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