Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcrvx2!jimr
From: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Nuclear Defense [sic]
Message-ID: <2596@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Dec-86 14:23:32 EST
Article-I.D.: hcrvx2.2596
Posted: Tue Dec 23 14:23:32 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Dec-86 23:56:35 EST
References: <271@van-bc.UUCP> <739@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Distribution: can
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 98
Summary: 

In article <739@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>
>     Since you've now changed the subject to the so-called Nuclear
>Defense, note that the most notable thing about said Defense is that
>if it even came close to being used, either the populace would rise
>up against its use, or they wouldn't and the entirety of Western
>civilization [since we're using the American spellings here] would 
>get blown away.

First off, the Soviet populace would probably find out about the
large scale use of nuclear weapons after the fact, if at all. 
Secondly, even if by some miracle they did find out I can't imagine
them revolting. The Soviet government has such a tight reign on these people
that even if they wanted to revolt (which is doubtful) it would be
a short revolt indeed - the Soviet people know this and would probably
act accordingly. And lastly, given the situation that the pacifists so 
deeply desire, i.e. a non-nuclear West, it would be no more necessary to end 
"the entirety of Western civilization" than it was necessary for the
US to end the entirety of Japanese life. A limited number of strategically
placed nukes should be able to ensure the West's defeat *without* 
turning the West (and everywhere else) into a nuclear wasteland.
Just for good measure the Soviets could use neutron bombs where
appropriate, and voila - no long lasting radioactivity.

>
>     Thus the Nuclear Defense is a massive waste of resources, since
>we have more of it than we could possibly use in the first place.
>The two superpowers should try to get away from it as much as
>possible, and no more world powers should try to get into it.
>However, for forty years either one side or the other, or both,
>has been unwilling to stop the ridiculous buildup by seriously
>negotiating for even MUTUAL disarmament.  This is the main problem
>here.

I agree.

>     Whether or not Canada gets the NukeDef, if it ever gets used
>we'll all be blown away anyway.  The best thing Canada could do
>right now is to build up conventional civil defense, refuse to do
>anything more with nukes, and try to put some real effort into
>negotiating disarmament between the US and the USSR.

Canada would have zero leverage with the US if it was to unconditionally
have nothing to do with nukes. What *may* make sense is for Canada and
the other NATO members to demand a bigger say in the US's nuclear policy
as a condition of their continued membership in NATO and/or their 
continued support of nuclear weapons. E.g. we'll deploy your missiles
if you sit down and bargain with the Russians in good faith (and find
out if Gorby is serious about disarmament or just trying to score
propaganda points). Unconditionally pulling out of the "game" accomplishes
nothing and perhaps just hardens the US's resolve. Pulling out because
*reasonable* suggestions/demands were not accepted is another thing 
altogether.

>> ... to
>>keep the Eastern Bloc out of Europe. The problem is we don't want to spend
>>enormous amounts of money putting a large army into Europe. The result
>>is the use of the Nuclear defense. 
>
>     Endanger the future of life on the planet for cost-effectiveness.
>Sounds just like the military mentality.

Actually, it sounds like the civilian mentality. Increasing regular
forces as noted above would cost a bundle. Can you seriously see
Brian (or John or Ed) advocating a tax increase to finance a bigger
Canadian armed forces. The Canadian public wants nifty social programs,
not big armies; until they realize that "eternal vigilance is the
price of freedom" (hope I got that right) they'll just keep their 
heads buried in the sand w.r.t. military spending and their hands
out for more and more goodies. Given the self-serving nature of
99% of politicians, I would hardly expect any of them to take
any other course of action than the most cost-effective - with the
public's implicit blessing.

One of the arguments against Star Wars is that the Soviets would,
quite understandably, not allow themselves to be put in the position
of inferiority that would result. Something to do with the Soviets
not trusting the US's intentions, I believe. Yet, by some perverse
twist of logic it is perfectly acceptable for the West to put itself
in such a position of extreme inferiority, if one listens to the 
unilateralists.  Or perhaps I got this wrong - maybe the unilateralists
support a 100% effective Star Wars (a feat of engineering that, admittedly,
seems as likely as me sprouting  wings), since it would achieve their goal
of effecting unilateral nuclear disarmament of one of the super powers.

Someone previously said something along the lines that the likelihood
of a nuclear war would be greatly reduced if the West unilaterally
disarmed. I agree. What this person did *not* say is that (like
Star Wars) such a policy would have an extremely destabilizing
effect that would probably be too great a temptation for the
hawks in the Kremlin to resist (or is the US the only country that
has hawks?). And, with the nuclear ace in the hole they could most
likely achieve all of their objectives with only conventional forces.
Let's see ..... the "reunification" of Germany might be a good place
to start, eh comrade?

J.B. Robinson