ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (03/04/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, March 3, 1987 6:32PM
Volume 7, Issue 106
Today's Topics:
barrage attacks on subs
Occupation of US
Rs: SLBMs in the Great Lakes
B-1 plagued by problems (From RISKS)
Occupation of US
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 87 07:43:00 PST
From: "ESTELL ROBERT G" <estell@nwc-143b.ARPA>
Subject: barrage attacks on subs
Reply-To: "ESTELL ROBERT G" <estell@nwc-143b.ARPA>
Sure, the great lakes are very much smaller than the Atlantic, Pacific,
and Indian Oceans. But how do they compare with say the acreage that
MX plans to employ for rails et al? That's the question. No one is
pressing to remove Trident from the oceans; but the idea of using older
smaller subs in friendlier waters IN LIEU OF UNBUILT, UNPAID FOR MX's
is interesting.
As to the Navy's wishes re: subs in the great lakes? Several years ago,
a "usually reliable source" said that the problem THEN was that someone
[DoD? Congress? other?] had decided that strategic missiles should be
controlled by the Air Force - with the single exception of the ocean
deployed Tridents. His opinion was the the Navy was willing; but that
the AF plainly did not want to deploy its weapons on the platforms of
another service.
Which points up a continuing problem, recently discussed by David Packard;
viz. we [USA] have not really decided HOW we wish to defend ourselves.
Presently, several factions vie for enough funds to each defend the
nation entirely, both strategically and tactically. The results are
far too much money spent on partial implementation of each of several
workable schemes; but since implementation is only partial, we are
yet not really well defended. Hence, the clamor for "SDI."
Bob
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 87 09:42:05 PST
From: pom%under.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov
Subject: Occupation of US
>
>>From: pom%under.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov
>> Q1: If slimy alien would vaporize all US weapons, would SU occupy US?
>> A1: yes, for sure.
I (pom) got three reactions to the A1 statement.
I will list them and then reply:
>(1)Why?
>Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
>Internet: campbell@maynard.uucp 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109
>
>(2) Having continuing to read a variety of books on the USSR and the Soviet
>military, I doubt that if little green aliens removed all the
>US weapons, the USSR would proceed to occupy the US. Indeed I doubt
>that the USSR would proceed to occupy Europe, even if <all>
>NATO countries were weaponless. I would appreciate receiving citations
>to any responsible, scholarly studies which suggest otherwise.
>benson%wsu@csnet-relay >
>(3) I wonder if either the U.S. of the S.U. has the social, political, and
>economic resources to invade each other's homelands, especially since
>there are at least 150 other countries on this planet that might want to
>say something about what we do to each other. I also wonder how many
>rubles or dollars it would cost to invade the SU??????????????????
>From: John_Boies@ub.cc.umich.edu
pom: ad (1) :I explained why: It is a big burden for US to have
an arms race (as summarised aptly by John_Boies@ub.cc.umich.edu).
Well, it is even bigger burden for SU, which (for whatever reasons ) is
a poor country when compared with US . I feel that ball is now in your court.
The second reason I gave, garanteed survival, is even more compelling.
ad (2) : I doubt that even the most excellent scholarship can
provide a 'proof' either way. Behaviour (of either, people or nations) is
not a hard or exact science. Perhaps, you just want to exclude cheap
propaganda a la' "evil empire"? If so, I wonder what kind of historical
books you have been reading, if you did not noticed persistent and steady
policy of expansionism. I feel, that YOU should support your esoteric
statement; But, just as an example, to get rolling, I will point you to a
truly unusual and scholarly document, called The Czech Black Book.
It was published by the Historical Institute of The Czechoslovak Academy
of Sciences in October of 1968. It describes the circumstances of SU
occupation of Czechoslovakia. Do you believe that SU has changed so much,
under Gorbachev, do you have some racist notions that people in Eastern and
Western Europe are 'basicaly different' ?
ad (3) I am at loss what to say. I do not want to sound patronizing,
but doubt that mere verbal arguments are enough to make a dent in John's
belief system, and so I will dispense an advice instead: Take a year off
from your studies and visit other countries; You are part of small priviledged
group having social, political, and economic resources to do that; In a
way, it is your responsibility to the less fortunate majority, to educate
yourself about the realities of this planet. Your good intentions will not
contribute anything to solution of the global problems, as long as you
remain ignorant of basic facts: We know what the 150 other countries would
say the moment US would be occupied; They would say: We thank the great and
brave people of the SU, for destroying the dragon of US imperialism....
US may be the only country which was never occupied by foreign armies
(TX excepted) and so it would take couple bloody years, before US would join
the chorus of other nations and thank their liberators.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 87 12:17:22 PST
From: ihnp4!mhuxd!wolit@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Rs: SLBMs in the Great Lakes
> An interesting idea, but the problem is that when you localize the
> subs in that way they become subject to barrage attack. Moreover,
> when the water itself is bounded, it becomes relatively easy to create
> huge tidal waves with nuclear explosions, thus making life for the
> submarines very difficult.
The efficacy of a barrage attack depends on how close to the submarine
you have to get a warhead in order to kill it. Water is pretty
viscous stuff, not as good a sheltering material as dirt or concrete,
but much better than air. Certainly, it's a great thermal insulator,
and a pretty fair neutron absorber, so the only effect you have to
worry about is blast. For a warhead in the 200 KT range, you have to
get within 300 ft or so to kill a hardened silo, surely within 2 miles
to destroy a steel structure (like a submarine) on land. I'd guess
that splitting the difference -- requiring a warhead to land within
a mile of a sub in the water to kill it -- is probably conservative.
The Great Lakes have an area of 95,000 square miles; even if you
eliminate half of that as unsuitably shallow, etc., that would still
leave enough area to require 15,000 warheads to cover with a barrage.
I've always thought that subs were pretty immune to surface wave
effects. I guess it depends on what you mean by "making life
difficult." Rough rides during nuclear war are probably acceptable.
I WOULD appreciate a pointer to a good reference on weapons effects on
submarines, so the above speculations could be refined a bit beyond
the realm of wild-ass guesses.
----------
Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit
(Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 27 February 1987 00:12-EST
From: Peter G. Neumann <Neumann at CSL.SRI.COM>
To: RISKS-LIST:, RISKS at CSL.SRI.COM
Re: B-1 plagued by problems
(From the Stanford Daily, 26 Feb 87, in the "Dateline" section, compiled
from the wires of the AP and the LA Times/Washington Post News Service)
WASHINGTON -- Government investigators said Wednesday that as many as half
of the new B-1 bombers at a Texas air base have been grounded in recent
weeks because of nagging technical problems and that the aircraft's
shortcomings may persist well into the next decade, contrary to public
statements by the Air Force. During hearings before subcommittees of the
House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Les Aspin, D-Wis, said the bomber's
heart -- its defensive electronics system -- not only fails to jam enemy
radar signals but actually serves as a beacon illuminating the B-1 as a
target. Government Accounting Office officials ... testified that the
problems with the $28.3 billion bomber program, especially the critical
defensive electronic countermeasures (ECM), are far more serious than Air
Force officials have acknowledged. GAO officials also predicted that the
Air Force will have to ask Congress for substantially more money in coming
years to repair and upgrade the bomber.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 87 20:51:09 EST
From: think!haddock!eli@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Elias Israel)
Subject: Occupation of US
> From: campbell@maynard.BSW.COM
>
> >From: pom%under.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov
> > ...
> > Q1: If slimy alien would vaporize all US weapons, would SU occupy US?
> > A1: yes, for sure.
>
> Why?
> --
> Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
> Internet: campbell@maynard.uucp 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109
> uucp: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846
> ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvisr.harvard.edu MCI: LCAMPBELL
>
Maybe this isn't as trivial a question as it first seems (hope so, else
this will be a pretty dumb submission :-). I think that the way you answer
this question says more than the situation that it proposes. That is, in order
to say that the Russians (or Americans) would invade, you must be visiualizing
a posture for both countries and their relationship. If I believed, for example,
that the SU is essentially peace-loving, owing to the nature of communism
(a position which, in fact, I disagree with) I would probably assume that
the SU would attempt to assist the US in its time of need. Similarly,
if I thought that the SU is a mindless hegemon, I would undoubtedly
believe that there would be a time lapse of about 5 or 10 minutes between
the destruction of the last US weapon system and the arrival of the first
Russian soldier.
Although this scenario would present either side with an opportunity
that would be difficult to pass up, I think that neither side would
"attack" the other right away. I do think, however, that both sides
would eventually take advantage of the opportunity. Were we left defenseless,
I think the SU would eventually make moves to control the US because their
ideology tells them that Communism is a game that everyone must play in order
for anyone to win. I think that the US would also take advantage of the
opportunity to rid itself of its perceived "great foe". Of course, both
sides would claim that the reasons for their actions were purely humanitarian.
Going back to the aliens scenario, I would propose the following: Now that
the SU has no weaponry, who is the greater concern: the aliens with the
way-out technology, or the now-defenseless Russians? Send the Red Cross
to take care of the wounded and NATO "peace-keeping forces" to police the
streets. If you can deal with the aliens, the SU should be all but yours.
This is my first submission to mod.politics.arms-d. I am an interested reader
but one who is not "in the know". Therefore, if you think that my ideas
are flawed, I would be happy to discuss it. I would appreciate it, however,
if you do not confuse my ignorance in a specific area with stupidity in
general. If these ideas have no merit, TELL ME WHY. I am sorry to devote
a whole paragraph to this, but I merely wish to stress that I
have made this statement in order to contribute to and to stimulate this
discussion, and that I am not an unreasonable boor, come to tell you "the
world according to Eli".
I hope that this promotes the interesting discussion here on arm-d, long
one of my favorite groups.
Elias Israel
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************