Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!weemba From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Adverse effects of the Abolition of Message-ID: <11748@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Sat, 8-Feb-86 02:50:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11748 Posted: Sat Feb 8 02:50:00 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Feb-86 22:08:02 EST References: <1245@pucc-i> <.UUCP>UUCP>@.UUCP> <7800958@inmet.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 95 In article <7800958@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720] > [me] >>>That proposal is phony as a 4-dollar bill. Give up SDI now, >>>denuke by year 2000 ! IF they meant what they say about abolish- >>>ing nuclear weapons, why would they object to SDI so much? SDI >>>is only important (if at all) in the *presence* of strategic nu- >>>clear weapons. If Gorbachev meant one half of his proposal, he >>>could drop the other half. > >>Why would they object? I'll tell you why. The number one personality >>problem Russians have is paranoia! (I'm not joking.) >> [paranoia theme developed with respect to completely new, unexpected, >> offensive uses of SDI, unrelated to nuclear weapons] >>Notice that it does not matter whether the above SDI scenario is plausible >>or possible! If they THINK it could occur, they will of course object. > >I don't buy this: (1) this could equally apply to any defense >research (anything may grow offshoots) ; but their objections to >SDI are in a class apart; A successful SDI defensive shield would make the Soviet nuclear weaponry obsolete, but have no effect on American nuclear weaponry. SDI offensive laser weapons would allow a disabling attack to occur in milliseconds. Neither of these scenarios is like anything before, so the strength of their objections does not seem surprising. > (2) they've spent many, many years and >enormous sums of money on SDI: by now, they are much more likely >to fear something known or estimated than something quite unk- >nown; How about the fact that with the right electronic skill, it makes for a very powerful offensive weapon????? Who knows? > (3) their decision-making process is very rational, it has >no place for psychotic complexes; The Brezhnev doctrine, including the invasion of Afghanistan, is rational? > (4) they know American inten- >tions and plans very well, through their intelligence: if Ameri- >can first strike has never been in the cards (as I believe is >true), they know it; Do WE know our intentions and plans? Even if we did, they can change every four years anyway! Besides, events can happen whether or not they are planned for. WWI occurred even though everyone knew everyone else's intentions. > (5) Russians are no more paranoid than other >people. This is a myth, like most ethnic stereotypes. A lot of these national mentality stereotypes seem rather accurate to me. Regarding Russians, I have always been aware of the myth, but have over the years known many emigres to confirm it, either by their actions or by their own assertions concerning Russians. > If you are >looking for paranoia, listen to talk, on the right, of Trilatral >commission; on the left, of Reagan and Falwell. I agree. > In any case, pro- >perties of Russians in general have little bearing on the mental- >ity of the tiny, select and ethnically diverse group making these >decisions. I reluctantly agree. (By the way, is there a word for "Soviet citizen" or the like? "Russian" is used interchangeably for the whole nation and the ethnic group, and many people don't know the difference. "Soviet" doesn't work, it seems to refer to Party members only.) >Why invoke far-fetched exotic psychology when Stripped of my dramatizations (you helped :-)), the psychology I am assuming is just so much fear. That does not seem far-fetched. >Why invoke far-fetched exotic psychology when there is an obvious >reason for Soviet opposition to Star Wars: (1) They believe >(rightly or wrongly) that it may work - this is confirmed by >their own long-term commitment to it; (2) they know US space >technology and electronics is better; (3) If it worked, it would >drastically change the correlation of forces. Why? Because the discussion I was replying to was whether Gorbachev's offer to reduce/eliminate most nuclear weaponry was believable. You claimed it was not, because the tie-in to SDI would then be redundant. But perhaps the tie-in is not redundant. Perhaps it is based on their own past research, and they don't want us to go too far. Who knows? I am dubious about the offer, but not because of SDI. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720