Download PDF of this full issue: v13n2.pdf (6.1 MB)

Despite Reagan... People Say No Nukes

By VVAW

Some people get their jollies watching "Halloween I, II, III......" Some people get the jollies watching Reagan speak on TV. Unfortunately not only is Reagan scarier but its hard to say its just a movie. Ever since Ronnie showed up, he and his creatures have been talking about winnable, protracted, limited etc nuclear (!) war. This is more than slightly distressing. But the government does come up with its basic justifications for this madness.

Government these #1: The Soviets are inhuman, subhuman insane creatures who want to rule the world and who can't be stopped short of destroying the world (which would be preferable to losing a war).

Our experience with the Soviet Union suggests that while they look, act and sound like any other great power the world has seen (rotten!) they are definitely within the human range. All human powers with muscle throw their weight around to the maximum, and those that can't whine about those that can. That isn't to say that it's justifiable to be a bully, but it is certainly very human.

Furthermore, a power that scores brownie points by saying that "destroying the world would be insane" seems, on the fact of it, less of a bully than a power that threatens routinely to initiate nuclear holocaust. It's kind of like you had to live next to Billy the Kid or John Wayne Gacy, who would you choose? Not a nice choice, but at least Billy the Kid had some rational and logical motivations.

Recently, Ronnie went public with the line that he'd rather his children died young than lived and died of old age under communism.

Government thesis #2: (related to #1) We can't win a fair fight against the Russians. If this is true it is based on the Soviets being flanked by Western Europe with 300 million people, China with 1,000 million people, Japan with 120 million against the USSR and allies with 350 million people. And this doesn't even count the population of the U.S. If, given these circumstances, the U.S. cannot keep the Soviets in line, then the entire Joint Chiefs should be shot for treason and banality. If the Europeans cannot defend themselves (since they have almost the same population as the Soviet Union, and similar economic weight), then they are either too corrupt, cowardly, or unwillingly for other reasons to do so; why should be bail them out?

Many people have been asking this sort of question. As a result, the Reagan Administration is in weaker and weaker shape. So what does Ronnie do? He comes up with Star Wars pie in the sky--and that's 30 years down the line according to his own guesses. Perhaps he's trying to distract people by coming up with some insanity even more insane than his normal insanity.

But let us not be distracted. What do we really need to keep the Soviets from dropping the nukes on us? (That is, if they are not stopped by things like fear of ozone destruction and other types of potential damage that such an act might cause.) We need three nukes. Yep 3. One for Moskow; one for Leningrad; one for Kiev. Loss of one let alone three, would be unacceptable to any merely bully-ish nation but sane (and there is no proof that they're even as nut as Ronnie). Now, since we already have about 10,000 war heads (to say nothing about nuclear grenades, etc) why do we need to spend $28.2 billion for new nukes in 1984. Why do we need to spend $620 million a piece on 10 B-1 bombers?

Well, of course we know why. These guys are lunatic bandits--bandits because they are stealing our money, lunatic because they're stealing our money by piling dynamite around and under the country they, as well as we live in. Hopefully, they won't get away with it.