Text File

Aucbvax.1446 fa.arms-d utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!CSVAX.upstill@Berkeley Fri May 29 17:20:39 1981 'deterrence' strategy I'd like to make a few comments on some of the thoughts coming from RMS.

Time and time again I hear proponents of disarmament lavishly describe the disasters that would result from a nuclear attack against our population centers, as if this were a valid argument against whatever weapons system they are opposing at the moment.

RMS is assuming here that disarmaments advocates are attacking particular weapons systems. This shows the kind of myopia that prevents people like RMS from realizing that the problem is not of any particular weapons system, or even any particular country, but of the phenomenon of arms races in general. Since RMS is so fond of straw men, I thought (s)he might appreciate this.

So gory descriptions such as the ones Kosta Tsipis and his friends like to give are beside the point for me.

I hope it's not too cynical to say I'm not surprised. It's hard for me to believe that anyone who has made a serious attempt to grasp the scale of nuclear destruction would find it irrelevant to discussions of the issue. To me, if you can mention the idea of partial strikes or "small numbers" of cities being wasted without becoming physically ill, there are two possibilities: Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're one sick son of a bitch. But RMS and the like-minded seem to find such points to be impolite, irrelevant, or (God forbid) irrational. I actually sympathize with them, because it is very difficult to admit that in this case, rationality HAS FAILED. Given the assumptions hawks operate on (of a monolithic, intractable Soviet menace, and of a two-alternative--buildup or capitulate--game) I cannot find a singe hole in the argument (although I don't claim to be well read). But the fact that it is rational doesn't make it any less mad. How can you call it otherwise when you think of the tiny fraction of the Russian arsenal it would take to kill more Americans than in all other wars? How can you call it otherwise when a significant majority of the people expect a nuclear war in their lifetime? What else are you going to call it after a few cursory thoughts on the number and probability of the glitches that can set off a nuclear conflict? I suppose the answer is "Well that's just the way it's got to be." Well, that's NOT that way it's GOT to be. Sure, you can rationalize a particular position in the game and make an airtight case for it. But the central realization that needs to be made is that the game is wrong! And not until people realize the nature of the game that they are playing will they make that transcendent leap. Phillip Berrigan said it very well: the second biggest problem is that the world's finest minds are not working on the worlds biggest problem." Come on, RMS: tell me WHY this should be true, and WHY you know there is NO other alternative, and WHY you are not scared shitless enough to look desperately for another way out.

...since our current systems do not seem adequate, we would still need to build new ones though at the same time we could scrap some existing ones.

I couldn't resist including this one. The implication it embodies speaks for itself. Sorry if it's another straw man.

--Steve

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.