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