flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (11/29/83)
Frank Adrian said that he thinks the US already has enough nukes to destroy the USSR no matter how many they build, so why build any more? Generally the reason given is that the USSR might eventually acquire first-strike ability, if the US sits on its posterior. That is, the USSR might learn how to take out the systems we presently have in a first strike. But if we build new (and more advanced) systems, we have a good chance to prevent that, the argument goes. I find that argument hard to buy, first, because the USSR would have to be able to take almost 100% of the West's strategic & theater nukes by surprise, else goodbye USSR. Second, scientists say that a nuclear war would cause a "Nuclear Winter" world-wide, even a nuclear war as limited as (according to Carl Sagan) 1000 1-megaton weapons. (The severity of the Winter would depend on the number & types of weapons used, and what targets were hit.) If that's correct, a first strike (since it would involve so many targets) would amount to suicide. I hear that Soviet scientists came to similar conclusions. I hope the Kremlin takes those scientists seriously. Perhaps you can argue that we should build some nuclear weapons to induce the Soviets to trade off theirs for ours at the negotiating table. That's the stated purpose of the Pershing II's and cruise missiles for western Europe. (By the way, there's 572 total missiles, not 572 Pershing II's. And yes, the Pershing II is an intermediate-range missile.) That makes some sense, but hopefully we can get some kind of agreement with the Soviets that restricts missile-building on both sides (not necessarily a "freeze" -- what makes a freeze better than negotiating directly to a reduction?). On convincing the Soviets that *we* won't launch a first-strike: first off, we could "leak" the fact (and it is a fact) that the U.S. has never studied the effects of a U.S. first-strike against the USSR. (At least, that was the case when OTA published "The Effects of Nuclear War".) We could also let them know that we know that a first strike on the USSR would mean Nuclear Winter, and that we're not in a suicidal mood. And finally, a remark directed to nobody in particular: it takes two to negotiate, but it only takes one to nuke. That's a point that seems to be lost in a lot of the rhetoric on the subject. --Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink