Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mtuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtuxn!gdf
From: gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dangerous Military Myth
Message-ID: <711@mtuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 14:27:08 EST
Article-I.D.: mtuxn.711
Posted: Fri Mar  7 14:27:08 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 21:14:34 EST
References: <373@ihnet.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 282


>>  devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht)
>> Oh, get off it Tim.  Cut the histrionics.  Reagan is no pathological liar.
>> He happens to disagree with your point of view.  You want us to believe
>> that the majority of Americans who voted for him in the last election
>> were simply deceived and couldn't see through the lies?  

>It's possible.  Does this seem implausible to you?  Perhaps you overestimate
>the intelligence of Americans.  Watched any network TV lately?

True, anything is possible.  It is also possible that the people who voted
for Reagan agree with him.  Since you think Reagan is an idiot, therefore
all his supporters are idiots.  How inconvenient (sic?).  Perhaps a
vanguard of dedicated social reformers should take over the government 
until the poor foolish people learn 'the right way to do it'.  Maybe you
could tell us all?  

>> SALT II was a bad
>> treaty.  All that it did was to provide a basis for controlled escalation of
>> the superpowers nuclear arsenals.  

>OK,  what does this prove about Reagan?

Do you agree that SALTII was bad?  If you do, you agree with Ronald Reagan.
Care to re-think your position on SALTII?  What it proves is that Reagan
knows more about what matters in arms control than his opponents.  Details
are irrelevant if the basic structure of the agreement is flawed as in 
the case of SALTII.  (See my upcoming 4000000 line work,  titled
'A Quick Look at What's Wrong with SALTII' , not to be unfair I'll follow
with a 2 line work titled 'Encylopaedic Review of the Benefits of SALTII'
 :-) ).

>> the politburo doesn't have to contend with a
>> congress that may cut defense funding at the drop of a hat.

>Unfortunately, neither does Reagan.

Statement contrary to fact.

>> And it gave the Soviets a decided
>> advantage in this regard; 

>Here we see the most dangerous myth in our society today.

>What advantage?!?  Do you really believe it is better to have 50,000 missiles
>than 500?  Especially since many reputable independent scientists have
>recently estimated that ~200 nuclear explosions will
>irreparably damage the *entire* ecology of our planet.

Great, as soon as the Russians do it, we'll THINK about it.  By the way
who has 50,000 missles.  Isn't 50,000 ONE estimate of the total warheads
on the planet?  As I recall, the US has about 1000 strategic missles (ground
based) with a total of about 3000 strategic warheads.  Please let us all know
about the secret 49,000 missles the US has.

Of course, you ASSUME  that hypothesis is correct.  Let us continue
research.  If, and that is a big IF, the hypothesis is proven correct,
you have the beginnings of a point.  Until that hypothesis is PROVEN
correct and is known to policy makers both here and in all nuclear powers,
it is irrelevant.  Incidentally, Japan was forced by surrender with 2
nuclear weapons (rather small by today's standards) , so even if the
nuclear winter theory (that's theory, not fact), is correct, it is
still national suicide for the US to allow the Russians total nuclear
supremacy.  I personally believe that the nuclear winter theory is a
crock.  Ten years from now, let's see who is right.

>Yes, they might be wrong, but it is rather idiotic to
>take the chance.  Communism is infinitely preferable to
>radiation, hypothermia, or starvation.

Surrender, Dorothy.  After all the wicked witch will be very angry if 
you don't do as she says.  And if later on the Communists kill half
the population of the country and enslave the rest, well, I guess that
is ok.  This argument is not even related to nuclear weapons.  If someone
sufficiently ruthless threatens you, then give in.  You make it easy
for evil to triumph.  Maybe evil will triumph, but we should resist.

	Gandalf: If Sauron gets the ring, he will enslave Middle Earth.
	Frodo(new version):OK, that's 'infinitely preferable' to me 
			   getting hurt.

This would make for an interesting version of Lord of the Rings.

>Since we would not, could not, send more than 500 missiles streaking towards
>Russia (or anyone else), and both sides know this,
> it is silly and dangerous to have 50,000.

Too bad both sides don't know it.  Of course I claim it's not the case,
so it makes sense that both sides don't know it.  Even if it is the
case, it is not currently assumed to be true by both sides.  (What happened 
to the other nuclear powers in your discussion)?

>Silly, because it is driving our economy into the ground.

Statement contrary to fact.  The cost of nuclear weaponry is not significant
in 'driving our economy into the ground'.  Please provide some proof that
our economy is being driven into the ground and that cutting expenditures 
on nukes to ZERO would help.

>Dangerous, because it makes nuclear war a little more likely,
>and it is just that much more weapons grade nuclear technology we must
>protect from accidents, terrorists, etc.

Not proven (as opposed to provably false). If you want we can debate this 
at length too.

>How can we get this myth of "more is better" out of the
>heads of our gullible citizenry.

Gee, I don't know.  It is going to be a toughie, since in war, more is 
usually better.  In fact, the burden is on you to prove the opposite.
Also, the phrase 'more is better' is usually used to contrast quality
to quantity.  If you decide to take this up, remember to try to prove
that 'more is worse than less'.  That is what you're saying, isn't it?

>> The only thing worth working
>> for is a verifiable arms reduction treaty.   
>That would certainly be ideal, but I strongly disagree
>with the word "only".  We could do a great deal of
>unilateral disarmament without risk, and the entire world would benefit.

Great, you at least say it.  Of course, unilateral disarmament has
NO CHANCE of being accepted by the American people.  I guess that
just proves that they are all morons compared to 'progressive' folks
like yourself.  Since we see no democratic way of implementing 
your policies in the US, how do you plan to go about it?  How about
a lot of pseudo-moralistic arguments mixed in with just plain anti-facts
(50,000 missles? nuclear winter)?  Naaah, you wouldn't do that, would you?

>If we were to take such a bold step, the Soviet Union would do
>the same, since its economy is weaker than our own.
>This does not arise from any "niceguy" characteristics,
>the motivation is strictly intelligent calculated self interest.
>Excess missiles don't buy Russia anything either.

BY YOUR CALCUATION.  Of course, maybe the Russians would think the wisest
couse of action would be to blow the US up, 99 cities at a time, wait
for the (supposed) particulate matter to fall from the atmosphere and
continue in that manner.  The fact is that you ASSUME that you know 
how the Russians would behave. The responsible approach is to plan
so that WHATEVER the Russians do, the people of the US are as safe as
we can manage.

>In fact, they have already taken the lead in halting the arms
>race.  Unfortunately, we are too paranoid to follow their lead.

I guess I missed this.  Are you talking about the fact that the
Russians don't need to test right now, or have they stopped building
missiles and bombers?  Maybe it isn't paranoia, but just rational
scepticism.  Please provide whatever 'facts' support you in this case.
I will be glad to retract this portion of my posting if you can convince
me I'm wrong.

>> We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try 
>> to get the best of us every time.

>Can you say paranoid schizophrenic?  I knew you could.

Are you aware that the USSR has withdrawn from the major international
psychiatric association to avoid censure?  Why were they about to
be censured?  They claim that people who oppose them are 'schizo'
and imprision them in 'hospitals' where the victims are tortured with
electoshock and drugs.  Real psychiatrists are revolted at this, like
real people. Of course, it really IS paranoia to think
that Communism is wrong and that the Russians impose it through
'unlimited force', right?

>We are trying "to get the best" of central America, South Africa, etc,
>at the expense of their citizens' long term interests.

Just like Korea, Cambodia and Vietnam? Isn't it true in fact that
the only thing standing between the world and a virtual utopia is
the evil USA?  

>If you mean something more substantial, like an invasion,
>you have no evidence to back up your claim.
>Yes, if we were a small country on the Soviet border,
>We would have every right to be paranoid, but that is not the case.

Like China, right?  That's ok, with your approach, we will be on the
Soviet border soon.  Fortunately, that isn't anything to worry about.
Can you say that in Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian or Afghani?
How about Mongolian?

>The Soviets do not take over distant countries, they convince people that
>revolution is better than the oppressive dictators that enslave them.
>Quite a reasonable assertion, I think.

And this 'convincing' is done by sweet reason?  More like brutality,
but let that slide.

>Of course, we then support the dictator, because after all,
>we just couldn't side with Russia.  What would the neighbors think?
>It's the principle of the thing!
>Communist Russia becomes the friend, while capitalist U.S.
>becomes the ruthless ideological enemy.
>After the inevitable revolution, the new government hates us as
>much as the ousted dictator.   (repeat scenario over and over and over ...)
>But I digress.

Just like in Poland, right?  Or was that Hungary? Gee, I'm getting confused,
maybe it was East Germany?  Then after the revolution (it is inevitable
isn't it?) the people decide to express their hatred of the US by
living in wretched slavery.  Occasionally they massacre themselves if
they think it would make the point better (Cambodia, Tibet, Ukraine, etc
ad nauseam).

>Since we are satisfied with our current form of government,
>we have little to fear from the Soviets.

Really?

>Of course, if we continue our paranoid "defense" buildup,
>we could evolve into a country similar to the Soviet Union in many ways.
>A country with its power concentrated in the hands of a few appointed
>militaristic decision makers,
>who classify information they don't want the public to see,
>restricting freedom at every turn,
>and making democracy empty and void.
>This transition will not happen in a lifetime, but it could happen,
>and it looks like it is on the way.
>Reagan has weakened the already inadequate controls over what gets classified
>and why.  The checks and balances are conspicuously absent.

Compared to just about any other country, the US has very lax security
laws.  In Russia, the size of the grain harvest is a state secret!
I don't think we should do that, but there is room for a reasonable tightening
of security.  Of course, I'm a paranoid.

>The other alternative is economic exhaustion, while Japan laughs
>all the way to the bank (quoted from someone else).
>A dissatisfied citizenry with a low standard of living and
>rampant poverty is ripe for the communists' picking.
... on and on about economics versus military spending ...
>Suffice to say that any wastefule defense program reduces national security
>by eroding our economy.  Nuclear excess is a prime example.

You have to spend your economic strength on weaponry sometime, or
economic strength is irrelevant in a military conflict.

>Oh, I can feel the flames now.  If you wish to ramble on about
>how naive I am, and how the Soviets will invade us, or Europe, or whatever
>if we don't have zillions of nuclear weapons, please provide
>some evidence.  Our magnificent arsenal did not prevent the last two
>invasions, and its reduction would not facilitate future invasions.

You _are_ naive (I'm being charitable).  We do need at least nuclear parity.
And what 'invasions' are you talking about?  This section of your
posting is rather confused.

>Hundreds (not hundreds of thousands) of missiles are enough to
>guarantee a first, second, or third strike, depending on your mood that day.

Statement contrary to fact.  How does my mood affect all this.

Of course, maybe you are being 'humorous'.  Is your whole posting 'humorous'?
I'm glad to see we are up to 'hundreds of thousands' of missles.  Keep
going, why stop there.  If you're wrong, you're wrong, so why not
hundreds of trillions?  What a waste, the Reagan administration is spending 
hundreds of googleplexes of dollars on a wasteful military buildup.
How outrageous.  

>The "more is better" myth must die.
Please kill it. Then tell the Russians.

>I realize everything in this article *might* be wrong,
>but I have seen no solid evidence refuting the points I have raised.
>Military officials might say "yes, we have evidence, but it is
>classified".  Well, I cannot relinquish my right to make decisions
>and vote accordingly, just because these facts are not available to me.

To say the least.  Vote any way you want, it's a free country.  Don't
complain when few people agree with you.  And when it comes to evidence,
you don't need secret data to realize that there aren't 'hundreds of
thousands' of strategic missles sitting around.  If you can't get
your facts straight, shut up.  Even Tim Sevener must be embarrassed by
your foolish posting.

Guy

>			Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad