Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: re: disarmament, peace movements, non-nuclear defense
Message-ID: <5729@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 14:46:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5729
Posted: Tue Jun 25 14:46:05 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 14:46:05 EDT
References: <2087@watcgl.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 105
> 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.
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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
> <> ... 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
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry