orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/05/84)
> ---------- > >>.................................. I have talked to Teller about > >>this myself, and he mentioned that .............................. > >> Milo > > >Aw! Come on, Milo! These are all people with a vested interest in escalating > >the balance-of-terror. Their paychecks depend on maintaining the status quo. > > > >- Phil Lavette > > > Of all the things that disgust me about the nuclear arms "debate" I > think this unwillingness to concede expertise is the most sickening. > Sure, Phil, and doctors make their money off disease, which is why they > poison water supplies and release starved plague-carrying rats in the > midst of large crowds...and without crime there'd be no cops, so > policemen have a "vested interest" in seeing more and more murder and > mayhem in our streets...ditto for attorneys... > --- das Precisely-people with expertise in given areas should be given some consideration. That is why I think we should ignore the advice of people like Teller who may have lots of expertise on the physics of the bomb but no expertise on the biological effects of nuclear weapons or radioactivity. Please consider the history of the health and biological effects of atomic bombs and what the AEC told Americans vs. what some biologists discovered. Barry Commoner is a biologist. In the "Closing Circle" Commoner described the history of attempts to downplay the deleterious effects of nuclear weapons. 1)the AEC early in the 50's announced that "fallout is no problem, it just goes into the atmosphere and should circle there indefinitely". This myth was punctured when the Japanese fishing boat, "the Lucky Dragon" happened within 150 miles of an atomic test and its occupants came down with radiation sickness and burns. Guess what the cause was? Radioactive fallout, the kind that would circle in the atmosphere "indefinitely". 2)Barry Commoner and other biologists warned that atomic tests were dispersing dangerous radioisotopes into the environment and this posed a threat to food chains by being passed up the food chain. A key radioisotope posing a danger biologists warned was strontium-90. The AEC and people like Teller told the American people- "don't worry, strontium-90 is no problem. The radiation only penetrates half an inch- it can't possibly hurt you!" Barry Commoner and other biologists then conducted a study of infant's teeth and mother's milk in St. Louis (downwind from atomic tests in Nevada). They discovered that, indeed, both had signicant levels of strontium-90 that had displaced calcium and been transmitted up the food chain from grass to cows milk to human infants and mother's milk. Now we ALL have strontium-90 in our bones--and penetrating radiation of only half an inch from within our own bones IS quite dangerous. Despite scientists evidence that atmospheric testing was dangerous many arms supporters opposed any nuclear test ban. Finally however in 1963 Kennedy achieved a Limited Test Ban Treaty with the Soviets which has never been broken. Needless to say, Ronald Reagan opposed that treaty. 3)Now we have the Physicians for Social Responsibility, doctors who should know better than anyone the health effects of the singular catastrophe that a nuclear war would be, warning that the only way to avoid massive casualties from Nuclear War is to prevent one and stop the arms race. 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 whuxl!orb
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (11/06/84)
] 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 whuxl!orb ] Tim, I think that most strategy analysts would agree with you: a doctor or a biologist who had made a special effort to learn about the effects of ionizing radiation on life would be *the* expert to consult--on the effects of ionizing radiation. But on matters of strategy, consulting a doctor would be just as foolish as asking an orthopedic surgeon how best to operate heavy machinery to avoid injury. A doctor, or a biologist, or a climatologist will give us more detail about something we already know: nuclear war would be an unprecidented catastrophe. They have NO SPECIAL EXPERTISE IN PREVENTING SUCH A WAR. Do we trust our future to the people who can most graphically and emotionally depict its dangers, no matter how otherwise unqualified? Or to those armed with the information, techniques, training, and cool- headed intelligence necessary for dealing with and avoiding the dangers of that future? -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (11/09/84)
The Limited Test Ban never broken???? Oh come on now! There is significant seismological data that puts the legality of many Soviet tests into question. Who told you that anyways? They havent flagrantly broken it, but since we have no seismological stations in the USSR its awfully hard to tell. Milo And Barry Commoner's comments may be valid in Biology, but not Nuclear Strategy, there is much more than just damage figures. The name of the game is to prevent a war, and thats quite a different beast.
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/12/84)
> The Limited Test Ban never broken???? Oh come on now! There is > significant seismological data that puts the legality of > many Soviet tests into question. Who told you that anyways? > They havent flagrantly broken it, but since we have no seismological > stations in the USSR its awfully hard to tell. > Milo Milo, you are confusing the Limited Test Ban Treaty negotiated by Kennedy which bans atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Threshold Test Ban Treaty. The Threshold Test Ban Treaty (never yet officially ratified by the US thanks to RR and cronies) limits underground nuclear tests to 150 kilotons. The Limited Test Ban Treaty has NEVER been broken by the US or Soviet Union. That is a fact acknowledged by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a report on Soviet Treaty Compliance in 1981. Not even members of the Reagan Administration who are determined to find Soviet cheating everywhere possible would accuse the Soviets of violating the Limited Test Ban Treaty. It is too easy to detect such violations. For example several years ago you may remember when a cloud of radioactive fallout wafted across the US from an atmospheric test in China. There was also a suspicious test off Africa which South Africa is believed to have conducted. Atmospheric testing is both dangerous because it spreads radioisotopes throughout the planet and easily detectable for that reason. The Threshold Test Ban Treaty does not call for seismological stations in the USSR. However geologists in an article in Science magazine argued that they could detect gross violations of the 150 kiloton limit with current seismology. They also argued that there was no hard evidence that the Soviets had violated the 150 kiloton limit. As for onsite inspections, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (yet ANOTHER treaty RR and cronies have refused to send for ratification) calls for 4 onsite inspections a year. Please try to be clear about which treaties are which. PEACE, before its too late....... tim sevener whuxl!orb
jhull@spp2.UUCP (11/21/84)
In article <328@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Precisely-people with expertise in given areas should be given some >consideration. >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 whuxl!orb > I agree that we should stop the arms race but I don't know how. In the meantime, for those of you who are interested in staying alive should the nightmare come to pass, revisit Gen. David Jones (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff) remarks on national television regarding shelters. The news media ridiculed him for saying if we had enough shovels we would survive. PEOPLE, HE WAS RIGHT. When I worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory we were evaluating Soviet reports on the effectiveness of "Handy Shelters" that were essentially holes in the ground. We found that they provide adequate protection to survive nuclear explosions as close as 3 miles. If any of you are interested, let me know and I will give you the document references. Sufficient interest will result in a net posting. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (11/22/84)
>I agree that we should stop the arms race but I don't know how. In >the meantime, for those of you who are interested in staying alive >should the nightmare come to pass, revisit Gen. David Jones (Chairman, >Joint Chiefs of Staff) remarks on national television regarding >shelters. > >The news media ridiculed him for saying if we had enough shovels we >would survive. > >PEOPLE, HE WAS RIGHT. > >When I worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory we were evaluating >Soviet reports on the effectiveness of "Handy Shelters" that were >essentially holes in the ground. We found that they provide adequate >protection to survive nuclear explosions as close as 3 miles. If any >of you are interested, let me know and I will give you the document >references. Sufficient interest will result in a net posting. > >-- > Blessed Be, > > jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull > trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. > Hawthorne, CA 90250 > > Sure, we might be able to survive the initial blast if we dig deep enough holes, but then what? How will we survive if our whole life supporting system on the planet is destroyed? surviving for a few days is not the same as surviving. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
emks@uokvax.UUCP (11/27/84)
/***** uokvax:net.politics / watmath!saquigley / 1:46 am Nov 23, 1984 */
Sure, we might be able to survive the initial blast if we dig deep enough
holes, but then what? How will we survive if our whole life supporting
system on the planet is destroyed? surviving for a few days is not the
same as surviving.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
/* ---------- */
Um, I think that Jeff was referring to surviving the initial prompt radiation
(and, I guess, fallout--if any). That's a lot different than blast. Blast
protection probably requires some sort of special protective construction.
