Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!YALEVMX.BITNET!WRITIMM From: WRITIMM@YALEVMX.BITNET Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: (none) Message-ID: <12243192972.18.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Tue, 30-Sep-86 21:47:39 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12243192972.18.MCGREW Posted: Tue Sep 30 21:47:39 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 2-Oct-86 20:36:59 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: WRITIMM%YALEVMX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 107 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu In a recent article, Keith Lynch writes: > I suppose to be consistent I should advocate allowing private > ownership of nuclear bombs. It is true that if I did so, anyone on > this list could describe possible horrible consequences. > Is this a good argument against my position? I would say not, > because: > > 1) Someone who plans to use nuclear bombs against people isn't > going to be too concerned about legalities. Maybe, but as you say, in response to , "many governments ARE individuals." Every government which possesses (or wishes to possess) nuclear weapons plans to use them against people. Yet these same governments have also sought to LIMIT the spread of nuclear weapons. Not the fact that Colonel Gadhafi of Libya has not yet renounced the Non-Proliferation Treaty--there is evidently benefit to be gained from being concerned with legalities. > 3) In the future it is likely that nuclear bombs will become > cheaper to build, thanks to a general worldwide increase in > wealth and in efficiency. Once this happens, it is likely > that anyone who wants one can get one, whether or not they are > legal. Since 1945, the USA has certainly gotten more wealthy. Yet, nuclear bombs have not cost much less in the intervening time. The only reason it doesn't take a Manhattan Peroject for every 3 devices anymore is because of economies of scale. It is still very expensive for a very efficient country (South Korea, Taiwan) to build even the most backward device. Legality has little to do with it; the supply of plutonium and disincentives provided by the superpowers has more to do with it. > 4) By the null hypothesis, it is ok for governments to have nuclear > bombs. Are you really any more comfortable with the idea of > Libya and Lebanon and Iran having them than you are with the > idea of IBM and AT&T having them? Personally, I would much > prefer GM and RCA to have them rather than Russia and China. ....and HOW would RCA's and GM's possession of nuclear weapons in the place of the USSR or the PRC help create a stable polictal system? Think of how many times the USA thought about using nuclear wepaons, only to be discouraged by the thought of Soviet retaliation. I don't want Libya or Iran to have nuclear bombs (or worse yet, missiles), but they at least have more REASON to possess them than ANY transnational corporation. > 5) If the world were to adopt a libertarian system, everyone would > become much more wealthy. ...sure, and if the world were to become socialist, there would be absolutely no class differences. But seriously, how is your average nomadic Sahel inhabitant going to become more wealthy? This sounds distinctly like self-parody. > No, I don't see any way out of the current nuclear dilemma, with > or without adoption of a libertarian system. I don't think it is > fair that this be held against me unless YOU can come up with some > way out of the nuclear dilemma. Arms control agreements with the > Soviet Unionwon't do it, since there are several other countries > with nuclear weapons, and since there will likely be several more > soon. No one else will ever sign an arms control accord? Recall the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which most of the world has signed, and the Antarctic Treaty. You're right, then, arms control agreements with the Soviet Union will never do it. What is needed, for one, is multilateral arms REDUCTION. > Do you really think that Qadaffi and > Khomenei are more trustworthy than ANY INDIVIDUAL in the US? I can think of several people whom I trust less than Khomenei or Gadhafi. What makes Americans so damn trustworthy, anyway? In a separate entry, he writes: > Any country whose inhabitants won't defend it except when coerced > is not worthy of being defended. Strange. If you don't need to defend your country (you are not at war), a strong case can be made for not having a draft. You seem to be advocating a mandatory draft, especially for young men (perhaps you want women also to serve). This sounds like rather a waste of money (recall Japan's booming economy and the rather small portion of gdp spent on defense) (also recall official American urging of Japan to spend more on defense and thereby have less to subsidize the economy with). > (pick the wrong time [to re-arm], and you spend big bucks on > weapons that will be obsolete when you need them). > > Wrong. Since the most important purpose of defense is > deterrence, a weapon that never needs to be used is the most > successful weapon of all. There is no wrong time to re-arm. > People won't pick fights with us if they know we can blow them > away. We are paying for peace, not for war. And if there is a > war, we are paying for its shortness and painlessness. This can > only be done by always being prepared for a long and painful war. There sure IS a wrong time--and a wrong way--to re-arm. We can blow Libya 10 times to Kingdom Come, but they still pick fights with us, mostly because we're stupid enough to fight back. We don't plan to blow them away unless we have to, but we still manage to play their game. How is a nuclear war, fought with 19,000 strategic and possibly 31,000 tactical nuclear weapons "painless". It might be short, but its effects would certainly last a long time. Also, look at how we are "re-arming". We are NOT re-arming to deter, because we plan nuclear weapons that are far too accurate to be used in a mere retaliatory capacity (otherwise we would not have replaced their predecessors). Here is a sample list: MX (100 meter CEP), Midgetman (ditto), Standard-2 Nuclear, Tomohawk GLCM (20m CEP), Pershing II IRBM, Trident D-5 SLBM, ASWSOW... Sounds like we are planning a long, painful war without increasing any deterrent ability. -------