orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/14/84)
In the whole discussion of "experts" and the problem of preventing Nuclear War (and just what it IS we are preventing) Milo seems to assume that proponents of the Freeze or at the very least some form of arms control are not "experts". Let me dispell that notion immediately. I have already pointed out that many biologists have ,in the past and currently, argued that nuclear weapons create far more havoc and destruction than their supporters claim. Milo's claim that 30% of the population would survive an allout Nuclear War is not supported by any reasonable evidence. But there are also many *strategic* experts who have either supported a Nuclear Freeze by both sides or warned about the perils of the present arms race. William Colby, Director of the CIA under Nixon supports a Nuclear Freeze and has written that it IS verifiable. In fact, he argues that such a proposal limiting ALL nuclear weapons would be easier to verify than many current agreements which allow certain weapons and not others. Such agreements lead to myriad disputes over what is limited or not. Herbert Scoville, Deputy Director of the CIA under Carter supports a Nucler Freeze and just wrote a column in the New York Times arguing that a Freeze IS verifiable. Roger Mollander, National Security Adviser to many Presidents founded the Ground Zero Campaign because he was very concerned about the acceleration of the nuclear arms race under Reagan and the aegis of the Committee for the Present Danger. He has not come out in support of a Nuclear Freeze per se but has voiced great concern about the need for arms control of some kind. George F. Kennan, adviser to many Presidents, and author of the "Containment Doctrine" begun in the 50's has just written a book about the origins of the First World War and the parallels to our own nuclear age. Kennan is probably the most respected strategist in the country. As previously noted he authored the Containment Doctrine while serving in the Soviet Union, which served as a basis for American foreign policy for many years. I have to go now, but the list could go on. many if not most of the "experts" are as scared about the prospects of Nuclear War in the current climate as I am. tim sevener whuxl!orb
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (11/18/84)
I seriously doubt that that the US could survive with 30% intact, but the USSR is a different story. I have seen all kinds of reports to substantiate this, and even MacNamara admitted we could only kill 25% back in the 60's when we had a lot more megatons than we have now. Show me your source for casulty figures. If you are quoting them in context, and if their responses are timely, then they are wrong. I can cite a simple example. I build a cruise missile in a secret plant, no big deal. I then put it in a the back of a semi (with shielding) and drive it around. Now, those things are so small, I could put one in my bedroom, and noone would know! So, how are you going to verify that I'm not making cruise missiles? ICBM's take more effort to hide, but cruise is trivial... Milo
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/18/84)
From the one and only Milo Medin: > I seriously doubt that that the US could survive with 30% intact, > but the USSR is a different story. I have seen all kinds of reports > to substantiate this, and even MacNamara admitted we could only kill > 25% back in the 60's when we had a lot more megatons than we have now. > Show me your source for casulty figures. Your view is inaccurate. First of all, immediate destructive power is roughly proportional to the number of warhead times the cube root of the megatonnage. The immediate casualties in the U.S. and U.S.S.R. have therefore gone up instead of down. Second, nuclear war is very, very unpredictable. The direct casualties of a full-scale attack would be something between 50% and 95% in both countries, with similar figures for Europe. The really worrisome effects for the rest of the world, however, are the ecological ones, with casualties in the worst case approaching 2 billion (source: Scientific American). Granted, ecological damage is roughly proportional to megatonnage, and that has gone down. But can you really imagine 50% casualties? Ask a survivor of the Holocaust about what it is like. > If you are quoting them in context, and if their responses are timely, > then they are wrong. I can cite a simple example. I build a cruise > missile in a secret plant, no big deal. I then put it in a > the back of a semi (with shielding) and drive it around. Now, those > things are so small, I could put one in my bedroom, and noone > would know! So, how are you going to verify that I'm not making > cruise missiles? ICBM's take more effort to hide, but cruise > is trivial... Your point is correct, however, your example is wrong. By our technology, we currently have near-verifiability of the existence of a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world. You must remember that the zero-zero option that Reagan proposed is no more verifiable than the nuclear freeze, which Reagan rejected. But in the distant future, verifiability may or may not become a problem. We simply don't know...
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/20/84)
> I can cite a simple example. I build a cruise > missile in a secret plant, no big deal. I then put it in a > the back of a semi (with shielding) and drive it around. Now, those > things are so small, I could put one in my bedroom, and noone > would know! So, how are you going to verify that I'm not making > cruise missiles? ICBM's take more effort to hide, but cruise > is trivial... > > Milo So what do you plan to do when Moammar Khaddafy hides one in a Libyan embassy? What will you do if the Ayatollah gets a few of these nice portable doomsday weapons? Don't you think both sides might start thinking about stopping the production of these portable holocaust machines before they get spread all over the planet? Certainly it will be very difficult to monitor--but the less there are the less chance for your neighborhood terrorist group to get their hands on one! tim sevener whuxl!orb
jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (11/25/84)
In article <3435@ucbvax.ARPA> medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) writes: >I admit my figures dont take into account a Nuclear Winter, but >thats an unproven theory. You say casualties would range from >50-95%. Where is your source for that? And I dispute your >claim that more warheads are better for countervalue as opposed >to higher megatonnage. It all depends on the characteristics >of the attack, such as terrain, weather, etc... And most >importantly the characteristics of the target. > > > Milo The assumption of greater damage with more smaller warheads is based on the relatively simple case of calculating the area over which a specific level of overpressure will be created. Note that this analysis works best on targets of low to medium hardness, and when the terrain is relatively flat. It also depends on the ability to do a Time On Target burst with a large number of small warheads, (to best simulate the effect of one large burst). Its not a terrible assumption to make, (and in fact the US has made it, as you can see by looking at the 'new' weapons we are deploying versus the older heavier missiles), but it does have its limitations. -JCP-
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (12/12/84)
> -- To the bug that will probably inherit the Earth: *morituri te salutant* -- > > Milo, > I have at length been persuaded by your argument. Not by its substance, > but by the fact that a human being was able to utter it. > A race capable of this sort of atavistic thinking, discussing, > dispassionately, "countervalues" and "megatonnage," when what is being balanced > against ephemeral political considerations is the fate of all God's creation on > this planet, is maladaptive -- and not merely maladaptive, but profoundly, > immitigably evil. It can, in fact, do no better than to yield its small patch > of the universe to the next random sequence of nucleotides to infuse the void > with intelligence, and hope only that that intelligence comports also an > element of decency -- the humanity that we who trifle to contemplate Armageddon > so utterly and completely lack. > So, yes, let's each get a shovel -- dig the hole miles deep -- and when we > emerge from the north-to-south, coast-to-coast nuclear firestorm that Milo > imagines we'll somehow survive, into the foul, contaminant, irremediably > radioactive nuclear winter of a dying planet -- lethally raped by its unique > sentient inhabitants -- we'll have perhaps the consolation that all the members > of our own species who happen to have been born on another continent, and with > whose leaders we once *disagreed politically*, are also dead. In the cold, the > dark, the lifeless, infertile emptiness, without food, witout potable water, > consumed from within by radiation sickness and inanition, we should have hours > or days to meditate on this comforting reflection. And to watch the human > race...go out. > > > -- > > ..akgua!uf-csv!mark Mark Fishman > CSNET: mark@ufl Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences > University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611 > > The opinions herein expressed are irrelevant, inflammatory and possibly > fattening. They do not represent those of the University of Florida or of any > > known biological organism or mythical construct. Good grief... This is what some people call rationality. This reminds me of an instance where Teller was giving a talk at UC and someone asked him a question in the same vain... He just stood there, looked a bit puzzled, and sighed. Milo
mark@uf-csv.UUCP (mark fishman [fac]) (01/02/85)
<> >> To the bug that will probably inherit the Earth: *morituri te salutant* >> >> Milo, >> >> I have at length been persuaded by your argument. Not by its >> substance, but by the fact that a human being was able to utter it. >> >> A race capable of this sort of atavistic thinking, discussing, >> dispassionately, "countervalues" and "megatonnage," when what is being >> balanced against ephemeral political considerations is the fate of all >> God's creation on this planet, is maladaptive -- and not merely >> maladaptive, but profoundly, immitigably evil. It can, in fact, do no >> better than to yield its small patch of the universe to the next random >> sequence of nucleotides to infuse the void with intelligence, and hope >> only that that intelligence comports also an element of decency -- the >> humanity that we who trifle to contemplate Armageddon so utterly and >> completely lack. >> >> So, yes, let's each get a shovel -- dig the hole miles deep -- and >> when we emerge from the north-to-south, coast-to-coast nuclear firestorm >> that Milo imagines we'll somehow survive, into the foul, contaminant, >> irremediably radioactive nuclear winter of a dying planet -- lethally >> raped by its unique sentient inhabitants -- we'll have perhaps the >> consolation that all the members of our own species who happen to have >> been born on another continent, and with whose leaders we once *disagreed >> politically*, are also dead. In the cold, the dark, the lifeless, >> infertile emptiness, without food, without potable water, consumed from >> within by radiation sickness and inanition, we should have hours or days >> to meditate on this comforting reflection. And to watch the human >> race...go out. >> -- >> >> ..akgua!uf-csv!mark Mark Fishman >> CSNET: mark@ufl Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences >> University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611 > > Good grief... This is what some people call rationality. This reminds > me of an instance where Teller was giving a talk at UC and someone > asked him a question in the same vain... He just stood there, > looked a bit puzzled, and sighed. > > Milo So Milo, whose vast intellect seems nevertheless to have failed to come to grips with the simplest rudiments of English grammar and spelling, imagines himself in the mold of Edward Teller. Interesting. Well, I suppose he *does* share with Teller the capacity for puzzlement. It is, after all, the paradigmatic clinical response of paranoids whose delusionary system is challenged, as well as that of sociopaths confronted with honest emotion. Yes, Milo, you spoke better than you knew. Your reactions are, just exactly *and* "in the same" ..."vain." Mark F. -- ..akgua!uf-csv!mark Mark Fishman CSNET: mark@ufl Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611 The opinions herein expressed are irrelevant, inflammatory and possibly fattening. They do not represent those of the University of Florida or of any known biological organism or mythical construct.