alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (08/19/84)
% = Matt Crawford >> = Kurt Guntheroth <fluke!kurt> > = my comments quoted earlier % I always had hoped that I would never post an article that had quotes- % within-quotes, but here I go. ">>" denotes Kurt Guntheroth <fluke!kurt> % and ">" denotes Allen England <ihuxb!alle>. >> Lets say the Star Wars defense plan is 95% effective ... >> Now lets say the Russians have 10,000 nuclear warheads, >> a relatively good estimate for their strength by the time >> we could implement Star Wars). 0.05 * 10,000 = 500. >Suppose the Soviets go for a pre-emptive strike against military targets and >only launch 1000 bombs. 50 get through which is not enough to cripple our >retaliatory capability. % Allen England would have us believe that our % hypothetical defense is 95% effective and at the same time have the % Soviets disbelieve it so strongly that they would attempt a first % strike with only one-tenth of their weapons. Funny you should mention the lack of rational debate in my arguments as you are emotionally reacting to my article. One of the significant military strategies (and one of the scenarios considered most likely by military planners) is that of the "Surgical First Strike" in which one country attempts to take out the offensive capability of the other country. In other words, the most likely scenario is not all out nuclear war, but a smaller strategic strike. My entire point in "playing the numbers game" was to show that a 95% effective defense removes the possibility of the strategic first strike as an effective strategy against the United States. Therefore the Soviets couldn't even consider it. >> According to the newest theories, 100 bombs is enouch to cause a >> global climatic catastrophe. ... >First, these are only theories and no one knows if they are correct. % How shall we test these "theories"? Shall we just hope that they are % false? How shall we test the hypothetical defense? Shall we just % hope that the "theories" on which it is based are true? You have missed the point of all of my articles on this subject. I am not suggesting blind acceptance of any theories. I propose that we research the theories to determine what basis they have in reality. But WE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT THE NUCLEAR WINTER THEORY IS A FACT and base our military planning on that unproven assertion. Especially when the person quoting the "theory" didn't even bother to get the magnitude of the numbers correct. >> There is exactly one defense against nuclear war; proscription of nuclear >> weapons. Until then, there is no safety in any defense plan. >This is the kind of defeatist attitude which prevents progress in all >areas. % Is the opposite attitude, which claims that a large enough military % budget will make us safer, leading to progress? Where did I say that? In all of my articles on this topic, I have taken the stand that we shouldn't just rule out this idea because some of arms control advocates are against it. % There is very little rational debate in your statements, Allen England. % Could you please think harder or move your remarks to net.flame? I, % for one, will promise not to argue with you in that newsgroup. % Matt University ARPA: crawford@anl-mcs.arpa % Crawford of Chicago UUCP: ihnp4!oddjob!matt This is a very interesting statement. I have noticed that whenever someone takes the viewpoint that some military objectives are desirable, there is loud and indignant outcry from many netters. It must be very comfortable to *know* all of the answers and then sit back and attack those with the *wrong* viewpoint. Matt, why don't you join me in the endeavor to "think a little harder?" For the record, let me state that I am not in favor of a massive arms build-up. However, I do not believe that we should just lay down our weapons and depend on the good will of the rest of the world. I believe that a strong military is important to our national well-being and I am willing to listen to new military ideas (which it seems, Matt Crawford doesn't want to hear since they can't possibly be rational). Allen England ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (08/20/84)
Dramatis Personae: KG Kurt Guntheroth AE Allen England MC Matt Crawford Some of the following has been summarized to prevent this from getting overly long. Irrelevancies, such as comments on the other disputants motives, intelligence, or ancestry, have been removed. <In an exchange about the Star Wars defense, KG points out that the Soviet Union will have an estimated 10,000 warheads. With a 95% effective defense, 500 warheads would get through. AE offers an alternative scenario in which The Russians launch only 1000 bombs in a preemptive attack on military targets, of which only 50 get through. MC expresses disbelief in the assertion that, faced with a 95% percent effective defense, the Russians would launch only 1000 bombs. AE responds: > AE> ...(and one of the scenarios considered most likely by military planners) AE> is that of the "Surgical First Strike" in which one country attempts AE> to take out the offensive capability of the other country. In other words, AE> the most likely scenario is not all out nuclear war, but a smaller strategic AE> strike. My entire point in "playing the numbers game" was to show that a AE> 95% effective defense removes the possibility of the strategic first strike AE> as an effective strategy against the United States. Therefore the Soviets AE> couldn't even consider it. You should have made you purpose clear in the first place. We really thought that you really thought that the Russians are idiots. Of course, if it is possible for the Russians to disarm the US in a first strike with only a fraction of their total nuclear force, it raises the question of why they haven't done it. I can think of a couple of possible reasons: 1) American radar can detect Russian missiles coming over the pole. This give the US time to launch some of their land-based missiles. By the time the Russian missile hits the American silo, the silo may be empty. 2) It is difficult, probably impossible, to launch a preemptive strike that will get all the American submarines without evaporating the oceans. KG> According to the newest theories, 100 bombs is enouch to cause a KG> global climatic catastrophe. ... < AE has stated that the figure 100 should be 1000. I have no way to check to see who is right at the moment.> AE> First, these are only theories and no one knows if they are correct. MC> How shall we test these "theories"? Shall we just hope that they are MC> false? How shall we test the hypothetical defense? Shall we just MC> hope that the "theories" on which it is based are true? AE> I propose that we research AE> the theories to determine what basis they have in reality. But WE SHOULD AE> NOT ASSUME THAT THE NUCLEAR WINTER THEORY IS A FACT and base our military AE> planning on that unproven assertion. Okay with me, provided that, while the research is going on, the US doesn't base its military planning on the unproven assertion that the Nuclear Winter theory is false. It would also be nice if, somehow, US leaders could be forced to accept the results of research. They have been known, sometimes, to call for more research whenever they didn't like the results of the previous research. David Canzi, watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
wcs@ho95b.UUCP (59577) (08/22/84)
Well, I'm against Star Wars too, but there are some strategic purposes for it that are more realistic than trying to stop an all-out attack. Consider several possible scenarios for a war: - All-out attack by Russia: 5000 warheads from MIRVed ICBMs, 100-1000 cruise missiles, 1000-5000 warheads in bombers, etc. This scenario has been beaten to death already, but remember that bombers and cruise missles are a credible threat too. - "Poker"-style war: Land-based war in Germany or Palestine, followed by tactical nuclear warheads; both sides threaten to escalate and shoot a few ICBMs just to show they're serious; six months or so of conflict followed by either surrender or Armageddon. The latter scenario is one that military planners seem to be considering seriously; it's a level of conflict somewhere between conventional war and suicide, and one that either side might risk rather than lose a major conventional war. A 95% effective defense may not help much against 10,000 warheads, but against a few dozen missles it reduces the damage to "acceptable" levels. (If we're talking about total destruction of Europe, the government might be willing to risk an additional 20 or 30 million Americans). What the Star Wars defense does is give the military (from their perspective) a more flexible response to situations of major conflict, a more credible deterrent against Russian attacks, and a margin of security in case things start to get out of hand. Unfortunately, this makes them more willing to risk a major war, especially if there is a period of imbalance while one side has it and the other doesn't. On the Nuclear Winter issue: wasn't it nice when all we had to worry about was radiation poisoning? Cheers; Bill -- Bill Stewart AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ ...!ihnp4!ho95b!wcs
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/22/84)
Bill Stewart suggests:
" A 95% effective defense may not help much against 10,000 warheads,
but against a few dozen missles it reduces the damage to
"acceptable" levels. (If we're talking about total
destruction of Europe, the government might be willing to risk
an additional 20 or 30 million Americans)."
If the purpose is to launch a "demonstration" of a few dozen missiles
which might effectively be thwarted by a Star Wars defense, it would
be a safe bet that a Soviet (or American, for that matter) leader
would make that demonstration with SLBM's or Cruise missiles which
were relatively immune to a Star Wars defense. As I pointed out in an
earlier article, even an effective Star Wars is effective only against
land-based ICBM's.
