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!watnot!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: re: disarmament, peace movements, non-nuclear defense
Message-ID: <2087@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 10:14:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2087
Posted: Mon Jun 24 10:14:24 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 02:45:36 EDT
Distribution: can
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 154


<>   What would a reasonable probability of nuclear war be? If we include
<>   war precipitated by accidental detonation/launch or phantom attacks
<>   being percieved by "defense" installations as well as actual planned
<>   attacks then perhaps a probability greater than 0.0000000....0000000001
<>   would be resonable.  How about the consequences?  Since we are talking
<>   about what would very likely be the complete anihilation  of all life
<>   on earth I think a value of infinity would be appropriate.

 > As witness the lack of popular revolt against the current situation (the
<> > anti-nuclear marchers are numerically insignificant against the population
<> > of the nations involved), most people are willing to take a (perceived)
<> 
<>  What do you consider insignificant? Polls indicate more than half of
<>  the canadian public does not want cruise testing in canada. Anywhere
<>  from 50,000 to 80,000 people (depending on whose estimates you want
<>  to believe) were in the last vancouver peace march ( I know that this
<>  is insignificant compared to the US/USSR populations but it is large
<>  for Canada and we do participate in the nuclear arms race in one
<>  way or another).
<
<50,000-80,000 *is* insignificant in a population of 25,000,000, dammit!
   Are you really that confident that Ron would rather give in to the
<>   soviets than commit global holocaust.  Are you also sure that a war
<>   will not be started by mechanical/electronic/human-judgement error?
<
 > As for the temporary nature of Soviet domination, when "temporary" is
<> > defined as centuries, it's permanent as far as most folks are concerned.
<> > -- 
<>   Well as far as I personally/physically am concerned it is permanent
<>   too.  However from a racial perspective it is but the bat of an eye
<>   whereas nuclear war is the end.  Making decisions and promoting
<>   behaviour whose beneficial consequences will not be experienced for
<>   extremely long periods is, I hope, not completely foreign to the
<>   human race.
<
 to hold down a population for very long. Not when the whole population is 
<> completely against the idea. 
<
  ... many of the smaller nations are now deciding that
<>  they should bring whatever pressure they can to bear on the US/USSR.
<