ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (02/25/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, February 24, 1987 8:54PM Volume 7, Issue 105 Today's Topics: administrivia SLBMs in the Great Lakes Re: Soviet Analysis of Popular Music Occupation of US submarine basing Economics of SDI (and other military expenditures) SLBM Basing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1987 21:50 EST From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Subject: administrivia ==>> The name below has been removed since my mailer doesn't recognize the host MASON mason%cod@nosc.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1987 21:56 EST From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Subject: 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sat 21 Feb 87 22:24:45-EST From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU> Subject: Re: Soviet Analysis of Popular Music I wouldn't totally discount the Soviet analysis of American music. If you listen to Prince's album "1999" you'll find that the title song says we have to party like it's 1999 because nuclear war is coming tomorrow. Though I don't remember any references in Purple Rain. I've recently found many instances of American culture assuming the inevitability of nuclear war. Fundamentalist religion, discussions on the space digest, and even people interested in "nanotechnology" right here at MIT. I feel this is a disease we must all work to eradicate. Rich ------------------------------ Subject: Occupation of US Reply-To: campbell%maynard.UUCP@talcott.HARVARD.EDU (Larry Campbell) Date: 22 Feb 87 23:10:44 EST (Sun) 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 87 20:21:32 PST From: Dave Benson <benson%wsu.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET> Subject: submarine basing (1) Submarines in the Great Lakes -- Try convincing the US Navy. I suspect a great desire on the Navy's part to be only a salt-water navy. (Now we can make plays on the word "salt".) (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. (3) Henry Spencer opines that building a $500 billion (US$) SDI is within the reach of the US government -- regarding cost. However, one must then be prepared to shell out about $100 billion per year for maintenance. I happen to believe that the unbalanced US governement budget is a far greater threat the long-range US security than Soviet ballistic missles are. An additional $100 billion per year added to the deficit already existing makes the problem far worse. Viewed in isolation these are, I suppose, managable expenditures. Viewed in the context of the responsibilites of the US government, I doubt an additional $100 billion is responsible governence. benson%wsu@csnet-relay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 22:46:48 EST From: John_Boies@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Economics of SDI (and other military expenditures) FROM: JOHN BOIES Reply to Henry Spencer: I see two central themse to Mr. Spencer's critique: 1) "$500G over twenty years is only $25G a year, not a huge bulge in the DoD budget, much less in the federal budget as a whole. How much is the US likely to spend on farm subsidies, or foreign aid, or strategic *offence*, in the same period? Assuming that SDI really would provide a near-total defence against ballistic missiles -- admittedly a big, big assumption, and almost certainly wrong as things stand now -- is it worth spending as much on missile defense as on farm subsidies? Probably." Mr. Spencer seems to feel that one or two trillion dollars is perfectly affordable nowadays. He figures that SDI is at least as valuable as farm subsidies. One of the things the reader was supposed to pick up from my posting was that SDI was not affordable, it is truly an astronomical expense, and an expense that will have no positive effects on the U.S. economy. To put the price into the perspective that Henry Spencer does--i.e. comparing it to farm subsidies--in 1985 the U.S. spent $7.7 billion on farm subsidies and almost $7 billion on SDI research (that is research not deployment, just research alone). We spent $13 billion on foreign aid in 1985 (60+ percent of which went to military aid) and the MX missile in the race track mode which was touted by the DOD as the largest engineering and construction project ever undertaken in history, would have cost only about 150 billions dollars (in 1977 dollars, about 210 billion now). What we might ask is how many "affordable" military projects can we afford? Can we afford say SDI at one trillion, the B-1 at 200 billion, the MX at 100 billion, the Trident at 100 billion (or more), a few aircraft carriers at 2-4 billion apiece, and so on until there is nothing left but some wealthy arms merchants and lots of restaurant help?! 2) "Claims that SDI is unaffordable should stress cost-effectiveness, not the absolute cost total. I want to say that I think cost-effectiveness is important to examine, it is just that while the effectiveness issue is debated constantly here on ARMS-D the cost issue is rarely examined. How come Henry Spencer does not criticize those who only examine issues of effectiveness, but is quick to criticize the discussion of costs? A final note here, even if SDI would make it so that the Russkies could not deposit nuclear weapons on our nation (except if they were dropped from bombers, launched from orbiting bomb platforms, hidden in ships, etc., etc.) I would be willing to argue that the costs of SDI would potentially be sufficient to outweigh the costs of the current arms race (unless you are willing to argue the SDI will make nuclear war and the arms race obselete) and would certainly be more costly than say working towards effective arms reduction treaties or a bilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. If current trends continue, our nation will become in less time than we would probably like to admit a command economy with of purpose of supporting an enormous military machine. P.S. None of my cost estimates I gave in my earlier posting included cost overuns. Since these average something like 333%, we might like to think of SDI costing something more on the order of 3-6 trillion dollars, triple or sextuple(?) the 1986 U.S. Federal government budget!!!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 22:47:06 EST From: John_Boies@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Economics of SDI (and other military expenditures) FROM: JOHN BOIES REPLY TO ???????????? -------------------------------------------------- Interesting bit of commentary and critique from who ever it was just before Henry Spencer's submission. I see three central arguments here: 1) "I have problem with tirades, like the one above: It is not that I would not agree that arms are expensive. Also, it is perfectly reasonable to ask if it is worth it and 'will it work?'." I do not think my submission on the costs of SDI was a "tirade". I think it was a well reasoned and researched presentation of the economic consequences of SDI and of the economic consequences of spending that kind of money on something like SDI. To quote the Websters New 20th Century Dictionary a tirade is "a long, vehement speech; especially, a declamatory speech of censure or reproof; a harangue" (first definition). I think the accusation of my posting being a tirade is a bit much. 2) "Problem I have is that it seems that John is arguing with somebody and it is not clear with whom. There are all kinds of stupid arguments for and against anything (from Fluor in water to irradiation of food to SDI), but unless somebody on this net, picks up one side, it seems silly to post a long monologue defending the other side. No sane person (and even nobody on this net :-) ever advocated SDI as a tool for the job creation. So, why bother to attack it?" I think someone missed the main reason for my including what I did about SDI. (perhaps it was a bit long and tiresome to read) The central issue surrounding the economics of the military and of SDI is that expenditures of these types do not have a positive effect on the our nation's economy, they do not even create jobs as many many many conservative and liberal politicians, economists, and foreign policy experts often argue. Since few if any issues concerning the economics and SDI have been discussed on ARMS-D, I felt it was important to address most of the central arguments and counterarguments concerning spending money on SDI in particular and on the military in general in my submission. If we wait for arguments to be initiated by someone else before we discuss them here on the network then many important issues will likely never show up on the network. 3) "If your thesis is that 'it' (military spending) is not needed, you should argue that there is no danger (of US being attacked). To give you a chance, I will answer two questions, posed recently by an intelligent newcomer (which so far, were ignored) : Q1: If slimy alien would vaporize all US weapons, would SU occupy US? A1: yes, for sure. Q2: If slimy alien would vaporize all SU weapons, would US occupy SU? A2: I think so; probably with many protests and soul searching." My thesis is not that military spending is not needed, (although I would certainly be willing to argue that contention) rather I was trying to demonstrate that SDI is likely to be extremely costly, that expenditures like SDI would not be especially good for our society, and perhaps most importantly, that outside of what ever one wants to argue about its effectiveness and defensive value SDI will not liklely yield much in the way of positive effects on our economy and society. The subject of the economic consequences of military expenditures almost always takes a back seat to the discussion of technology, policy, and strategy. What I was trying to do was to present some information that we can discuss and use to actually have an informed debate about the cost-effectiveness of SDI and other military programs. Regarding the alien questions: 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?????????????????? ************************ ------------------------------ Date: Tue 24 Feb 87 08:35:50-AST From: Don Chiasson <CHIASSON@DREA-XX.ARPA> Subject: SLBM Basing Suggestions were made about basing ideas for submarine launched ballistic missiles. I have a few comments: 1. Base on sea bed: Isn't this a violation of one of the treaties (I forget which one) that prohibits nuclear weapons on the sea floor? 2. Base ballistic missile carrying submarines in the great lakes: OK, *BUT* don't forget that half the Great Lakes belong to Canada (lake Michigan excepted), so you wouldn't have complete freedom in where they could cruise. There was also mention of being able to use an ABM system to defend these boats. To work properly, many of the components would have to be between the Great Lakes and the USSR. Canada might object to having an ABM system on its territory. 3. Use small SSBN's or SSB's for decreased vulnerability: The problems are cost and command and control. It is a modest simplification to say that the cost of operating an SSB/SSBN is independent of the number of missiles on board. Reducing the missile load by two would nearly double the costs of keeping the same number of missiles at sea. Re command and control, one Trident SSBN could essentially destroy the USSR by itself. A group of smaller boats would require co-ordination for targeting; this requires that all the small boats be in operation. or their status is known, i.e. communication with the US strategic command if it still exists. Don ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************