rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (11/06/84)
>From Tim Sevener whuxl!orb >3)Is it true that the Soviets now have superiority over the U.S.? > Here are some pertinent facts on this question: > the U.S. has approximately 30,000 nuclear warheads > the Soviet Union has approximately 25,000 nuclear warheads Mr. Sevener has fallen into the all-too-common trap of what's known as "beancounting." If sheer numbers were all that mattered, arms control and determination of superiority would indeed be as simple as he thinks it is. But there is *MUCH* more to it that just numbers. Would you still say that the US is superior if we had 30,000 nuclear warheads that could travel 10 miles each and the Soviets had 25,000 nuclear warheads that could travel 7500 miles each? I certainly hope not! Sheer numbers and megatonnage are very naive measures of superiority. >Some basic facts: the destructive power of ALL of World War 2 amounted to >3 megatons. The destructive power of the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia >amount to 18,000 megatons-- 6000 World War 2's. Again, more beancounting. A very tiny fraction of a megaton crashing through your chest is just as lethal to you as 10 megatons doing the same. Sheer numbers are meaningless when taken on their own. >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! I absolutely agree that physicians are the best ones to determine the health effects of nuclear weapons. However, I definitely wouldn't want them advising me on arms control. We definitely ought to listen to experts, but be aware that an expert is exactly that -- a specialist in ONE field. Mechanical engineers shouldn't be doing brain surgery. >NOW is the time to react to Reagan's arms buildup and try to stop us >from moving headfirst into war. Before it is too late..... Now Tim, you admitted in a posting that the Reagan administration realizes that the US is superior. Assuming that's true, if they really wanted to get us into a nuclear war, why haven't they done so already? They've had 4 years to do so. It would only take a few minutes. They haven't done it yet. What makes you so sure they will if Reagan gets reelected??? Lauri Rohn rohn@rand-unix.ARPA decvax!randvax!rohn The opinions expressed above are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer, or of anyone else for that matter.
baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (11/09/84)
Well, if the biologists don't understand the physics, and the physicists don't understand the biology, and the statesmen don't understand the science, and the scientists don't understand the diplomacy, why don't we just give responsibility for arms control to, say, a grade B movie actor? Baba
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (11/12/84)
In article <randvax.2093> rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) writes: > >>From Tim Sevener whuxl!orb >>3)Is it true that the Soviets now have superiority over the U.S.? >> Here are some pertinent facts on this question: >> the U.S. has approximately 30,000 nuclear warheads >> the Soviet Union has approximately 25,000 nuclear warheads > >Mr. Sevener has fallen into the all-too-common trap of what's known as >"beancounting." ... Not to mention the fact that Mr. Sevener's count is wrong. Even Mrs. Ferraro during the Nightline interview a few weeks ago admitted the number to be Soviets-29,000; US-21,000 with the Soviets adding to their number while our count has remainded more or less the same over the past four years. Kopel: "Are we building or adding?" Ferraro: "I say we're building." The implication being that while we are replacing older weapons with new and maintaining our count at level the Soviets are adding new warheads and increasing their overall total. So if you're playing the numbers game the Soviets are ahead in the warhead count. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/20/84)
> to be Soviets-29,000; US-21,000 with the Soviets adding to their number > while our count has remainded more or less the same over the past four > years. > > Kopel: "Are we building or adding?" > > Ferraro: "I say we're building." > > The implication being that while we are replacing older weapons > with new and maintaining our count at level the Soviets are adding new > warheads and increasing their overall total. So if you're playing the > numbers game the Soviets are ahead in the warhead count. > > -- > Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. > ...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl It is no more true that we are reducing or stabilizing the number of our nuclear warheads now, anymore than it was true that we "unilaterally disarmed" during the 70's. I have previously pointed out that despite Reagan's repeated misstatements that the US "unilaterally disarmed" during the 70's in fact the US increased its strategic warheads from 4000 to 10000. In fact the Reagan arms buildup IS leading to an increase in US nuclear warheads. The US is adding 2 new warheads every day. Scientific American in Nov. 1982 had a very informative article examining Reagan's START proposal--this article pointed out that even had Reagan's START proposal been accepted that DESPITE reductions in certain weapon systems it would lead to an overall increase of 1500 nuclear warheads. I do not have the article available but I believe that it showed an increase of 5000 warheads by the US without any arms control. It is unfortunate that Ms. Ferraro is wrong on the overall level of nuclear warheads held by both sides. All official estimates I have ever seen show the US ahead in overall nuclear warheads including the Scientific American article in Nov. 1982. This increase in our warheads is pivotal because next year the deployment of an additional Trident submarine *without* a corresponding decrease in other weapons systems will be a direct violation of SALT II. If this deployment were not an increase over limits on certain categories of warhead levels it would not be a violation of SALT II. The Soviets have dismantled old weapons systems when modernizing their forces in order to stay under their 818 ICBM limit under SALT II. the unfortunate fact is that both sides are engaged in an allout arms race ................. tim sevener whuxl!orb