Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!plunkett
From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: World War III. Part 1 (of how many parts?)
Message-ID: <434@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 16:43:20 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.434
Posted: Thu Feb  7 16:43:20 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 05:24:50 EST
References: <3364@alice.UUCP> <4819@ukc.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 42

> From	Nigel Gale:
> The principle behind Nuclear Deterence is:
> to display the willingness (whether it is a real willingness or not)
>  to use nuclear weapons in response to infringement of certain
>  critical national interests...in order to deter any potential aggressor

No doubt the Soviets expend some considerable resources analyzing
the resolve of the American nuclear deterence.  If it is a facade
then it is useless.  Deterence of any sort is effective in direct
proportion to it's sincerity.  In other words, it isn't a bluff.

> 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.

Four premises here, all of them wrong.  (1) Conventional warfare
is quite "economical" as demonstrated by the Soviets piece-meal
conquest of the world, exampled currently in Afghanistan,
Central America,  Africa.  They do this because they have to, and
because it works.  (2) "Gains are outweighed by the losses:" point
1 refutes this, and on the larger scale it is merely problematical.
Soviet analysts are not nearly so categorical as you; they are far
more optimistic. (3) Assassination is not a problem; the flu is.
(4) The cost of governing is refuted by point 1 also.  If you are
thinking the USSR is hurting over Afghanistan, you are almost
certainly mistaken. Even conceding immediate losses may adversely
affect Soviet capability, there is such a thing a strategy and
amortization that takes care of today's pain.

>     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.

This is by no means certain, having never happened.  I would not
recommend relying on this being the conventional wisdom in the
Politburo.

..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett