Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watcgl!jchapman From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: re: disarmament, peace movements, non-nuclear defense Message-ID: <2130@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 13:26:18 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.2130 Posted: Fri Jun 28 13:26:18 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 01:17:33 EDT References: <2087@watcgl.UUCP> <5729@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 163 > > Nonsense. Surrender would be the only rational course ONLY if it were true > > that the only effective defense was/is a massive nuclear umbrella and a > > burgeoning arms race. ... > > I was using the arithmetic of the original article: if the "badness" of > nuclear war is infinity, then any chance, however minute, of incurring it > is sufficient reason to disallow an action. The *only* criterion that is > valid for making decisions, then, is minimizing the probability of war. ^^^ I repeat : nonsense. WHat you say is only true if the only effective defense is a burgeoning nuclear umbrella. You slip from talking about nuclear to war in general. Please read what I am saying not what you think I am saying. As I said in an earlier article: are you prepared to say that our present (nuclear) system is the only viable defense; if so then please defend that position. I think a credible defense can be made without relying on a system which is virtually guaranteed to end life on earth if it is ever used (intentionally or otherwise); in which case the penalty is not infinite (although hopefully to be avoided as well) and surrender is then not the only logical conclusion. > Nothing else matters. Surrendering at once clearly minimizes the chance > of war, if for no other reason than because it is *quicker* and more > certain than, say, negotiated disarmament. > > If, on the other hand, you believe that the badness of nuclear war is > very large but not infinite, then tradeoffs become possible. *Then*, > and only then, is it reasonable to consider disarmament as a viable > alternative to surrender. Please do your calculations consistently, and > don't introduce infinite quantities unless you are prepared to take the > consequences. > > > Well lets at least use the correct numbers Henry; that was the Vancouver > > peace march so compare it to the (approx.) population of two million in > > the lower mainland rather than twenty five million. Sounds like a > > large turnout for a Canadian city to me. > > I agree that it's an impressive turnout. But this does not invalidate > my original argument: since the bulk of the population has not risen > in open revolt against current policies, clearly most people think some > risk of nuclear war is acceptable in order to preserve other things > (domestic order, elected government, freedom from Soviet domination, > the peace and quiet of their lunch hour, whatever). You are the one saying > that nuclear war is so overwhelming that nothing else matters; clearly > most of those two million don't agree. I reiterate previous statements: you can't expect half the population to suddenly stand up and engage in protest; these movements build over time. Dismissing them because they do yet number >50% seems pointless. Rather than ascribing the nonparticipation of the bulk of the population to an acceptance of the risk of nuclear war (I have never seen any evidence which would support that conclusion) why not put it down to most people not yet being convinced that they can have an effect? Ten years ago most of the peace movement could handily be dismissed as fringe elements; given the number of lawyers, doctors, teachers, clergy (and numerous representatives of what are usually considered "respectable" groups/organizations/affiliations) it is not so easy to dismiss. Large groups generally require leadership and the peace movement continues to gain members from what are usually considered those groups which give leadership and guidance to the "masses" so perhaps it won't be that long before you see the bulk of the population doing the same. There are also people who while not cosidering themselves peace activists per se are definitely for nuclear disaramament/control - included here are generals and admirals of western forces. > > > Why not help it along instead > > of casually dismissing it - these people are at least trying to change > > things. > > There are two important questions here: (a) what is their chance of > getting results, and (b) are they trying for the right sort of changes? > I am doubtful of the former, and cannot answer the latter because the > anti-nuclear-weapon movement seems to have no clear consensus on the > details of what should be done. > > > >> > > Then presumably you see the necessity for nuclear disarmament. > > I see the necessity for changing the situation in such a way that the > actions of leaders cannot trigger global catastrophe. It is not obvious > to me that disarmament is the right way to do this, if only because I am > not at all confident that it can be done. > > > > > > > Really? While I might not agree with a lot of the policies of prior > > U.S. presidents at least they seemed to have c reasoning abilities > > and most of them were fairly well informed. I don't think you could > > make the same case about Reagan. It is also my impression that most > > other U.S. presidents were able to stay awake during meetings :-) . > > Note "in this regard": I was discussing the willingness of presidents > to surrender rather than destroy the biosphere (which I assess as zero > for almost any president), not their general skill and competence. I also > suspect that Reagan gets more bad press than he deserves -- other recent > presidents have not been saints -- although I agree that some of it is > certainly justified. Yes but it requires some reasoning ability and information to determine that things (would) have deteriorated to that point - where that is the actual decision to be made. I contend that Reagan is less likely to be able to determine when that is *not* the case and needlessly trigger a nuclear confrontation (as compared to most of his predecessors). > > > > > > > > > This is not a valid comparision. The Afghan situation is a very large > > country suppressing a very small country. The original article was > > talking about the USSR suppressing the entire west; quite a different > > ball game. > > Then how about the USSR suppressing all of Eastern Europe, and a good bit > of Asia (a fair bit of the USSR itself is effectively conquered territory)? > Or Nazi Germany suppressing essentially all of Europe? (The Nazis were > dislodged by external invasion, not by the Resistance movements.) Most > conquered people don't resist; those who do, don't all rise up at the same > instant. Afghanistan is a pretty fair comparison, because pretty near the > whole nation is up in arms or effectively supporting those who are. So far, > no important result. > Again this is not the same thing as the USSR facing a fully (conventionally) armed US. Even if the entire population of Afghanistan resisted they still wouldn't have the arms or the knowhow to resist the USSR or the virtually limitless (in comparison) number of troops to "expend". It is however probably worth noting that it is costing the USSR a lot more to be there than the Afghanis(sp?). They just don't have the resources to take over the entire world and probably not even the US alone. > > <> ... many of the smaller nations are now deciding that > > <> they should bring whatever pressure they can to bear on the US/USSR. > > < > > > > > > I suppose it depends on your definition of pressure. How about Trudeau's > > (and therefore Canada's) peace initiative - it was asking *both* sides > > to do something. You might also check UN votes... > > "Pressure" means attempting to apply leverage, not just pleading with people > to please play nice. The recent fuss with Australia and New Zealand is a > good example of putting pressure on the US. How many comparable cases are > there for the Soviet Union? I count none. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > I would count it as pressure when countries that supply you with basic foodstuffs (since you don't have enough to feed you own population) ask you to be a little more cooperative. Pressure does not have to be either blatant or military. Even the Soviets respond to world opinion. John Chapman