orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/17/85)
> > Funny thing is, this is at least the second Soviet nuclear freeze > > in Europe since 20 Jan, 1981. The first past without response > > from 1600 Penn Ave, I guess this one will as well. > > -- > > Nyssa of Traken, now employed at Terminus Hospital, Inc. > > ihnp4!abnji!nyssa > > How about the U.S. nuclear freeze? We haven't built a strategic > land-based system since 1971. We haven't built a strategic bomber > since 1962. In fact, in both those areas we have destroyed weapons, > such as Titan IIs and older B-52s. These "freezes" didn't pass without > response, however -- they were greeted with the SS-18, the SS-19, and > the Blackjack. > > Jim Matthews > matthews@harvard The fact is that neither side has engaged in any kind of comprehensive "freeze" or meaningful stop to the arms race. The Soviets did have a freeze on deployment of SS-20's some time ago. Of course by that point they had already deployed hundreds of them. I definitely think that the Soviet freeze on SS-20's called for more of a response than simply saying "We are deploying full speed ahead no matter what you do." However the Soviets could have made a stronger gesture by actually reducing SS-20's or engaging in a unilateral comprehensive freeze. It is sheer nonsense to talk of a "U.S. nuclear freeze" during the 70's. This is merely a variation of the same blatant untruth that Reagan has repeated so many times many Americans have come to believe it: the U.S. "disarmed" during the 70's. Yes, the U.S. dismantled some major weapons systems during the 70's. The reason: to replace those weapons with more up to date weapons systems with more accuracy. This is exactly the process now going on in Europe which Greg and Jim want to ignore. As is logical the Pershing *II* *did* have a predecessor: the Pershing *I* which was in fact deployed in Europe for some years before being replaced by more modern and longer range Pershing II's. To say that without the Pershing II's that the U.S. would have no nuclear missiles in Europe is simply untrue. In terms of *strategic* nuclear weapons (those capable of hitting the Soviets) here are the numbers: 1970: 4,000 1980: 10,000 There were *numerous* programs to update or create new nuclear weapons during the 70's. It is well past time for *both* sides to take the fate of all humans on this planet seriously and STOP producing more nuclear weapons. tim sevener whuxl!orb "War is Peace" "Freedom is Slavery" "More Arms are Less Arms"
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (04/19/85)
>>>> Tim Sevener says: > It is sheer nonsense to talk of a "U.S. nuclear freeze" during the > 70's. If you mean that we didn't proclaim to the world our abandonment of the arms race, then yes. But in a practical sense we did have a freeze, since we didn't deploy any strategic weapon systems between 1971 and 1979. Here's the recent history of U.S. weapons deployment, from How to Make War by James Dunnigan. Weapon # warheads year ====== = ======== ==== Titan II 36 36 1963 Polaris A3 80 80 1964 Minuteman II 450 450 1965 Minuteman III 550 1650 1970 Posidon C3 480 4800 1971 Trident C4 16 160 1979 This doesn't cover strategic bombers, but the situation there is quite simple. We built our last B-52 in 1962, and since then the fleet has gradually dwindled in number. It's replacement, the B1, is not planned for completion for a couple years still. > Yes, the U.S. dismantled some > major weapons systems during the 70's. The reason: to replace those > weapons with more up to date weapons systems with more accuracy. > This is exactly the process now going on in Europe which Greg and Jim > want to ignore. I can't speak for Greg, but I am very interested in the way we are replacing old weapons, because in most cases we are replacing many, large-warhead weapons with fewer, smaller-warhead ones. Consulting the chart above, you see that it would take 30 Trident subs to equal the warhead total of our Posidons, but there are only plans to build 15. We are replacing 300+ B-52s with 100 B1s, which carry less to start with. The only area where we are substantially increasing our warhead stockpile is ICBMs, with the MX. But if Congress holds Reagan to 40 or so of them (a good idea), the resulting 400 warheads will not replace the Minuteman IIs that will soon be dismantled. The "arms race" is not a head-long rush to oblivion -- it's an on-going process of maintaining a nuclear force by replacing old weapons with new. In recent years this process has tended toward fewer weapons with smaller warheads -- a very promising development. > It is well past time for *both* sides to take the fate of all humans on > this planet seriously and STOP producing more nuclear weapons. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb I think there can be a legitimate difference of opinion as to how we should safeguard the fate of this planet, and I side with those who believe in maintaining a large nuclear deterrent. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard