Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!plunkett From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: World War III. Part 1 (of how many parts?) Message-ID: <434@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 16:43:20 EST Article-I.D.: rlgvax.434 Posted: Thu Feb 7 16:43:20 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 05:24:50 EST References: <3364@alice.UUCP> <4819@ukc.UUCP> Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 42 > From Nigel Gale: > 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...in order to deter any potential aggressor No doubt the Soviets expend some considerable resources analyzing the resolve of the American nuclear deterence. If it is a facade then it is useless. Deterence of any sort is effective in direct proportion to it's sincerity. In other words, it isn't a bluff. > 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. Four premises here, all of them wrong. (1) Conventional warfare is quite "economical" as demonstrated by the Soviets piece-meal conquest of the world, exampled currently in Afghanistan, Central America, Africa. They do this because they have to, and because it works. (2) "Gains are outweighed by the losses:" point 1 refutes this, and on the larger scale it is merely problematical. Soviet analysts are not nearly so categorical as you; they are far more optimistic. (3) Assassination is not a problem; the flu is. (4) The cost of governing is refuted by point 1 also. If you are thinking the USSR is hurting over Afghanistan, you are almost certainly mistaken. Even conceding immediate losses may adversely affect Soviet capability, there is such a thing a strategy and amortization that takes care of today's pain. > 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. This is by no means certain, having never happened. I would not recommend relying on this being the conventional wisdom in the Politburo. ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett