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.