orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/23/85)
Over and over again militarists have told us that the U.S. "disarmed"
in the 70's while the Soviet Union continued building new nuclear arms.
Unfortunately it is true that the Soviet Union continued building
new nuclear arms. Just as unfortunately the U.S. led the way.
In fact these are some of the major nuclear weapons systems
built or modernized by the U.S. during the 70's:
1)1970-75: Replacement of Minuteman I & II's with 550 Minuteman III's
2)1971-76: Replacement of Polaris A3's with 496 Polaris C-3's
3)1971-76: Addition of 65 FB-111 SAC bombers
Addition of 356 F-111 bombers with nuclear capabilities
4)1971-77: MIRVing of 496 SLBM's on Poseidons
5)1972-75: Addition of 1140 SRAM's on B-52's and FB-111's
6)1979-83: Retrofitting of 900 Mk12A's on 300 Minuteman III's
7)1979-82: Retrofitting of 192 Trident I missiles on 12 Poseidon submarines
8)1976 : Beginning of Trident submarine program
9)1981 : Air launched cruise missiles, first of 4,350 go on B-52's
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 1970: 4,000 Strategic nuclear warheads
1980: ~10,000 Strategic nuclear warheads
We have also been told by Reagan and the Committee to create the Future Danger
that spending by the War Dept. has declined. In fact, according to the
Controller of the War Dept. here are the figures in constant dollars
adjusted for inflation:
1971: $179.9 billion*
1981: $193.9 billion
*note: the figure for 1971 includes billions for the Vietnam War, all our
current spending is going to prepare for the next (and probably last)
War
Did this modernization reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons?
No, it did not. Did it make us more secure by deploying missiles
which were many times more accurate than their predecessors?
No it did not. Since the majority of Soviet forces are in ICBM's
it moves us closer to a potential first-strike capability which is
a very unstable and dangerous situation.
Will the planned new nuclear arms reduce the level of nuclear weapons?
No it will not. According to "Arsenal of Democracy" by 1990 if
nuclear arms are increased by programs already in the works we will
have 52,500 nuclear warheads instead of 35,766 nuclear warheads.
The *only* positive feature of these new weapons have been decreases
in total megatonnage. There is a much better way to accomplish such
decreases in megatonnage: reduce rather than increase the total number
of nuclear warheads on both sides.
tim sevener whuxl!orbmedin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (04/28/85)
> We have also been told by Reagan and the Committee to create the Future Danger > that spending by the War Dept. has declined. In fact, according to the > Controller of the War Dept. here are the figures in constant dollars > adjusted for inflation: > > 1971: $179.9 billion* > 1981: $193.9 billion > > *note: the figure for 1971 includes billions for the Vietnam War, all our > current spending is going to prepare for the next (and probably last) > War But is smaller in terms of GNP. The GNP of the U.S. in 1981 was much larger than in 1971. Constant dollars do not reflect the defense budget in the light of general gov't expansion due to GNP increases. > > Did this modernization reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons? > No, it did not. Did it make us more secure by deploying missiles > which were many times more accurate than their predecessors? > No it did not. Since the majority of Soviet forces are in ICBM's > it moves us closer to a potential first-strike capability which is > a very unstable and dangerous situation. > Will the planned new nuclear arms reduce the level of nuclear weapons? > No it will not. According to "Arsenal of Democracy" by 1990 if > nuclear arms are increased by programs already in the works we will > have 52,500 nuclear warheads instead of 35,766 nuclear warheads. > It did not reduce the stockpile, but the higher accuracy of the weapons allowed us to convert from a countervalue strategy to one of counterforce. And more warheads do not necessarily mean more danger, just as fewer does not necessarily mean safer. And the figure for warheads you site includes tactical and theater forces, not just strategic. The important thing is stability, which arms control treaties have not only not encouraged, but DISCOURAGED by encouraging MIRV'ing. Its questionable whether or not we are better off after the SALT process than before. > The *only* positive feature of these new weapons have been decreases > in total megatonnage. There is a much better way to accomplish such > decreases in megatonnage: reduce rather than increase the total number > of nuclear warheads on both sides. > That kind of staement ignores military objectives and requirements. Decreasing the meagatonnage lowers the collateral damage, and increasing accuracy allows more capability. Remember, we gave up on MAD sometime ago. Milo > tim sevener whuxl!orb *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***