[ RadSafe ] News: Physicists denounce aggressive nuclear policy]
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 7 11:54:29 CST 2005
Thanks for you comments. My comments were intended,
in part, to keep the discussion going. Yes, their
proposal is too simplistic. But, many are.
--- Maury Siskel <maurysis at ev1.net> wrote:
> Hi John,
> I wish I could offer some new profound insight as a
> response to your
> question, but I cannot. You know or at least have
> heard nearly all of
> the arguments about deterrence, defensive
> retaliation, and so on. These
> arguments have been made since the dawn 60 years ago
> of the nuclear age.
> In fact, I'm convinced that the tribal cave fathers
> made these same
> arguments over their supply of arrows -- gratefully,
> petitions on stone
> tablets were very difficult.
> There is no realistic quarrel with the group of
> physicists preparing and
> submitting their petition. I do, however, quarrel
> with an implied
> suggestion or promotion that they have accomplished
> politically constructive by their action.
> Like most other tools (including weapons) , the
> reasons for 'saving'
> them are:
> 1. any possible deterrent value they might have is
> exercised and,
> 2. they are available if their ultimate use is
> deemed necessary.
> Obviously, the devil is in the details; i.e., what
> are the conditions
> and contingencies that attend those two reasons. The
> petition purports to address only one simple
> condition and idealism. If
> an adversary attacks with biological weapons, then
> one cannot be
> expected to respond only with biological weapons; if
> a nation is
> attacked by a force brandishing only small arms,
> then that nation is not
> sensibly restricted from responding with artillery
> or cruise missiles.
> One simply tries to make the opponent stop by
> whatever means are available!
> I submit that such a petition belittles the
> submitting organization
> because it lacks maturity, is presumptuous, and can
> hardly be regarded
> seriously. It is almost a whimpering 'why can't we
> all just get along'
> plea which can have no plausible effect on national
> policy (unless
> another group of 700 world physicists may be
> submitting a petition
> opposing this futility). A more effective individual
> action might be a
> brief letter to one or more national leaders from
> each of the 700
> signatories -- compose an email; then instead of
> pressing Send, print
> the email, sign it, and mail it in a genuine,
> stamped envelope.
> In summary, John, we save them for no new reasons
> beyond 'saving' them
> like any other weapon -- be it a bow and arrow in
> your cave, a pistol in
> your home, or a cruise missile holstered in one of
> your B-52's.
> Maury&Dog (maurysis at ev1.net)
> John Jacobus wrote:
> > Maury,
> > I think that we have to look at the associated
> politics. While there
> > had been talk of using nuclear weapons in the
> Korean War and in Viet
> > Nam, they were not. So, what are [we] saving them
On Oct. 5, 1947, in the first televised White House address, President Truman asked Americans to refrain from eating meat on Tuesdays and poultry on Thursdays to help stockpile grain for starving people in Europe.
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
More information about the RadSafe