The 95% figure that's bandied about by proponents not only assumes
technological success, but also assumes that the Soviet nuclear force
stays fixed in size AND composition. I'll break the news to you now:
it won't.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidkarn@mouton.UUCP (08/22/84)
Some of those in favor of the Star Wars defense system say that we're being "defeatist" by saying that it will never work and/or cost an unacceptable amount of money. Who's being more defeatist here? The engineers for raising perfectly valid concerns based on technical issues or the politicians for saying that a far cheaper (and the only practical) solution, namely arms control agreements, isn't feasable? Reagan wants to build Star Wars because he's been an utter failure at arms control. No other reason. Phil
res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) (08/23/84)
| ... for saying | that a far cheaper (and the only practical) solution, namely arms | control agreements, isn't feasable? Unfortunately, it is not clear that arms control agreements are really practical. Certainly, with the Soviet opposition to on-site inspections, such agreements are not practicable today. | Reagan wants to build Star Wars because he's been an utter failure at | arms control. No other reason. I will not presume to KNOW what Reagan WANTS ... the previous poster's psi abilities are far greater than mine :-). It is interesting to me, however, that as soon as we demonstrated an ability to destroy orbital warheads, then the Soviets were anxious to discuss banning the kinds of weapons which we now had but that they lacked. Reagan agreed to discuss this, but wanted to include in the arms limitation discussion the topic of other nuclear weapons. Since the Soviets have an edge on us in that kind of weaponry, they have refused to discuss it. As I said, I will not presume to guess the President's desires, but I surmise from his statements that he is willing to discuss any arms limitation agreements that hold promise of being both practical and practicable. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res Phil
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/24/84)
> .................................. SLBM's or Cruise missiles which > were relatively immune to a Star Wars defense. As I pointed out in an > earlier article, even an effective Star Wars is effective only against > land-based ICBM's. Either I didn't see that article, or it didn't seem plausible. I agree that a Star Wars defence is of little use against cruise missiles, but intercepting SLBMs is not much harder than intercepting ICBMs. It means the detection network has to be better, and the reaction time has to be faster, but these are problems of degree, not fundamental obstacles. The same comments apply to long-range "tactical" ballistic missiles, although the detection and speed problems are still worse. Cruise-missile defence is essentially an air-defence problem, worse in degree but not different in kind from intercepting bombers. Technology for high-percentage air defences has existed for a long time, although a leakproof air defence is very difficult. The less said about the current state of our air defences, the better, but there is no serious technological barrier to major improvements. It's mostly a question of will: our air defences have reached their current sad state through two decades of neglect and low priority. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (08/24/84)
From: res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) (he was responding to this statement by an unidentified poster: "Reagan wants to build Star Wars because he's been an utter failure at arms control. No other reason.") >I will not presume to guess the President's desires, but I >surmise from his statements that he is willing to discuss any arms >limitation agreements that hold promise of being both practical and >practicable. Then you must believe that every arms control agreement negotiated in the past twenty-five years is impractical and inpracticable, since Reagan has opposed every one of them. Never mind that most of them have worked quite well, and that even an indisuputable hawk like Jeanne Kirkpatrick has said that the so-called "violations" of arms control agreements by the Soviets are really differences in interpretation. I'd like an example of an arms control agreement Reagan would support. So far there are none; he's never met an arms control agreement he liked. Mike Kelly
jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen) (08/25/84)
(The original article was in net.general, but I added net.politics,
since I think that is more appropriate).
Among the objections Gary has against the Star Wars program are
two things that are valid for almost all of the recent weapon
systems, namely that they probably won't work, and that they
are only kept alive by people who have a *personal* interest
in it.
If you look at the Cruise missiles (especially interesting to
us in Europe), even people who are *not* against nuclear arms
think they're a bad thing. We had an American documentary program
on TV here a couple of months ago in which some people who
had been deep into the cruise project said that the thing was
virtually worthless, because of some serious design flaws.
The program also showed that the only reason the cruise project
wasn't abandoned was the fact that the people who were in the
places to make decisions were so involved with it that the end of
the Cruise missile would probably also be the end of their career.
That's really a great joke, isn't it? You have to pay through the
nose for weapons we don't want, and after you get them you find out
that they don't even work.........
