Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!david From: david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: World War III. Part 1 (of how many parts?) Message-ID: <2294@randvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 00:57:08 EST Article-I.D.: randvax.2294 Posted: Sat Feb 9 00:57:08 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 06:31:34 EST References: <3364@alice.UUCP> <4819@ukc.UUCP> Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 37 > 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. Funny, that's exactly what many intellectuals in Europe were saying in 1910...right before World War I... > 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. What's "self-destructive" about using nuclear weapons against someone who can't strike back? > 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). First of all, it's "deterrence"...two "r's"...secondly, you haven't established that deterrence is ineffective..in fact, you haven't established anything... > I welcome correction on any point. OK...hope the welcome mat is still out. > Myself, I favour Universal Peace, and Happiness. > But I wonder whether it is attainable. Nigel, I agree with both your hopes and doubts. --- das