gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/07/86)
>> devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) >> Oh, get off it Tim. Cut the histrionics. Reagan is no pathological liar. >> He happens to disagree with your point of view. You want us to believe >> that the majority of Americans who voted for him in the last election >> were simply deceived and couldn't see through the lies? >It's possible. Does this seem implausible to you? Perhaps you overestimate >the intelligence of Americans. Watched any network TV lately? True, anything is possible. It is also possible that the people who voted for Reagan agree with him. Since you think Reagan is an idiot, therefore all his supporters are idiots. How inconvenient (sic?). Perhaps a vanguard of dedicated social reformers should take over the government until the poor foolish people learn 'the right way to do it'. Maybe you could tell us all? >> SALT II was a bad >> treaty. All that it did was to provide a basis for controlled escalation of >> the superpowers nuclear arsenals. >OK, what does this prove about Reagan? Do you agree that SALTII was bad? If you do, you agree with Ronald Reagan. Care to re-think your position on SALTII? What it proves is that Reagan knows more about what matters in arms control than his opponents. Details are irrelevant if the basic structure of the agreement is flawed as in the case of SALTII. (See my upcoming 4000000 line work, titled 'A Quick Look at What's Wrong with SALTII' , not to be unfair I'll follow with a 2 line work titled 'Encylopaedic Review of the Benefits of SALTII' :-) ). >> the politburo doesn't have to contend with a >> congress that may cut defense funding at the drop of a hat. >Unfortunately, neither does Reagan. Statement contrary to fact. >> And it gave the Soviets a decided >> advantage in this regard; >Here we see the most dangerous myth in our society today. >What advantage?!? Do you really believe it is better to have 50,000 missiles >than 500? Especially since many reputable independent scientists have >recently estimated that ~200 nuclear explosions will >irreparably damage the *entire* ecology of our planet. Great, as soon as the Russians do it, we'll THINK about it. By the way who has 50,000 missles. Isn't 50,000 ONE estimate of the total warheads on the planet? As I recall, the US has about 1000 strategic missles (ground based) with a total of about 3000 strategic warheads. Please let us all know about the secret 49,000 missles the US has. Of course, you ASSUME that hypothesis is correct. Let us continue research. If, and that is a big IF, the hypothesis is proven correct, you have the beginnings of a point. Until that hypothesis is PROVEN correct and is known to policy makers both here and in all nuclear powers, it is irrelevant. Incidentally, Japan was forced by surrender with 2 nuclear weapons (rather small by today's standards) , so even if the nuclear winter theory (that's theory, not fact), is correct, it is still national suicide for the US to allow the Russians total nuclear supremacy. I personally believe that the nuclear winter theory is a crock. Ten years from now, let's see who is right. >Yes, they might be wrong, but it is rather idiotic to >take the chance. Communism is infinitely preferable to >radiation, hypothermia, or starvation. Surrender, Dorothy. After all the wicked witch will be very angry if you don't do as she says. And if later on the Communists kill half the population of the country and enslave the rest, well, I guess that is ok. This argument is not even related to nuclear weapons. If someone sufficiently ruthless threatens you, then give in. You make it easy for evil to triumph. Maybe evil will triumph, but we should resist. Gandalf: If Sauron gets the ring, he will enslave Middle Earth. Frodo(new version):OK, that's 'infinitely preferable' to me getting hurt. This would make for an interesting version of Lord of the Rings. >Since we would not, could not, send more than 500 missiles streaking towards >Russia (or anyone else), and both sides know this, > it is silly and dangerous to have 50,000. Too bad both sides don't know it. Of course I claim it's not the case, so it makes sense that both sides don't know it. Even if it is the case, it is not currently assumed to be true by both sides. (What happened to the other nuclear powers in your discussion)? >Silly, because it is driving our economy into the ground. Statement contrary to fact. The cost of nuclear weaponry is not significant in 'driving our economy into the ground'. Please provide some proof that our economy is being driven into the ground and that cutting expenditures on nukes to ZERO would help. >Dangerous, because it makes nuclear war a little more likely, >and it is just that much more weapons grade nuclear technology we must >protect from accidents, terrorists, etc. Not proven (as opposed to provably false). If you want we can debate this at length too. >How can we get this myth of "more is better" out of the >heads of our gullible citizenry. Gee, I don't know. It is going to be a toughie, since in war, more is usually better. In fact, the burden is on you to prove the opposite. Also, the phrase 'more is better' is usually used to contrast quality to quantity. If you decide to take this up, remember to try to prove that 'more is worse than less'. That is what you're saying, isn't it? >> The only thing worth working >> for is a verifiable arms reduction treaty. >That would certainly be ideal, but I strongly disagree >with the word "only". We could do a great deal of >unilateral disarmament without risk, and the entire world would benefit. Great, you at least say it. Of course, unilateral disarmament has NO CHANCE of being accepted by the American people. I guess that just proves that they are all morons compared to 'progressive' folks like yourself. Since we see no democratic way of implementing your policies in the US, how do you plan to go about it? How about a lot of pseudo-moralistic arguments mixed in with just plain anti-facts (50,000 missles? nuclear winter)? Naaah, you wouldn't do that, would you? >If we were to take such a bold step, the Soviet Union would do >the same, since its economy is weaker than our own. >This does not arise from any "niceguy" characteristics, >the motivation is strictly intelligent calculated self interest. >Excess missiles don't buy Russia anything either. BY YOUR CALCUATION. Of course, maybe the Russians would think the wisest couse of action would be to blow the US up, 99 cities at a time, wait for the (supposed) particulate matter to fall from the atmosphere and continue in that manner. The fact is that you ASSUME that you know how the Russians would behave. The responsible approach is to plan so that WHATEVER the Russians do, the people of the US are as safe as we can manage. >In fact, they have already taken the lead in halting the arms >race. Unfortunately, we are too paranoid to follow their lead. I guess I missed this. Are you talking about the fact that the Russians don't need to test right now, or have they stopped building missiles and bombers? Maybe it isn't paranoia, but just rational scepticism. Please provide whatever 'facts' support you in this case. I will be glad to retract this portion of my posting if you can convince me I'm wrong. >> We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try >> to get the best of us every time. >Can you say paranoid schizophrenic? I knew you could. Are you aware that the USSR has withdrawn from the major international psychiatric association to avoid censure? Why were they about to be censured? They claim that people who oppose them are 'schizo' and imprision them in 'hospitals' where the victims are tortured with electoshock and drugs. Real psychiatrists are revolted at this, like real people. Of course, it really IS paranoia to think that Communism is wrong and that the Russians impose it through 'unlimited force', right? >We are trying "to get the best" of central America, South Africa, etc, >at the expense of their citizens' long term interests. Just like Korea, Cambodia and Vietnam? Isn't it true in fact that the only thing standing between the world and a virtual utopia is the evil USA? >If you mean something more substantial, like an invasion, >you have no evidence to back up your claim. >Yes, if we were a small country on the Soviet border, >We would have every right to be paranoid, but that is not the case. Like China, right? That's ok, with your approach, we will be on the Soviet border soon. Fortunately, that isn't anything to worry about. Can you say that in Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian or Afghani? How about Mongolian? >The Soviets do not take over distant countries, they convince people that >revolution is better than the oppressive dictators that enslave them. >Quite a reasonable assertion, I think. And this 'convincing' is done by sweet reason? More like brutality, but let that slide. >Of course, we then support the dictator, because after all, >we just couldn't side with Russia. What would the neighbors think? >It's the principle of the thing! >Communist Russia becomes the friend, while capitalist U.S. >becomes the ruthless ideological enemy. >After the inevitable revolution, the new government hates us as >much as the ousted dictator. (repeat scenario over and over and over ...) >But I digress. Just like in Poland, right? Or was that Hungary? Gee, I'm getting confused, maybe it was East Germany? Then after the revolution (it is inevitable isn't it?) the people decide to express their hatred of the US by living in wretched slavery. Occasionally they massacre themselves if they think it would make the point better (Cambodia, Tibet, Ukraine, etc ad nauseam). >Since we are satisfied with our current form of government, >we have little to fear from the Soviets. Really? >Of course, if we continue our paranoid "defense" buildup, >we could evolve into a country similar to the Soviet Union in many ways. >A country with its power concentrated in the hands of a few appointed >militaristic decision makers, >who classify information they don't want the public to see, >restricting freedom at every turn, >and making democracy empty and void. >This transition will not happen in a lifetime, but it could happen, >and it looks like it is on the way. >Reagan has weakened the already inadequate controls over what gets classified >and why. The checks and balances are conspicuously absent. Compared to just about any other country, the US has very lax security laws. In Russia, the size of the grain harvest is a state secret! I don't think we should do that, but there is room for a reasonable tightening of security. Of course, I'm a paranoid. >The other alternative is economic exhaustion, while Japan laughs >all the way to the bank (quoted from someone else). >A dissatisfied citizenry with a low standard of living and >rampant poverty is ripe for the communists' picking. ... on and on about economics versus military spending ... >Suffice to say that any wastefule defense program reduces national security >by eroding our economy. Nuclear excess is a prime example. You have to spend your economic strength on weaponry sometime, or economic strength is irrelevant in a military conflict. >Oh, I can feel the flames now. If you wish to ramble on about >how naive I am, and how the Soviets will invade us, or Europe, or whatever >if we don't have zillions of nuclear weapons, please provide >some evidence. Our magnificent arsenal did not prevent the last two >invasions, and its reduction would not facilitate future invasions. You _are_ naive (I'm being charitable). We do need at least nuclear parity. And what 'invasions' are you talking about? This section of your posting is rather confused. >Hundreds (not hundreds of thousands) of missiles are enough to >guarantee a first, second, or third strike, depending on your mood that day. Statement contrary to fact. How does my mood affect all this. Of course, maybe you are being 'humorous'. Is your whole posting 'humorous'? I'm glad to see we are up to 'hundreds of thousands' of missles. Keep going, why stop there. If you're wrong, you're wrong, so why not hundreds of trillions? What a waste, the Reagan administration is spending hundreds of googleplexes of dollars on a wasteful military buildup. How outrageous. >The "more is better" myth must die. Please kill it. Then tell the Russians. >I realize everything in this article *might* be wrong, >but I have seen no solid evidence refuting the points I have raised. >Military officials might say "yes, we have evidence, but it is >classified". Well, I cannot relinquish my right to make decisions >and vote accordingly, just because these facts are not available to me. To say the least. Vote any way you want, it's a free country. Don't complain when few people agree with you. And when it comes to evidence, you don't need secret data to realize that there aren't 'hundreds of thousands' of strategic missles sitting around. If you can't get your facts straight, shut up. Even Tim Sevener must be embarrassed by your foolish posting. Guy > Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (03/08/86)
In his response to my original article, Guy raises several good points. I shall address only a couple here. > By the way > who has 50,000 missiles. Isn't 50,000 ONE estimate of the total warheads > on the planet? Quite. The typing can slip as easily as the tongue. I used the word "missile" instead of "warhead". If you observe net.flame protocol, you will conclude from this that I don't know the difference, and discard the entire article, but you are more rational than that. As for references, check the back issues of Scientific American. Several articles quote 50,000 as the approximate number of U.S. nuclear warheads. Many have batted this number around on this news group without question. Of course this may be classified information, making it hard to "prove". > Statement contrary to fact. The cost of nuclear weaponry is not significant > in 'driving our economy into the ground'. You have quoted a summarizing statement out of context. If you reread the article carefully, you will note that I blame wasteful defense programs, not just nuclear proliferation. I realize that nuclear bombs are relatively cheap. I also said it was a risk (has not distroyed the economy yet). Of course, we have yet to pay the bill (national debt). > >> We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try > >> to get the best of us every time. > >Can you say paranoid schizophrenic? I knew you could. > Are you aware that the USSR has withdrawn from the major international > psychiatric association to avoid censure? Why were they about to > be censured? They claim that people who oppose them are 'schizo' > and imprison them in 'hospitals' where the victims are tortured with > electroshock and drugs. Real psychiatrists are revolted at this, like > real people. I am aware. I should not, even in jest, make statements that approximate the Soviet "diagnosis" of its citizens. My apologies. > >How can we get this myth of "more is better" out of the > >heads of our gullible citizenry. > Gee, I don't know. It is going to be a toughie, since in war, more is > usually better. In fact, the burden is on you to prove the opposite. Actually, I claim the burden of proof is on you! More is never "better" forever. The economic law of diminishing returns applies to *everything* from riffles to nuclear weapons. It does not do any good to give soldiers 57 riffles per person, since each can only wield one (at most two). Producing excess rifles has opportunity costs, preventing a country from feeding its citizens, or developing a better rifle. Note that the optimal number of riffles is *not* affected by a postulated stockpile of excess riffles on the opposing side. Parity is not *necessarily* required. Although we may disagree on the exact number, it is economic fallacy to assert that more nuclear weapons is *always* better. Excess is possible. Each substantial increase must be justified, if my tax dollars are buying the weaponry. Prove to me that we need 50,000 warheads. Unsubstantiated claims of "more is better" or "parity is required at every level" are woefully inadequate. Beyond a certain level, the optimal number of warheads is only weakly related to the size of the opposing arsenal. The defense establishment tries to strengthen the correlation by claiming that parity is required to insure a second strike, which is required for deterence, which is required for peace. The second link in this chain of reasoning is probably valid. The third link is rather subjective, since it requires one to predict Soviet actions. This is easier than many claim, but it cannot be done with complete certainty. The first link is by far the weakest. It doesn't take many warheads to guarantee a second strike. A few hundred, scattered throughout the world (most on submarines) would be adequate. Only a few missiles need survive an initial attack. The Soviets could not possibly distroy *all* these warheads simultaneously. Remember, information (light) travels faster than missiles. With this in mind, *some* C3I programs are very important, guaranteeing that this information is always available, but that is a separate issue. If you support unbridled nuclear buildup, or at least nuclear parity, please prove that all those weapons are necessary. Our current arsenal seems as silly as allocating 57 riffles per soldier, and it is much more expensive and destabilizing. -- Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/10/86)
First, an apology to most of you for the unGhodly length of this article. I honestly couldn't think of a way to keep my responses to Guy Ferraiolo clear and meaningful in context. In article <711@mtuxn.UUCP>, gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: > > >> devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) > >> Oh, get off it Tim. Cut the histrionics. Reagan is no pathological liar. > >> He happens to disagree with your point of view. You want us to believe > >> that the majority of Americans who voted for him in the last election > >> were simply deceived and couldn't see through the lies? > > >It's possible. Does this seem implausible to you? Perhaps you overestimate > >the intelligence of Americans. Watched any network TV lately? > > True, anything is possible. It is also possible that the people who voted > for Reagan agree with him. Since you think Reagan is an idiot, therefore > all his supporters are idiots. How inconvenient (sic?). Perhaps a > vanguard of dedicated social reformers should take over the government > until the poor foolish people learn 'the right way to do it'. Maybe you > could tell us all? > > It is much more likely that the people (most of them) who voted for Reagan haven't any idea of the issues involved. They voted on the basis of personal charisma and popularity. Reagan is a distributor of massive quantities of misinformation. "Pathological liar"? Maybe not, but his respect for truth is questionable at best. > >> the politburo doesn't have to contend with a > >> congress that may cut defense funding at the drop of a hat. > > >Unfortunately, neither does Reagan. > > Statement contrary to fact. > Technically, you are correct, Reagan *DOES* have to deal with a congress that *MAY* cut defense spending. However, what Sevener obviously meant by his statement was that Reagan doesn't have to deal with a congress that *WILL* cut defense spending at the drop of a hat. Reagan has managed to cow the congress into several stupid acts, and while he may not get *EVERYTHING* he wants, he will, once again, get most of what he wants. Wait and see (and oh GHOD, do I hope I am wrong on this one!). > >What advantage?!? Do you really believe it is better to have 50,000 missiles > >than 500? Especially since many reputable independent scientists have > >recently estimated that ~200 nuclear explosions will > >irreparably damage the *entire* ecology of our planet. > > Great, as soon as the Russians do it, we'll THINK about it. By the way > who has 50,000 missles. Isn't 50,000 ONE estimate of the total warheads > on the planet? As I recall, the US has about 1000 strategic missles (ground > based) with a total of about 3000 strategic warheads. Please let us all know > about the secret 49,000 missles the US has. Well, Guy, seeing as we're playing at picking nits about numbers, since when is 50,000 - 3,000 == 49,000???? According to *MY* understanding, the US has considerably more than 3000 nuclear warheads stockpiled. I don't know the exact number, and neither do you, because the exact number *IS* classified. > > Of course, you ASSUME that hypothesis is correct. Let us continue > research. If, and that is a big IF, the hypothesis is proven correct, > you have the beginnings of a point. Until that hypothesis is PROVEN > correct and is known to policy makers both here and in all nuclear powers, > it is irrelevant. I see. So until we actually have a significant nuclear exchange, and see that in fact, the ecology has been irreparably damaged, we should *ASSUME* that it isn't going to be that way, and continue on helter-skelter, right? > Incidentally, Japan was forced by surrender with 2 > nuclear weapons (rather small by today's standards) , Irrelevant and misleading. First, no one in the world had eve been attacked with nuclear weapons before. The shocking magnitude of the destruction was mentally and emotionally crippling to the Japanese, and much of the rest of humanity. MOreover, as *I* understand the history of the Japanese bombings, the Japanese has already offered to surrender prior to the first bomb, and agreed to unconditional surrender prior to the dropping of the second bomb. *YET*, we dropped them anyway! I contend that the dropping of the bombs was not, in fact, what stimulated the Japanese surrender. > so even if the > nuclear winter theory (that's theory, not fact), is correct, it is > still national suicide for the US to allow the Russians total nuclear > supremacy. In the first place, no one is suggesting that we should permit the Soviets "total nuclear supremacy". What *IS* being proposed is that the construction further nuclear weapons does not noticeably enhance our ability to defend ourselves against a Soviet (or any other nuclear power) attack. Further, there is *NO* evidence to suggest that the number of nuclear weapons we have in any way deters the Soviets, or that more weapons would further deter them. > I personally believe that the nuclear winter theory is a > crock. Ten years from now, let's see who is right. > I see. You *BELIEVE* that the nuclear winter theory is a crock. I find this very interesting. Can you provide meaningful evidence to support this belief? Can you show any signifcant errors in the mathematics or the reasoning that goes into the nuclear winter theory? Defend your proposition, or can it! > >Yes, they might be wrong, but it is rather idiotic to > >take the chance. Communism is infinitely preferable to > >radiation, hypothermia, or starvation. > > Surrender, Dorothy. After all the wicked witch will be very angry if > you don't do as she says. And if later on the Communists kill half > the population of the country and enslave the rest, well, I guess that > is ok. This argument is not even related to nuclear weapons. If someone > sufficiently ruthless threatens you, then give in. You make it easy > for evil to triumph. Maybe evil will triumph, but we should resist. > > Gandalf: If Sauron gets the ring, he will enslave Middle Earth. > Frodo(new version):OK, that's 'infinitely preferable' to me > getting hurt. > This would make for an interesting version of Lord of the Rings. > Unreasonable analogy. In the first place, if the choice is between total annihilation of our society, or the potential murder of half our population, I would think that opting for the latter makes more sense. At least then, there will be someone left *TO* resist! Secondly, for someone who complains about liberals using emotional as opposed to logical arguments, I find your characterization fo the Soviets as evil to be most interesting. Prove that they are evil. (not that I in any way believe that the way the Soviets work is desireable...but that is a separate issue) As for the LOTR analogy, hold the phone! We are *NOT* talking about giving in in order to avoid a minor (or even a major) "hurt". We are talking about holding the vaule of "LIFE AS WE KNOW IT ON THIS PLANET" as being somewhat higher than the value of our attachment to the particular socio-political perversions we cling to - named pseudo-capitalims/democracy. Do we, as the United States, have thr right to decide for the entire world whether or not to continue existence? If we choose to cling to the principal of Mutual Assured Destruction, then we are in essence saying that our wish to defend our way of life is of greater value than the wishes of the rest of the world to continue to live. Typical Amerikan imperialism. > > >Since we would not, could not, send more than 500 missiles streaking towards > >Russia (or anyone else), and both sides know this, > > it is silly and dangerous to have 50,000. > > Too bad both sides don't know it. Of course I claim it's not the case, > so it makes sense that both sides don't know it. Even if it is the > case, it is not currently assumed to be true by both sides. (What happened > to the other nuclear powers in your discussion)? > > >Silly, because it is driving our economy into the ground. > > Statement contrary to fact. The cost of nuclear weaponry is not significant > in 'driving our economy into the ground'. Please provide some proof that > our economy is being driven into the ground and that cutting expenditures > on nukes to ZERO would help. Hold it! It is the proponents of continued nuclear development that are spending BILLIONS of dollars to provide nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Therefore, it should be *THEY* who prove that their programs are *NOT* significantly contributing to the decline of our economy, not the other way around! Furthermore, it is patently obvious that such expenditures are contributing to the decline of our economy, in terms of inflation at least. Classically, inflation is defined as too much purchasing power chasing too few goods. The construction of nuclear (and other miliatry) weaponry and systems pumps large quantities of cash into the moeny market, while at the same time permanently removinf resources (thus, potential goods) from the economy...inflation. > > >Dangerous, because it makes nuclear war a little more likely, > >and it is just that much more weapons grade nuclear technology we must > >protect from accidents, terrorists, etc. > > Not proven (as opposed to provably false). If you want we can debate this > at length too. Really? It is a known fact that the more complex a system is, the more likely it is to fail. MOreover, system reliabilty is directly related to the number of components in a system. Thus, the more nuclear weaponry we have, themore likely an accident becomes. It is also reasonable to assue that there are' nations and terrorist groups who would be willing to steal nuclear weapons and technology. This need not be proven. It only makes sense to protect ourselves against it. The more we have, the more difficult such protection becomes. As for the increased probabilities of nuclear war breaking out because of larger stockpiles of weapons, prove that it isn't so. After all, *YOU* are the ones building more and more clearly dangerous items, therefore it is (or should be) incumbent upoin you to prove the safety of such a course. Consider that the more weapons we build, the more personnel will be involved in storing and maintaining them. Thus, there becomes a statistically increased probability that one of them will accidentall or deliberately cause a warhead/deliver system to be engaged and deployed. Thus, the probability of a war *DOES* in fact, increase with the construction of more weapons. > >> The only thing worth working > >> for is a verifiable arms reduction treaty. > >That would certainly be ideal, but I strongly disagree > >with the word "only". We could do a great deal of > >unilateral disarmament without risk, and the entire world would benefit. > Oops...gee whiz. I have to jump on Sevener here. I would not at this time support unilateral disarmament. What I *DO* support is a uni (or bi) lateral weapons *FREEZE*. Not at all the same thing! > Great, you at least say it. Of course, unilateral disarmament has > NO CHANCE of being accepted by the American people. I guess that > just proves that they are all morons compared to 'progressive' folks > like yourself. Since we see no democratic way of implementing > your policies in the US, how do you plan to go about it? How about > a lot of pseudo-moralistic arguments mixed in with just plain anti-facts > (50,000 missles? nuclear winter)? Naaah, you wouldn't do that, would you? > There you go again. Show me some reasonable evidence to believe that the nuclear winter theory is an "anti-fact". Take a simple mistake in identifying a number and blow it up into a deliberate attempt at mis-information, why don't you? (odd, if Mr. Reagan had made that same error, you would undoubtedly chuckle and insist it was just an honest mistake...) > >If we were to take such a bold step, the Soviet Union would do > >the same, since its economy is weaker than our own. > >This does not arise from any "niceguy" characteristics, > >the motivation is strictly intelligent calculated self interest. > >Excess missiles don't buy Russia anything either. > > BY YOUR CALCUATION. Of course, maybe the Russians would think the wisest > couse of action would be to blow the US up, 99 cities at a time, wait > for the (supposed) particulate matter to fall from the atmosphere and > continue in that manner. The fact is that you ASSUME that you know > how the Russians would behave. The responsible approach is to plan > so that WHATEVER the Russians do, the people of the US are as safe as > we can manage. > If we implement a nuclear weapons freeze, it is highly unlikely that the Soviets are going to consture this as an indicator that they may now attack us with impudence. Building more nuclear weapons does *NOT* improve the safety of the people in the US. IN fact, there is good reason to believe that it detracts from their safety. > >In fact, they have already taken the lead in halting the arms > >race. Unfortunately, we are too paranoid to follow their lead. > > I guess I missed this. Are you talking about the fact that the > Russians don't need to test right now, or have they stopped building > missiles and bombers? Maybe it isn't paranoia, but just rational > scepticism. Please provide whatever 'facts' support you in this case. > I will be glad to retract this portion of my posting if you can convince > me I'm wrong. > > >> We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try > >> to get the best of us every time. > > >Can you say paranoid schizophrenic? I knew you could. > > Are you aware that the USSR has withdrawn from the major international > psychiatric association to avoid censure? Why were they about to > be censured? They claim that people who oppose them are 'schizo' > and imprision them in 'hospitals' where the victims are tortured with > electoshock and drugs. Real psychiatrists are revolted at this, like > real people. Of course, it really IS paranoia to think > that Communism is wrong and that the Russians impose it through > 'unlimited force', right? To begin with, the American public *IS* paranoid about the Soviet Union. This is primarily due to a great deal of mis-information foisted upon them by the American govenrment. Further while it is needful to be watchful, I would suggest that you review the history of the Oktober Revolution, Guy. If anyone has a justification for being paranoid of another people, it is certainly the Soviet Union. Again, this is by no means to be construed as a statement that I think the Soviets are wonderful filk. > > >We are trying "to get the best" of central America, South Africa, etc, > >at the expense of their citizens' long term interests. > > Just like Korea, Cambodia and Vietnam? Isn't it true in fact that > the only thing standing between the world and a virtual utopia is > the evil USA? > Specious argument. We are not saying that the Soviets don't do "bad" things. We are saying that the US *DOES*. Are you suggesting that we should pattern our behaviour after the Soviet Union? That certainly seems to be the direction of your argument. > >If you mean something more substantial, like an invasion, > >you have no evidence to back up your claim. > >Yes, if we were a small country on the Soviet border, > >We would have every right to be paranoid, but that is not the case. > > Like China, right? That's ok, with your approach, we will be on the > Soviet border soon. Fortunately, that isn't anything to worry about. > Can you say that in Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian or Afghani? > How about Mongolian? Are you seriously suggesting that the Soviets are going to arm the Mexicans and manipulate them into invading our country? Come now. Even a right wing, administrative apologist such as you can see that this is silly? > > >The Soviets do not take over distant countries, they convince people that > >revolution is better than the oppressive dictators that enslave them. > >Quite a reasonable assertion, I think. > > And this 'convincing' is done by sweet reason? More like brutality, > but let that slide. Again, that isn't the issue. I suppose you would argue that the Contras are trying to persuade Nicarauguans to their point of view through "sweet reason"? Or that Savimbe is using anything other than brutality to make his points in Angola? > > >Of course, we then support the dictator, because after all, > >we just couldn't side with Russia. What would the neighbors think? > >It's the principle of the thing! > >Communist Russia becomes the friend, while capitalist U.S. > >becomes the ruthless ideological enemy. > >After the inevitable revolution, the new government hates us as > >much as the ousted dictator. (repeat scenario over and over and over ...) > >But I digress. > > Just like in Poland, right? Or was that Hungary? Gee, I'm getting confused, > maybe it was East Germany? Then after the revolution (it is inevitable > isn't it?) the people decide to express their hatred of the US by > living in wretched slavery. Occasionally they massacre themselves if > they think it would make the point better (Cambodia, Tibet, Ukraine, etc > ad nauseam). Hold it! Completely irrelevant appeal to emotional responses. We are again not claiming that the Soviets are wunnerful filk. What is being pointed out here is that American is well known by the rest of the world as habitually supporting dictators. > > >Since we are satisfied with our current form of government, > >we have little to fear from the Soviets. > > Really? Well, darn! Here I am again, disagreeing with Sevener (sorry Tim). There is some truth in what Sevener says here, though I think the manner in which he states it is naieve and possibly dangerous. We *DO* need to keep a watchful eye on the doings of the Soviets. We do *NOT* need to be paranoid of them. > > >Of course, if we continue our paranoid "defense" buildup, > >we could evolve into a country similar to the Soviet Union in many ways. > >A country with its power concentrated in the hands of a few appointed > >militaristic decision makers, > >who classify information they don't want the public to see, > >restricting freedom at every turn, > >and making democracy empty and void. > >This transition will not happen in a lifetime, but it could happen, > >and it looks like it is on the way. > >Reagan has weakened the already inadequate controls over what gets classified > >and why. The checks and balances are conspicuously absent. > > Compared to just about any other country, the US has very lax security > laws. In Russia, the size of the grain harvest is a state secret! > I don't think we should do that, but there is room for a reasonable tightening > of security. Of course, I'm a paranoid. > Again, Guy, you seem to be suggesting that we should pattern our behaviour after that of the Soviets, and other repressive/oppressive regimes. Odd point coming from someone one who *CLAIMS* to cherish freedom so much. > >The other alternative is economic exhaustion, while Japan laughs > >all the way to the bank (quoted from someone else). > >A dissatisfied citizenry with a low standard of living and > >rampant poverty is ripe for the communists' picking. > ... on and on about economics versus military spending ... Indeed. And on and on and on. We *MUST* maintain a well equiped and prepared military (not just because of the Soviets). Wasting money on useless, dangerous weapons and systems does not meet this goal. The money so spent would be better spent on education and bettering the plight of the poor, which would directly benefit *EVERYONE*. > >Suffice to say that any wastefule defense program reduces national security > >by eroding our economy. Nuclear excess is a prime example. > You have to spend your economic strength on weaponry sometime, or > economic strength is irrelevant in a military conflict. > True enough. See my response above. Sevener *SPECIFICALLY* refers to wasteful military programs. Neither Sevener, nor any other poster I have seen here has suggested that *ALL* military spending is wasteful. Again, through mis-information and emotional arguments, you seek to re-direct the reactions of the people from the real issue, in order to avoid admitting your errors. > >Oh, I can feel the flames now. If you wish to ramble on about > >how naive I am, and how the Soviets will invade us, or Europe, or whatever > >if we don't have zillions of nuclear weapons, please provide > >some evidence. Our magnificent arsenal did not prevent the last two > >invasions, and its reduction would not facilitate future invasions. > > You _are_ naive (I'm being charitable). We do need at least nuclear parity. Yup..and we have it. SO why continue to build more? > And what 'invasions' are you talking about? This section of your > posting is rather confused. > I can't figure wehere Sevener gets the number 2 from, but our impressive nuclear arsenal certainly did nothing to deter the Soviets from invading Afghanistan, did it? > >Hundreds (not hundreds of thousands) of missiles are enough to > >guarantee a first, second, or third strike, depending on your mood that day. > > Statement contrary to fact. How does my mood affect all this. Mr. Sevener is projecting the obvious result of continued construction of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Unchecked, it *COULD* result in hundreds of thousands. Once again, you deliberately miss his point in order to attempt to make him appear foolish. > Of course, maybe you are being 'humorous'. Is your whole posting 'humorous'? > I'm glad to see we are up to 'hundreds of thousands' of missles. Keep > going, why stop there. If you're wrong, you're wrong, so why not > hundreds of trillions? What a waste, the Reagan administration is spending > hundreds of googleplexes of dollars on a wasteful military buildup. > How outrageous. > Now you resort to sarcasm and ridiculousness, attempting to imply that the ridiculous sceanrio you refer to is being presented by Sevener. Amazing how committed you are to honesty and directness, isn't it? > >The "more is better" myth must die. > Please kill it. Then tell the Russians. Sevener is correct in his statement. So are you. (huh? Did I really say that???) > > >I realize everything in this article *might* be wrong, > >but I have seen no solid evidence refuting the points I have raised. > >Military officials might say "yes, we have evidence, but it is > >classified". Well, I cannot relinquish my right to make decisions > >and vote accordingly, just because these facts are not available to me. > > To say the least. Vote any way you want, it's a free country. Don't > complain when few people agree with you. And when it comes to evidence, > you don't need secret data to realize that there aren't 'hundreds of > thousands' of strategic missles sitting around. If you can't get > your facts straight, shut up. Even Tim Sevener must be embarrassed by > your foolish posting. > > Guy > ~sigh~, there you go again, (oops...did I just utter a Reaganism?) misrepresenting Sevener's statements, as well as his obvious intent. (have I confused Sevener with someone else? Ah well, it mattereth not, 'tis the content of the argument, not the identities of the arguees that weighs in the end) One final point. Guy, you have repeatedly made reference to the "majority" of Americans who support Reagan. Show me the majority. Approximately 35% of the registered voters voted in the last election. Reagan received just over 50% of the POPULAR vote. Combine these facts with the fact that over 50% of Americans are *NOT REGISTERED VOTERS*, and as I count it, somewhere between 5% and 10% of the American people voted for Reagan, *AT BEST*...more likely 2% to 5%. Consider further that the vast majority of voters (in either camp) do not vote the issues, but rather vote in a popularity contest, what percentage of Americans actually support Reagan? .2%? .02%? Hmmm.... Disclaimer: Once in a great while, Reagan actually does something I agree with. I find this most disconcerting, given my feelings about the man. What bothers me most is that I suspect that Ronnie is actually a very nice man, at home, away from the political arena. I might actually truly like him, given the opportunity. I consider his Presidency to be the most harmful presidency of this century...probably more harmful than Nixon's. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/11/86)
>In his response to my original article, Guy raises several good points. >I shall address only a couple here. Thanks for responding. After all, if there aren't any responses, I've done something wrong. >> By the way >> who has 50,000 missiles. Isn't 50,000 ONE estimate of the total warheads >> on the planet? >Quite. The typing can slip as easily as the tongue. >I used the word "missile" instead of "warhead". >If you observe net.flame protocol, you will conclude from this that I don't >know the difference, and discard the entire article, >but you are more rational than that. As for references, >check the back issues of Scientific American. Several articles >quote 50,000 as the approximate number of U.S. nuclear warheads. >Many have batted this number around on this news group without question. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to point out that in strategic weapons, the US has many fewer missles than 50,000. I did post an article with (my opinion), reasonable estimates, which puts the US at about 10,000 strategic warheads and about 2000 missles and bombers. >> Statement contrary to fact. The cost of nuclear weaponry is not significant >> in 'driving our economy into the ground'. >You have quoted a summarizing statement out of context. >If you reread the article carefully, you will note that >I blame wasteful defense programs, not just nuclear proliferation. >I realize that nuclear bombs are relatively cheap. >I also said it was a risk (has not distroyed the economy yet). >Of course, we have yet to pay the bill (national debt). OF course we also have to pay the bill for everything else the government does (national debt). I am sorry to have incorrectly quoted your summarization. >> >> to get the best of us every time. >> >Can you say paranoid schizophrenic? I knew you could. >> Are you aware that the USSR has withdrawn from the major international >> psychiatric association to avoid censure? Why were they about to >> be censured? They claim that people who oppose them are 'schizo' >> and imprison them in 'hospitals' where the victims are tortured with >> electroshock and drugs. Real psychiatrists are revolted at this, like >> real people. >I am aware. I should not, even in jest, make statements that approximate >the Soviet "diagnosis" of its citizens. My apologies. Thanks for your response to this. I often want to scream "you're nuts", but refrain because the Soviets say it and _mean_ it in a medical sense. >> >How can we get this myth of "more is better" out of the >> >heads of our gullible citizenry. >> Gee, I don't know. It is going to be a toughie, since in war, more is >> usually better. In fact, the burden is on you to prove the opposite. >Actually, I claim the burden of proof is on you! >More is never "better" forever. The economic law of diminishing >returns applies to *everything* from riffles to nuclear weapons. >It does not do any good to give soldiers 57 riffles per person, >since each can only wield one (at most two). >Producing excess rifles has opportunity costs, preventing a country >from feeding its citizens, or developing a better rifle. >Note that the optimal number of riffles is *not* affected >by a postulated stockpile of excess riffles on the opposing side. >Parity is not *necessarily* required. True, 57 rifles per soldier is a point of diminishing returns. However, that is because a soldier can only use a few weapons at a time. Thus the other 56 rifles or so just aren't used. That isn't the issue. The USSR (or the US) _could_ use all the strategic nukes in their arsenal. There is no mismatch between parts of the weapons systems. In other words, if you have 57 rifles for each soldier, you neede to balance your allocation between rifles and soldiers. The parallel _I_ draw is between having 57 soldiers and 1 soldier. Is there a point of diminishing returns here? Probably yes, after all 35 soldiers to 1 is most likely as effective as 57 to 1. That is how I see the question. We aren' talking about imbalanced weapons systems (all nukes can fly to target if so ordered), we're talking about relative force levels. And those force levels don't favor the US. You can claim that force levels don't matter, or that a weaker force level is better, but both of those are counter-intuitive. That's why I say you bear the burden of proof. By the way, even the 'balanced weapons system' concept has problems when applied intuitively. You might think that with modern weapons a soldier should be able to kill an enemy by firing, what, maybe 100 to 200 rounds. For comparision, that is about 2 to 4 M16-fulls of ammo. So if each soldier was allocated 1000 rounds, we should be ok right? And _if_ this analysis were correct if would be "wasteful" to allocate 10,000 to 20,000 rounds of ammunition per soldier. Too bad, but some studies (which I believe) indicate that you need about 10,000 rounds of small arms ammo to kill an opposing soldier. Highly unintuitive results! Now in this case I'm not offering proof, I'm offering my recollection of a 'proof' which I read once. If really necessary I could find the actual reference. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe this without at least my (hopefully acceptable) claim that it is supported by studies of combat situations. Perhaps this unusual information may inhibit overly casual analysis about what is wasteful or not in military affairs. >Although we may disagree on the exact number, it is economic fallacy >to assert that more nuclear weapons is *always* better. Excess is possible. I'm not asking for an indefinitely large nuclear force, just bigger than it is now, and riding better delivery vehicles. >Each substantial increase must be justified, if my tax dollars are buying the >weaponry. Prove to me that we need 50,000 warheads. >Unsubstantiated claims of "more is better" or "parity is required >at every level" are woefully inadequate. Hummm, I hadn't planned on writing a book on US nuclear strategy this year. Or course, that is what is needed to "justify" the current nuclear arsenal. My purpose in replying to your article was not to conclusively prove that current US nuclear strategy is perfect. I did want to show that it was not obviously absurd, as your posting implied. Yes, we can debate for aeons just how many nukes the US should have and what kind of delivery vehicles they should ride. I haven't PROVED that current US strategy is correct. I think I have shown that your analysis (as posted) was not sufficient to invalidate that strategy. >Beyond a certain level, the optimal number of warheads is only >weakly related to the size of the opposing arsenal. This is your central claim. Although you may believe it, I don't. Also, the definition of optimal depends on who you talk to. Rather than screaming in your ear, I'l just point out that to analyze this one needs to explictly state many assumptions, among which are: targeting patterns, readyness status (friendly and enemy), reliability of weapons systems, domestic political situation (friendly and enemy), etc. Rather than try to go into these issues, I'll say that I define the optimal number of strategic nuclear weapons to be enough that: in the event of central nuclear war, Soviet decision makers know that they and their families will die This statement may seem rather cold-blooded. On the other hand we _are_ dealing with a government which has killed literally millions of people. >The defense establishment tries to strengthen the correlation by claiming >that parity is required to insure a second strike, which is required >and it is much more expensive and destabilizing. ... fair number of lines deleted describing a small strategic force strategy >Our current arsenal seems as silly as allocating 57 riffles per soldier, >-- > Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad Seems so to _you_. Big difference from your position being obviously correct and the only disagreement coming from fools and knaves. Thanks, Karl, for responding after I took you so heavily to task. I did notice a somewhat greater attention to detail in this posting. That was my (noble :-) ) purpose. Guy
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (03/12/86)
> >More is never "better" forever. The economic law of diminishing > >returns applies to *everything* from riffles to nuclear weapons. > > The USSR (or the US) _could_ use all the strategic nukes in their arsenal. > ... We aren't talking about > imbalanced weapons systems (all nukes can fly to target if so ordered), > Guy I see. You have 26,000 targets in mind? Or perhaps you wish to distribute the 26,000 warheads among 100 strategic targets? That makes sense. Some people like to see the rubble bounce 260 times. You can rationalize all day, but economic and military laws of diminishing returns still hold. Enough of economics; there are more important issues. I simply don't have the time to refute *every* argument in Guy's articles. If nuclear excess were just another wasteful defense program, I probably wouldn't bother to post these articles. I have been distracted long enough. In future articles, I will address the risks associated with our immense nuclear arsenal. Coming soon to a terminal near you. -- The moon is more important than the sun, because the moon gives us light at night; when we really need it! Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
mahoney@bartok.DEC (03/12/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 10-MAR-1986 01:35--------------------- > > One final point. Guy, you have repeatedly made reference to the "majority" >of Americans who support Reagan. Show me the majority. Approximately 35% of >the registered voters voted in the last election. Reagan received just over >50% of the POPULAR vote. Combine these facts with the fact that over 50% >of Americans are *NOT REGISTERED VOTERS*, and as I count it, somewhere between >5% and 10% of the American people voted for Reagan, *AT BEST*...more likely >2% to 5%. Consider further that the vast majority of voters (in either camp) >do not vote the issues, but rather vote in a popularity contest, what percentage >of Americans actually support Reagan? .2%? .02%? Hmmm.... > I must take acception to this remark. Reagan roughly got 60,000,000 votes that was approximately 60% of the people who voted in the election. That is more than just over 50%. Now I contend that there are probably 170000000 possible voters all told. (I could be wrong this is purely from my head and I apologize if I am way off base.) That means he got the vote of about 35% of the US while not a majority it is still a large percentage of the vote. That is far above the 2% to 5%. Even if every person on the US about 250,000,000 could vote he would still have 24% of the vote. Please don't just throw out numbers like this. The numbers of votes he recieved is more then Mondale which was roughly about 40,000,000 so that is the only truely important statistic. (I was one of the 40,000,000 who voted for Mondale) As an aside the article you were responding to made it sound like a small number of people disagreed with Reagan. That I also did not like please 40,000,000 is not a small number of people. Brian Mahoney
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (03/13/86)
In article <59@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: >> Incidentally, Japan was forced by surrender with 2 >> nuclear weapons (rather small by today's standards) , > > Irrelevant and misleading. First, no one in the world had eve been >attacked >with nuclear weapons before. The shocking magnitude of the destruction was >mentally and emotionally crippling to the Japanese, and much of the rest of >humanity. MOreover, as *I* understand the history of the Japanese bombings, >the Japanese has already offered to surrender prior to the first bomb, and >agreed to unconditional surrender prior to the dropping of the second bomb. >*YET*, we dropped them anyway! I contend that the dropping of the bombs was >not, in fact, what stimulated the Japanese surrender. I don't believe that this account is correct, although the facts do support your "irrelevant and misleading" comment. The Japanese were discussing surrender; some of those involved think that they were about to surrender, but others doubt it. The second bomb was dropped to convince the Japanese that this was not a one-shot deal; that we could keep doing it. (Of course, we couldn't at that time; it would have taken several months to produce any more bombs -- but the Japanese were thereby convinced that we could keep it up.) > Unreasonable analogy. In the first place, if the choice is between total >annihilation of our society, or the potential murder of half our population, >I would think that opting for the latter makes more sense. At least then, >there will be someone left *TO* resist! Ah, but this isn't choice we are offered, either. We aren't dealing with the *certain* destruction of our society, but with *some risk* thereof. There might not be a nuclear war. (The Russians also might leave us alone if we disarmed.) The value of maintaining our nuclear forces depends heavily on what the probablilities are. If the chance of nuclear war is 90% (in, say, the next 50 years -- beyond that, who knows what the situation will be?), then drastic measures are called for. If the chance is more like .01%, a rather different reaction is appropriate. Personally, I would put it at about 10% -- which is much too high for comfort, but ... Furthermore, I believe that drastically reducing our nuclear stockpile would *increase* the chance of war, instead of decreasing it. > Really? It is a known fact that the more complex a system is, the more >likely >it is to fail. MOreover, system reliabilty is directly related to the number >of components in a system. Thus, the more nuclear weaponry we have, themore >likely an accident becomes. It is also reasonable to assue that there are' >nations and terrorist groups who would be willing to steal nuclear weapons >and technology. This need not be proven. It only makes sense to protect >ourselves against it. The more we have, the more difficult such protection >becomes. Yes, but the other possible cause of failure is that the Russians might decide it is advantageous to attack us. They are much more likely to do this if they perceive themselves as having a nuclear superiority. > Oops...gee whiz. I have to jump on Sevener here. I would not at this >time support unilateral disarmament. What I *DO* support is a uni (or bi) >lateral weapons *FREEZE*. Not at all the same thing! A unilateral freeze and bilateral freeze are not at all the same thing, either. > I can't figure wehere Sevener gets the number 2 from, but our impressive >nuclear arsenal certainly did nothing to deter the Soviets from invading >Afghanistan, did it? That isn't true. It wasn't *sufficient* to deter the Soviets from invading Afghanistan at the time they did. The American reaction was certainly one the things the Russians took into account in deciding to invade, and (perceived) American military power is the principle reason for them to care about our reaction. I hope you aren't going to argue that the size of our nuclear arsenal has nothing to do with our perceived military power? Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/13/86)
> >> And it gave the Soviets a decided > >> advantage in this regard; > >Here we see the most dangerous myth in our society today. > >What advantage?!? Do you really believe it is better to have 50,000 missiles > >than 500? Especially since many reputable independent scientists have > >recently estimated that ~200 nuclear explosions will > >irreparably damage the *entire* ecology of our planet. > > According to this reasoning, you should support SDI, since SDI would > cut down the Soviets' effective number of missiles--(say) 95% of their > missiles won't get through, meaning they have, in effect, 95% fewer > missiles. Meaning they have, in effect, great incentive to produce 20 times as many missiles. Only a madman or someone who hasn't seriously considered the likely effects of SDI would support it. Consider: We've been ignoring the Soviet's efforts at arms control, and have embarked on a research program which, if successful, would make us nearly immune to nuclear attack, making it seem at least possible that we could do a first strike, destroy the USSR, and have large pieces of our country left to tell about it. Since the Soviets don't have the technology to keep pace with us in SDI, their only option will be to produce *many* more missiles, or else learn to live with the knowlege that they exist only at our mercy. You don't really think they'll choose the second option, do you? I guess they have one other option which I hadn't mentioned: they could try attacking before SDI is implemented. Since you apparently support SDI, would you mind explaining which of these options you think the Soviets will take? > > What do you mean, they have taken the lead in halting the arms race? > What Soviet actions are you referring to? > Presumably the unilateral halting of testing by the Soviets, and the offer of a 50% reduction, or the offer of on-site independant inspections... > > >Hundreds (not hundreds of thousands) of missiles are enough to > >guarantee a first, second, or third strike, depending on your mood that day. > > They're enough for a first strike, but not enough for a second, because the > opponent's first strike would have our missile bases among its targets. But if there are only hundreds to be used, the earth might still be habitable afterward! Having enough missiles to satisfy your need for revenge guarantees our planet's inhabitability in the case of their use. > > Kenneth Arromdee -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/13/86)
Tom, I have saved your response so I can reply. Thanks for your interesting posting. I'm sure you'll just _love_ the reply. Guy ps. I posted this rather than mailed it so folks just don't think I'm not going to respond.
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/13/86)
Recently Karl and I had a discussion (is that the word?), here's my attempt to get the last word. Most of the posting is deleted. >I simply don't have the time to refute *every* argument in Guy's articles. >If nuclear excess were just another wasteful defense program, I probably >wouldn't bother to post these articles. I have been distracted long enough. >In future articles, I will address the risks associated with our >immense nuclear arsenal. >Coming soon to a terminal near you. >-- > The moon is more important than the sun, because > the moon gives us light at night; when we really need it! > Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad YOU don't have the time? You aren't responding to Tim Sevener. Try that sometime. (That's what's know as a 'left-handed' compliment, Tim). Guy
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (03/14/86)
> I did post an article > with (my opinion), reasonable estimates, which puts the US at about > 10,000 strategic warheads and about 2000 missles and bombers. >................................ > >It does not do any good to give soldiers 57 riffles per person, > >since each can only wield one (at most two). [Similarly, we do not need more nuclear weapons.] > True, 57 rifles per soldier is a point of diminishing returns. However, > ........................ > ..................... The parallel _I_ draw is between > having 57 soldiers and 1 soldier. Is there a point of diminishing returns > here? Probably yes, after all 35 soldiers to 1 is most likely as effective > as 57 to 1. That is how I see the question. We aren' talking about > imbalanced weapons systems (all nukes can fly to target if so ordered), > we're talking about relative force levels. And those force levels > don't favor the US. The argument here is that as long as we have less weapons than the other side, it makes sence to purchase new weapons. However, you ignore the purpose of weapons. Imagine that prices A and B have one fortress each. Prince A build a tunnel under the fortress of B and filled it with gunpowder. At this moment A thought that B is at his mercy, only to learn that B filled TWO tunnels with gunpowder under the portress of A I forsee two courses of action for A: i. dig the second tunnel; ii. negotiate with B to empty the tunnels in a verifiable way. I personally would think that ii is better. In the case of strategic nuclear weapons there are two applications for them. One is destroying nuclear weapons, the other is to destroy anything else. Inspect first the second purpose, which is destruction of non- -nuclear targets. How many targets in US, with radius of 5-10 miles would you mark for destruction as a Soviet strategist? I bet that 1000 such targets would contain the majority of population, and vast majority of industry. Say that you loose those targets and receive entire Warsaw pact teritory (although substancially destroyed). Does it pay? If no, do the reverse exercise. You are given the Soviet Union, remove from it (and other Warsaw pact nations) 1000 of targets and receive as the prise destroyed West Europe. Now we see why MAD secures West Europe against Soviet blitz-krieg. You can also notice that giving one side twice as many warheads will not change the equation very much, since the first thousand will destroy majority of the wealth in North America and Europe anyway. MAD doctrine was found repulsive for many reasons. The most important one is that it renders majority of conventional arsenals useless. What would be the purpose of thousands of M1-tanks if not the war in Europe, the choisest battleground of the two military blocks? If we stick to MAD in the broad sence, than our plan for the hypothetical Soviet invasion on West Europe (or Japan) is to destroy first some marginal targets and claim that if the hostilities will not cease, the full blow will follow. How then to justify levels of armament unknown to human kind before the WWII? Invent another doctrine!!! Therefore now we are supposed to be able to wipe out so many Soviet missiles that they will be unable to wipe-out our missiles or, more ambitious program, have so many missiles that even after the "first strike" we will be able to wipe-out their missiles. In the meantime, our boys defend the West Europe and Japan using all the fancy gear (which presumably contains portable concret shelters). MAD leaves, the window of vunrability enters the stage. > You can claim that force levels don't matter, > or that a weaker force level is better, but both of those are > counter-intuitive. That's why I say you bear the burden of proof. > As I argued, with MAD doctrine you have limited demand for weapons, with the newer ones we have unlimited. Many people think that all doctrines other than MAD are irrelevant, since when we pursue the alternative scenarios, every side may be destroyed anyway, with possible exclusion of the content of hardened silos. Would any sane (albeit evil) Soviet leader wage a war merely because some of the strategic missiles can survive, while the cities cannot? Does the profitability equation change dramatically? > > >Although we may disagree on the exact number, it is economic fallacy > >to assert that more nuclear weapons is *always* better. Excess is possible. > > I'm not asking for an indefinitely large nuclear force, just bigger than it > is now, and riding better delivery vehicles. > Why? To more accurately destroy land-based missiles, but to still leave alone submarines? What is the size of the gain? An additional day for WWIII? > > Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad > Guy Piotr Berman
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (03/15/86)
[] >> According to this reasoning, you should support SDI, since SDI would >> cut down the Soviets' effective number of missiles--(say) 95% of their >> missiles won't get through, meaning they have, in effect, 95% fewer >> missiles. > Meaning they have, in effect, great incentive to produce 20 times as > many missiles. One can have the incentive, but lack the ability. I don't remember who said this, but it went something like this: "The USSR without its military would be India!" -- meaning that its military masks an economic backet case. It has a hard time supporting what it has now. I rather doubt that it can build and support 20 times more. >> >> Kenneth Arromdee -- >Jeff Sonntag My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "If our defense depended upon those people who vote against every defense bill, we would be living under some Soviet commissar." -- New York City's Mayor Ed Koch
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/16/86)
> >> According to this reasoning, you should support SDI, since SDI would > >> cut down the Soviets' effective number of missiles--(say) 95% of their > >> missiles won't get through, meaning they have, in effect, 95% fewer > >> missiles. > > > Meaning they have, in effect, great incentive to produce 20 times as > > many missiles. > > One can have the incentive, but lack the ability. I don't remember who > said this, but it went something like this: "The USSR without its military > would be India!" -- meaning that its military masks an economic backet > case. It has a hard time supporting what it has now. I rather doubt > that it can build and support 20 times more. > David Olson So what do you think they'll do, if star wars works and they can't keep up? Resign themselves to existing at our sufferance or attack? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (03/17/86)
>>> SDI would >>> cut down the Soviets' effective number of missiles--(say) 95% of their >>> missiles won't get through, meaning they have, in effect, 95% fewer >>> missiles. >> Meaning they have, in effect, great incentive to produce 20 times as >> many missiles. >I rather doubt >that it can build and support 20 times more. > dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) If we can build a space based defense shield, the Soviets can probably increase their arsenal 20 fold. Some have estimated cost ratios of ten to one. Check the past issues of Scientific American; October 1984 if I remember correctly. It is expensive to shoot down each additional missile or decoy, and relatively cheap to deploy them. Granted, the Soviet economy is weaker than our own, but not *that* much weaker. So often, politicians tell us to spend a dollar, because it will force the Soviets To spend a dime. To be honest, newer estimates may not be as gloomy, since the proposed space plane (if built) could place "stuff" in low earth orbit for much less. When factored in, I doubt if this will make the difference. If anyone has more recent estimates, please post them. Again, when discussing SDI, the risks are probably more important than the economics. In both areas, I think ground based ABM systems win hands down (if we must have ABM systems at all). If sufficiently provoked, I will post my thoughts on SDI. -- The moon is more important than the sun, because the moon gives us light at night; when we really need it! Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/18/86)
> You might think that with modern weapons a soldier > should be able to kill an enemy by firing, what, maybe 100 to 200 rounds. > For comparision, that is about 2 to 4 M16-fulls of ammo. Minor nitpick, but I thought I might as well mention it -- The standard issue M-16 magazine holds 20 rounds. There are also 30-round magazines available; I believe they are issued on a more limited basis. On the civilian market, there are 40-round box and 75-round drum magazines available, but they are not military standard issue; reliability goes down as the size of magazines goes up. I believe that it was SOP in Vietnam to load somehat less than 20 rounds in a standard magazine for the greatest reliability in functioning. So "100 to 200 rounds" is more like "5 to 10 M-16-fulls" instead of "2 to 4". Regards, Will
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/20/86)
If only 5% of Russian missiles can get through SDI, they need to increase their missiles by a factor 20. Or do they, really? Couldn't they merely double their missiles, and launch the extra missiles simultaneously to attack the SDI's orbitting hardware directly? It's a relatively small number of targets, so 5% of those missiles might very well be enough to destroy, or at least cripple, SDI. Then, perhaps 2 minutes later, they could launch a "traditional" first strike against ground-based targets... -- David Canzi "Offending with substance since 1985"
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/21/86)
> [] > >>> > Meaning they have, in effect, great incentive to produce 20 times as > >> > many missiles. > >> > >> One can have the incentive, but lack the ability. I don't remember who > >> said this, but it went something like this: "The USSR without its military > >> would be India!" -- meaning that its military masks an economic backet > >> case. It has a hard time supporting what it has now. I rather doubt > >> that it can build and support 20 times more. > >> David Olson > >> So what do you think they'll do, if star wars works and they can't keep up? > >Resign themselves to existing at our sufferance or attack? > > But, let's assume that you think they might attack. > > As I see it, that is like saying that people should not put locks on > their home. After all, if a burglar saw you doing that, it might > provoke him into attacking your house now, while he still can. > > But, let's further assume that such logic was valid. Bad assumption. Your analogy is seriously flawed. Try this one: two mortal enemies are holding sawed-off shotguns on each other, a Mexican standoff. Until one of them sees the other reaching for a large shield... What should he do? > Suppose there was > some form of disarmament imposed on both sides. What is the difference > between someone thinking, "I had better attack while my weapons are still > effective!", and "I had better attack while I still have weapons!"? > First of all, disarmament can't be 'imposed' on someone unless they've already been defeated or something. Disarmament can only otherwise come about due to the choice of the party or parties disarming. Why would someone think: 'I'd better attack while I still have my weapons!' when they were the ones to decide to put their weapons down? Doesn't make any sense to me. And don't forget the second half of the first statement. "I'd better attack while my weapons are still effective, *otherwise I'll be at the mercy of my enemy!*' Not an unreasonable sentiment at all. Now do you understand the difference between those statements? > > David Olson -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/24/86)
> >> >> And it gave the Soviets a decided > >> >> advantage in this regard; > >> >Here we see the most dangerous myth in our society today. > >> >What advantage?!? Do you really believe it is better to have 50,000 missiles > >> >than 500? Especially since many reputable independent scientists have > >> >recently estimated that ~200 nuclear explosions will > >> >irreparably damage the *entire* ecology of our planet. > >> > >> According to this reasoning, you should support SDI, since SDI would > >> cut down the Soviets' effective number of missiles--(say) 95% of their > >> missiles won't get through, meaning they have, in effect, 95% fewer > >> missiles. > > > > Meaning they have, in effect, great incentive to produce 20 times as > >many missiles. Only a madman or someone who hasn't seriously considered > >the likely effects of SDI would support it. > >My point was not to support SDI, but to show why I don't believe your argument. > If, as you state, 50,000 missiles are no better than 500, there is no > reason why the USSR, reduced to an effective 5% (say) of their missiles, > would build more, because having an effective several thousand missiles > would be no better than several hundred. But what it there are some people in russia as hawkish and as unconcerned about nuclear war as you seem to be? Then they won't be happy with only 5% of their missiles. They won't be happy until they have absolute superiority over us if they're at all like you, Ken. Just because there would be no reason to build more doesn't mean that they wouldn't. And one other thing, Ken - In your hurry to reduce your opponent's and my arguments to one-liners, you've apparently lost sight of the fact that you're responding to two entirely different people here. > >... > > Since you apparently support SDI, would you mind explaining which of > >these options you think the Soviets will take? > > I am undecided on SDI (yes that's possible). By mentioning it I was using >the (apparently correct) assumption that you don't support it, and showing that >your argument wasn't consistent with not supporting SDI. I was agruing against > your other argument, not for SDI. What, was the question too tough for you? You had to trim all but the last clause from it and then ignore it? The question, Ken, was: faced with the options of 1.) Relative soviet nuclear ineffectiveness due to a 'successful' star wars, 2.) Massively increasing nuclear forces, in an attempt to have 'effectively' as many warheads as they would have without star wars, 3.) Attacking now before their nuclear arsenal becomes ineffective, what do *you* think the Soviets will do, Ken? What would *you* advocate for the US, were our positions reversed, and our high-tech was sufficiently far behind the Soviets that attempting to emulate their star wars research was not a promising option? And by the way, the position of my fellow arms-reductionist is *not* inconsistant with lack of support for SDI. Both positions are *for* a better chance of there being a world left for our grandchildren. > > But if there are only hundreds to be used, the earth might still be > >habitable afterward! Having enough missiles to satisfy your need for revenge > >guarantees our planet's inhabitability in the case of their use. > > When you refer to a second strike as "revenge" you miss the point. You > had originally claimed that hundreds are enough for a second strike, and > I pointed out that they are not. You don't seem to have disputed this. > Do you concede, then, that your statement is wrong, and hundreds are NOT > enough to allow a second strike? (Please note that this is irrelevant to the > other issue you brought up, whether a second strike is DESIRABLE or just > "revenge"; this is about whether one would be POSSIBLE.) I didn't dispute that since I wasn't particularly interested in that part of the argument you were having with another fellow. But since you seem to be so fixated on it, I feel compelled to mention that it has already been pointed out that our nuclear forces on submarines are untrackable, and essentially invulnerable to a first strike by anyone. They contain sufficient warheads to do all the second striking any non-psychotic would want to do. Satisfied? In fact, I don't see any reason at all that the US should have more than a few or possibly several hundred nuclear missiles on submarines. That alone would be a sufficient nuclear deterrant. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (03/24/86)
For the past month, I (and many many others) have submitted postings refuting the tired old "nuclear parity is required to guarantee a second strike" argument. Although many important facts are classified, considerable evidence remains. Sevener (if I remember correctly) referenced several reputable studies. Even more salient, the *defense* *department* doesn't even believe nuclear parity is *required* for a second strike. As Milo Medin pointed out: > PD 59 and many other policy > statements from the executive branch, and the whole strategic force > structure is designed around a counterforce strategy. If we were > under a countervalue doctrine, all we would need would be a few > Trident submarines... No ICBM's (with low CEP), little C^3I, > and a few bombers just in case... Despite these articles, some still cling to their beliefs. Ken Arrombee provides an illustrative example: > [ long discussion on the importance of maintaining a second ] > [ strike capability for deterrence; which few would deny ] > You had originally claimed that hundreds are enough for a second strike, and > I pointed out that they are not. You don't seem to have disputed this. We have done more than dispute it, we have (in my opinion) thoroughly refuted it! You either have evidence nobody knows about (not even the defense department), or you simply haven't been reading these articles. How much deprogramming is required to undo the brainwashing of the media and the political institutions of our country?!? Once engrained, people seem to cling to *any* "national security" argument with the same religious furver that surrounds creationism, conspiracy theories, etc. Unfortunately, politicians prey upon this phenomenon to sell nuclear buildup (an otherwise unpopular policy). You would think a common sense understanding of the destructive power of nuclear weaponry would be an adequate refutation. When combined with the many studies and statements referenced in past articles, how can people still believe the "second strike" reasoning? Disclaimer: Dismantling the nuclear parity == second strike myth does not, in and of itself, justify unilateral disarmament. The defense agencies have *other* reasons for maintaining nuclear parity at any cost. *These* reasons must be understood and refuted. I shall address these later. For now, can we please dispense with the "second strike" support for nuclear excess? -- The moon is more important than the sun, because the moon gives us light at night; when we really need it! Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/27/86)
>If only 5% of Russian missiles can get through SDI, they need to >increase their missiles by a factor 20. Or do they, really? > >Couldn't they merely double their missiles, and launch the extra >missiles simultaneously to attack the SDI's orbitting hardware >directly? It's a relatively small number of targets, so 5% of those >missiles might very well be enough to destroy, or at least cripple, >SDI. Then, perhaps 2 minutes later, they could launch a "traditional" >first strike against ground-based targets... >-- >David Canzi "Offending with substance since 1985" Why should they need to increase their numbers at all? 5% is far more than enough to wipe the US (and us as well) off the map, and probably far more than enough to cause mass starvation around the world by its environmental effects and its effects on communication networks. They could probably halve their number of missiles in response to a 95% SDI, and still have plenty. The world would never know the difference, anyway. Our civilization depends so critically on continuous supplies of raw and processed resources that even a minor disruption ( say, destroy O'Hare and Atlanta airports and a few main railway junctions) could kill an awful lot of people and disrupt the economy probably worse than the Great Depression did. You don't need 50% or even 5% dead initially to find you no longer have the country you thought you had. A less developed country could probably stand a lot more damage. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt