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!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emks
From: emks@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Controlling Nuclear Weapons
Message-ID: <5000117@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 22:52:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uokvax.5000117
Posted: Fri Nov 30 22:52:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 04:55:38 EST
References: <354@whuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 66
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-35400:uokvax:5000117:000:3640
Nf-From: uokvax!emks    Nov 30 21:52:00 1984

/***** uokvax:net.politics / whuxl!orb /  7:11 pm  Nov 26, 1984 */
>>             ...  The REAL question, and one that I'be never seen you address
>> in a cool, rational manner, is how best do we prevent such a war from
>> happening...Yeah, universal disarmament would be a gas, but IT JUST AIN'T
>> GONNA HAPPEN, and you're just wasting your breath screaming about it.  
>> 
>> Peace yes, surrender, no...
>> 					    --- das
[Here, here  -ks]

>David,
>1)I have never supported unilateral disarmament, nor does the Nuclear Freeze 
>  As I pointed out in an earlier posting people like RayGuns have made
>  inaccurate arguments that the US "unilaterally disarmed" during the 70's.
>  This is NOT TRUE.  We increased our strategic warheads 2 1/2 times.
>  The Nuclear Freeze calls for BOTH SIDES to stop the arms race- now.
>  It does not call for either side to unilaterally disarm.
>  Do you have a better suggestion for stopping the arms race than stopping
>  the arms race? 
>  I am tired of people who support an arms race arguing that people who
>  want both sides to stop the arms race advocate "unilateral disarmament"

Yeah, Tim.  And I am tired of people who live in a dream world supported by
their own view of a Utopian world and insist that they are right and the
rest of us are [tacitly] unreasonable.  Why do you insist on using such
emotional statements as "[we] call for BOTH SIDES to stop the arms race--now."
First of all, we've heard and heard and heard this.  I think by now we know
what the stated aims of the nuclear freeze movement are.  [BTW, my use of
the phrase "stated aims" is not implying that there are "unstated aims";
it's merely my putting weight on the fact that they're stated.]  It sounds
to me that you're just trying to get the average American "riled up" enough
to say "gee, I don't want any big bad bombs dropping on ME!"  [and Reagan's
folks are the "me" generation??!]  That sort of attitude, which is irrespective
of the politics of the situation, is more dangerous than any policy ever
pursued by this or previous administrations.  This is a REAL world, believe
it or not, and we have to deal with it in a REAL way.  Baloons in Moscow
don't cut it.  They're just a bunch of hot air.

>2)Milo IS arguing that nuclear war would NOT be an unimaginable and 
>  unprecedented catastrophe for the Soviet Union. Somehow Milo thinks they
>  could *win* a nuclear war and would thus be undeterred from waging one.
>  I think that is a very dangerous and untenable position.  It is also untrue.
>  That is why I have continued to point out the horrors of Nuclear War.

Yeah.  Um, I'm kind of curious why you don't think we could fight and win a
nuclear war, Tim?  We already have.  I don't mean that as a trite response.
Instead, I mean that "nuclear war" should not be instantly interpreted as
"total release of NUWEPs," "cleaning out of the arsenals," or a more
layman-ish term "pushing the button."  I'm not necessarily saying that we
SHOULD cross the much-talked-about nuclear threshold, but it doesn't mean
that the entire world would become a flaming cinder that would fall into
the sun or something.  And after reading net.politics for a while, that's
the sort of thing I'd expect would happen!

>3)I think there are many rational proposals that have in fact already been
>  negotiated by past American Presidents--why hasn't Reagan done anything
>  to ratify those agreements?

Unless things have changed, Presidents don't ratify treaties.  I know he
*could* try to muster support on the Hill, but there's very little enthusi-
asm there, too.

>tim sevener  whuxl!orb

		kurt