orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/15/84)
> Ok Tim, I have just about had it. All this talk that a nuclear war > would not leave survivors is pure BS! You talk about Reagan stating > thatover 50% of Soviet population would survive and you say this > is ludicrous. You are dead wrong. Please show me some figures to support > your claim!!! > I want to see FACTS and NUMBERS!!! > > > Milo I'll give you some facts and numbers--currently the Soviet Union and the United States have one million six hundred thousand times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Both sides have enough bombs to target towns with a population of 15,000 people--these are NOT big cities. Even the smallest bombs in both arsenals are bigger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (13 kilotons)--which did quite an effective job of destroying a city of several hundred thousand. The Hiroshima bomb would vaporize the typical town of 15,000 people. Please face reality--this is no myth-yes, we CAN literally blow up the world. Whether this would definitely lead to extinction or not is open to question--perhaps a few humans could somehow survive. But most would not. There are more effects than the Nuclear Winter effect to contend with-- a National Academy of Sciences study several years ago predicted that full scale nuclear war would be very likely to destroy the ozone layer which protects all life on this planet from damaging ultraviolet rays. This is all documented in "The Fate of the Earth" by Jonathan Schell. I would highly recommend reading this book if you have not already. It is very difficult to read-it gets VERY depressing. Plus one gets the feeling of overkill reading over and over just how destructive nuclear war would actually be, based upon the studies by the Office of Technology Assessment, the National Academy of Sciences , and other studies. The first response of people with fatal illnesses is almost always to deny that they will really die--such is the natural response of people like yourself--to deny that extinction is possible. Unfortunately it is possible and probable in an allout nuclear war. Now what do we do about it? Tim Sevener whuxl!orb Bell Labs, Whippany
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/19/84)
!*FLAME ON*! Good grief!!! Is that the kind of analysis you are using???!! That is ludicrous! You are assuming that you can distribute overpressure without regard for the non-linearity of blast. You say, well 1 hiroshima bomb killed x people, then 15000 hiroshima equivilents will kill 15000x people! Thats pure garbage! Didnt you ever take a physics course? The important thing to realize when calculating casualty figures is population density. The fact that the soviet union is not nearly as urbanized as the US makes an extraordinary difference. This is the same type of mush-thinking that characterizes people who are motivated by hysterical emotion and no facts. I think any person who can possesses a crude form of logic can see thru your argument. This entire argument about blowing up the world must be some form of Soviet disinformation. It has no relation to reality at all. Again, if anyone can support the claim about be able to blow up the world x times over, using scientific data, I'd be glad to know about it, and the reason they havent told anyone in the trade about it. *flame off* About Nuclear Winter. I have looked at the report and talked to some of its principles. Its an interesting paper. But there must be a lot more work done before it can even be considered as a part of national policy considerations. Work is presently going on at LLL and at several other sites to see if its viable enough to be taken very seriously, and also to determine what threshold of nuclear exchange would trigger such a reaction. But that is not something I'd be willing to believe the Soviets believe. There are many scientists who think its bogus. I will wait and see. As I said, I've worked on simulation stuff myself, and you have to make lots of assumptions about the environment for forming a model. All those assumptions may not be true. Milo
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/19/84)
> > Good grief!!! Is that the kind of analysis you are using???!! > > That is ludicrous! You are assuming that you can distribute > overpressure without regard for the non-linearity of blast. > You say, well 1 hiroshima bomb killed x people, then 15000 hiroshima > equivilents will kill 15000x people! Thats pure garbage! Didnt > you ever take a physics course? > > Milo Milo, I am not talking about 15000 Hiroshima equivalents, the figure is one million six hundred thousand. That is one hundred times the figure you are citing. Please get your figures straight. We are also talking about the targeting of every city and town of 15,000 people or more in both countries. Hiroshima with several hundred thousand people was thoroughly devastated. What would an equivalent bomb do to "Small town ,USA" or "Small town, USSR"? Please refrain from hystericism-- I realize it is a shock to realize that the human race is seriously in danger of being extinguished. But do not try to deny this reality. We have to do something about it, not pretend that we can "hide behind lilac bushes " and survive as Gen. Graham, one of Reagan's advisers claimed. If you are not convinced by the blast effects I can post more excerpts from "Fate of the Earth" about the effects on the ozone layer, radioactive effects, etc. Please be reasonable. Peace, before it's too late! Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (10/20/84)
"It were indeed to be wished that our art had been less in-
geneous, in contriving means destructive to mankind; we
mean those instruments of war, which were unknown to the
ancients, and have made such havoc among the moderns. But
as men have always been bent on seeking each other's des-
truction by continual wars; and as force, when brought
against us, can only be repelled by force; the chief sup-
port of war, must, after money, be now sought in chemistry.
...God grant that mortal men may not be so ingenious at
their own cost, as to pervert a profitable science any
longer to such horrible uses."
- Boerhaave, "A New Method of Chemistry"
Leiden, 1732
(Referring to Berthold Schwarz's exp-
eriments with black powder ca. 1250)
[Then human race was destroyed when].."intelligent, educated
men decided they could maintain the peace by building weapons
whose power they could not comprehend and whose use they could
not cdontrol."
- Shute, "On the Beach", ca 1950
(Misquoted, but the sense is there)medin@ucbvax.UUCP (10/22/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxe.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Message-ID: <2744@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Mon, 22-Oct-84 13:33:20 EDT x.ARPA> <294@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 45 The number 15000 was an arbitrary number, my point is thats its not a constant. Things are much more complicted than that. I do not take the ozone argument seriously. I have talked to Teller about this myself, and he mentioned that the ozone mechanism is a system in equilibrium, and that when stress is applied, it will respond to remove that stress. He said that ozone might drop 30-40% but then rebound with time. I have little respect for J. Schell's fate of the earth science. I want some hard numbers. Like a study conducted by RAND or LLNL or LBL, some scientists who undertook a scientific study and got some supportable results. I have heard of no such study that talks about having 'enough to blow up the world 12 times over'. Its a little like arguments against reprocessing nuclear waste. That theres enough plutonium in there to kill everyone in the US. Sure, but theres no way you can distribute it like that. The same is true about nuclear weapons. You just cant distribute blast to every person in the countryside. The laws of physics say thats impossible. I would encourage you to read a book called 'The Effects of Nuclear Weapons', published in '77 by ERDA. Its full of facts, not fantasises. And it has real weapons data from tests in it. Now, I dare you to show me how you can blow up the world from that. Give me someone respectable, I'll even take Dick Garwin, how about that? About Gen. Grahm. I have talked to him and I know he doesnt buy the blow up the world nonsense either. You are quoting him about sticking your head in the sand, bbut he was I believe talking about the need for an ABM at the time. But I will grant you, the US will be virtually destroyed following a countervalue strike. My point is that the Soviet Union will not. I'm not arguing for a survivalist mentality, just trying to point out that for the Soviets, winning a nuclear war, even if it required taking pop. damage, it would still survive with a large majority of its people surviving. I am looking forward to your citing of REAL, HARD, DATA. Hysteria is when people act without rationality or support from reality. Thats exactly what you are doing, tho I will grant you you are by no means alone. Milo
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/22/84)
The number 15000 was an arbitrary number, my point is thats its not a constant. Things are much more complicted than that. I do not take the ozone argument seriously. I have talked to Teller about this myself, and he mentioned that the ozone mechanism is a system in equilibrium, and that when stress is applied, it will respond to remove that stress. He said that ozone might drop 30-40% but then rebound with time. I have little respect for J. Schell's fate of the earth science. I want some hard numbers. Like a study conducted by RAND or LLNL or LBL, some scientists who undertook a scientific study and got some supportable results. I have heard of no such study that talks about having 'enough to blow up the world 12 times over'. Its a little like arguments against reprocessing nuclear waste. That theres enough plutonium in there to kill everyone in the US. Sure, but theres no way you can distribute it like that. The same is true about nuclear weapons. You just cant distribute blast to every person in the countryside. The laws of physics say thats impossible. I would encourage you to read a book called 'The Effects of Nuclear Weapons', published in '77 by ERDA. Its full of facts, not fantasises. And it has real weapons data from tests in it. Now, I dare you to show me how you can blow up the world from that. Give me someone respectable, I'll even take Dick Garwin, how about that? About Gen. Grahm. I have talked to him and I know he doesnt buy the blow up the world nonsense either. You are quoting him about sticking your head in the sand, bbut he was I believe talking about the need for an ABM at the time. But I will grant you, the US will be virtually destroyed following a countervalue strike. My point is that the Soviet Union will not. I'm not arguing for a survivalist mentality, just trying to point out that for the Soviets, winning a nuclear war, even if it required taking pop. damage, it would still survive with a large majority of its people surviving. I am looking forward to your citing of REAL, HARD, DATA. Hysteria is when people act without rationality or support from reality. Thats exactly what you are doing, tho I will grant you you are by no means alone. Milo
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/22/84)
'Hi kids, its playtime!' -- BOZO the clown. That has about the same validity of the quotes you cited. Milo
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (10/23/84)
>>Posted: Mon Oct 22 11:33:20 1984 >> >>.................................. I have talked to Teller about >>this myself, and he mentioned that .............................. >>.......................................... I want some hard >>numbers. Like a study conducted by RAND or LLNL or LBL, some >>scientists who undertook a scientific study and got some supportable >>results....................................................... >>I would encourage you to read a book called 'The Effects of Nuclear >>Weapons', published in '77 by ERDA. Its full of facts, not fantasises. >>........................................ >> >> 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
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/29/84)
OK, well who else should know? Not all work on Nuclear weapons design. And even among those who do there is considerable disagreement over many issues. But They all pretty much agree on a few low level conclusions. If they didnt, they'd look like fools. It's easy to see when to look at the numbers and know what the numbers mean. We dont have a lot of fools in the business. We do have quite a few on the net, where disproval is a bit harder. You think it funny if someone told you an 8080 did 80 megaflops. I feel the same way when I hear this 'blow up the world X times' nonsense. Milo
david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (11/01/84)
---------- >>.................................. I have talked to Teller about >>this myself, and he mentioned that .............................. >>.......................................... I want some hard >>numbers. Like a study conducted by RAND or LLNL or LBL, some >>scientists who undertook a scientific study and got some supportable >>results....................................................... >>I would encourage you to read a book called 'The Effects of Nuclear >>Weapons', published in '77 by ERDA. Its full of facts, not fantasises. >>........................................ >> >> 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... I'm sorry to be snide, folks, but I spend more time every day thinking about these issues than just about any of you have in your lifetime... I've read more, written more, discussed more, and yes, am better qualified to say what's right or at least what's a good guess. Hate to burst your egalitarian bubble like this, but facts is facts. To paraphrase Richard Pipes, people who wouldn't dream of giving a cordon bleu chef advice on making a Hollandaise seem to think nothing of instructing professionals in the complex and arcane area of strategic policy and arms control. Well, I wish that the world were as easy and simple as many of you out there seem to think it is...unfortunately, unlike Never-Never land, wishing doesn't make it so... I'm also extremely resentful of the self-righteousness displayed in many postings...what, do you think that we "chronic war-preparers" don't have husbands, wives, children, and puppies??? We're doing what we think is right...Do you think we do our jobs without consideration of the moral considerations involved (or, perhaps more to the point, the awful consequences should we fail in our task)? Sheesh, from reading this net you'd think that the only "thinking" people in the world are computer science undergrads! I've frankly had it with being talked down to by people who, from all indications, aren't qualified to even whisper about the topics upon which they pontificate with such certainty and moral superiority. I'm tired of being told my hard-earned skills and knowledge are worthless because the issues involved are "too important" to be decided upon by a "nuclear priesthood." Well, historically, there have been two ways of winning converts from priests: one is to present an alternative theology which, in the "free market of ideas" achieves dominance...the other is to burn the offending priests at the stake... Need I even specify into which category pieces like Phil Lavette's above fall into? --- das
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (11/07/84)
Well stated and my sentiments exactly. Milo