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