al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (03/01/85)
Assertion: Deployment of star wars will result in thermonuclear war Data: Geoffrey Blainey in "The Causes of War" investigated the causes of all international wars in the last three centuries. He found that in most cases one side, the other, or both had a great feeling of optimism just before hostilities began. 'Proof' (of course there's no such thing as a real proof in politics): Given this data and the lack of defense against nuclear weapons, it is easy to see why we have not seen a major nuclear war - no one is able to delude themselves into optimism about world war three. With a star wars defense, whether it works or not, it will be possible for leaders to convince themselves that victory can be had at little cost and this apparently necessary precondition for war will exist. If star wars works, millions will die on one side. If star wars doesn't work - a significant possibility given the human penchant for error in design and operation - millions will die on both sides. Most of us will probably be included.
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (03/04/85)
You are not being fair. Blainey's chief argument in 'cause of war' is that war originates out of ambiguity in power distribution. That is, if one side percieves itself to be clearly inferior to another, they will not attack. They may try and become stronger, but as long as who's on top remains clear, peace will continue, on the terms of the stronger. Let me say this, many of us who have worked on defensive systems (as I have) don't believe that a global shield can be built now, or in the near term. What we do believe is that significant increases in deterrence are achieveable. If you feel that the land based ICBM forces are vulnerable (as I do) and that they are needed (as I do), then they must be protected. Protection can be had with active or passive means. Nobody complains about building hard silos, but when building interceptors to stop RV's targeted at those same silos, we are somehow encouraging WW III. Many of the people who argue against BMD are people who buy MAD. If you negate MAD, thats a bad thing in their viewpoint. Well, MAD is obselete, we target counterforce, and have for a long time. I see nothing desirable in the deaths of millions of innocent people in case of a war. If the scale of nuclear war can be limited, then thats good. I don't advocate it being fought in the first place, but if it has to be, lets be prepared. And that preparation will further serve as a deterrent to the war. I don't buy MAD, if I did, I'd feel differently about BMD. So if we are going to discuss BMD, lets not fight the old counterforce-countervalue argument yet again... Milo
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (03/13/85)
> You are not being fair. Blainey's chief argument in 'cause of war' > is that war originates out of ambiguity in power distribution. > That is, if one side percieves itself to be clearly inferior > to another, they will not attack. They may try and become > stronger, but as long as who's on top remains clear, peace will > continue, on the terms of the stronger. > However, if one side perceives itself clearly stronger than the other, it may attack (e.g., Afganistan). > Let me say this, many of us who have worked on defensive systems > (as I have) don't believe that a global shield can be built > now, or in the near term. What we do believe is that > significant increases in deterrence are achieveable. That doesn't mean someone like Reagan won't come to belief that the system bilt to protect missles won't protect the people. That's where the problem lies. > If you feel that the land based ICBM forces are vulnerable > (as I do) and that they are needed (as I do), then they > must be protected. Protection can be had with active or passive means. > Nobody complains about building hard silos, but when building > interceptors to stop RV's targeted at those same silos, we are > somehow encouraging WW III. Silo's can't destroy peaceful space assets (e.g., space station). Silo's don't move the arms race into a dangerous new field. Silo's don't cost $26 billion JUST FOR THE RESEARCH, never mind deployment. Nobody believes silo's will protect the population. Perhaps more important, nobody CAN believe that. > > Many of the people who argue against BMD are people who buy > MAD. > I don't really like MAD. But it has one tremendous virtue - it has been shown to work. Frankly, I'd prefer to dismantle the d--- things. If star wars could really protect the population of the US, no price is too high. But half a trillion dollars or so to protect a bunch of missles? Forget it. There must be a better way.
