Text File

Aucbvax.1467 fa.arms-d utzoo!duke!mhtsa!ucbvax!RMS@MIT-AI Sun May 31 22:58:07 1981 My reply to Upstill RMS@MIT-AI 06/01/81 01:50:13 Re: My reply to Upstill To: arms-d at MIT-MC Since many people are interested in seeing it, and Upstill suggests that I publish it, here it is.

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.

It is a fact that I have often heard such disaster-descriptions in the contexts of arguments against particular weapons systems, or for particular policies (such as arms-control treaties or unilateral disarmament).

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.

The reason I consider argument on the subject irrelevant is that I am willing to concede that point! I agree that if Boston gets hit by a nuclear weapon, it's a disaster, and that I want a strategic policy that will prevent that somehow. Once I agree with this, there's no point in beating the dead horse.

What we don't agree on is, what's the best way to prevent it. That is a separate question. Agreeing that it should be prevented does not mean I have to agree with you on how. I encourage you to defend your position on how to do it, but you can't do that merely by reiterating the claim that it needs to be prevented.

If people want to discuss the question of damage from nuclear weapons for other reasons, that's fine. I'm not saying people should stop the discussion. Just that it doesn't have much consequences for the argument about what US policies should be.

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'm not advocating a partial strike against Russia. I am willing to consider the idea of a Russian partial strike against US. I want to consider it, because I want to discourage that TOO. I don't want the Russians to be in a position to conquer us by means of a partial strike. Would you rather just ignore the possibility? It seems that you are saying that anyone either gets ill thinking about the possibility, or else is a son of a bitch. In that case, the only people who will keep their wits enough to take effective action to discourage or prevent such an attack are the sons of bitches.

Given the assumptions hawks operate on (of a monolithic, intractable Soviet menace, and of a two-alternative--buildup or capitulate--game)

Are the hawks being mentioned intended to include me? This two-alternative idea is one of the things I called a straw man. There are some hawks who oversimplify in this way, but I made it clear I was not one of them. Yet, I get the feeling that you think you are arguing against me here.

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.

I am definitely interested in any alternative that would work: prevent nuclear war, and prevent Russian conquest of the world. I don't know of any method that seems really likely to work, and I am scared. However, I would be a fool to let that fear make me do anything but pick the method that seems most likely to work. Picking any other would be making things worse.

We ought to look for other ways out, but not desperately; because if we look desperately, we will jump at a path that doesn't really lead out and screw ourselves completely. Appealing to the decency of human nature works with decent people such as tourists on ITS, but it doesn't work with professional backstabbers like the rulers of Russia.

...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.

You will have to say what you mean more directly. I can only guess. If you are referring to "do not seem adequate", what I mean is that it seems that the Russians might be able to conquer us with a partial strike followed by a threat to destroy our cities if we don't surrender. I would like to prevent this from happening.

----------------------------------------------------------------- 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.