Text File

Aucbvax.1504 fa.arms-d utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!CSVAX.upstill@Berkeley Wed Jun 3 00:26:08 1981 More Russian intentions Date: 2 June 1981 20:39 edt From: JSLove at MIT-Multics (J. Spencer Love) Subject: Re: "The Russians don't want real arms control" Sender: JSLove.PDO at MIT-Multics To: CSVAX.upstill at BERKELEY cc: arms-d at MIT-MC, JSLove.PDO at MIT-Multics In-Reply-To: Message of 2 June 1981 19:36 edt from CSVAX.upstill

Soviet intransigence (read, credibility) is PRECISELY what keeps this country from pursuing disarmament in a sincere manner...we have plentiful satellite evidence of treaty violations.

Such as? I don't hear a lot of public outcry about substantial Russian treaty violations. However, I would like to hear more of what people aren't crying about. I do think, though, that few people advocate agreements in the absence of verification.

2) The grass IS always greener on the other side of the fence. The point is that, whether or not the Soviets are actually intransigent, they are perceived as being so. If you expect to convince any thinking person that this perception is wrong, you must produce EVIDENCE. Pointing out the perception problem is your foot in the door, but you must bring a case to the majority of listeners.

Believe me, I do that every chance I get. But I find that it is enough to give people pause to get them to examine the world from the Russian point of view and ask how they would react if the US were in the same position: They see their imperial foe, the most powerful country on earth, allied with every single power of importance. They look East and see Europe, whence they have been invaded repeatedly for hundreds of years. They look East and see China, a more implacable enemy, if that is possible, than the United States. They look at their own country and see a population diminished by the Second World War, and a wreck of an economy. They examine their "allies", weak as they are, imperial or not, and see discontent and dissatisfaction verging on open rebellion. You won't get me to deny that the Soviet Union is an imperial power (my wife is from Poland, for Gods sake). But you WON'T get me to agree that they hold all the trump cards.

It is absolutely clear that what they tell the world is unreliable, and even if you think that you can sort the fact from the fiction, you must convince others you are right.

I don't know about you, but I don't have a whole lot more faith in the World According to the CIA in particular or the government in general. The fact that the government here hasn't the power to universalize its version of reality does make me like living here a lot more, but it doesn't make the government much more reliable.

I think it is thoroughly legitimate to want to be sure of being able to wipe out your enemy's forces. This does not automatically imply that we are contemplating first strike! The following piece of MAD-inspired reasoning seems plausible: If there was a limited first strike, I would like to be able to take out the remaining enemy offensive capability first thing.

I'm sorry, but it strains my credulity to think that rational people believe in a scenario whereby the Russians initiate a 'limited' first strike and then sit around waiting for those of our missiles which they spared (out of a sense of fair play, perhaps?) to wipe out the rest of theirs. Do you actually believe that their remaining missiles would not be ready to launch at eight seconds notice?

Have you ever played "the propaganda game", or taken a course in advertising or propaganda? If you can't afford it, just drop by the local Church of Scientology and get a free lesson (DON'T drop by the Moonies or the HARE KRISHNA types; they use brainwashing techniques which are much too dangerous to your sanity).

I'm not sure what to make of this. I feel I'm not engaging in propaganda but challenging the way people approach the available propaganda.

--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.