jj@rabbit.UUCP (11/21/83)
With all this talk of the Nuclear Winter going around,
I have the following suggestion.
1) Reduce/increase/{whatever is necessary} the amount of
ICBM's in hardened silo's to the point that the tonnage of
Russian missles required to have a 75% kill ratio is also
the tonnage of "russian" missles necessary to bring about
2 times the "nuclear winter". That way, everybody "wins" even if
we DON'T shoot back.
2) The "russians", being aware of this, will not shoot unless they
want to commit suicide. <I fear this, actually, given the
mindset, but that's not under our control.>
This has a number of advantages, the "best" being that it
will come about regardless of the decision of the leaders of
the US to launch on warning, and likewise for the USSR, if
they take the same approach.
In other words, launch on warning becomes unnecessary.
Hmmmm, come to think of it, just set all the ICBM's to go off in their
silo's when attacked? That will ensure that winter comes about.
Just how well thought out is this winter idea, anyhow?
Only half seriously...
--
-Diogenes stopped here-
(allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jjbch@unc.UUCP (11/22/83)
Actually, rabbit!jj's proposal makes sense and is in substantial agreement with the ideas of people who have studied the TTAPS figures. (This is weird, I seldom agree with jj on ideas political.) Another nice feature is that it takes a whole lot less weapons than we have right now! Essen- tially about 1000 missiles, targeted at cities, will produce enough of a pall to produce the "nuclear winter" effect (100 Megaton nominal.) That's only 0.8 percent of the world nuclear arsenal! The biggie, of course, a 10000 megaton war cities and counterforce (silos, air bases) keeps it sub-freezing for well over a year, and that's still only 80% of the worlds nuclear arsenal. -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!bch
jj@rabbit.UUCP (11/22/83)
Um... Thanks for the figures, Byron.
Sounds to me like either nation's supply of weapons
is enough. <And not too much, we must have at least
a year of sub-zero to kill the oceans, I suspect.
ECCH! what a thought. PLEASE don't start writing about
how I LIKE the idea.>
In that case, it sounds like we just harden the silo's we've
got, and fill them full of warheads, no need to put in rocket motors.
If we get hit, or if
(and this part I DO NOT LIKE. I think it sounds very unstable)
anyone does anything that is extremely detremental to the
US, we set them off.
I don't like the sound of the second half. How do we,
or the USSR, prevent doomsday blackmail, expecially if
the US and the USSR are on the opposite sides (imagine that!)?
It sounds like such ideas are even more unstable than the current
situation, as it doesn't require any attacks to set off
the end.
Comments?
<Personally, I don't think what the US does matters at all.
The USSR, or the US, for that matter, can decide the entire
issue singlehandedly. That isn't changed by nuclear winter
suicide deterrence, no deterrence, or no missiles in the US.>
Maybe a good defense? <and only a defense!>
(No, we've been through that, being defensive and protecting
yourself is *supposedly* even more destabilizing. Lord! What
a coup the Soviets pulled with the ABM treaty!>
OK. Disarmament won't work. Suicide deterrence won't work.
MAD only works until somebody flips out. How about
a new idea? <New ideas are NOT:
unilateral disarmament.
MAD
MAF
Stopping where we are now.
>
Impractical ideas (unless YOU can convince EVERYONE at once)
are:
Total disarmament (I wish...)
Stepped " ( " " )
Ok, how about it. Anyone have a NEW idea?
--
-Diogenes stopped here-
(allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jjrew@hao.UUCP (11/24/83)
One rarely discussed property of nuclear weapons that may be useful in
negotiations aimed at getting rid of them safely is that, like
batteries, they have a finite "shelf-life". Once warheads reach an age
of somewhere around 30 (?) years, they cannot be used reliably. One
consequence of the decay of nuclear weapons is that the effective
enforcement of a complete freeze on the *production* of nuclear
warheads would eventually accomplish the same goal as total
disarmament. Furthermore, a complete freeze on the production of
warheads would seem to be much easier to verify than traditional sorts
of agreements on numbers of weapons that allow for replacement or
modernization. Thus it seems to me that a verifiable and multilateral
freeze on warhead production is not merely a first step to arms
control--it might suffice completely. I'm sure there are complexities
in any such agreement that would have to be worked out, but it seems to
offer some hope of achieving a desirable goal with only a moderate
risk. If anyone out there knows more about the factors that determine
the useful lifetime of nuclear warheads, I would be interested in
hearing about it.
--
Russ Rew
{ucbvax!hplabs,allegra!nbires,decvax!brl-bmd,harpo!seismo,menlo70}!hao!sb%russlaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/25/83)
I know somebody who honestly thinks that you should build enough missiles and whatever to destroy the world, and then put the big red button in The Vatican. Then, if anybody invades anything the whole wolrd goes up. This of course is founded on the premise that the Pope would use such a device and that he would not meddle in world politics. Personally, I doubt both of these. My current thesis is that the whole resona that there is a "nuclear bomb threat" is that we are in a closed environment. Thus "nuking the hell out of the Russians before they can get back at us" is an idea that has a lot of merit in a lot of places, if only as an unattainable ideal. if you could do this you would get rid of the opressive Russian government (and threat of domination by same) with one fell swoop. I have never visited the USSR but I get the strong impression that the same idea (with the names reversed) is current there as well. So what we need is a not-closed environment. (this will get people annoyed in some quarters, I know). All you need to do is open up space -- FOR ALL THE WORLD. The universe is a big place, and once you have given up life on a planet, every bit is pretty much the same as every other bit. If you don't like your neighbours -- MOVE AWAY! The whole notion of trying to control the universe is staggering and silly. Once a significant number of people are in space, then blowing up anything as small as a continent will have little effect on the politics as a whole, and so will not be feasible. Of course, the one way this scheme could foul up (besides having a nuclear war before we even get started) is for only one nation to control space. Then you really have a "universal dictatorship". So i want to see EVERYBODY up there! Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura