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