eugene@ames-lm.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (06/06/84)
When you hold a hammer in your hand, everything in the world has a tendency to look like a nail. Prevention is far better than a 20% loss. Who is to say, who is to die. I know San Diego well and it stands a good chance of being a prime target. In the age of 9 minute warning, do you think the President has time to tell his people we will be coming under attack? More likely, we will be walking around, then in a flash, cease to exist (I am assuming big cities.). I pity those of you not near us big targets. The terrorist argument: third world nations are more likely to use biological and chemical for economic reasons (cheaper) than nuclear, however, nuclear gives the glow of high tech and thus the appeal for certain nations. You need to divide a first strike into two parts (for simplicity): the beginning and the engagement (oversimplified). There are numerous texts: popular such as Fail Safe, The Bedford Incident, ad nauseum and more serious: Rand and Hudson Center reports, Herman Kahn's text, USAF and DOD open literature texts. The scenarios are numerous: accidental, limited war, "full scale" conflict, mad men and so on. Each is an opinion. I think the LLNL Janus simulations are probably the most enlightening, I hope friends at LLNL eventually let me in to try [I doubt I will get a chance.]. You can debate (Accidental war is improbable, limited war is not possible.....) till you are blue in the face. The engagement is another matter. CBS Reports on the Defense of the US (seven day series which a friend also taped) give an interesting feeling of this. Limited (and escalating) scenarios of Europe are the most publicized. It is my understanding that there are strategic plans which can allow targeting of Western European cities in event of capture, but I cannot confirm this (obviously). A first strike in many ways does not differ a retaliation: hit certain command and communication centers. Avoid wasting warheads on empty silos and bases. The terms "counter force" and "counter value" can be extended to this concept. Note: in a limited engagement, you might not chop of the head of the ememy: Moscow might be "spared" in order to have leaders communicate and prevent further escalation. Submarines and ASW pose a special dangerous problem because of the short flight time and communications problems. Next, what cities and facilities do you target: enumerate: Kiev, Moscow, launch sites.....? what order? depends on your response. Technically, my ancestors launched a very successful attack, few losses to their side, great damage to the enemy (although a couple of blunders were made, we have learned our lessons: some say my ancestors lost the war, but won a greater victory). I think your English ancestors had a similar good battle early in their history: sneak attack on Christmas eve crossing some river. Perhaps we can pool our talents! If we hit the Russians hard and fast, maybe we could get by with less than 20% casualties! We have to knock out their subs first, and synchronize that by blinding their missile and air defense, cut off their lines of communiation. We will have them hit so hard and so fast, they won't know what hit them! Civil Defense: they won't have time to use it. We can discuss this using mail rather than the net. This is my absolute last posting on this subject. It should move to net.politics or as Robert said: arms-discussion. My parents, by the way, are both US born and raised: my father landed on Utah Beach on D-Day with 3 other uncles in the 442 regiment. My mother was interned at Santa Anita Race Track where she lived in a horse stable for two years (including getting a HS degree). She was later a Red Cross volunteer who was trapped in Tokyo at the end of the war and survived the fire bombing of Curtis LeMay (she does not regret this). I went to school with a kid whose mother was in Himoshima the day the bomb was dropped. How much longer does this have to go on? --eugene miya (some short satire intended in the next to last paragraph)