Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site pucc-i
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!pucc-j!pucc-i!afb
From: afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Adverse effects of the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons...
Message-ID: <1245@pucc-i>
Date: Fri, 17-Jan-86 10:14:45 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-i.1245
Posted: Fri Jan 17 10:14:45 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Jan-86 19:45:31 EST
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 38
Keywords: Russians, Free Lunch


     The recent proposal by Mikhail Gorbachev for the abolition of nuclear
weapons by the year 2000 is a revolutionary proposal, unlike anything the 
Soviets have come up with before.  I'm sure there are a lot of knee-jerk anti-
nuclear types who think this is a really great proposal which could make the
world a much safer and saner place to live.  There are probably a lot of other
people of other political persuasions out there who feel the same.  What people
are neglecting to consider, however, is the near total dependance of the US
on nuclear weapons to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe.

    For the last 30 years or so, the US has lacked the conventional forces to
stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.  We have relied primarily on a 
"nuclear trip-wire" strategy of massive retaliation to deter the Soviets from
such an invasion.  The Warsaw Pact outnumbers NATO tremendously in every area
of conventional weaponry, but nuclear weapons are the great equalizer.

    I think the following analogy is appropriate for the world situation:
we and the Soviets are like two men with guns, except that the Soviet man is
much bigger and stronger and could bludgeon the US man into submission if
it weren't for the guns that each has trained on the other.  The Soviets 
propose that both sides give up their guns...

    If the US and Soviets were to give up their nuclear weapons, we here in the
US and in Western Europe would have to face up to some unpleasant and difficult
choices.  NATO would have to engage in by far the most massive conventional
military buildup in peacetime history, or trust the Soviets to be good boys.
The former choice would be extremely unpopular, as it would lead either to
huge deficit spending by all countries involved, or massive tax increases.  I
don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest, given their current track
record, that we could afford to trust the Soviets.  Conditions may change down
the road (and the leopard may change his spots, too), but hopefully the spirit
of Neville Chamberlain is dead and we won't hand the Soviets Europe on a silver
platter anytime soon.

    I hate to say it (and I really mean that), but I fear that we might be stuck
with nuclear weapons for at least the next 50 years or so...

	  Michael Lewis @ Purdue University