Aucbvax.1446
fa.arms-d
utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!CSVAX.upstill@Berkeley
Fri May 29 17:20:39 1981
'deterrence' strategy
I'd like to make a few comments on some of the thoughts coming from RMS.

       Time and time again I hear proponents of disarmament lavishly describe
       the disasters that would result from a nuclear attack against our
       population centers, as if this were a valid argument against whatever
       weapons system they are opposing at the moment.

RMS is assuming here that disarmaments advocates are attacking particular
weapons systems.  This shows the kind of myopia that prevents people like RMS
from realizing that the problem is not of any particular weapons system, or
even any particular country, but of the phenomenon of arms races in general.
Since RMS is so fond of straw men, I thought (s)he might appreciate this.

       So gory descriptions such as the ones Kosta Tsipis and his friends
       like to give are beside the point for me.

I hope it's not too cynical to say I'm not surprised. It's hard for me
to believe that anyone who has made a serious attempt to grasp
the scale of nuclear destruction would find it irrelevant to discussions
of the issue.  To me, if you can mention the idea of partial strikes or
"small numbers" of cities being wasted without becoming physically ill,
there are two possibilities:  Either you don't know what you're talking about,
or you're one sick son of a bitch.  But RMS and the like-minded seem to find
such points to be impolite, irrelevant, or (God forbid) irrational.
 I actually sympathize with them, because it is very difficult to
admit that in this case, rationality HAS FAILED.  Given the assumptions
hawks operate on (of a monolithic, intractable Soviet menace, and of
a two-alternative--buildup or capitulate--game) I cannot find a singe
hole in the argument (although I don't claim to be well read).  But the
fact that it is rational doesn't make it any less mad.  How can you call
it otherwise when you think of the tiny fraction of the Russian arsenal
it would take to kill more Americans than in all other wars?  How can
you call it otherwise when a significant majority of the people expect a
nuclear war in their lifetime? What else are you going to call it after
a few cursory thoughts on the number and probability of the glitches
that can set off a nuclear conflict?  I suppose the answer is "Well that's
just the way it's got to be."
Well, that's NOT that way it's GOT to be.  Sure, you can rationalize a
particular position in the game and make an airtight case for it.
But the central realization that needs to be made is that the game is wrong!
And not until people realize the nature
of the game that they are playing will they make that transcendent leap.
  Phillip Berrigan said it very well: the second biggest problem is that
the world's finest minds are not working on the worlds biggest problem."
Come on, RMS: tell me WHY this should be true, and WHY you know there
is NO other alternative, and WHY you are not scared shitless enough to
look desperately for another way out.

       ...since our current systems do not seem adequate,
       we would still need to build new ones though at the same time we
       could scrap some existing ones.

I couldn't resist including this one.  The implication it embodies speaks for
itself.  Sorry if it's another straw man.

--Steve


-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <[email protected]>
of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/


This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.