mark@teltone.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (07/25/84)
<If at first you don't succeed ...> For those who haven't heard of it, the "Nuclear Winter" is the months-long period of subfreezing weather that would follow a nuclear exchange. Supposedly any number of weapons over a few hundred would set enough fires (thus producing soot and ash), and throw enough dust into the atmosphere that a significant portion of the sun's rays would be screened out. According to Science magazine, "the extinction of the human species cannot be ruled out" in such a case. I read recently that even Pentagon officials have found evidence for the nuclear winter compelling. That being the case, why should we continue to produce nuclear warheads? If 800 or 1000 going off would kill us all anyway, why do we have 10,000? Why are we wasting our tax dollars paying a bunch of our most intelligent people to try and "improve" weapons design? The nuclear freeze movement has made a point of calling for a "mutual and verifiable" nuclear freeze, lest the hawks cry "Unilateral disarmament!" This doesn't make sense to me. How can any nation having the power to destroy all human life be called "disarmed"? Can someone explain this to me? -- ....tektronix!uw-beaver!teltone!mark
david@randvax.UUCP (07/26/84)
---------- >For those who haven't heard of it, the "Nuclear Winter" is the >months-long period of subfreezing weather that would follow a >nuclear exchange. >That being the case, why should we continue to produce nuclear >warheads? If 800 or 1000 going off would kill us all anyway, >why do we have 10,000? Why are we wasting our tax dollars >paying a bunch of our most intelligent people to try and "improve" >weapons design? >The nuclear freeze movement has made a point of calling for a >"mutual and verifiable" nuclear freeze, lest the hawks cry >"Unilateral disarmament!" This doesn't make sense to me. How >can any nation having the power to destroy all human life be >called "disarmed"? >Can someone explain this to me? >....tektronix!uw-beaver!teltone!mark Sure, I'll give a try... First of all, nuclear winter is NOT a fact, or even an unambiguously accurate theory, like general or special relativity...it is a hypothesis that has yet to undergo particularly careful scrutiny. When you consider how little we know about the overall structure and resilience of the biosphere, no one can claim certainty, or even confidence to a high degree, about what climactic changes "would" occur after a large-scale nuclear exchange. In fact, the group putting forward the nuclear winter hypothesis clearly mark it as such...a substantial amount of further study is needed (and appropriate). >That being the case, why should we continue to produce nuclear >warheads? If 800 or 1000 going off would kill us all anyway, >why do we have 10,000? Why are we wasting our tax dollars >paying a bunch of our most intelligent people to try and "improve" >weapons design? There are a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the nuclear winter hypothesis...however, the continued "improvement" of nuclear weapons is taking us in a direction where such a catastrophe is less, not more, likely. Let me give three reasons why. o The nuclear winter thesis is based upon moderate-sized attacks (~1000MT) upon cities...while such `counter-value' attacks DO NOT figure prominently in any intelligent nuclear war scenario (contrary to the propaganda of the freeze movement), similar effects could arise due to unintended, or `collateral' damage to urban areas in the course of a larger `counter-force' attack on military assets. The new weapons which are entering our inventory tend to be smaller and more accurate than those they are replacing. For example, an MX warhead has less than 4% the explosive power of the Titan II warhead it replaces. Even taking into account the multiple-warheads of the MX, the total MX force will have just a little more than half the sheer destructive capacity of all the Titans it's replacing. The resulting ability to be more discriminating in targeting will reduce dramatically the amount of collateral damage to cities even in a major exchange, and should therefore likely reduce the large-scale effects that Ehrlich et al hypothesize. o In fact, the increased accuracy of new-generation nuclear systems make them more potent counter-force weapons, despite their considerably smaller yields, makes such counter-force policies more viable. The United States since 1960 has completely rejected `city-busting' as anything but a last-gasp retaliation to a Soviet strike on our urban areas. Unfortunately, we have not always had the weapons to go with that declatory policy. The new generation of weapons we are preparing to deploy provide us with a capability the Soviets have had for a decade: to threaten an enemy's military assets, especially his nuclear ones, in a controlled and selective manner, avoiding the kind of `spasmodic' war which characterizes the nuclear winter scenario. o Finally, the whole issue of nuclear winter is moot so long as deterrence holds. Europe today is enjoying its longest period of peace since the early nineteenth century, which in turn was the longest since the Pax Romanica over a millenium earlier. While this status quo stands nuclear winter is a frightening intellectual construct, and nothing more. Deterrence, like peace, however, is a process NOT a condition. It is not enough to say, there was no war yesterday, there is no war today, there will be no war tomorrow; we have to work and sacrifice to maintain the peace. Force modernization is a crucial element in the presevation of peace. Even putting aside nuclear winter, even putting aside the use of nuclear weapons entirely, the next war in Europe would not be a day at beach; we have avoided that war for four decades by remaining strong in the face of a strong adversary. We only invite that horrible conflict by scaring ourselves into weakness. As for the freeze movement, their motives are noble, but their means are ridiculous in the extreme. I try to pay as little attention to them as possible, since in general their PR is laced with an appaling degree of ignorance and/or wishful thinking. I'm much more concerned with ways in which the risk of nuclear horror can be lessened in the real world. I hope this helps a little, at least. Cheers! --- das PS --- It should go without saying, of course, that the opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of the Rand Corporation or the sponsors of its research.
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (07/27/84)
[] > If 800 or 1000 [warheads] going off would kill us all anyway, > why do we have 10,000? On the other hand, if 800 warheads will destroy us, why not set off ten thousand more, or a million more? Some people are impressed more by numbers than by the truth. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
medin@ucbvax.UUCP (Milo Medin) (07/29/84)
I agree. The Nuclear Winter scenario is only a theory, and while more studies need to be done, I wouldnt count on it being true, and certainly not count on anyone in a position of power believing it. I talked to a friend of mine who works at Lawrence Livermore the other day about it, and he doubts its validity. He said the entire report is based on the fact that huge firestorms would be started and pour tons of soot into the air. He noted that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki didnt start any firestorms, that is, the flash started many fires, but the blast blew them out just as quickly. The Soviet Union has always believed that a nuclear war is winnable, and trains it personell in tactics that are used in an integrated battlefield. Their forces are postured in a way that supports this doctrine, and while propaganda says one thing, its purely for external consumption. Their military doctrine points to something else entirely. Another point that seems very interesting to me is that many people feel the world is much more insecure (in a strategic nuclear sense) than it was 4 years ago. Nothing could be farther from the case. When Carter took office, the Soviets felt him out, first it was the little things, then more and more. During the Carter administration we saw African countries turn communist, Nicarauga fall, and then the invasion of Afghanistan. It was a slow steady escalation, always feeling Washington out. When in the early stages, they felt no opposition, they became bolder and bolder, and the situation escalated more and more, until the Afghanistan affair. Reagan on the other hand, opposed them in every arena right from the start, and even took the initiative in Grenada. The Soviets looked and saw that the U.S. would not allow them to be unopposed, and became very cautious. Look at how the cubans left Nicarauga after the Grenada invaision, like rats leaving a sinking ship. The Soviets are very conservative and will not move unless they have an extremely good chance of going unopposed. They do not have that chance with Reagan, and therefore will not move nearly as boldly. There is a theory in political science that war is the result of an ambiguity is power distribution. As long as people are sure of who is strongest (in terms of will as well), there will be no hot war. Now picture what might have happened if Carter had been reelected. The Soviets, seeing no opposition, continue to expand the number and magnitude of their military activities. They decide Washington wont act, and move into the middle east in some place like Iran. Carter seeing massive Allied pressure and pressure from Congress and the people decides to finally put his foot down and sends in troops. We have superpower confrontation and escalation into God knows what. I see the world in a much better way than the Freeze people do. Things just aren't that simple. Milo Medin ...!ucbvax!medin medin@ucbarpa
mark@teltone.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (07/30/84)
<> Constance Cumbey, the woman whose book warned of the "Hidden Danger of the Rainbow", also has it in for other symbols. According to last Friday's Seattle Times, Ms. Cumbey also sees possible satanic influences in circles, triangles, and rays of light. According to the Times, "Cumbey swing her brush far and wide, tarring not only religious groups like the Moonies, Hare Krishna, and the Children of God, but the Sierra Club, the Friends of the Earth, holistic health practitioners, human-potential organizations, and several political groups. Anything smacking of Eastern religions or humanism, she notes, is also suspect ..." Personally, I think Satan is more likely to turn up amongst the Young Republicans .... :-> Eschatologically Yours, -- ....tektronix!uw-beaver!teltone!mark