renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (11/26/84)
> I happen to think that Doctors and biologists are far more qualified to > judge the health effects of Nuclear War than people who know how much > bang you can get with given weapons but know nothing about biology. > Let's listen to the experts-let's stop the arms race NOW! > -- Tim Sevener (orb@whuxl) Tim's argument is as follows: 1. Doctors and biologists are the best judge of the health effects of nuclear war. 2. Doctors and biologists agree that a nuclear war would have disasterous effects on health care. Therefore: 3. A nuclear war should be avoided. 4. Stopping the arms race NOW (ie., the nuclear "Freeze") is the best way to avoid a nuclear war. Therefore: 5. Let's stop the arms race NOW! This is sloppy thinking at best, deliberate propagandizing at worst. All of us agree on point #3. Many of us disagree with Tim on point #4. The real issue is not, "should we have a nuclear war," but rather, "what is the best way to avoid nuclear war?" I'd like to talk about this, but it's really hard to generate discussion about a point that some people accept with an almost-religious intensity. Articles like the one I quoted only direct the discussion away from the issue. Articles with factual errors ("cruise missiles are first-strike weapons") and irrelevancies ("the US has 30,000 warheads, the Soviet Union only 25,000") also get in the way. It's a losing battle trying to correct these -- by the time you point out the errors in one article, the author has usually written 3 more with *new* mistakes. We all agree that nuclear war is a bad thing. Now let's talk about the real issue. Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/27/84)
> Scott Renner writes: > Tim's argument is as follows: > 1. Doctors and biologists are the best judge of the health effects > of nuclear war. > 2. Doctors and biologists agree that a nuclear war would have > disasterous effects on health care. > Therefore: > 3. A nuclear war should be avoided. > > 4. Stopping the arms race NOW (ie., the nuclear "Freeze") is the > best way to avoid a nuclear war. > Therefore: > 5. Let's stop the arms race NOW! > > This is sloppy thinking at best, deliberate propagandizing at worst. All > of us agree on point #3. Many of us disagree with Tim on point #4. The > real issue is not, "should we have a nuclear war," but rather, "what is the > best way to avoid nuclear war?" > > Articles with factual errors > ("cruise missiles are first-strike weapons") and irrelevancies ("the US > has 30,000 warheads, the Soviet Union only 25,000") also get in the way. > > We all agree that nuclear war is a bad thing. Now let's talk about the > real issue. > > Scott Renner > {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner I think this is an apt summary of my argument. I also think it is a good statement of the true question: how do we prevent nuclear war? Does continuing the nuclear arms race make nuclear war more or less likely? If continuing the nuclear arms race is ,at best , neutral and at worst, detrimental with respect to preventing nuclear war, then what is the point for both sides to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on the arms race? I happen to agree that it is ultimately irrelevant exactly how many warheads either side has when either side has enough to thoroughly devastate the other. Unfortunately some people on the net do not accede to that point. SO: Scott, do you really think that building more nuclear arms makes nuclear war any less likely? IF both sides would agree to stop building or developing new nuclear weapons wouldn't the whole world be better off? We can consider this problem historically: imagine that both sides had stopped the nuclear arms race at bombers equipped with nuclear weapons. Wouldn't we all be safer? We would have far less chance of an accidental nuclear war--there would be a longer lag time before bombers could reach their targets--and they *could* be recalled. Or imagine that Nixon and Kissinger had been more farsighted and agreed to stop MIRVed weapons before they were deployed by both sides. We would not find either sides ICBM forces threatened by a potential first-strike capability. Do you have some better answer to preventing nuclear war than stopping the arms race? tim sevener whuxl!orb
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (11/28/84)
> We all agree that nuclear war is a bad thing. Now let's talk about the > real issue. The problem is that we d o n ' t all agree that nuclear war is a bad thing, and certainly don't agree as to h o w bad it would be. Didn't you see that ridiculous article a couple of days back from the fellow who thought that the "with enough shovels" doctrine was correct? What Physicians for Social Responsibility and similar groups are trying to do is sorely needed -- to rub the public's nose in just how serious the threat of nuclear war really is. --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (11/29/84)
In article <333@ut-sally.UUCP> riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) writes: >What Physicians for Social Responsibility and similar groups are trying to do >is sorely needed -- to rub the public's nose in just how serious the threat of >nuclear war really is. Yes indeed, the most important thing to be done *is* to make people aware of the threat of nuclear weapons. In Europe I think some progress is being made. That's why we are begining to see more and more protests over here about the deploying of US nuclear weapons in Europe (for instance by the Greenham Common women). I would be happier if I heard of more protests about the British and French nuclear weapons too. The old saying about glass houses is all too true. However several doccumentaries about the effects of nuclear war have been recently screened in top viewing time on television in several European countries. I remember that in 1968 (?) in Britain a film about the effect of nuclear war (produced by the BBC) was banned for showing on television because it was "too frightening". I doubt that this would happen today. Hopefully the nuclear threat will soon become an election issue. The Labour party in Britain is committed to removing all US bases and from Britain and getting rid of the British nuclear weapons. In Sweden (where I now live) both the public and political opinion is both against nuclear weapons. This means that Sweden is neither a member of Nato, nor does Sweden have nuclear weapons. Do the American people *really* know what the effect of a nuclear war would be? Not just the size of the bang, but what life would be like afterwards? Are any serious attempts being made to tell them? Commercials at peak viewing times etc? These are serious questions, I would like to know. Mike Williams
robertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) (11/29/84)
>> We all agree that nuclear war is a bad thing. Now let's talk about the >> real issue. >The problem is that we d o n ' t all agree that nuclear war is a bad thing, >and certainly don't agree as to h o w bad it would be. Didn't you see that >ridiculous article a couple of days back from the fellow who thought that the >"with enough shovels" doctrine was correct? >What Physicians for Social Responsibility and similar groups are trying to do >is sorely needed -- to rub the public's nose in just how serious the threat of >nuclear war really is. >--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") WRONG. Quite simply wrong. What is occuring here is what is a historically repeated mistake. These activist groups are confusing restricted weaponry with peace. NO treaty agreement restricting type or number of weapons has ever reduced the suffering of war at any time in our very long history of war. Nuclear weapons do NOT bring with them any new type of destruction that humans were not already capable of. The devices in question bring on more of it no doubt but no fundamentally new suffering ( even nuclear winter is just ANOTHER in the many ways we alter our environment ). All those who piously exclaim the horrors of nuclear weapons may be salvaging their social conscience but they do little other good. The problem, dear ignorant people, is that man makes war on his neighbors. That is it. The weapons are insignificant. All those who emphasis the evils of a particular weapon. Be it chemical, biological or nuclear are nearsighted fools who make other kinds of war more acceptable by default. Yes, you read it! They make conventional warfare somewhat MORE acceptable. Now the first argument from some self appointed apostle is going to be that at least without nuclear weapons we as a world would have a better chance of surviving. Baloney. Humanity has survived calamities equal or greater ( relatively ) than a nuclear war and will I'm sure survive far more in the future. That isn't to say no one will suffer. To the contrary, the human condition IS suffering some tell us. No, if these "activists" want to aid humanity then they must change the nature of humanity, its evil nature, not declaim the evil nature of some weapon type. Until then I'm afraid I can not take the anti-nuke types seriously because I don't think they take reality seriously. -- Robin D. Roberts (213) 450 9111 x 2916 TTI Zone V4 aka Buskirk the Valerian 3100 Ocean Park Blvd Death to Tyrants ! Santa Monica, CA 90405 UUCP: ..!ucbvax!ihnp4!vortex!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb or {cadovax,flick,philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex,wtux2}!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb or ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (11/30/84)
> Do you have some better answer to preventing nuclear war than stopping > the arms race? -- Tim Sevener (orb@whuxl) I believe that to prevent nuclear war we must guard against two things: 1. Deliberate first strike by the Soviet Union. 2. Accidental war started by either side. Taken together, these mean that the United States must: 1. Maintain a credible second-strike capability. The Soviet Union must be certain that their attack will result in their destruction. 2. Avoid constructing a first-strike capability. The Soviet Union must also have a second-strike capability; deterrance must work both ways. My objection to the bilateral, verifiable nuclear freeze is that it is inferior to the "build-down" proposition. In order to maintain a second-strike capability in the face of changing non-nuclear technology, the US may need to build different weapons. If the weapons built are second-strike only, and the weapons removed have first-strike uses, then the risk of nuclear war is reduced in a fashion impossible under a freeze. Indeed, a freeze agreement might *increase* the risk of war by prohibiting a switch to less-dangerous weapons. (An example: our second-strike capability relies heavily on the presumed invulnerability of the submarine fleet. SSBNs are "invulnerable" only because the enemy cannot find them at sea. But this may not last; a technique called "synthetic aperture radar" can locate objects at considerable depths. We may need to switch from a few large Trident-class SSBNs to a larger number of smaller, "stealth" submarines. "Build-down" would permit this; a freeze would not.) Now it's up to the freeze proponents. You need to show why a nuclear freeze would be better at preventing nuclear war than the "build-down" approach. I wish you luck; I believe you will find that *demonstrating* the advantages of a freeze is more difficult than *assuming* them. Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (11/30/84)
> > We all agree that nuclear war is a bad thing. Now let's talk about the > > real issue. > > What Physicians for Social Responsibility and similar groups are trying to do > is sorely needed -- to rub the public's nose in just how serious the threat of > nuclear war really is. > > --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") I disagree with this: all the gruesome depictions of megadeath proffered by PSR and others do is needlessly frighten people without showing them any useful action to take. Psychologists have amply documented the adverse affects resulting from the helpless fear of nuclear war. But a lot of that fear comes from misunderstandings and misinformation provided by the very people who claim to be most against nuclear war. The natural response to fear is flight or denial; it seems a lot of people don't realize this. Many peace groups certainly don't. Instead of rationally trying to figure out how to reduce the danger of nuclear war, they promulgate terror and offer simplistic solutions without reasonable plans for implementing them. Except for a lukewarm support of the Freeze or some other of these solutions, the average person is so scared out of her/his wits as to not want to *think* about the problem. Not all peace groups are of the ``scare the wits out of them and maybe they'll *do* something'' school. Physicians for Social Responsibility tend to follow this line, however, and with an unbending fervor matched only by certain anti-abortion groups and the National Rifle Association. In short, a lot of these discussions seem to be generating a lot of heat, but little light. I wish there was an easy solution to the problem of nuclear weapons, but there isn't. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall [For those of you who question the objectivity of anyone who works for The Rand Corporation, let me remind you that (1) I speak for myself, and not my organization, and (2) a freeze, or an arms reduction, probably wouldn't affect Rand much in general terms, and might even bring Rand some contracts studying the various issues implicit in such things. In particular, my job would be unaffected. And for those of you who don't realize it yet, (3) Rand does *not* produce nuclear weapons or other weapons systems.]
emks@uokvax.UUCP (12/01/84)
>> Scott Renner writes: >> Tim's argument is as follows: >> 1. Doctors and biologists are the best judge of the health effects >> of nuclear war. >> 2. Doctors and biologists agree that a nuclear war would have >> disasterous effects on health care. >> Therefore: >> 3. A nuclear war should be avoided. >> >> 4. Stopping the arms race NOW (ie., the nuclear "Freeze") is the >> best way to avoid a nuclear war. >> Therefore: >> 5. Let's stop the arms race NOW! >> >> This is sloppy thinking at best, deliberate propagandizing at worst. All >> of us agree on point #3. Many of us disagree with Tim on point #4. The >> real issue is not, "should we have a nuclear war," but rather, "what is the >> best way to avoid nuclear war?" >> ... >> >> Scott Renner >> {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner > >I think this is an apt summary of my argument. I also think it is a good >statement of the true question: how do we prevent nuclear war? >Does continuing the nuclear arms race make nuclear war more or less likely? >If continuing the nuclear arms race is ,at best , neutral and at worst, >detrimental with respect to preventing nuclear war, then what is the point >for both sides to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on the arms race? Even your question is begging! First of all, you haven't convinced me in your myriad of postings that the "arms race," "government contractors," or anyone in the defense establishment is to blame for some possible nuclear war. When weapons sit, they age. Once they age, there's a tendency to at least consider their use before their effectiveness is lost to better construction technology or sheer age of equipment. [I'm not TRYING to paint a concrete argument against the freeze.] >I happen to agree that it is ultimately irrelevant exactly how many warheads >either side has when either side has enough to thoroughly devastate the other. >Unfortunately some people on the net do not accede to that point. I don't accede either. You've been spouting your "expertise" just as much as Milo has. So, you "know" that we can thoroughly devastate the other? The n x Hiroshima argument is thoroughly flawed--even if you won't admit it. There are many problems which are unknown, not the least is PTP and WSR which are truely unknowns [i.e. probably (hopefully) will never be known]. Others are less difficult, but still "tough," like the fratricide-at-hard-targets problem. >SO: Scott, do you really think that building more nuclear arms makes nuclear >war any less likely? >IF both sides would agree to stop building or developing new nuclear weapons >wouldn't the whole world be better off? >We can consider this problem historically: imagine that both sides had >stopped the nuclear arms race at bombers equipped with nuclear weapons. >Wouldn't we all be safer? We would have far less chance of an accidental >nuclear war--there would be a longer lag time before bombers could reach >their targets--and they *could* be recalled. Yes, that would be "nice," but there are bad side effects to be considered, too. Imagine that Kremlin leaders sit down one morning, under the conditions you just laid out, and said "Ve haf decided to bomb poopski out of U.S.A. and extend our control to include Western Europe." Well, NATO changed their strategy many moons ago to call for nuclear [weap] power to substitute for a large standing army which the NATO-member countries could not afford. This means that the S.U. could send some divisions across the borders and be countered by a NATO force which is certainly inferior in numbers. The U.S. threatens and eventually launches its B-52s or whatever and strikes in appropriate measure. The Kremlin leaders would be sitting around discussing what would be "accept- able losses" from the strike, and would probably decline to negotiate. The intelligence lead time of bombers is tremendous, and C-C functions can be transferred to sites deemed not at risk. In addition, by using bombers without an initial nuclear strike (much as the "softening of the beaches" during the invasion of Gold beach), the PTP and related factors decrease tremendously. >Or imagine that Nixon and Kissinger had been more farsighted and agreed to >stop MIRVed weapons before they were deployed by both sides. We >would not find either sides ICBM forces threatened by a potential >first-strike capability. Wrong, flame-bait-breath. MIRVed weapons are more "attractive" targets than, say, a Titan II, since one hit kills (for example) three warheads. But eliminating MIRVed weapons doesn't eliminate the potential first strike. Large weapons systems, special SIGINT, C-C centers, or other sites would become more attractive. Some of them are probably located near your home town, Tim. >Do you have some better answer to preventing nuclear war than stopping >the arms race? Yes. Rational thinking, negotiations, and perhaps build-down. (I haven't had time to give that last one a lot of thought, yet. I intend to devote some vacation time to it soon...) >tim sevener whuxl!orb kurt <emks@uokvax>
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (12/02/84)
> > Now it's up to the freeze proponents. You need to show why a nuclear > freeze would be better at preventing nuclear war than the "build-down" > approach. I wish you luck; I believe you will find that *demonstrating* > the advantages of a freeze is more difficult than *assuming* them. > > Scott Renner > {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner What advantage does build-down have over tear-down? Keeps the companies building bombs happy, I s'pose. Current weapons have decent accuracy and tremendous destructive capability. If you are interested in reducing nuclear weapons to a "safe" level, why take the "two steps forward, one step back" approach? Admittedly, a freeze followed by a tear-down would need to keep in consideration the fact that weapons may simply get old. This might be taken care of by building weapons identical to the ones wearing out. Introducing physically smaller, more accurate weaponry will hardly help reduce tensions. However, it may come to light after a negotiated freeze that some kind of new weapons system does have stability enhancing effects. In that case, an exception to the freeze could be negotiated if both sides developed such a weapon in cooperation. This scenario seems rather unlikely, in my opinion. It would be better if we collaborated on growing food more efficiently, or setting up a lunar colony. Now it's up to the build-down proponents. How is building weapons which are better at destroying things going to make the world safer? How does building newer, better weapons aid stability? -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of my employers. Madison Academic Computing Center ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!myers
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/05/84)
================
... Baloney. Humanity has survived calamities equal or greater
( relatively ) than a nuclear war and will I'm sure survive far more in the
future....
Until then I'm afraid I can not take the anti-nuke types seriously because I
don't think they take reality seriously.
--
Robin D. Roberts (213) 450 9111 x 2916
================
Please give an example of a catastrophe greater than Nuclear Winter
that humanity has survived (even relatively). And don't weasel out of it by
claiming WWII was a nuclear war because the USA dropped its whole
nuclear arsenal in that war. We are talking about the possible
elimination of animal life from the world, here, and the certain
elimination of civilization.
Who is it that should take reality seriously?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtrobertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) (12/10/84)
>================ > ... Baloney. Humanity has survived calamities equal or greater >( relatively ) than a nuclear war and will I'm sure survive far more in the >future.... >Until then I'm afraid I can not take the anti-nuke types seriously because I >don't think they take reality seriously. >-- > Robin D. Roberts >================ >Please give an example of a catastrophe greater than Nuclear Winter >that humanity has survived (even relatively). And don't weasel out of it by >claiming WWII was a nuclear war because the USA dropped its whole >nuclear arsenal in that war. We are talking about the possible >elimination of animal life from the world, here, and the certain >elimination of civilization. >Who is it that should take reality seriously? >-- >Martin Taylor >{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt >{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt You should pay more attention to reality than irrational slogans. Examples of worst catastrophes that humans have survived: The last Ice Age. But that is not the point of the article that Mr Taylor so easily ignores. The point is that weapons aren't significant. Nuclear devices introduce NO fundamentally new form of suffering to mankind that we haven't already experienced. The peoples of sub-Saharan Africa are today suffering from what would probably kill more people after a world-wide nuclear war than the blast effects and radiation that form the basis of most irrational fears. And the disruption of economy and agriculture that causes famine certainly wasn't introduced by nuclear weapons. WWII DID bring death, famine and maiming injuries to probably over 100 million people and all with conventional human destruction. The bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are insignificant. People who loudly declaim nuclear weapons and ignoring the real issue in favor of assuaging their upper class guilt with irrationality. If they wanted peace as much as they claimed they would fight for it and freedom but instead they truly seek superficial causes with slogans they can comprehend. Peace requires an investment of time in understanding not a $2.00 bumper sticker. -- Robin D. Roberts (213) 450 9111 x 2916 TTI Zone V4 aka Buskirk the Valerian 3100 Ocean Park Blvd Death to Tyrants ! Santa Monica, CA 90405 UUCP: ..!ucbvax!ihnp4!vortex!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb or {cadovax,flick,philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex,wtux2}!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb or ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/14/84)
>>Please give an example of a catastrophe greater than Nuclear Winter >>that humanity has survived (even relatively). And don't weasel out of it by >>claiming WWII was a nuclear war because the USA dropped its whole >>nuclear arsenal in that war. We are talking about the possible >>elimination of animal life from the world, here, and the certain >>elimination of civilization. > >>Who is it that should take reality seriously? >>-- > >>Martin Taylor >You should pay more attention to reality than irrational slogans. > >Examples of worst catastrophes that humans have survived: > The last Ice Age. > >But that is not the point of the article that Mr Taylor so easily ignores. >The point is that weapons aren't significant. Nuclear devices introduce NO >fundamentally new form of suffering to mankind that we haven't already >experienced. The peoples of sub-Saharan Africa are today suffering from what >would probably kill more people after a world-wide nuclear war than the blast >effects and radiation that form the basis of most irrational fears. And the >disruption of economy and agriculture that causes famine certainly wasn't >>introduced by nuclear weapons. > >WWII DID bring death, famine and maiming injuries to probably over 100 million >people and all with conventional human destruction. The bombs of Hiroshima and >Nagasaki are insignificant. > >People who loudly declaim nuclear weapons and ignoring the real issue in favor >of assuaging their upper class guilt with irrationality. > > Robin D. Roberts (213) 450 9111 x 2916 Isn't there a degree of irrationality in proclaiming the last Ice Age (during which the climate was quite good over much of the world) as a greater disaster than the possible elimination of all animal life? Granted we all will die in the end, perhaps it doesn't matter that we may all do it in the same few months. But from the point of view of humanity (or animalkind), I think dying along with all our children is a worse disaster than famines or Ice Ages. The fact that the Nuclear Winter simulations are not perfect does not mean that they are false. The better the simulations since the original publication, the worse seem to be the results. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt