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