Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dangerous Military Myth
Message-ID: <1476@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Mar-86 13:30:55 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1476
Posted: Fri Mar 21 13:30:55 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 23:02:47 EST
References: <358@drutx.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 48

> []
> 
>>> >       Meaning they have, in effect, great incentive to produce 20 times as
> >> > many missiles.
> >> 
> >> One can have the incentive, but lack the ability.  I don't remember who
> >> said this, but it went something like this: "The USSR without its military
> >> would be India!" -- meaning that its military masks an economic backet
> >> case.  It has a hard time supporting what it has now.  I rather doubt
> >> that it can build and support 20 times more.
> >> David Olson
> 
>>   So what do you think they'll do, if star wars works and they can't keep up?
> >Resign themselves to existing at our sufferance or attack?
> 
> But, let's assume that you think they might attack.
> 
> As I see it, that is like saying that people should not put locks on
> their home.  After all, if a burglar saw you doing that, it might
> provoke him into attacking your house now, while he still can.
> 
> But, let's further assume that such logic was valid.

     Bad assumption.  Your analogy is seriously flawed.  Try this one:  two
mortal enemies are holding sawed-off shotguns on each other, a Mexican
standoff.  Until one of them sees the other reaching for a large shield...

What should he do?

>  Suppose there was
> some form of disarmament imposed on both sides.  What is the difference
> between someone thinking, "I had better attack while my weapons are still
> effective!", and "I had better attack while I still have weapons!"?
> 
     First of all, disarmament can't be 'imposed' on someone unless they've
already been defeated or something.  Disarmament can only otherwise come
about due to the choice of the party or parties disarming.  Why would someone
think: 'I'd better attack while I still have my weapons!' when they were the
ones to decide to put their weapons down?  Doesn't make any sense to me.
     And don't forget the second half of the first statement.  "I'd better 
attack while my weapons are still effective, *otherwise I'll be at the 
mercy of my enemy!*'  Not an unreasonable sentiment at all.
     Now do you understand the difference between those statements?
> 
> David Olson
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j