scw@cepu.UUCP (03/03/84)
Yesterday, while driving home from work I heard a news report that Hart
and Mondale are now trying to out 'dove' each other. The point of
contention was that Mondale accused Hart of not supporting the nuclear
freeze. The most worrying part to me was that Sen. Hart said 'If I am
elected ... I'll cancel the B1B and the MX missile system'.
I have just one question for him, or for his supporters on the net.
When the B-52 G/H models that we are currently using wear out (they are
literally falling apart right now) what are we going to use as the
Airborn leg of our Nuclear defense (that's another thing that we have
to thank the Democrats for, MAD) and what are we going to do about the
fact that the MM3 Missiles are also nearing the end of their usefull
lives? Is he going to replace them with a crash program at a cost of
10-20 times the current cost, or is he just going to say the the Soviet
Union 'Well gee guys, uh, we don't have a credible deterent just right
now, so don't do anything for about 5 years while we rebuild'?
<That'll go over real big in the Kremlen.>
--
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus
location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (03/05/84)
What scares me more is that during the "Barbara Walters" press conference (debate?) with the democratic candidates, they were asked a hypothetical question about what they would do in the event of an eastern European attack against western Europe. In each case the candidate outlined a strategy of telephoning, etc... However, it has been the policy of this country for twenty years now that any attack on a NATO country by a WARSAW PACT nation would be viewed as an attack against the US by the Soviet Union. Now if the candidates want to change this policy when elected, that's one thing. From their answers it seems that they are ignorant of it. I'm not sure of electing gentlemen with such low cognizance of foriegn affairs. -Ron
smeier@ihuxt.UUCP (S. Meier) (03/06/84)
>When the B-52 G/H models that we are currently using wear out (they are >literally falling apart right now) what are we going to use as the >Airborn leg of our Nuclear defense (that's another thing that we have >to thank the Democrats for, MAD) and what are we going to do about the >fact that the MM3 Missiles are also nearing the end of their usefull >lives? Do nuclear weapons have any ``useful'' lives at all? As long as the enemy believes that such a weapon can be used, the weapon is serving its purpose. If we ever reach the point of actually having to launch such a weapon, it is already too late for it to accomplish any useful goal (unless you think revenge is useful). So why not just make do with our not-so-useful MM3s, as long as we can make *them* think that the missiles just might still work? Just a thought. Steve Meier ihnp4!ihuxt!smeier
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (03/07/84)
#R:cepu:-19700:uiucdcs:29200108:000:939 uiucdcs!renner Mar 6 18:50:00 1984 /***** uiucdcs:net.politics / ihuxt!smeier / 7:14 pm Mar 5, 1984 */ > Do nuclear weapons have any ``useful'' lives at all? As long as the > enemy believes that such a weapon can be used, the weapon is serving > its purpose... So why not just make do with our not-so-useful MM3s, as > long as we can make *them* think that the missiles just might still > work? It's an interesting thought, but it probably won't work. I suspect that the Soviets have an excellent idea of how reliable our strategic weapon systems actually are. The problems with the B-52s are well known. I recall one NBC special where the camera crew went on a B-52 training flight. The first two planes they tried developed problems on the runway and were not safe to fly. The Minuteman missiles are supposedly in better shape, although I expect that a solid-fuel rocket loses some reliability after 20 years. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
rcd@opus.UUCP (03/08/84)
The comment "Hart scares me to death" (relating to his position on nuclear
freeze) is interesting. Personally, nuclear weapons scare me to death; I
find them much more frightening than Hart.
Speaking of firghtening, I find that Reagan's saber-rattling is pretty
scary. I don't doubt that the Russians are scared of him - he scares ME,
and he's supposed to be on my side!
Oh, well...de gustibus non est disputandum and I suppose it's the same for
fright!
--
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcdmjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (03/12/84)
The most succinct description of Hart I've seen is attributed to The Nation (in an editorial titled "You Gotta Have Hart?"): `Hart is an adjective in search of a noun.' Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (03/14/84)
What scares me more is that during the "Barbara Walters" press
conference (debate?) with the [D]emocratic candidates, they were
asked a hypothetical question about what they would do in the
event of an eastern European attack against western Europe. In
each case the candidate outlined a strategy of telephoning, etc...
However, it has been the policy of this country for twenty years now
that any attack on a NATO country by a WARSAW PACT nation would be
viewed as an attack against the US by the Soviet Union. Now if the
candidates want to change this policy when elected, that's one thing.
>From their answers it seems that they are ignorant of it. I'm not
sure of electing gentlemen with such low cognizance of foreign affairs.
Then you should be equally unsure of reelecting a gentleman who appoints
people with little or no practical experience to high posts because they
were good to him in California.
Dave Decot "World leaders are people, too."
(No current address, moving to CA)decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (03/14/84)
Reagan is a verb in search of a direct object. Dave Decot
murray@t4test.UUCP (Murray Lane) (03/15/84)
> The Minuteman missiles are supposedly in better shape, although I > expect that a solid-fuel rocket loses some reliability after 20 years. > > Scott Renner > {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner I have a friend who used to work at Vandenburg Air Force Base where the ICBM's are tested. According to him, only about 50% will make it out of the silos, because of maintanence problems. The missle crews that service the missles are frequently doped up to the point they cannot think straight. There is no way they can do a good PM on the missles in that condition. More often, it is bitterly cold where the missles are, and the missle crews would much rather be in their nice warm barracks. In there rush to get out of the cold, they do a slip-shod job. A note to the Soviets that are supposedly on the net... The remaining 50% would get out (short of getting nuked first), and once they leave the silos, they don't have problems very often. They would reach there targets. Murray at Intel @ t4test
paul@uiucuxc.UUCP (03/15/84)
#R:cepu:-19700:uiucuxc:34700001:000:2422 uiucuxc!paul Mar 14 23:33:00 1984 Most elements of the MM missiles have been replaced over the course of time. Every two or three years a program is started to upgrade one portion or another of the missile. The solid fuel motors have been replaced at least once in the MM 3, other components have had multiple upgrades. Most recently the Mark 12a warhead has been fitted onto most of our MM 3 missiles. What makes the MM a credible deterrent is that it's not reliable or accurate enough to be a first strike weapon. At the same time the Soviets lack a credible first strike weapon as well. A credible weapon would have to knock > 99% of the 1054 MMs to forestall a devastating counter-strike. The MX, on the other hand, appears designed as a first strike weapon. Advanced inertial guidance with Navstar data for mid- flight course corrections made it a very credible silo killer. What need of we to hit empty silos? Or would we launch first? Tricky questions. Note that Navstar satellites may be knocked out by an early EMP pulse. The B-52 does have its problems. Unlike a missile sitting in a protected silo, the plane is used and subject to wear, tear, and the occasional crash in Spain with a belly full of gravity bombs. Whether it is worth replacing is quite another story. Far too many questions about the B-1b's usefulness have been buried with the Pentagon selecting contractors from all other the country. With jobs in every Congressional district riding on it, it takes more guts in more Congressional reps to stop it. That effort of will probably won't appear. If this country is going to a new bomber at 100+ million a copy, we had damn well get our moneys worth. Write your congressman demanding FULL operational testing before production is authorized. This will probably mean having the GAO or OMB overseeing the AF methodologies and test results. Personally I'm dismayed at the proportion of our national income that is spent on war. To keep the costs down for our armed forces, the munition makers sell abroad to countries that can't afford to feed and house their people. We aren't living in a peaceful world - arms ARE necessary. I don't believe we need or can afford all that we're making. I recommend the "Arsenal of Democracy II" by Tom Gervasis. It's a survey of american weapons and arms exports plus a study of the new cold war. Paul Pomes, ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!paul University of Illinois, CSO