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
*****************************