Aucbvax.1473
fa.arms-d
utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!CSVAX.upstill@Berkeley
Mon Jun  1 14:02:22 1981
..the debate goes on (RMS RESponds)

..this is RMS latest statement on the arms race.  I would like to use
it to raise an issue.

       From: Richard M. Stallman <RMS AT MIT-AI>
       To: CSVAX.upstill at BERKELEY

       I don't believe it is possible to "transcend the game" because I don't
       believe that the game is only in our minds.  It is in the Russian
       minds, too, and in their possible and actual deeds.  I believe that if
       the Russians wanted to transcend the game, then we would already have
       done so, in the form of arms control treaties.  I'd be happy with
       that.  The reason we have not is, in my opinion, that the Russians
       want to make us surrender; they don't want to get out of this game,
       they want to win it.

       In other words, I'd go along with sincere mutual arms control or
       disarmament, but not unilateral.  If you can convince the Russians to
       agree with this, then we can get out of the game.  (I believe that
       enough US officials would go along, already).

       I don't believe that any change in perception on our part can alter
       the facts of what the Russians are doing, or their motivation.
       A perceptual change on the Russian part might do it.
       International pressure is not enough.  If I were president, I wouldn't
       allow ANY international pressure to move me to let the US be in a
       position for the Russians to win with a first strike.  The effects of
       the international pressure couldn't possibly be as bad as the effects
       of the Russian first strike and their subsequent conquest of the
       world.

       Your conclusions about where the game is going may be true.  I'd agree
       with them, if only offensive weapons improvements were in the works.
       However, even if they are true, that doesn't mean that there is any
       way out of the game!  We may really be in a bad situation, but the
       game is telling us how to make the best of it, and if we ignore the
       game, we'll just get something even worse.  However, I'm not convinced
       that the game is going downhill.  Defensive weapons changes, such as
       making missiles mobile without changing their numbers or offensive
       power, can make both sides safer.

       I think you are making a mistaken assumption about your opponents when
       you say that the object of the game is to be able to hit the enemy
       hardest.  Again, there may be some hawks who want that, but I know
       there are a lot of people, including me, who do not consider that
       threatening the Russians with more weapons is the goal.  My goal is to
       make sure the Russians do not expect to be able to conquer us.  This
       doesn't mean we have to have more of anything than they do.  There
       could be a stable situation in which the defense had the advantage,
       and we could be sure of deterring an attack with a smaller force than
       they had.  That would be fine with me.  But getting to this situation
       requires building new (defensive) weapons systems.

       At the moment, if we try to get out of the game ourselves, we can only
       do so by surrendering.  I don't want to do that.  I'd rather take a
       risk of ending human life, if I gain some chance of preserving human
       life with liberty too (if we succeed in deterring a war).
       Surrendering preserves human life only, without liberty; and I in
       particular would be killed because the tyrants would not like me.
       Stalin killed many millions of Russians.  Nuclear war isn't the only
       form of mass-murder that we have to worry about.


e

  The issue this raises seems to be the one that underlies all discussions
of arms control: that is, the intentions/reliability of the Soviets.  While
I have copious thoughts on that myself, for now I'd just like to raise the
double question: 1)  Is the Soviet Union the monolithic, intractable
menace it is popularly imagined to be, and (possibly more importantly)
2) Since it is hard to foresee a national consensus on 1), is it necessary
to deal with this question in trying to envision a way out of the mess
we are in?  That is, is it possible to envision real reversal of the arms
race in the absence of sincere Russian cooperation?
  Have at it, folks.

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.

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.quux.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.