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (03/17/85)
> However, if one side perceives itself clearly stronger than the other, it > may attack (e.g., Afganistan). > That's exactly my point. If the USSR percieves itself to be stronger than the US, the chance of war increases. > That doesn't mean someone like Reagan won't come to belief that the > system bilt to protect missles won't protect the people. That's where > the problem lies. > Oh, it will protect the people as well, if its a global space based system. It won't protect them 100%, but some damage limitation will occcur if 90% of the incoming warheads are destroyed. Massive casualties? Yes. Less casualties? Also Yes. > Silo's can't destroy peaceful space assets (e.g., space station). Silo's > don't move the arms race into a dangerous new field. Silo's don't cost > $26 billion JUST FOR THE RESEARCH, never mind deployment. Nobody believes > silo's will protect the population. Perhaps more important, nobody CAN > believe that. > If nuclear war breaks out, I hardly think the loss of civilian space assets will be significant. The space station would be a significant loss, not because of its civilian value, but because of its great military value, but thats another story. And if you lessened the chance of war by building such a system, I think it would be worth it. I just can't imagine the Soviets launching a first strike knowing that it will only be 5% effective. Also, superhardened silos are VERY expensive to build. As for moving the arms race into a new dangerous field, if the total danger is reduced, thats fine with me. Besides, you're quite naive if you think that space is free from weapons now... > I don't really like MAD. But it has one tremendous virtue - it has been > shown to work. Frankly, I'd prefer to dismantle the d--- things. > So would I, I would prefer not having a defense budget at all, but the real world isnt like that. > If star wars could really protect the population of the US, no price > is too high. But half a trillion dollars or so to protect a bunch > of missles? Forget it. There must be a better way. How about 1/2 a trillion to prevent nuclear war by increasing deterrence substantially? The end result is the same. You're missing the point as to why we build missiles in the first place... Better way? Well, we're all waiting for someone to come up with it... Milo Milo
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (03/17/85)
> Oh, it will protect the people as well, if its a global space > based system. It won't protect them 100%, but some damage > limitation will occcur if 90% of the incoming warheads are > destroyed. Massive casualties? Yes. Less casualties? Also Yes. > > Milo A "Star Wars" BMD system in orbit will only be useful if the Soviets are stupid enough to keep basing their strategic forces on high sub-orbital ICBM systems of the sort that an orbital BMD system can handle. The Soviets should be able to replace their ICBM systems with SLBM, cruise, and as-yet-unknown delivery systems both more quickly and more cheaply than we can build even a 90% effective defence against their ICBM's. SDI as an element of strategy is nothing more than the Maginot Line mentality projected into space. ROM DOS
mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (03/17/85)
If today I am your equal or superior, and I know that tomorrow I will be inferior, I might feel obliged to attack you today, not trusting your motives for changing your status. A deployed defensive system may very well be a deterent. The deployment of that system is an incredibly destabilising action. -- Mark Roddy Net working, Just reading the news. (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy)
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/19/85)
> > You are not being fair. Blainey's chief argument in 'cause of war' > > is that war originates out of ambiguity in power distribution. > > That is, if one side percieves itself to be clearly inferior > > to another, they will not attack. They may try and become > > stronger, but as long as who's on top remains clear, peace will > > continue, on the terms of the stronger. > > I don't know about Blainey's argument in 'cause of war' because I haven't read it. But I do know what happened in World War I. Both sides were relatively equal in terms of power. The Germans were eager to join the grab for colonies and were on the upswing in power, where Britain was facing problems holding onto the colonies it already had. But most importantly, regardless of the shifts in relative power for one side or the other, was that the military systems on both sides believed that there would be an enormous strategic advantage to attacking first. Both sides had very detailed and mechanized mobilization plans so that they could be the first to strike in a war. Because these mobilization plans were designed to move as quickly as possible they were also as automatic as possible. Once the trains started moving to the front then a whole sequence of train schedules and further mobilization was started which involved no conscious decision by anybody. For such pauses would interrupt the train schedules and the ability to strike first. Does all this sound remotely familiar? Substitute launching schedules for train schedules and you have our present system of "deterrence". So what happened in World War I? A relatively insignificant leader of a small country in Central Europe being assassinated led to the whole mechanism being invoked before anybody could even stop to think about it. Of course with the benefit of hindsight we now know that the idea that whoever struck first would inevitably win the war quickly was false. Both sides got locked into a grueling stalemate which lasted for years rather than the months the brilliant strategists had planned on. But the important lesson is that it is very dangerous to have a system which gives or *appears to give* the advantage to the side which strikes first. Unfortunately the new generation of landbased missiles like the MX promotes or appears to provide an advantage for the side which strikes first. So what about this argument: > > Let me say this, many of us who have worked on defensive