orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/13/86)
"Come on all you Americans, Put yourselves behind the Plan
To put new weapons out in space, to totally blow up the Human Race
Then when the human race is done,
Maybe we can even blow up the SUN!"
Guy Ferraioli responds to the perfectly reasonable point
that there is a point of diminishing returns to having more
weapons, specifically nuclear:
>
> 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.
>
So what does that *mean* Guy? Several experts in the field of
nuclear weapons have said that about *300* nuclear weapons is
enough to totally destroy either the USSR or the US. Indeed former
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara estimated that 100 nuclear weapons
of no more than 50 kilotons each would suffice as a deterrent because
it would destroy 25% of Soviet population and 50% of Soviet industrial
capacity. (This is cited in "Arsenal of Democracy" by Tom Gervasi, p.24)
Another estimate cited by Tom Gervasi is that of Robert Aldridge,
an aeronautical engineer who worked on the design of several nuclear
weapons systems, who estimated that *400* warheads would suffice.
How many nuclear warheads do we currently have?
As Karl Dahlke pointed out, approximately 26,000.
We all know that *one* tiny bomb (by current standards) dropped on
Hiroshima completely devastated that city. How many Hiroshimas
can we destroy right now? 700,000, that's right, not 700, not
7000, not 70,000 but 700,000. There aren't that many cities in
the whole world. ("Fate of the Earth" By Jonathan Schell contains
depressing and terrifying results of the most recent studies on
the probable effects of Nuclear War and also total Hiroshimas)
Now admittedly you will no doubt point out that having all these
weapons means nothing if they are wiped out in a first-strike.
What are the odds of our *land-based* missiles being wiped out
in a first strike? According to an article by Kosta Tsipis in
Scientific American, when adjusting for reasonable estimates of
uncertainty faced by the Soviets in such a first strike, the
most likely estimate is that 44% of our Minuteman ICBM's would
be destroyed in a Soviet first strike. Which leaves about 500
Minuteman's left to decimate the Soviet Union. As to our
*sea-based* missiles 0%, that is zilch, nada, *none* of our
submarine-based missiles could be destroyed in a Soviet first
strike at this time and for the forseeable future. Each Trident
submarine carries approximately 200 nuclear warheads - in other
words just *one* Trident submarine could decimate the Soviet Union
according to Robert McNamara and other experts.
I do not know if you are old enough to remember the Cuban Missile
Crisis. I was a kid and recall that people were scared to death.
There was talk of the "end of the world". Such talk was not
unreasonable, because it would have obliterated the US and poisoned
the whole planet. Do you know how many nuclear warheads the Soviets
had pointed at us when we scared for our lives?
Less than 300. That's right, less than 300.
So what is the point? To split the earth into smithereens?
To go out like a supernova to be seen from distant galaxies by
*intelligent* life that has learned to live in Peace?
As Einstein said "The atom has changed everything except our way
of thinking. And thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe."
tim sevener whuxn!orbweemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/16/86)
In article <1039@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >So what does that *mean* Guy? Several experts in the field of >nuclear weapons have said that about *300* nuclear weapons is >enough to totally destroy either the USSR or the US. Indeed former >Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara estimated that 100 nuclear weapons >of no more than 50 kilotons each would suffice as a deterrent because >it would destroy 25% of Soviet population and 50% of Soviet industrial >capacity. (This is cited in "Arsenal of Democracy" by Tom Gervasi, p.24) DoD does offer some sort of rationale for the overkill. First, they have the triad theory, requiring enough weaponry to waste the Soviet Union on land, sea and on air. There's a factor of three for you. Then DoD thinks that maybe only half of those with their finger on the button will actually follow orders. Another factor of two. Then DoD worries about missiles malfunctioning at all sorts of places from silo to target. That's another factor of classified size. Then DoD worries about all those missiles hitting the wrong target. Those don't count, so DoD needs more missiles to make up for them. And then there's a factor of two to twenty to allow us to respond to a successful Soviet first strike, the bastards. And finally, DoD probably just throws in a factor of two or so, what the hell, just to be safe. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720