Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!bellcore!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Euromissiles in Belgium (please bear with us...)
Message-ID: <519@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Feb-85 10:36:58 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.519
Posted: Wed Feb  6 10:36:58 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 09:29:47 EST
References: <258@usl.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 106

">>" & " " me ; ">" = Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos 

>>If this is your position, how then would you answer these questions?
>>
>>	(1) If the people change their minds, does the national
>>		interest change with it? 

>People have the right to change their minds. Then, if enough public
>pressure can be put on the government, the subject can be brought up
>on a PUBLIC, NATIONAL vote (not a Gallup poll).

Agreed.  But my point was that national interest is not as volatile
as national desire, and thus the two are distinct.

>>	(2) If the people desire something morally wrong, does the
>>		national interest demand immorality?
>>	(3) If the people desire something patently stupid, does the
>>		fulfillment of that desire advance the national interest?
>>	(4) (For fans of self-reference): If the people should decide
>>		to terminate their nationhood, does national interest
>>		demand its own destruction?

>See net.philosophy or something more poetic. How did you derive all these??

You had asserted that the national desire IS the national interest; I
am attempting to explore what appear to be contradictions arising from
such an assertion.

>> The implication that it is the right wing exclusively which favors the
>> deployment of the cruise missiles is false. 
>> ........
>> why haven't the governments taken the politcally popular action which they
>> themselves have no qualms about?  

>All antimissile supporters are viewed as extermists in Europe, 
>something more of a novelty... Also, you forget the political and
>economic pressure put on to European countries, and the fear of Pierre 
>L'Average or Hans Averagen (Our Joe Averages) of another war.
>They fear the Red Bear and instead of uniting they join forces UNDER NATO.

If all antimissile supporters are viewed as extremists, than the
claim of national desire for non-deployment cannot hold.  However, this
is not the issue I was arguing.  I am willing to grant, for the sake of
argument, that the European electorates favor/oppose the deployment of
the missiles.  It is my thesis that it remains in the interests of the
Western Europe (as a whole, though smaller states may seek a free ride
on security) to deploy them.

>> To be quite frank, the deployment of the Euromissiles 
>> decreases the chance that the US could successfully limit a war to Europe...
 
>How did you get this? The current trend is "Limited Nuclear War" which could
>wipe out most Europe (east and west) before Uncles Sam & Ivan even notice it.
>How can the chances be decreased?? By putting more oil in the fire or by
>mutual threat  caused by excessive arms buildup.   

Ivan is not likely to turn the other cheek if US intermediate range
missiles were to begin landing in European portions of the Soviet
Union.  Were there only French and/or British missiles so landing,
Uncle Sam could realistically expect Ivan not to retaliate against
North America.  Thus, the deployment of US intermediate range missiles
in Europe decreases the chance of a nuclear war being "limited" 
(cf. "linkage").

>As about the biased attitude caused by my origin, I HAVE LIVED there, 
>I HAVE SEEN how MY people think about it, and, after all, it is MY country.
>What do you know about Greeks' opinions? As much as I know about US opinions.
>And, I did not disqualify you, unless you consider you already know more
>than me about Greece, Italy, their people, lifes and opinions....

I don't claim equal knowledge of Greek and Italian attitudes.
However, I assert that discussion of Greek and Italian interests does
not require such detailed knowledge, and to assert otherwise is to beg
the issues of what does constitute their national interests.  The
latter should be arrived at through rational discourse, not an opinion
poll.  My objection was to having my carefully reasoned arguments
dismissed, not by analysis or evidence, but by an argument which ran
something like "Greeks know what is best for Greece, you are not
Greek, therefore you cannot know what is best for Greece."  The major
premise requires a positive faith in the wisdom of the electorate
which I do not possess.

>Let's face it. The missiles will be put there. European countries will
>have to accept it due to inside and outside pressure. Then, why are 
>we flaming each other?  

You have not flamed me in any way, and I apologize if I wrote in a way
as to make you feel the need for asbestos.  Politics demands both
passion (i.e. to care what happens) and dispassion (i.e. to see the
world as it is).  I am strongly opinionated, and will choose forceful
wordings for my arguments; I have not been insulting.  In short, I
didn't know we were flaming...

The missiles (probably) will be installed pretty much in the numbers
planned.  However, the pressure from both the US and the USSR, from
the electorate and the defense establishments, would have mattered
little had not the interests of Western Europe demanded some strengthening
of the linkage of US and European defenses in response to the Soviets'
build-up.

>-- Spiros Triantafyllopoulos         /*  In  the  deaf  man's   door,
>-- USL Computer Science Dept.            there is a bell with a light  */
>-- {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!sigma           -- Old  Greek Proverb ---

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david