systems > > (as I have) don't believe that a global shield can be built > > now, or in the near term. What we do believe is that > > significant increases in deterrence are achieveable. > Are significant increases in deterrence achievable with the simple technological fix of a Start Wars Defense? No. Here's why: 1)Start Wars can do nothing about the next major advance in offensive technology: namely the massive deployment of highly mobile, hard to detect cruise missiles. Both sides are planning on deploying thousands of these noxious little weapons in the next decade. Some proponents of Start Wars talk about stopping "potential terrorist attacks". What could be more congenial to the potential terrorists than a weapon which can fit in your basement? Nobody claims that Start Wars can stop cruise missiles. Is this not defending against the last generation of missiles rather than the future potential generation of missiles? 2)Start Wars only stabilizes the position for the side which deploys it first. If you have a reasonably successful Start Wars type system *allied* with a major deployment of incredibly destructive first strike weapons like the MX then you have totally destroyed the deterrence of the other side except for the potential nuclear winter effect. You have very accurate and destructive offensive missiles like the MX which can strike first while the other side has little chance to retaliate *provided the other side does not greatly expand its own offensive forces*. What if the Soviets beat us to the finish line? Then what? The only way Start Wars could even conceivably actually benefit mutual deterrence is if it were coupled with a moratorium on the development or deployment of new offensive missiles. However is this what we see happening? Not at all, we see the Reagan administration not only pushing Start Wars to the hilt but also pressing as hard as possible for the MX missile whose only purpose is as a first-strike or earlystrike weapon. And they are also pushing every other offensive weapon the Pentagon can come up with. Sounds like a prescription for *superiority* not balance. Remember that the concept of *superiority* was endorsed in the Republican platform. Further considerations will be given in another article tim sevener whuxl!orb
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (03/20/85)
This brings up a point which has really annoyed me in the press lately. People are saying that BMD systems don't address problems of cruise missiles, and they are right, but then thyey cite this as a major flaw in defensive strategies.
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (03/20/85)
Sorry about the last message, I hit the wrong key.... What I was saying is that shooting down cruise missiles is no big deal, all you need to do is beef up the air defense system with SAM's (we have none now) and the interceptor wings (we have about 300 planes in noth america, mostly ancient). We used to have a large system, but ICBM's came along.... In short, its not a hard problem... Milo
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (03/21/85)
> What I was saying is that shooting down cruise missiles is no big deal, > all you need to do is beef up the air defense system with SAM's (we > have none now) and the interceptor wings (we have about 300 planes in > noth america, mostly ancient). We used to have a large system, > but ICBM's came along.... In short, its not a hard problem... > > > Milo The Soviets (as I'm sure you know) have maintained massive air defense systems. It must be pretty stupid for the US to invest in cruise missiles. Baba
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (03/23/85)
> If the USSR percieves itself to be stronger > than the US, the chance of war increases. > And if the US percieves itself as capable of attacking without unacceptable damage WE may attack, e.g., Grenada, Vietnam. Why not USSR? > > Oh, it will protect the people as well, if its a global space > based system. It won't protect them 100%, but some damage > limitation will occcur if 90% of the incoming warheads are > destroyed. Massive casualties? Yes. Less casualties? Also Yes. I have talked to a number of people who are have worked on ABM systems for years. None of them believe that star wars can protect the population of the US from catastrophic destruction. Star wars can, and very well might, destroy civilian space assests whether nuclear war breaks out or not. These assets are not now at risk. The controller of star wars will be capable of denying all other nations access to space. This will allow national sovernty (sp) to be established in orbit. The nation system threatens to destroy our civilization on Earth, I'd like to keep free access to space. > And if you lessened the chance of war by building such a system, > I think it would be worth it. I just can't imagine the Soviets > launching a first strike knowing that it will only be 5% effective. > But star wars won't lessen the chance of war, it will increase it. Even if a Soviet first strike got our ICBMs a single Trident could destroy their society. Over 60% of our nuclear force is on submarines, more is based on bombers, and the missles in Europe can reach much of Russia. A successful first strike against this force is simply not credible. With star wars I think a first strike by the side with the best star wars defense is extremely likely. Star wars will work much better if you know when the strike comes and if some missles and command and control can be destroyed on the ground. This is the case for the side that strikes first. The situation is even worse if star wars components themselves are suseptable to a first strike. > Besides, you're quite > naive if you think that space is free from weapons now... > No, I'm informed. There is ONE operational space weapons system, a very limited Soviet system. None of these weapons are actually in orbit at this moment. There are lots of spy satellites, but I'm all for those. You can't kill people with spy satellites. > > I would prefer not having a defense budget at all, > but the real world isnt like that. > Circa 1800: 'I would prefer not having slaves at all, but the real world isn't like that.'
