Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!gjk
From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: World War III
Message-ID: <268@talcott.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Feb-85 12:50:52 EST
Article-I.D.: talcott.268
Posted: Sat Feb  2 12:50:52 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 05:59:51 EST
References: <3329@alice.UUCP> <721@erix.UUCP>
Organization: Harvard
Lines: 45

> I think the USA is more likely to start WWIII than the USSR. That doesn't
> mean that I don't think the USA is a better place than the USSR. I infinitely
> prefer the USA.

The answer to the hypothetical question is much more complicated than that.
Although the USSR may be less likely to launch the first nuke deliberately,
they may be more likely to launch it accidentally, because their
safety-control is in general inferior to ours.  If we had one Pershing
missile that went up in flames, a large percentage of their whole Navy was
destroyed by a huge conventional explosion not too long ago.  The question
is, will nuclear war be started deliberately or by a technical failure?

Even if we are the first to use the weapons, they are the first to strike.
Having had so many terrible previous wars, they know that war is
unpredictable and will make no attempt whatsoever to control it.  While the
doves in our government think that nuclear war is unthinkable and
unwinnable, and the hawks think that it is neither unthinkable nor
unwinnable, the Soviets think that it is unthinkable and yet winnable.  So
if we drop one nuke on their invading forces, and to counter they drop three
hundred nukes on our cities, who started World War III?

> On the other hand, the old film star leading the USA has the experience from
> films that the hero always wins. In WWIII there will be no winners and life 
> will not be very pleasant for the survivors (if any).

If we start a nuclear war, it will probably be with our tactical forces in
Europe, which are under control of the Army.  Reagan will probably not make
the decision.

> The only thing we can do is to educate the people of the West (including
> presidents prime ministers etc) as to what nuclear war would really mean.
...
> Mike Williams

This is very worthwhile.  It is, however, not the only think that we can
do.  It is worthwhile to remove our tactical nuclear weapons.  It is
worthwhile to have skilled diplomats who understand the Russians.  It would
also be worthwhile to convince the Russian leadership that we do not wish
to invade the Soviet Union, but this is at the moment not under our
control.
---
			Greg Kuperberg
		     harvard!talcott!gjk

"Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn