Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <117200026@inmet>
Date: Wed, 17-Sep-86 17:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200026
Posted: Wed Sep 17 17:28:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:18:28 EDT
References: <483@aurora.UUCP>
Lines: 63
Nf-ID: #R:aurora.UUCP:-48300:inmet:117200026:000:2803
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Sep 17 17:28:00 1986


>[al@aurora.UUCP ]
>/* ---------- "Re: Schultz and Isolationism" ---------- */
>> 
>> Morality goes deeper than surface behavior and a superficial
>> insistence on ritual "human-rights". Maintaining a balance
>> of power in the world requires both subtle intelligence and
>> judicious use of force. 

>Note that every period in the past which has based it's stability
>on a balance of power has ended in a devistating war.  

Every period of stability in the past ended  in  a  devastating  war,
period.   All of them were based either on a balance of power, or
on a one-power domination ; neither lasted forever.

>In any case, we cannot afford a war so we'd better find a stabile
>basis that avoids the pitfalls of power balancing.

I agree. The situation is precarious. So let's not  be  dogmatic,
and  consider *all* ideas, however unlikely. Surrender to the So-
viets? I've thought that scenario through, and it  probably  ends
in  a  devastating war, after other kinds of devastation. SDI ? I
know *your* position  against  it;  but  even  if  it  worked  as
planned,  it  would only stop *one* danger - ballistic missiles -
out of many  (e.g.,  bacteriological  warfare  has  become  quite
feasible  lately).   Change  within  the Soviet Union? It may in-
crease the danger as well as decrease it.  I think  we  can  gain
time by keeping the aggressive nation (the USSR) at bay - but the
future is dark.  

>> Grand Strategy is not a field for naive liberals. 

>I haven't noticed that conservatives have done a particularly good job.

Well, Churchill was right when others were wrong.  That does  not
make  all  conservatives  right,  of course.  What made Churchill
right - both with respect to the Bolshevik danger  and  the  Nazi
danger  -  was  a  clear-eyed  approach to great accumulations of
power, whatever their ideological tint.

>Hitler and Napoleon we're certainly right wing by any definition.  

Not really. The Nazi party program was quite socialist; and
in the Reichstag, they often voted with the Communists.

Napoleon was viewed by the reactionaries of his time as
a subversive influence, and by many progressives as a hope.
He did not favor political freedom, but he codified
civil equality - in his time, not a right-wing position at all.

>Both ended their rule with their countries torn to pieces.

Both were dictators. Dictators are dangerous. 
Democracies don't make war on each other.
If only Russia could become a democracy - but this is not
in the cards... If she could stop being a superpower, through
economic decline, this would be the next best thing - and not
quite incredible. But even if a period of peace ensued, it would
end some day with some new accumulation of uncontrolled power.
In the long run, space colonization seems the best hope.

		Jan Wasilewsky