orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/10/86)
Some informing facts for Karl Dahlke's consideration (not that it will make any difference): > > >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. > 1)The US has approximately 25,000+ nuclear warheads including both strategic and tactical warheads. We have approximately 7000 strategic warheads. If you want a complete catalog, I will be glad to supply one. (a good source, even if slightly out of date is the November, 1982 issue of Scientific American which contains an exhaustive list of both sides nuclear weapons systems at that time) 2)The Soviets *have* unilaterally stopped all their nuclear testing. They have stopped such testing since last August. Yet the US refuses to stop its testing (specifically Reagan refuses to stop and to this date Congress has not cutoff funds for nuclear testing) Indeed Reagan ordered a nuclear test soon after the Geneva Summit in case there was any doubt of his determination to continue the nuclear arms race. The Soviets have offered to verify their testing moratorium with on-site inspections. To backup their sincerity in supporting on-site inspections last summer for the first time they allowed the International Atomic Energy Commission to inspect their civilian nuclear power plants. Moreover the leaders of Sweden, Greece, India and 2 other countries have offered to verify the Soviet testing moratorium. These countries are *very* concerned about the nuclear arms race since they know they would be victims of a global holocaust as much as the US and USSR. A similar unilateral moratorium on atmospheric nuclear testing by John F. Kennedy led to the first major nuclear arms control treaty, the Limited Test Ban treaty, in 1963. Since then neither the US nor the USSR has conducted a single above-ground nuclear test - thus sparin us all from continued doses of strontium-90 and other radioactive fallout. Given that Reagan refuses to even stop nuclear testing after a unilateral Soviet moratorium, how can they expect him to respond to a unilateral moratorium on weapons deployment? Would he not label such a moratorium "propaganda" and find a myriad of excuses to continue the nuclear arms race? This is not to justify continued Soviet deployments, it is simply to question whether we are doing enough ourselves to respond to their unilateral *action* to stop their own nuclear tests. If we cannot stop nuclear testing when the Soviets have totally stopped testing how can we expect ot make *any* progress in stopping the nuclear arms race? tim sevener whuxn!orb
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/13/86)
I'm _almost_ as stubborn as Tim, as this will show. >> = Karl, > = Tim >Some informing facts for Karl Dahlke's consideration >(not that it will make any difference): The facts matter. Sorry to intrude this odd idea. >> >> >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. >> >1)The US has approximately 25,000+ nuclear warheads including both > strategic and tactical warheads. We have approximately 7000 strategic warheads. > If you want a complete catalog, I will be glad to supply one. > (a good source, even if slightly out of date is the November, 1982 > issue of Scientific American which contains an exhaustive list > of both sides nuclear weapons systems at that time) > The US doesn't have 50,000 missles. That's established, right? The figures I gave for ground based missles are actually over estimates. I tried to post a more detailed article but it got eaten by something. I'll post what I consider approximately correct numbers on this issue in a day or so. >2)The Soviets *have* unilaterally stopped all their nuclear testing. > They have stopped such testing since last August. Yet the US refuses > to stop its testing (specifically Reagan refuses to stop and to this date > Congress has not cutoff funds for nuclear testing) Indeed Reagan > ordered a nuclear test soon after the Geneva Summit in case there was > any doubt of his determination to continue the nuclear arms race. Or to defend the United States. Depends on your point of view. Not everyone is in love with these Soviet ideas. Maybe the Soviets just don't need to test right now. Maybe testing is good. (blasphemy) Too bad Congress is in on Reagan's evil conspiracy. The worst thing about the 'arms race' is that only the Soviets hjave been running in the race for quite some time. When was the last time the US deployed a ground based missle? When was the last time the Soviets did that? > The Soviets have offered to verify their testing moratorium with > on-site inspections. To backup their sincerity in supporting on-site > inspections last summer for the first time they allowed the International > Atomic Energy Commission to inspect their civilian nuclear power plants. > Moreover the leaders of Sweden, Greece, India and 2 other countries > have offered to verify the Soviet testing moratorium. These countries Sweden, Greece, India ???? I don't trust 'em. Maybe Israel, Taiwan and West Germany. Or don't you trust those countries? How about the US does the inspecting. Of course, in order for this to be meaningful the Soviets would have to give up their 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Maybe we could get them to sign a treaty... Do I hear the name 'Helsinki', do I hear the phrase 'Soviet failure to honor treaties', .... etc., etc. ad nauseam. Maybe we could get the Soviets to promise not to make or use chemical weapons while we're at it. Tim, just in case you're ever in the USSR, watch out for the anthrax. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. > are *very* concerned about the nuclear arms race since they know > they would be victims of a global holocaust as much as the US and USSR. Of course, _I_ am immortal and _just_ _don't_ _care_ if a nuclear holocaust occurs. > > A similar unilateral moratorium on atmospheric nuclear testing by > John F. Kennedy led to the first major nuclear arms control treaty, > the Limited Test Ban treaty, in 1963. Since then neither the US nor > the USSR has conducted a single above-ground nuclear test - thus sparin > us all from continued doses of strontium-90 and other radioactive fallout. Sparing us from continued doses of US and USSR strontium-90. Actually, I regard the test ban treaty as an environmental agreement rather than an arms control agreement. It certainly didn't restrain either the US or the USSR. > Given that Reagan refuses to even stop nuclear testing after a unilateral > Soviet moratorium, how can they expect him to respond to a unilateral > moratorium on weapons deployment? Would he not label such a moratorium > "propaganda" and find a myriad of excuses to continue the nuclear arms > race? Maybe he doesn't think that it would be good for the people of the US. > This is not to justify continued Soviet deployments, it is simply to > question whether we are doing enough ourselves to respond to their > unilateral *action* to stop their own nuclear tests. > If we cannot stop nuclear testing when the Soviets have totally stopped > testing how can we expect ot make *any* progress in stopping the > nuclear arms race? > > tim sevener whuxn!orb When the Soviets show that they honor the treaties they sign, maybe I'll believe them. Besides, their action doesn't restrain their military build-up. I predict that when it does, they'll be testing again. Guy