Aucbvax.1467
fa.arms-d
utzoo!duke!mhtsa!ucbvax!RMS@MIT-AI
Sun May 31 22:58:07 1981
My reply to Upstill
RMS@MIT-AI 06/01/81 01:50:13 Re: My reply to Upstill
To: arms-d at MIT-MC
Since many people are interested in seeing it,
and Upstill suggests that I publish it, here it is.
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.
It is a fact that I have often heard such disaster-descriptions in the
contexts of arguments against particular weapons systems, or for
particular policies (such as arms-control treaties or unilateral disarmament).
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.
The reason I consider argument on the subject irrelevant is that I am
willing to concede that point!
I agree that if Boston gets hit by a nuclear weapon, it's a disaster,
and that I want a strategic policy that will prevent that somehow.
Once I agree with this, there's no point in beating the dead horse.
What we don't agree on is, what's the best way to prevent it. That is
a separate question. Agreeing that it should be prevented does not
mean I have to agree with you on how. I encourage you to defend your
position on how to do it, but you can't do that merely by reiterating the
claim that it needs to be prevented.
If people want to discuss the question of damage from nuclear weapons
for other reasons, that's fine. I'm not saying people should stop the
discussion. Just that it doesn't have much consequences for the
argument about what US policies should be.
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'm not advocating a partial strike against Russia.
I am willing to consider the idea of a Russian partial strike against US.
I want to consider it, because I want to discourage that TOO.
I don't want the Russians to be in a position to conquer us by means
of a partial strike. Would you rather just ignore the possibility?
It seems that you are saying that anyone either gets ill thinking
about the possibility, or else is a son of a bitch. In that case, the
only people who will keep their wits enough to take effective action to
discourage or prevent such an attack are the sons of bitches.
Given the assumptions
hawks operate on (of a monolithic, intractable Soviet menace, and of
a two-alternative--buildup or capitulate--game)
Are the hawks being mentioned intended to include me? This
two-alternative idea is one of the things I called a straw man. There
are some hawks who oversimplify in this way, but I made it clear I was not
one of them. Yet, I get the feeling that you think you are arguing
against me here.
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.
I am definitely interested in any alternative that would work:
prevent nuclear war, and prevent Russian conquest of the world.
I don't know of any method that seems really likely to work, and I am
scared. However, I would be a fool to let that fear make me do
anything but pick the method that seems most likely to work. Picking
any other would be making things worse.
We ought to look for other ways out, but not desperately; because if
we look desperately, we will jump at a path that doesn't really lead
out and screw ourselves completely. Appealing to the decency of human
nature works with decent people such as tourists on ITS, but it
doesn't work with professional backstabbers like the rulers of Russia.
...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.
You will have to say what you mean more directly. I can only guess.
If you are referring to "do not seem adequate", what I mean is that
it seems that the Russians might be able to conquer us with a partial
strike followed by a threat to destroy our cities if we don't
surrender. I would like to prevent this from happening.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
