ss@rabbit.UUCP (12/07/83)
;
Ok folks. We have been discussing the nuclear arms race and its various
aspects for a while now. Let me put my head in the lion's mouth and see
if we can come up with some consensus on this matter. Please MAIL me your
thoughts; I will sum up as time and material permits.
A few ground rules:
1. Remember the title; Wanted: A Sane Nuclear Policy.
2. Be brief. Long windy sentences, polysyllabic words etc should be kept
to a minimum. Try not to be too long. I have only a limited amount of time.
Try to itemize so that I can extract things without too much hassle.
3. No obscene language. Do not send me anything you would not like to see
in print with your name at the top. Although I do not have any intentions
of writing anything at this time, I leave the possibility of a multi-author
article open.
4. Do not reply off the top of your head. Please re-read what you write
and give some thought to the content. USE AN EDITOR.
5. Give references to support "facts" in your articles.
6. In your articles keep in mind the following:
a) It should not require Soviet cooperation (at least initially) to
any great extent.
b) Any Soviet cooperation should be verifiable unilaterally using
US satellites, seismographic data etc. The Soviets should similarly
be able to verify cooperation on our part without our support.
c) It should be currently feasable, technically, economically, and
politically. This rules out "Nuke em till they glow," "Better Red
than Dead," "Luke Skywalker is here" and "Let's disarm unilaterally"
sentiments (my bias).
d) It should not compromise western security. Reductions in one
side may be balanced with increases in another (strategic and/or
conventional).
e) It should encompass both long term and short term aspects. For
example, building a new super-tech system will not help as the
Soviets will just copy it sooner or later.
f) Remember that the Soviets view us with extreme paranoia, but
respect strength. Our word on something is not enough.
Any actions to be taken must be clearly defined in advance.
7. Please include a reasonable return path from some major USENET node.
It is not always possible to send mail back using the header info.
I do not have any means of replying to people on ARPANET. Perhaps
someone at a gateway can volunteer to forward mail.
To start the ball rolling, here are some preliminary ideas from me. They
are not complete and fall far short of answering a lot of questions.
They may even not be practical so feel free to comment and/or suggest
alternatives.
Nuclear Weapons:
Once this genie has been released, there is no way of just magically
removing all nuclear weapons from the earth. We have to learn to live with
them. The aim should be not to eliminate them, but to bring them down
to levels that do not threaten the destruction of the entire human race.
(MAD remains valid at much lower levels ?)
Land based ICBMs:
The current levels of land based ICBMs are probably one of the major
sources of destruction in case of nuclear war. Emphasis has shifted
in recent years towards using them for ground bursts over military
targets rather than their original stated purpose of deterance through
possible air bursts over civilian targets. The resulting increase in the
level of dust/smoke kicked up into the atmosphere is one of the major reasons
for the so called "nuclear winter" [Carl Sagan et. al.] even for a very
limited exchange. Assuming a policy of no first use by the US (implied
even if not stated), and a no launch on warning policy, most of these
ICBMS serve no purpose, beyond being targets for a Soviet first strike.
Intermediate and short range missiles in Europe:
Off hand, I do not see any way to get rid of these without building
up conventional forces in Europe. If Europe desires peace as well as
no nuclear missiles, then the European nations need to build up
sufficient conventional forces to keep the Soviets out.
Cruise Missiles:
I find these missiles even more dangerous than the ICBMs. There is
virtually no way any one can keep track of the numbers (Remember that
verification has to be possible unilaterally by both sides).
I would like suggestions regarding these beasts.
Airborne and Submarine based weapons:
Given that we have to live with nuclear weapons, these appear to be
the choice to me. They are unilaterally verifiable (#of subs * launch
tubes + #of weapons/plane * #of planes). The required submarines
and aircraft are large enough that their numbers cannot be hidden.
They can be scattered widely enough across the globe to ensure
survival of enough weapons for a second strike.
Terrorist weapons:
This is an aside from the main issue, but should be kept in mind.
This is probably one of the few areas in which it should be possible
to obtain agreements with the Soviets. Suggestions on what the agreements
could contain?
What we can do:
As the first step, remove ALL Land based ICBMs from the US. Estimate the
minimum number of submarine and air based weapons required for MAD and
build up to that level. The two should be simultaneous, e.g. for
each sub/plane commissioned, N land based ICBMs are decommissioned.
This leaves no strategic military targets on the US mainland for the Soviets.
It also eliminates the possibility that a first strike can destroy the
ability of the US to strike back. Since the number of submarine based
missiles would be sufficient for the purpose of a second strike,
but not enough for a survivable first strike, they would not be construed
as a first strike threat.
Questions to follow up in this approach:
Security of Europe: The NATO forces count on strategic weapons in case
of a Soviet invasion. If the US first strike capability is eliminated,
decisions will have to be made IN Europe regarding this. This seems
reasonable to me. I do not see why only the US should be responsible for
their security, and get the blame for the security measures at the same time.
Economics: While there will be expenses in building new subs/planes
and junking ICBMS, the current levels of military budgets should be able
to handle them, especially if funds are transferred away from exotic
weapons/increased ICBMS etc.
Politics: It seems to be politically feasable for both parties. Note
that the thing should be a package with balancing items which result in
less danger for the US mainland without compromising US security.
Others: Inter-service rivalry, defense contractors, ensuring that
the missiles are launchable only by the proper chain of command, required
levels of conventional forces, any others you think up.
Please save this article for future reference if you are interested
in participating. You can of course post on the net, but I will not
respond to individual articles publicly, nor will I take part in any
public discussion. If you respond by mail and call me names,
I will simply ignore you.
Sharad Singhal.
{ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax}!rabbit!ss