But I don't understand how our planet will necessarily be destroyed. For
some reason, you seem to lump terms like "nuclear war" with "total annihil-
ation of the earth." Why? Detonations of several endo-atmospheric weapons
didn't halt life on earth...I think... :-)
kurtmwm@ea.UUCP (11/28/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / uokvax!emks / 12:30 am Nov 27, 1984 */ /***** uokvax:net.politics / watmath!saquigley / 1:46 am Nov 23, 1984 */ But I don't understand how our planet will necessarily be destroyed. For some reason, you seem to lump terms like "nuclear war" with "total annihil- ation of the earth." Why? Detonations of several endo-atmospheric weapons didn't halt life on earth...I think... :-) kurt /* ---------- */ Only intelligent life, kurt. :-). <mike
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/28/84)
> kurt writes: > Um, I think that Jeff was referring to surviving the initial prompt radiation > (and, I guess, fallout--if any). That's a lot different than blast. Blast > protection probably requires some sort of special protective construction. > > But I don't understand how our planet will necessarily be destroyed. For > some reason, you seem to lump terms like "nuclear war" with "total annihil- > ation of the earth." Why? Detonations of several endo-atmospheric weapons > didn't halt life on earth...I think... :-) > There would be quite a difference between two atomic bombs and 50,000 bombs don't you think, Kurt? Also the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were miniscule in comparison to those we have now. Both sides possess 1 1/2 million times the destructive power of those bombs. I think the consequences of that are quite threatening to all life on earth. As I pointed out in an earlier article, just the radioactive fallout from controlled atomic tests has spread radioisotopes all over the planet-- including Antartica. We all have strontium-90 in our bones from those atmospheric tests. What would be the ecological effects of 50,000 bombs tim sevener whuxl!orb
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/30/84)
> There would be quite a difference between two atomic bombs and 50,000 > bombs don't you think, Kurt? Also the bombs dropped on Hiroshima > and Nagasaki were miniscule in comparison to those we have now. ... > tim sevener whuxl!orb That's a pretty liberal estimate (in more than one sense). First, most of our bombs are merely three to ten times as large as the Hiroshima bombs (ex: Pershing II's are 150 kilotons). Second, in any nuclear scenario, at most a quarter of our nuclear stockpile would be used (because the more missiles we send, the more get destroyed in the silos, and also because missiles in general have a high failure rate). Thus only half the world will get destroyed instead of all of it. That's still nothing to cheer about, though... --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Eureka!" -Archimedes
emks@uokvax.UUCP (12/01/84)
Tim writes: >There would be quite a difference between two atomic bombs and 50,000 >bombs don't you think, Kurt? Also the bombs dropped on Hiroshima >and Nagasaki were miniscule in comparison to those we have now. Both sides >possess 1 1/2 million times the destructive power of those bombs. >I think the consequences of that are quite threatening to all life on earth. >As I pointed out in an earlier article, just the radioactive fallout from >controlled atomic tests has spread radioisotopes all over the planet-- >including Antartica. We all have strontium-90 in our bones from those >atmospheric tests. What would be the ecological effects of 50,000 bombs > >tim sevener whuxl!orb Tim, that has almost nothing to do with what I said. I said that blatent use of terms like "nuclear exchange" or "use of nuclear weapons" to mean "total annihilation" is wordsmithing, order n. I agree completely that there would be QUITE a difference between WWII and now if we were to detonate 50K nuclear weapons! But, you see, that isn't my point. I meant, and still mean, that use of nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily imply that the world would simply "end." I believe nuclear weapons have kept the U.S. and the S.U. from having a direct, worldwide conflict since WW II. In the event of a W.P. invasion, I also believe that use of nuclear weapons can have precisely the effect NATO intends: to control escalation on terms which are favorable to the Atlantic Alliance. kurt
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (12/02/84)
> That's a pretty liberal estimate (in more than one sense). First, most of > our bombs are merely three to ten times as large as the Hiroshima bombs > (ex: Pershing II's are 150 kilotons). Second, in any nuclear scenario, > at most a quarter of our nuclear stockpile would be used (because the more > missiles we send, the more get destroyed in the silos, and also because > missiles in general have a high failure rate). Thus only half the world > will get destroyed instead of all of it. That's still nothing to cheer > about, though... > --- > Greg Kuperberg > harvard!talcott!gjk > > "Eureka!" -Archimedes Pershing II's are equipped with the WD-70 (I believe) warhead. This is equipped with dial-a-yield, and can be adjusted from what I thought was 5 to 70 kilotons. Where did you get the 150 kt figure? Milo