Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!lmaher
From: lmaher@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Causes of war
Message-ID: <2200078@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Oct-84 03:23:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.2200078
Posted: Tue Oct 23 03:23:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 02:53:48 EDT
References: <542@pucc-i.UUCP>
Lines: 29
Nf-ID: #R:pucc-i:-54200:uokvax:2200078:000:1282
Nf-From: uokvax!lmaher    Oct 23 02:23:00 1984

> /***** uokvax:net.flame / cholula!tac /  1:32 am  Oct  5, 1984 */
> 
>        ** THERE IS NO CASE IN HISTORY WHERE ONE COUNTRY ATTACKED **
>        ** ANOTHER WHEN THEY DID NOT THINK THAT THEY COULD WIN!   **
> 
> The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that to insure peace
> you must make certain that all sides KNOW that they would loose a
> war if it started!  Now, since all of the people who are
> advocating disarmament as means of insuring peace agree that no
> one could win a nuclear war, they have already admitted that the
> best form of keeping peace is to insure parity in arms.

At last someone who gets it right! Note that this basic idea,
which seems obvious once revealed, is the cornerstone of the
Balance of Power theory of International Relations.  (Please note
that 'Balance' is used with several different meanings in IntRel
studies - in this case I'd suggest it is used to mean 'Distribution.')

In our international relations course we studied the various
stable and unstable configurations of Power Distribution, as well
as two other power arrangements: World Government and Collective
Security (not what the pol-hacks mean by when they refer to
NATO).

If anyone's interested I could post a summary.

Carl
{allegra,ihnp4}!convex!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher