Re: POLITICS: Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy

Mark Grant (
Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:30:43 +0000

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 wrote:

> Mark Grant wrote :

Actually I didn't, not that it really matters...

> I agree that this is a matter of opinion. But you would
> probably agree that it is *one of* the most trustable powers
> in this respect?

No. The UN has historically been a tool of the US government (or at least
it usually votes the way that the US government votes).

> Let me ask you a question. If there were a little machine
> which one could have in one's pocket, and which could cause
> you and me and all our friends to die immediately, would you
> prefer that only one or two persons got hold of such
> gadgets, or would you feel safer if 50 000 individuals and
> organisations had them?

Strawman. You're postulating a device against which we have no defence,
when in real life there is some defences against everything. Even if you
come up with a weapon that can destroy all life on Earth (e.g. the huge
asteroids with mass-drivers that we've been talking about in other
threads) that would simply imply that we should get off of it.

Show me a weapon that we have no defence against and I'll take this more
seriously. But I might well prefer the risk of death to living in the kind
of police state that controlling the technology would require.


|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: |