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (03/25/85)
> And if the US percieves itself as capable of attacking without unacceptable > damage WE may attack, e.g., Grenada, Vietnam. Why not USSR? > Because the U.S. is responsible to its people, and if we did something WRONG, the people would complain. I see Greneda & Vietnam perfectly justified, as many people do. But Lebanon was not, and neither was Vietnam in the opinion of most, so we pulled out. You see, the US and USSR are asymmetric, lets not forget that. The Soviet leaadership is accountable to noone. > > I have talked to a number of people who are have worked on ABM systems > for years. None of them believe that star wars can protect the population > of the US from catastrophic destruction. > Of course, it depends on what you call catastrophic. I'm not arguing for that anyways, I'm not trying to replace counterforce and deterrence, at least not yet. > Star wars can, and very well might, destroy civilian space assests > whether nuclear war breaks out or not. These assets are not now > at risk. The controller of star wars will be capable of denying > all other nations access to space. This will allow national sovernty (sp) > to be established in orbit. The nation system threatens to destroy > our civilization on Earth, I'd like to keep free access to space. > Of course! The country that has superiority in space will enjoy considerable advantage on the earth. Thats the whole idea, and both sides know it. I'd rather we have it than the Soviets. > But star wars won't lessen the chance of war, it will increase it. > Even if a Soviet first strike got our ICBMs a single Trident could > destroy their society. Over 60% of our nuclear force is on submarines, > more is based on bombers, and the missles in Europe can reach much > of Russia. A successful first strike against this force is simply > not credible. With star wars I think a first strike by the side with > the best star wars defense is extremely likely. Star wars will > work much better if you know when the strike comes and if some > missles and command and control can be destroyed on the ground. This > is the case for the side that strikes first. The situation is even > worse if star wars components themselves are suseptable to a first > strike. > You know you are in troub;le when you hear meaningless numbers like '60% of ur nuclear force'. 60% of what? Megatonnage? Warheads? Launchers? Well, its warheads. And most of those warheads are 40kt devices, you need a lot of them to make up for their low yield. Besides, they're not counterforce capable. And the Soviet population is so diverse that you will have little population damage inflicted by a countervgalue strike by the SLBM force. 4-10% are typical estimates. A first strike not credible? Sure its credible, the SLBM force can't be used as long as our population is more or less intact. The bombers take way too long to take off from their fields, they'll all be incinerated on the ground by Soviet SLBM fire anyways, and likewise US Command and Control will be decapitated so they'll be no way to launch the ICBM's until the Soviet ICBM's hit, at which point it'll be too late. Given this, a mitigation of the attack by a BMD system would be highly useful, and thats why the Soviets are paranoid about SDI. Because it frustrates all their targeting plans. The US will never perform a nuclear first strike barring some condition in Europe blowing up, so I could care less about what the effects of enhancing a US strike would be, they won't be used in that mode. The Soviets have been vulnerable to a US first strike for a long time, I see no reason to start worrying about how much better this capability is now because of BMD. > No, I'm informed. There is ONE operational space weapons system, a very > limited Soviet system. None of these weapons are actually in orbit at > this moment. There are lots of spy satellites, but I'm all > for those. You can't kill people with spy satellites. > Nor can you kill people with ASAT. A monopoly exists now, Soviet monopolies trouble me very much... > > > > I would prefer not having a defense budget at all, > > but the real world isnt like that. > > > Circa 1800: 'I would prefer not having slaves at all, but the > real world isn't like that.' If you remember, we fought a very very painful war about that issue to resolve it. We can resolve the US-USSR conflict the same way, but the costs are too high for me. I'd rather pay the DoD budget. Hard problems seldom have attractive solutions... Milo PS By the way Al, I work at NASA Ames too, its amazing we haven't met in person....
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (04/03/85)
> What I was saying is that shooting down cruise missiles is no big deal, > all you need to do is beef up the air defense system with SAM's (we > have none now) and the interceptor wings (we have about 300 planes in > noth america, mostly ancient). We used to have a large system, > but ICBM's came along.... In short, its not a hard problem... > Not a hard problem in theory, in practice knocking down several thousand (or tens of thousands) of cruise missles within a few hours or days is quite another matter indeed. Particularly when every one that gets through destroys another city....
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (04/03/85)
> > And if the US percieves itself as capable of attacking without unacceptable > > damage WE may attack, e.g., Grenada, Vietnam. Why not USSR? > > > > Because the U.S. is responsible to its people, and if we did something > WRONG, the people would complain. A nuclear first strike only takes a few hours. Complaints would be useless. As Vietnam taught us, the US government (while much better than the USSR) is not above lying to us. > > In reference to space weapons... > Of course! The country that has superiority in space will enjoy > considerable advantage on the earth. Thats the whole idea, and both sides > know it. I'd rather we have it than the Soviets. I'd rather no one had that capability. The weapons don't exist now. The tests would be easy to monitor. Let's avoid the whole issue and stop space weapon develoment NOW. > And most of those warheads are 40kt devices, > you need a lot of them to make up for their low yield. Besides, > they're not counterforce capable. Sources, please. If my info is correct SLBM warheads are not counterforce capable because of inaccuracies. I suspect that the inaccuracies come from uncertainty in the exact location of the submarine. GPS will change this... > And the Soviet population is so diverse > that you will have little population damage inflicted by a > countervgalue strike by the SLBM force. 4-10% are typical estimates. Hard to believe. Check my figures, but I calculate a few thousand SLBM warheads. Russia's got lots of large cities, major industrial installations, etc. At 50,000 casualties a warhead (less than Hiroshima) I get 50 million dead from only 1,000 warheads. That's a fifth of the population. > A first strike not credible? Sure its credible, the SLBM force can't > be used as long as our population is more or less intact. Why not? Any President that fails to incinerate anyone who makes a nuclear attack on our country is an idiot. > The bombers take > way too long to take off from their fields, they'll all be > incinerated on the ground by Soviet SLBM fire anyways I believe that a portion of the bomber fleet is kept on airborn patrol. > The US will never perform > a nuclear first strike barring some condition in Europe blowing > up This is the crux of the matter. I believe the US will launch a first strike if it is in our interest to do so. In fact, the constitution requires it ("provide for the common defense"). > The Soviets have been > vulnerable to a US first strike for a long time. Sources and logic please. I didn't think the Minuteman could take out Soviet silo's reliably. > > With reference to ASAT's.... A monopoly exists now, Soviet > monopolies trouble me very much... > Their ASAT force is EXTREMELY limited. Not much use in a general war, although they might take out a few low Earth orbit satellites. P.S. I'm in the basement of 239 - B50. Come by some time....
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (04/11/85)
> from Al Globus (I think!) > A nuclear first strike only takes a few hours. Complaints would be useless. As > Vietnam taught us, the US government (while much better than the USSR) is not > above lying to us. Actually, a first strike would take minutes (on the order of 30-40 minutes for the ICBMs of either country to reach the other one. Your point is definitely well taken! > > In reference to space weapons... > > Of course! The country that has superiority in space will enjoy > > considerable advantage on the earth. Thats the whole idea, and both sides > > know it. I'd rather we have it than the Soviets. > > I'd rather no one had that capability. The weapons don't exist now. The > tests would be easy to monitor. Let's avoid the whole issue and stop > space weapon develoment NOW. I have to agree with Al, although there might be some weapons which exist now. I've heard rumors of Soviet ASATs being tested already. However, if nothing else comes out of Geneva, I would like to see a treaty banning weapons in space. Leave the satellites alone, but no ASATs! > > And the Soviet population is so diverse > > that you will have little population damage inflicted by a > > countervgalue strike by the SLBM force. 4-10% are typical estimates. > > Hard to believe. Check my figures, but I calculate a few thousand SLBM > warheads. Russia's got lots of large cities, major industrial installations, > etc. At 50,000 casualties a warhead (less than Hiroshima) I get 50 million > dead from only 1,000 warheads. That's a fifth of the population. The Soviet population is less concentrated than ours, but they are still grouped into cities. I think the 4-10% estimates of population dead might be assuming that the population has already been dispersed to civil defense facilities. 20-30% is much more likely if they aren't dispersed. > > The bombers take > > way too long to take off from their fields, they'll all be > > incinerated on the ground by Soviet SLBM fire anyways > > I believe that a portion of the bomber fleet is kept on airborn patrol. Part of the bomber fleet is in fact kept on airborne alert. An additional part of the fleet is kept on strip alert, which means they are supposed to be able to get in the air within 5 minutes of being ordered to do so. Lauri rohn@rand-unix ..decvax!randvax!rohn Opinions are my own and might not be the opinions of Rand Corp.
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (04/11/85)
> > What I was saying is that shooting down cruise missiles is no big deal, > > all you need to do is beef up the air defense system with SAM's (we > > have none now) and the interceptor wings (we have about 300 planes in > > noth america, mostly ancient). We used to have a large system, > > but ICBM's came along.... In short, its not a hard problem... > > > Not a hard problem in theory, in practice knocking down several thousand (or > tens of thousands) of cruise missles within a few hours or days is quite > another matter indeed. Particularly when every one that gets through destroys > another city.... Shooting down cruise missiles is not that difficult (though it's not easy) *once you've detected them.* Detecting them can be very difficult though. They are difficult to see with radars as they can fly very low to the ground (on the order of 100 feet above ground level) and can get mixed up with ground clutter. If stealth technologies are applied to cruise missiles, they will be even harder to see. But Al is right; if enough cruise missiles are shot close together, they can easily saturate the existing minimal air defenses. Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn Opinions are the author's and may not be those of Rand.
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (04/14/85)
> > A nuclear first strike only takes a few hours. Complaints would be useless. As > Vietnam taught us, the US government (while much better than the USSR) is not > above lying to us. > I agree complaints would be useless, and few would be in the know. I wasn't attempting to extend my point to past the conventional arena. > > > > In reference to space weapons... > > Of course! The country that has superiority in space will enjoy > > considerable advantage on the earth. Thats the whole idea, and both sides > > know it. I'd rather we have it than the Soviets. > > I'd rather no one had that capability. The weapons don't exist now. The > tests would be easy to monitor. Let's avoid the whole issue and stop > space weapon develoment NOW. > Ah but the weapons do exist. An operational system has been deployed by the Soviets, and we will match it with our own. > > And most of those warheads are 40kt devices, > > you need a lot of them to make up for their low yield. Besides, > > they're not counterforce capable. > > Sources, please. If my info is correct SLBM warheads are not counterforce > capable because of inaccuracies. I suspect that the inaccuracies come from > uncertainty in the exact location of the submarine. GPS will change this... SLBM warheads are not counterforce because of accuracy. Very true, my point about yield was in the traditional sense of using SLBM for retaliatory countervalue strikes. GPS is a space based system and is vulnerable. I wouldn't count on it being around. And the Sub can't use GPS while submerged. There are many books out covering the yield of strategic weapons. The 40kt figure is correct. > > Hard to believe. Check my figures, but I calculate a few thousand SLBM > warheads. Russia's got lots of large cities, major industrial installations, > etc. At 50,000 casualties a warhead (less than Hiroshima) I get 50 million > dead from only 1,000 warheads. That's a fifth of the population. > Not true. We do not have a 'few' thousand. And the linear increase in casulties is a bad assumption. Japan was (still is) one of the most densest population areas in the world. Not so with the USSR. After the 1st 100 cities, you start taking out villages with very low marginal casulty rates. You came up with 20%, you can see how it gets as low as I said it was... > > A first strike not credible? Sure its credible, the SLBM force can't > > be used as long as our population is more or less intact. > > Why not? Any President that fails to incinerate anyone who makes a nuclear > attack on our country is an idiot. > I hardly call 4-10% casulties 'incineration'. Especially if it comes at the price of 150 million American lives. > I believe that a portion of the bomber fleet is kept on airborn patrol. > The airborne alert force was phased out years ago. The B-52's have huge repair costs as it is, much more with continous flying going on, not to mention fuel costs. The cost of B-52 readiness and fuel costs would have paid for their replacement by the equivilant B-1 force years ago. > This is the crux of the matter. I believe the US will launch a first strike > if it is in our interest to do so. In fact, the constitution requires it > ("provide for the common defense"). Considering the risk to U.S. population, it would hard to think of a rationale justifying the risk if the population were still intact. > Sources and logic please. I didn't think the Minuteman could take out > Soviet silo's reliably. > The Soviets didn't use to have many ICBM's at all, much less hardened ones. The fact that most of their alert force takes 45 minutes to ready for firing (liquid fueled) makes it a sitting duck for a coordinated strike. This is in contrast to our solid fueled force with a reaction time of 2 minutes. > > > > With reference to ASAT's.... A monopoly exists now, Soviet > > monopolies trouble me very much... > > > Their ASAT force is EXTREMELY limited. Not much use in a general war, although > they might take out a few low Earth orbit satellites. > But its operational now. And many of our most sophisticated recon satellites are in low to medium orbits. Milo
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (04/14/85)
> > > Not a hard problem in theory, in practice knocking down several thousand (or > tens of thousands) of cruise missles within a few hours or days is quite > another matter indeed. Particularly when every one that gets through destroys > another city.... Not if you prject your air defenses to hit bombers before they launch. Then you need only a residual force to clean up misses, and exotic technologies hold great promise here too. A laser beam can rip open a bomber's skin like a can opener. Milo
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (04/21/85)
> The Soviet population is less concentrated than ours, but they are still > grouped into cities. I think the 4-10% estimates of population dead > might be assuming that the population has already been dispersed to > civil defense facilities. 20-30% is much more likely if they aren't > dispersed. Lauri, I think that if you check out the yields and numbers of US SLBM warheads (remember only about 50%-60% of the fleet is out at a given time), you'll see that a 4-10% casulty rate is quite reasonable. I believe the 4% is with dispersion, and around 10% without dispersion. Remember this is SLBM warheads alone. ICBM's (the few remaining) would be used on counterforce targets, and the bombers, which carry 55% of US Megatonnage would be wiped out. All the big warheads are on the bombers. The missiles used to take out SAM sites in the bombers paths (example the Hound Dog), carry 4 megaton warheads, bigger than anything our ICBM's carry. > Part of the bomber fleet is in fact kept on airborne alert. An > additional part of the fleet is kept on strip alert, which means they > are supposed to be able to get in the air within 5 minutes of being > ordered to do so. > I'd really like to know your sources for this, I've talked to many SAC people, and they never thought we had an airborne alert force these days. At any given time, only 1/3 of the bomber force is even armed (training missions are flown unarmed), and then the pilots are not in the planes. A strip alert is a condition of increased readiness, not the normal state of things. As I said, I think I'm right on this. Anyways, there was an article several months ago (in SA I believe) detailing the timetable for a response to an attack, showing that it'd be too late for the bombers given a sneak SLBM attack, remember it takes a bomber quite a while to get out of the range of the blast, taking off isn't good enough. And our bombers are mainly based on the coastlines, another really swift move. Milo