Jack Jansen, {philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack
PS: Don't misunderstand me, I'm against *all* weapons, wether they
work or not. The arguments here are only meant to get some of you
over to our side :-). (Well, make that a :-( ).david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/27/84)
>> .................................. SLBM's or Cruise missiles which >> were relatively immune to a Star Wars defense. As I pointed out in an >> earlier article, even an effective Star Wars is effective only against >> land-based ICBM's. >Either I didn't see that article, or it didn't seem plausible. I agree >that a Star Wars defence is of little use against cruise missiles, but >intercepting SLBMs is not much harder than intercepting ICBMs. It means >the detection network has to be better, and the reaction time has to be >faster, but these are problems of degree, not fundamental obstacles. >The same comments apply to long-range "tactical" ballistic missiles, >although the detection and speed problems are still worse. Yes, dealing with SLBM's rather than ICBM's is a matter of degree, but all the estimates of Star Wars' effectiveness assume the target is a land-based ICBM. Effectiveness against SLBM's would be much lower, and SLBM's launched at coastal (or near coastal) targets would be nearly impossible to stop. And, if for some reason, SLBM's COULD be intercepted with some high level of effectiveness, the USSR would only emphasize Cruise missile construction or blast the Star Wars satellites out of space. >Cruise-missile defence is essentially an air-defence problem, worse in >degree but not different in kind from intercepting bombers. Technology >for high-percentage air defences has existed for a long time, although >a leakproof air defence is very difficult. The less said about the >current state of our air defences, the better, but there is no serious >technological barrier to major improvements. It's mostly a question of >will: our air defences have reached their current sad state through two >decades of neglect and low priority. A high state of readiness for air-defense may be able to stop a few hundred bombers, but no conceivable air-defense system can cope with a few thousand cruise-missiles (note also that cruise missiles, when compared to other strategic nuclear weapons, are extremely economical. Buying a few thousand of them would only cost a few billion dollars.). How will you stop an SLCM launched from a fishing trawler 12 miles off shore from hitting a coastal city? My point is that Star Wars', as a counter-measure against ICBM attack, is open to a VARIETY of counter-counter-measures, including Cruise missiles, SLBM's, anti-satellite weapons, dummy warheads, expansion of warhead inventory, etc. Even if some of these counter-counter- measures could be thwarted, not all of them can, and so Star Wars will be thwarted fairly quickly. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
gmv@petfe.UUCP (George Verbosh) (08/28/84)
I don't care how you put it, this whole discussion s depressing.
jhs@druxy.UUCP (08/29/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxe.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxy.UUCP Message-ID: <1230@druxy.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-Aug-84 16:25:56 EDT efense Plan Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 25 A comment that "this whole discussion is depressing" was published on this net: true enough. So are discussions about famine, rape, child abuse, ...., and all the other terrible things in this world. And being turned into a crispy critter or a puddle of ooze with a 23,000-year half life is not an uplifting prospect either. However, constructive (social) change sometimes is started or aided by the sort of exchanges we've been following or participating in. An informed and aware public does make a difference, and these discussions contribute in whatever small way to that end. While governments--and not the people they represent--wage war, this is a country where the people can determine governmental policy and actions through the ballot box and lobbying. Neither unilateral disarmament nor continuing proliferation of ANY weapons systems is viable (literally)--both are naive and potentially suicidal. But getting our government to move one step in the direction of compromise might get *them* to do the same. With enough steps by both sides, a start on defusing the potential for holocaust could be made. As it is, the Soviets and the Reagan administration both have a "get in your face" attitude that only enhances the mutual paranoia. So, let's get on with the "depressing discussions" and see what evolves. --Jeff Shore, ..!druxy!jhs
mike@erix.UUCP (09/05/84)
Some thought on Jeff Shore's comments > A comment that "this whole discussion is depressing" was published on > this net: true enough. So are discussions about famine, rape, child > abuse, ...., and all the other terrible things in this world. Yes indeed, but the nuclear threat is by far the most urgent. Famine etc are problems which must be solved, but won't kill off most of mankind if some senile President/Chairman of the party/General makes a mistake. > An informed and aware public does make a difference, and these > discussions contribute in whatever small way to that end. How informed are we? The people in the eastern block are informed, but certainly not objectively. What does the average man in the street in the West know about overhanging nuclear holocaust? In Europe people seem more concerned with taxes, unemployment etc etc to even bother to think about it. > But getting our government to move one step in the direction > of compromise might get *them* to do the same. Nothing will happen until we can make the nuclear threat a political issue. I think this is begining to happen in (Western) Europe. I don't know about the USA. They don't have political issues in the Soviet dictatorship! However they do have severe problems - like feeding their people. I'm sure that they would welcome being able to divert some of their nuclear expenditure into other more important issues. Nuclear weapons do not constitute a defence. Remember that even full scale conventional war (WW1 and WW2) killed and maimed far fewer people than would be killed in a nuclear conflict between east and west. And both sides had the bomb when the USSR walked into Afganistan and when the USA was in Vietnam and it didn't seem to influence the situation. I hope this discussion on the net will continue, but let's concentrate on the vital central issue of how to defuse the present situation and not on issues such as the efectiveness of the proposed Star War defence system. --Mike Williams (mike@erix.UUCP or ..mcvax!enea!erix!vax
alf@ttds.UUCP (Thomas Sj|land) (09/08/84)
A few important things are missing in the discussion on nuclear arms and their possible effect on detente. Several debators talk about the indeed terrible effects that a nuclear war would have on our environment and culture, both in east and west. Nobody emphasizes the basic idea behind the buildup of a nuclear force (at least in the west): -- The nuclear force is built up, not to be used aggresively, but to show the Soviets that any aggresive military action on their part directed against the western world, be it nuclear or non-nuclear, might lead to a mutually disastrous nuclear war. The major "use" of a nuclear force is not to actually blow the world to pieces, but to have the force as a support in diplomatic discussions with representatives from the other side. So, a nuclear force is used by not being used. This view, however paranoid or hysterical it may seem, has kept us outside a World War III for almost 40 years now. The newspapers stated a few weeks ago that the Red Army would take over ALL of Western Europe (including Holland) in TWO WEEKS, if they wanted to and the west had only conventional forces to defend itself with. The whole strategy upon which the defense of free Europe is based assumes that USA would use their nuclear force, if necessary, to prevent a Russian attack on Western Europe. If we do not like this doctrine (we might think that it is too risky) but still care about the freedom of the people in Western Europe we have to answer a few questions: -- How should the free world be defended WITHOUT the use of a nuclear force ? How much extra money are we ready to spend on conventional forces to balance the Red Army forces ? -- Is it at all possible to have a defense of the free world without nuclear arms as long as the Soviets have a nuclear threat directed against us ? And if some of us think that the US has too much influence in European matters they must answer to where we should take the money to replace the American forces that are now defending our freedom (yes, even for us who live in countries that are not members of NATO). We, who live neigbors to the Soviets certainly have enough experience in the behaviour of their aggresive military forces: -- in 1952 a Swedish plane was shot down by the Russians over international waters on a mission in the baltic sea. The crew disappeared. A few days later another Swedish plane looking for their colleagues was shot down, also over international water. This crew was picked up and could tell the story of how their were attacked by Soviet planes. -- Even though some information in the matter of submarines in the Swedish archipelago have been exxagerated (Jane's article on Spetznaz-marines 150 boardings of the Swedish coast were not officially approved by the Swedish DOD) there has undoubtedly been several cases of obvious Soviet military activity on Swedish territory. -- The last week's political issue here is that a Soviet Suchoi fighter aircraft taking part in russian attack excercises near the baltic coast was tracked and unambiguosly identified by the swedish defense while it was following a civil aircraft full of tourists with its radar locked for attack on the civil aircraft for several minutes. This went on until the two arcrafts were 30 km over Swedish territory (!) over the island Gotland. When the Swedish fighters sent up to take care of the matter arrived the Russian had gone back to its base in Estonia. The whole matter was to begin with made top secret by the foreign affairs department but a leak to the media made it public. The Soviet answer to the government's demand for an explanation was simply to deny any knowledge of the incident and to counter-attack on the Swedish media which in the view of the Soviets are responsible for an "anti-soviet campaign". Just now the "board of foreign affairs" is discussing what consequences the incident shall have on future Swedish-Soviet relations. Does anyone have any GOOD ideas about how these matters should be handled ? To me it is clear that any talk about disarmament is simply utopian as long as the elderly boys brought up during WW2 are in control in the kremlin.
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (09/10/84)
<...> >The nuclear force is built up, not to be used aggresively... Nuclear weapons ranging in the megatons simply aren't defensive. >The newspapers stated a few weeks ago that the Red Army would take >over ALL of Western Europe (including Holland)... Oh come on, as long as they don't have VAXen, Holland is just too small for their crude missile guidance systems to give them any chance to hit us... >The whole strategy upon which the defense of free Europe is based >assumes that USA would use their nuclear force, if necessary, to >prevent a Russian attack on Western Europe. Of course the US would, blowing only Europe to pieces without risking too much for themselves. >How much extra money are we ready to spend on conventional forces to >balance the Red Army forces ? Balance? Outweigh you mean. >Is it at all possible to have a defense of the free world without >nuclear arms as long as the Soviets have a nuclear threat directed >against us ? A nuclear threat directed by the SU against Europe is a threat against themselves. >...following a civil aircraft full of tourists with its radar >locked for attack on the civil aircraft..... How do you determine if a plane's radar is locked for *attack*??? >When the Swedish fighters sent up to take care of the matter arrived >the Russian had gone back to its base in Estonia. What would they have done if it had been a Russian civil aircraft "apparently on spying mission" a la KAL007? >To me it is clear that any talk about disarmament is simply utopian >as long as the elderly boys brought up during WW2 are in control in >the kremlin.... ...and even more: as long as elderly boys brought up in the movie scene are in control of the white house, not only building up a huge nuclear arsenal, but every now and then even thinking about and threatening to use it. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
faustus@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Christopher) (09/11/84)
> Does anyone have any GOOD ideas about how these matters should be handled ? > To me it is clear that any talk about disarmament is simply utopian as long > as the elderly boys brought up during WW2 are in control in the kremlin. This brings up an interesting point -- how, if at all, will Soviet policies change when the younger generation (the ones that didn't experience WW2) comes into power? Will they be more pacifistic and non-expansionist, because they don't have the memory of Russia being invaded and many Russians being killed by Westerners, or will they be more agressive because they don't have the memory of the horrors of war restraining them? Wayne
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (09/12/84)
> Nuclear weapons ranging in the megatons simply aren't defensive. According to the MAD doctrine they are. > Oh come on, as long as they don't have VAXen, Holland is just too small > for their crude missile guidance systems to give them any chance to hit us... I'm glad it your life and/or freedom you want to bet on that. > Of course the US would, blowing only Europe to pieces without risking too > much for themselves. Under currently believed scenerios, once the ball game starts, we're all going to play. The nuclear winter doesn't play favorites. > Balance? Outweigh you mean. Obviously, you believe that Holland's forces will beat back the Russian Army, it is, however, much larger than Germany's forces were in WWII... and you didn't do so well then. > A nuclear threat directed by the SU against Europe is a threat against > themselves. No answer needed. > What would they have done if it had been a Russian civil aircraft "apparently > on spying mission" a la KAL007? Swede's haven't shot down many planes recently, do you think they are going to start now? You really are paranoid. Richard Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (09/12/84)
From: alf@ttds.UUCP (Thomas Sj|land)
"The nuclear force is built up, not to be used aggresively, but to show the
Soviets that any aggresive military action on their part directed against
the western world, be it nuclear or non-nuclear, might lead to a mutually
disastrous nuclear war ... This view, however paranoid or hysterical it
may seem, has kept us outside a World War III for almost 40 years now."
Yes, we all understand MAD and flexible response. The point is that forty
years is hardly a long time. If you want to talk about four decades of relative
peace (in which use of nuclear weapons was threatened several times, by the way),
let's also talk about four millenia of history in which every weapon developed
has eventually been used. I find little reassurance in such a brief span of
history.
"The newspapers stated a few weeks ago that the Red Army would take over
ALL of Western Europe (including Holland) in TWO WEEKS, if they wanted to ..."
I don't know what newspaper you speak of, but two responses: (1) why would they
WANT to? (2) it's far from clear that the East Bloc military is as over-
whelmingly superior as this would have us believe.
