Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 5/3/83; site ukc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!ncg
From: ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: World War III. Part 1 (of how many parts?)
Message-ID: <4819@ukc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 11:29:01 EST
Article-I.D.: ukc.4819
Posted: Mon Feb  4 11:29:01 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 08:46:22 EST
References: <3364@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: ncg@ukc.UUCP Nigel Gale
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Kent at Canterbury, UK
Lines: 34
Summary: 



The principle behind Nuclear Deterence is:
to display the willingness (whether it is a real willingness or not)
 to use nuclear weapons in response to infringement of certain
 critical national interests, such as national boundaries,
 lives, freedoms etc, in order to deter any potential aggressor
 from such actions.


The principle behind (unilateral?) nuclear disarmament is:
that deterence is ineffective because:
    a) Conventional war is no longer economically viable, and
the gains to any aggressor's leader are far outweighed by the
losses, and also the possibility of assassination, and cost
of governing any conquests.
    b) Even if a potential aggressor is willing to take on the
costs & risks of war, the use of Nuclear weapons is so self-
destructive as to be lunatic, so he would not believe that they
would be used anyway.
And, given that deterence is ineffective, it is provocative
(harming international relations), it is costly, and it is
dangerous (especially if the hardware is programmed in a non-
verifiable language, such as ADA).


I welcome correction on any point.
Myself, I favour Universal Peace, and Happiness.
But I wonder whether it is attainable.


			Nigel Gale.