside from it's dangerous consequences it is expensive, and
there is a high probablity that it won't work. The "solution" to the 
problem doesn't lie in some "miraculous" defense shield, but rather in
compromise. Compromise *DOESN'T* mean that we accept Russian domination!

I suspect that no real progress will be made until there is some significant
internal change in the Soviet Union, accompanied by a change in U.S. 
attitudes. Until that change occurs we shouldn't shorten the fuse of
nuclear destruction but rather, if possible, lengthen it. 

						Ken Hruday
					  University of Alberta