Your note also seems to assume that the only disarmament is unilateral Western
disarmament. This is a straw man. In the U.S., there is a broadly supported
proposal called the Nuclear Weapons Freeze (it routinely gets about 70% support
in public opinion polls). The Freeze is quite simple: a verifiable
negotiated halt to further production, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons
by the U.S. and the Soviet Union. This puts us enormously ahead by stopping the
arms race in its tracks. Then we can begin to tackle the immensely difficult
question of bilateral disarmament without the playing field shifting every few
years.
I think that unilateralism is unnecessary. There is every indication that the
Soviets are willing to make concessions if they believe the NATO powers are
doing the same.
The problem, of course, is that the U.S. President, Ronald Reagan, refuses to
look at nuclear weapons talks as anything other than a public relations ploy to
garner support for the largest military build-up in history. Because the Soviets
are so inept at press relations, he is even able to make it look like it is
their fault that no negotiations are ongoing. I personally believe that the
removal of Ronald Reagan from the Presidency is a necessary step towards any
significant reduction in the nuclear threat.
Mike Kellyhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/16/84)
> ... Weapons like the neutron bomb, the SS-20 and the > cruise missile are designed to be used. *That* is what makes > them so dangerous... Please explain to me how these weapons differ so fundamentally from all previous weapons. I'm afraid I see no such distinction. All weapons are designed to function if asked to, and to not function if not asked to. I see no evidence that, say, the SS-20 is "designed to be used" to any greater or lesser extent than an SS-9 or a "Frog" artillery missile. > Now, with the event of small nuclear arms ... Are you really so naive as to believe that small nuclear arms are new? They've been around for twenty years or more. If you want an example of a *really* dangerous nuclear weapon, consider the "Davy Crockett", deployed in the early 60's and retired a few years later: a nuclear missile with a very small warhead and a range of only about 3 kilometers. This was a truly gross case of a missile that an army commander would be sorely tempted to use before the Soviets could overrun it; that was part of the reason why it was retired quickly in favor of longer-range weapons. > If a general sees a tank division coming his way, he might be > tempted very soon to use something like a neutron bomb. Again, "tactical" nuclear weapons are nothing true; if you change the word "neutron" to "tactical nuclear", removing the reference to a new technology, this statement has been true for most of our lifetimes. > The other side will probably see this as a nuclear aggression, > and launch a couple of cruise missiles or SS-20's to take out > a minor city as a warning. Again, substitute "ICBMs" for cruise missiles, or "Pershing I" (not II) for "SS-20's". There is nothing new about this prospect, and the new weaponry is not really changing anything fundamental. > I think that this is the real reason for the opposition against > the new nuclear weapons. The are *NOT* meant to scare the other > party, the are meant to be *USED*. MAD protected us against war > for 40 years, but these new weapons make MAD obsolete. Again, you haven't justified this statement in any way. Please explain why the new weapons are so fundamentally different from things that have been in place for decades. If you don't *know* what things have been in place for decades, don't you think you should find out before sounding off on the subject? -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen) (09/17/84)
Thomas Sj|land (alf@ttds.UUCP) states that nuclear arms
have protected us for 40 years, by insuring that a war
would end in total destruction of the earth, and that they
are used by *not* being used.
I fully agree with him, only this theory does not extend to
the new nuclear arms. Weapons like the neutron bomb, the SS-20 and the
cruise missile are designed to be used. *That* is what makes
them so dangerous. Formerly, if there was a conflict, there was
a big jump needed to go from a minor conflict with conventional
arms to a big, probably fatal, nuclear attack.
Now, with the event of small nuclear arms, the distinction is
fading. If a general sees a tank division coming his way, he might be
tempted very soon to use something like a neutron bomb.
The other side will probably see this as a nuclear aggression,
and launch a couple of cruise missiles or SS-20's to take out
a minor city as a warning.
The other side will probably see this as a nuclear .... etc etc etc.
I think that this is the real reason for the opposition against
the new nuclear weapons. The are *NOT* meant to scare the other
party, the are meant to be *USED*. MAD protected us against war
for 40 years, but these new weapons make MAD obsolete.
Jack Jansen, {philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack